The Democrat Party and Mainstream Media Bitch Slapped Hillary Clinton in 2008, and they are about to do it again in 2024 even though she won't be running.

The 2008 Democrat Nomination Race featured 3 Male Candidates, the recently deceased Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, creating a false flag event regarding the Michigan Primary. Michigan, desperate to be taken seriously due to the then demise of their automotive industry and their struggling economy,  moved up their Primary date into January. Michigan's move into January created an excuse to concoct a reason known as the Michigan Maneuver to freeze Michigan out by not have their Primary delegates be counted until the Democrat Nomination race was already decided.

What was the Michigan Maneuver? Possibly one of the most clever political stunts ever seen, with Hillary Clinton left behind by 3 male Democrat Political Predators as the lone wolf left howling in the wind.

The Michigan Maneuver consisted of Richardson, Edwards and Obama waiting until the final Michigan filing day, late afternoon, to take their names OFF of the Michigan ballot. Hillary Clinton had no idea the three male candidates were removing their names off of the Michigan ballot because they waited in concert until the last day to do so. 

Once the Michigan Primary filing date had passed, Richardson, Edwards, and Obama pilloried Hillary on the campaign trail in their campaign stops in, you guessed it, New Hampshire and Iowa. Hillary Clinton was scape goated by the three male Political amigos. 

The 3 Democrat Male Political candidates were able to incite both New Hampshire and Iowa voters against Michigan's move into January by using their campaign stops to remind New Hampshire and Iowa constituents that the Democrat Presidential candidates would have to dilute the time they could spend in Iowa and New Hampshire, because they would have to also campaign in Michigan.

What made the Michigan Maneuver such an incredible coup was not only did it damage Hillary Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa, but the ruckus the 3 Male Democrat Politicians created resulted in Michigan's Primary results being set aside to be dealt with at a later date. This from the party that CONSTANTLY champions women's rights.

While some claim Barack Obama might have done well in Michigan if he had kept his name on the ballot, Hillary Clinton's overall strength was her name recognition which was most effective in you guessed it, the Primary State contests versus the Caucus Primary State contests. Hillary Clinton's popularity dropped down several notches right out of the gate in Iowa, and New Hampshire because of the Michigan Maneuver. Without Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire comeback tears saving the day, the mainstream media would have already pounced and demanded she get out of the 2008 Democrat Race after only 2 Democrat contests had been held!

So while Hillary Clinton campaigned and easily won in Michigan, the victory would prove pointless as the delegates were not counted until so late in the Democrat Nomination Race that they became inconsequential. Richardson, Edwards and Obama had their cake, and ate it too, when they profited by not only embellishing their success in Iowa and New Hampshire at Hillary Clinton's expense, but the added insult of not even allowing Michigan to count makes it a remarkable moment in Democrat Nomination Races History of the absurd.

Incredibly, Illinois, which was Barack Obama's hometown, had its Primary date moved up from the end of March to the beginning of February. So while Michigan was blunted for moving into January of 2008, Illinois launched Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin of victory over Hillary Clinton by moving its Primary date up from late March to very early February.

Even though Hillary Clinton would go on to win 54% of all the Democrat Primary votes, the mainstream media led by MSNBC's Chris Wallace and Keith Olberman's nightly verbal aggression against Hillary Clinton, trumpeted the February Caucus contest "winning streak" as somehow proving Barack Obama should be declared the winner of the Democrat nomination process by mid February. 

The mainstream media conveniently left out that the red state caucuses were in red states, held at night, and took hours to conduct in the middle of the winter, all conditions that benefited the younger caucus participants over the older caucus participants. The calamitous weather conditions and time required to vote in the Red State caucus contests favored younger voters, who were going more for Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton. In 2008 in the dead of February winter, MSNBC began trumpeting Obama's consecutive caucus winning streak in conservative states as cause for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. 2008 may have been the year when Fake Election News officially launched.

What also failed to get much attention in 2008 is poll after poll in the caucus contests always showed Hillary Clinton either tied or well ahead of Barack Obama, until the caucus voting happened and Obama would win by a 2 to 1 margin of victory! 

