Just What does it take to be a PUMA?

As time goes on, the PUMA movement appears to be simultaneously expanding, and also dissipating.

DailyPUMA thinks it is important to review and remember what the original PUMA flash point was that caused many different but formerly democratic support groups to declare themselves PUMAs, albeit their own unique brand of PUMA.

In my opinion the flash points that created PUMA were generated by media bias against Hillary Clinton. The media, led by Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and then in rapid succession, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly, Move ON, Media Matters, CNN and most definitely a few others as well, began slamming Hillary Clinton with crazy accusations while simultaneously not vetting Barack Obama.

The media consortium mentioned above ALL began putting a decidedly pro Barack Obama slant on their news reporting, while also creating an anti Hillary Clinton slant as well. Money may have played a really big role in the media bias against Hillary Clinton as the Barack Obama campaign was able to dole out a lot of money to the media and the internet in the form of advertising revenue.

Unfortunately, a certain, significant percentage of Barack Obama's donations may have been illegally gathered. Besides Barack Obama's campaign spending gargantuan amounts of money all over the media and the internet, the ill gotten donations were also used to entice SEVERAL DOZEN high profile politicians and celebrities to strategically give their support to Barack Obama even as Barack Obama's numbers were sliding over the final 10 weeks of the democratic nomination contests.

PUMA's were outraged that democratic political higher ups and the media would choose to "pre-favor" one democratic candidate over another, especially when the newly "unfavored" candidate (Hillary Clinton) had waited for her chance and patiently absorbed a couple decades of political interactions in such an amazingly divergent set of surroundings.

Does anyone recall ever hearing the media reporting that celebrities and democratic icons wanted the american people to choose with their vote the next democratic nominee?

All I remember hearing and seeing from the media was the pomp and circumstance of the next celebrity or politician being trotted out in support of Barack Obama. Many of these endorsements were timed to give the media an excuse to IGNORE significant Hillary Clinton primary wins.

Being married to Bill Clinton and an active participant in his political career had made Hillary Clinton uniquely qualified to view how political processes worked on a state level, and then on a federal level as well. Then to round out her own qualifications, Hillary Clinton served in the senate as well.

What was most painful for myself to witness was Hillary Clinton actually winning more delegates than Barack Obama from all of the democratic primary contests, even when the the votes of Florida and Michigan were excluded.

Knowing that caucus contests use 88% less voters to determine each delegate, and that the caucus contests appear to be easier to both cheat AND also keep away certain demographics, is something I will not forgive the democratic party for, since it flies in direct opposition to the stated democratic tenet of "fair reflection".

So more than a year later, where does that leave all PUMAs? PUMA's now support so many diverse beliefs and causes that it would probably be difficult to get them to agree to any one thing in mass.

However, I believe that it is important for anyone who believes they are a PUMA to at least agree on a couple of key points, the biggest key point being that Hillary Clinton was both unfairly treated by the media and the democratic party in 2008, and that we should STRONGLY consider peace based retribution against those who really had no business trying to derail Hillary Clinton in 2008 but did so just so they could grab their moment of glory and possibly better position themselves for some kind of business or financial reward as well.

If you want to believe yourself to be a PUMA, then please, study the "unethical players of the 2008 democratic race", people like Michael Moore, Bill Richardson, Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Al Gore, John Edwards, George Soros, the list goes on and on, and DON'T SUPPORT THEM, ever.

If anyone on the list were to ever to publicly admit to putting financial gain or business opportunities as the reason they backstabbed Hillary Clinton, then they could be removed from the "don't support list".

It's really that simple.

Thanks to Common Ground for preserving the infamous HILLARY CLINTON BACKSTABBED THREAD.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Dylan Ratigan: Americans Have Been Taken Hostage...

Dylan Ratigan: Americans Have Been Taken Hostage Posted using ShareThis

---------------My commentary below-----------

I think it is important to note that the Ratigan column appears on Huffington Post. Huffington Post has already called Barack Obama the "Bank Centric Kid".

Huffington Post is also the internet "news source" that blasted Hillary Clinton on a daily basis during the 2008 democratic primaries and PRAISED Barack Obama on a daily basis. Without Huffington Post's interference, Hillary Clinton most likely would have been the democratic nominee in 2008.

Yet Huffington Post posts the article above that basically blasts Barack Obama and his administration.

It is a shame that we can find three powerful women such as Arianna Huffington, Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin, and know that if we put them in a room, they would have virtually nothing in common and unable to build any kind of a consensus of any kind.

Yet if we put three powerful men in a room, the odds are that at least two of them would form some kind of alliance or allegiance on some level. (think back to George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton and their tour around the world to raise money for Hurricane and Typhoon victims a few years ago. George Bush Sr. was OFFENDED and most likely DISGUSTED that he lost to Bill Clinton after only one term in office.)

Make it a game if you will, find three men in politics that completely annoy each other the way Palin, Clinton and Huffington do. I don't think it can be done.

Put Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson in a room, nope, some kind of alliance would happen between two of those fellows.

What about Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy (assuming he still were alive) and Jimmy Carter, Bill and Ted might work something out, maybe even Ted and Jimmy. Jimmy and Bill, definitely not.

What about Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, and....Bill Mahrer in a room, would the three scorn each other the way Huffington, Palin, and Hillary Clinton most likely would?, Nope, Bill and Bill would get along. Heck, didn't Rush even have Bill on his show once?

It is just kind of galling to me how women seem to neutralize each other and in the process let under qualified men such as Barack Obama slip through to positions not earned.