PUMA in WA will unite together!
PUMA stands for "People United Means Action!" You may know that there is another, more defiant meaning for the acronym P.U.M.A. There will be no unity in the Democratic party until the voices of the 18 million voters who support Hillary Clinton are heard and heeded.
We are motivated to action by our shared belief that the current leadership of the Democratic National Committee has abrogated its responsibility to represent the interests of all democrats in all 50 states. They are misleading our party and aim to mislead our country into nominating an illegitimate candidate for president in 2008. Our goals are fourfold:
1. To support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2008 / 2012.
2. To lobby and organize for changes in leadership in the DNC
3. To critique and oppose the misogyny, discrimination, and disinformation in the mainstream media, including mainstream blogs and other outlets of new media
4. To support the efforts of those political figures who have allied themselves with Hillary Clinton and who have demonstrated commitment to our first three goals
DAILY Rasmussen Poll:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%.
Excerpt:
Well we finally know what a community organizer does, if that community organizer is ACORN what they do perpetuate Voter fraud. One quick google search will show all the times it has been sited for voter fraud. Now the Detroit Free Press reports that this group with ties to the Obama campaign is trying their dirty tricks in Michigan:
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article);
Excerpt:
Today's news: Camp Obama raises $66 million in August.
Sad Fact: The New York Times actively helped Obama raise funds.
I found it highly suspect when, lacking all credible evidence, the New York Times ran a Front Page story claiming Obama’s fundraising machine was in trouble, using phrases like “EXTREMELY ANEMIC” and “A NEW SENSE OF URGENCY” to report that Obama’s money juggernaut might be sinking. As I read this I bookmarked the Times story, knowing that Obama’s figures would likely rise to the heavens after the conventions and the Palin addition and BHO’s sinking poll #s. This Front Page story ran days before the just released totals for August were announced...
...When in fact, Obama just had is BEST EVER month--$66 million in August!!!!!!!!!
Thus...The Times reported a story that had NO TRUTH to it. And oddly opted not to wait a few days to verify the August #s.
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
Posted by "Politically Drunk on Power", reposted here to share:
The Obama Campaign, making sure that the release came after the Sunday Talk Shows, announced that they had hauled in a record $66 million in August. Although this amount is a private fundraising record, the amount fell far short of the more than $100 million the campaign expected. The Obama campaign's largest haul came on the day after John McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential nominee. Publicly and privately party officials have shown concern in recent weeks when the campaign failed to raise the $40-$50 million that they hoped would stem from his Invesco acceptance speech.
With today's announcement, the Obama campaign released that they had $77 million of cash-on-hand, up from the $65 million that they reported in July. As a result, that means that the Obama campaign spent $54 million in the month of August, nearly matching the $56 million that they spent in July. This is a major concern to officials within the Obama campaign considering that with McCain's $47 million haul in august and $84 million infusion, Obama must raise a minimum of $60 million just to match John McCain. Although it is likely that Obama will raise the $60 million, he may continue to play catch-up as record-breaking contributions are flowing into the RNC, who reported $115 million of cash on hand on the day following the convention. At a minimum, the financing race will be even by the end of October, leaving many to question Obama's decision to flip on campaign financing. If the fundraising race does end up even, McCain will hold an advantage as his campaign is not bloated with paid campaign advisers and staffers; thus leaving more money for get out the vote efforts.
More to come Monday!
J Brown
Excerpt:
The ferocious response Sarah Palin's nomination has provoked among the political class is turning this election into one based on a cultural narrative rather than an economic debate. The dripping condescension that some of Palin's critics are demonstrating toward her is boomeranging. She is becoming a heroine to many Republicans, who are as energized as I can remember in defense of Palin. And in attacking Palin, many Democrats and liberal commentators are mocking her faith, worldview, and life experiences. In that sense, a great unmasking is taking place. A wide swath of liberals are revealing their arrogance, their cultural elitism, and even their ugliness. It may be therapeutic. And it may also cost them the election.
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
Excerpt:
Obama pledges to follow President Bush in rapidly increasing the size and scope of the federal government. Bush has allowed the federal budget to grow from 18.4 percent to 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Former President Bill Clinton, on the other hand, oversaw a reduction of federal spending from 22.1 percent to 18.7 percent of GDP.
Unfortunately for the U.S. economy, the likelihood of massive government expansion under Obama means that the only important "change" will be in the mechanism by which our ever-expanding government is funded.
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
Excerpt:
Obama claims his proposal would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans, but well over 43 million tax returns, one-third of all those filed, already reflect an income tax liability of zero. In fact, Obama says, his plan would eliminate income taxes for an additional 10 million taxpayers. What he is really proposing, therefore, is not tax relief but a bald transfer of cash - $1,000 per family, he pledges - from the wealthiest Americans to everyone else. In 1972, George McGovern advocated something similar - a $1,000 "demogrant" for every US citizen.
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
Petraeus's willingness to grapple with Iraqi politics made all the difference. His replacements' tasks will be more than ever political, not military. The former Sunni insurgency hasn't yet been woven into the political, economic and security life of the country, and the extraordinary success of the past 18 months is likely to unravel if Petraeus's and Crocker's successors -- as well as the next U.S. president -- do not finish that crucial undertaking.
No, the Iraqis can't finish the job on their own now; at the same time, no, we don't need 100,000 U.S. troops to stay in Iraq and do it for them. It would be heartening if we could understand the real record of Iraq's turnaround -- and talk about its future like grown-ups.
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
Excerpt:
No more Mr. Nice Guy, Obama vows. He's going to really start hitting John McCain now. He's going to make voters understand that McCain equals four more years of George Bush.
It's a weird decision because Obama has been doing exactly that for four months. The problem is not that Obama hasn't hit McCain hard enough or linked him to Bush often enough. The problem is that he hasn't done anything else.
How about a new idea? How about putting some meat on the bony promise of "change"?
And what happened to that post-partisan uniter who took the country by storm during the early primaries by offering an optimistic vision for America? Why not bring him back?
Apparently that Obama has left the building. He's been replaced with a party man who sees the other side as evil and beneath contempt...
...Ah, yes, the press. I guess that means more Charlie Gibsons of the world looking down with disgust at Palin as though she was soiling his shoes. Even The New York Times allowed that Gibson, in his ABC interview, came off as "supercilious," which is a fancy way of saying arrogant.
By all means, more arrogance toward the heartland. Just what Obama needs.
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
Excerpt:
Of course, politicians are always trying to manipulate the media. And the liberal media are always allowing themselves to be manipulated by liberal politicians. So why the foot-stamping snit by liberal journalists? Not because "the press is being manipulated." Rather, because the American people are resisting manipulation by the media.
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
1. McCain as a 'change agent'.
2. The center shifts: Independents move to McCain.
3. The economic gap narrows
4. Palin narrows the enthusiasm gap
5. Democrats voter ID edge dulls
(Click on the title of the post to read the full article)
(Click on the item for more information )
Posts