Lol, some things never change, aka, vote totals that don't fairly reflect the will of the people while the mainstream media remains silently complicit.

Fast forward to 2024 and Joe Biden is taking a page out of the Richardson, Edwards, Obama playbook. Biden is going to ignore New Hampshire and Iowa, and declare South Carolina as the first State he will participate in. It's the same type of tactic Richardson, Edwards and Obama orchestrated in 2008 when they just changed the rules to fit their own strengths, and the mainstream media will probably go along with Biden's strategy in 2024, cuz that's what they do.

But here's the creepy part. Biden comes out tactically ahead if he repeats the strategy that Rchardson, Edwards and Obama followed. Biden will get to campaign in South Carolina and no matter how he badly he loses in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will more than make up for it with the added love and support he will receive in South Carolina. And if Biden gets more than a morsel of support in Iowa and New Hampshire, then that will also make him look like the comeback kid because he did not even campaign in either State yet still received overwhelming support, and thus be the only viable candidate. Biden is literally going to be Pee Wee Herman flying over his bicycle handle bars and after crash landing on the ground in New Hampshire and Iowa, will look into the camera and say, I meant to do that as the mainstream media minions all applaud and call it a politically brilliant move.

Meanwhile, the media keeps trying to demean and belittle Donald Trump for not participating in the Republican debates. Trump is too smart and knows any made up or alleged misstep in the Debates and the mainstream media will pumped it up a hundred times in an effort to ever so slightly erode his support so they can create a false momentum meme that Trump is losing support.

And we should not forget Hillary Clinton, who did the right thing in 2008 and campaigned in Michigan but was defeated by a trio of Democrat Male Politicians behaving badly. Now the same formula is being used in 2024 so Joe Biden can recreate the Democrat Nomination process in his own image. Hillary Clinton was ostracized for campaigning in Michigan in 2008, Joe Biden apparently will be a man of conviction for not going to either Iowa or New  Hampshire in 2024. 

But then again, that is how Democrat Politicians win, they pre-create the conditions they need to win by changing rules all have previously agreed to follow.

  

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

MSNBC Durham Investigation Rebuke misses the there there there while mocking the there there.

While MSNBC attempts to discredit the four year Durham investigation regarding the conspiracy to connect Donald Trump with Russia, MSNBC creates a new there there without realizing it.

Quoting from the MSNBC biased editorial masked as news analysis...

"All of the substantiated claims that he (Durham) makes were likewise previously acknowledged in a 2019 report from the department’s inspector general that found that despite some serious concerning mistakes, the Russia investigation was justified."

end quote.

51 Former Government Intelligence Officials signed a letter less than 2 weeks before the 2020 Presidential Election claiming the Hunter Biden lap top was a ruse and most likely Russian disinformation. This last minute fraudulent claim of fraud concocted by the Biden Presidential Campaign helped put Joe Biden over the top in 2020, yet MSNBC not only ignores this reality, but attempts to gaslight the Durham Investigation by claiming a report released a year before the 51 signature fraud somehow negates everything in the Durham investigation that has been ongoing for the past 4 years.

How does a 2019 Inspector general report negate facts and stories that emerged a year later, also known as Hunter Biden Laptop Gate just before the 2020 Presidential Election? 

The Gaslighting of the Truth never seems to end with MSNBC.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Carson Daly Show Interview with Nicolle Wallace, Rightfully Rips Bernie Sander's Supporters.

DailyPUMA is proud to be in step with Nicolle Wallace. DP came to the same conclusions about the Bernie Sander's "supporters" independent of Nicolle Wallace. 

DP has purposely avoided MSNBC, FOX, CNN since the end of 2008 and had no idea who Nicolle Wallace was. Wallace, a Republican White House Insider who gravitated towards Hillary Clinton once Trump became the Republican Nominee, offers astoundingly accurate and concise condemnation of the Bernie Sander's Supporters.  

If you don't have time to watch the entire 5 minute segment, forward to around 3:15 to 3:18 and watch the Wallace's comments on Sander's Supporters. 

