(Edit update Oct. 6th, 2009). It dawned on me a few days ago that it is easier to just leave a comment in the comments section reminding us all of Michael Moore's "past". Daily PUMA is however beguiled that a couple allegedly pro Hillary blogs don't put a dailypuma link on their blogs yet do put links to blogs that have shown very tepid "support" for Hillary Clinton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DailyPUMA is asking/requesting/demanding/notifying that any PUMA doing an article about Michael Moore's new movie that does not also devote some time in the same article to Michael Moore's betrayal of Hillary Clinton last year, will have their blog removed from Daily PUMA for 60 days. And it will be up to you to ask to be re-added, and of course, you will be, as long as you ask after 60 days. (Edit note, change in plans, your blog will probably be moved to the far left column of DailyPUMA)
If you are a PUMA and jump on the Michael Moore bandwagon while pretending he was not one of the reasons Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination last year, you are an idiot. If you don't care that Michael Moore helped prevent Hillary Clinton from getting the democratic nomination in 2008, then you're not really a PUMA anyways.
If PUMA's don't mobilize now and boycott Michael Moore over his supremely idiotic reasons for not just staying on the sidelines last year, but his actually actively campaigning against Hillary Clinton in 2008, being a PUMA will simply have little meaning.
PUMA's won't have any real political influence if they don't exercise it when it needs to be exercised.
If PUMA's discuss Michael Moore's new movie without mentioning his betrayal of Hillary Clinton last year, then PUMA's have become posers who cry victimhood about Hillary Clinton while doing nothing to stop the several idiots that stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Unacceptable.
Daily PUMA has already removed one blog, (Edit note, change in plans, blogs that clearly show they are PUMA-lite or less will probably just be moved to the left column) but I'm sure the blog owner does not care since they haven't had the courtesy to ever put up a Daily PUMA link anyways.
Just in case some of you are chuckling because Daily PUMA only gets a few hundred hits a day...The real reality is that Daily PUMA gives out 10 to 20 times more hits than it receives.
That means up to 4,000 hits a day get "shared" among DailyPUMA blogs because of DailyPUMA, perhaps that means 100,000 hits a month are being doled out by Daily PUMA to other PUMA blogs, one million hits a year that come FROM DailyPUMA to other PUMA blogs.
It would be nice to be listed on all the blogs DailyPUMA supports but that is up to the blog owners. Just beware that the few blogs that don't carry a DailyPUMA blog are helping to suffocate your own PUMA blog.
As the library of DailyPUMA articles grows, DailyPUMA receives a significant amount of non PUMA's to its sites every day. As a result, all of these first time readers get exposed to all the other PUMA blogs.
Let's not forget why PUMA's were founded. They were founded because of the blatant mistreatment Hillary Clinton received from the media and the many who had no business taking a position, and who may have taken a position against Hillary Clinton specifically to gain financially or politically from the ill gotten financial endless pit Barack Obama attached himself to.
Do the right thing, don't let Michael Moore get away unscathed.
2 comments:
Let's also remember that in 2000 Michael Moore said there was no difference between Bush and Gore and everyone should vote for Nader. (Very late in the game, he did saying that people should vote for Gore if Bush had a good chance in their state, but that was very late in the game, after he'd convinced many not to vote for Gore.)
It may be that most Nader voters wouldn't have voted for Gore -- but they sure wouldn't have voted for Bush!
Boycott Michael Moore!
Lets also remember that AL GORE provided one of the key votes for the FIRST Iraq invasion.
To somehow imply that Hillary Clinton's vote mattered more than Al Gore's vote is ludicrous.
Post a Comment