Click here to see Nicolle Wallace Interview on the Carson Daly Show.  Wallace can be seen on MSNBC, apparently at 4pm daily. DP might break its boycott of Cable News and watch her. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Reason Number 12 why the Clintons should create their own Media Channel, The Inaugural Boycott,

John Lewis inadvertently started an unplanned but growing boycott of the Trump Inauguration. Lewis's main reason was how the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton by the second James Comey letter AND the FBI not notifying anyone from the Democrat Party for a YEAR that they were being hacked!

However, it was Trump's Twitter response to Lewis which got the Democrat boycott going. So even tough Mr. Lewis was boycotting out of respect to Hillary Clinton and the illicit method's used to treasonously steal the presidency from her, the boycott message has been altered to Trump insulted Lewis. The problem with that meme is that Trump supporters can correctly state that "Lewis started it".

See what a mess gets created when democrats rely on MSNBC and CNN and other media to shape the Inaugural Boycott meme?

Hillary Clinton does not get the credit for the democrat boycott of the Trump Inauguration as a sign of respect, but she may get blamed for any inappropriate protesting that may occur. Snowball anyone?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

How Media Sexism against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democrat Race has gone unnoticed.

A case can be made that once again Hillary Clinton is facing a mountain's worth of Media Sexism in the 2016 presidential campaign. In 2008 at least there were dueling and overlapping issues of racism and sexism that magically seemed to almost cancel each other out, the same cannot be said about 2016.

In 2008, the piping hot media sexism was laid out for all the world to see. It was the male dominated late night show talk hosts who were ALL making Hillary Clinton jokes. Then there was Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and MSNBC going way overboard to attack Hillary Clinton. CNN joined in the fray as well. There was also a female contingent consisting of Arianna Huffington, Oprah Winfrey, Donna Brazile, even Nancy Pelosi and Maria Shriver played a significant role in making sure Barack Obama was the nominee instead of Hillary Clinton when the more prudent course of action would have been to wait on the sidelines and then support whomever won between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But this time around all of the above have been on much much better behavior, which has mistakenly led the media into believing they are not being sexist against Hillary Clinton. But what is happening is Hillary Clinton is being double and triple vetted and condemned by insinuation while her male democrat counterpart Bernie Sander's can't make a mistake if he tried, and he has tried.

An example of media sexism is the claim that Hillary Clinton receives speakers fees from wall street and therefore she is influenced by the deep pockets of Wall Street into making anti populist decisions. Yet her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has been outspending Hillary Clinton since the middle of January 2016 while Hillary Clinton continues to win more of the popular vote and delegates than Bernie Sanders. 

My question is, How can the "populist" candidate Bernie Sanders spend more money and get less of a result than Hillary Clinton and still be called the populist candidate? Answer is he can if he is running against a woman who is perpetually being savaged by media conservatives on one side, and former conservatives turned progressive media on the other end of the political spectrum. Yes, it is media sexism to anoint the male candidate as the populist underdog when he continues to spend more money for a lesser result than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton IS the populist candidate because she is raising less money while getting a better result than Bernie Sanders but nobody is reporting it that way, instead it is the male candidate who is the underdog populist.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton did remarkably better in Pennsylvania and Ohio than Barack Obama even though Obama spent at least double to triple on television advertising while still losing to Hillary Clinton in both states. Yet there too Barack Obama, another male, was portrayed as the populist candidate while also spending more money than Hillary Clinton and getting a lesser result.

Can a populist "for the people" candidate, Bernie Sanders, raise more money for the months of January and February 2016 than his female opponent while getting less votes than his female opponent, and still be called the populist candidate. The answer is a resounding NO, unless the opposing candidate is a female candidate, in which case the media champions on that the richer, "more cost per lesser vote received" male candidate is still the populist underdog.

Is there any chance in heck that we will see even one media outlet anoint Hillary Clinton as the underdog who is getting more votes while spending less money than her male opponent. I haven't seen it yet.

The next area of media sexism is the vetting of the candidates spouses. Bill Clinton was attacked for having a foundation that is spending millions of dollars on a yearly basis helping the impoverished all over the world because it gives him inside access to political figures from all over the world. The things the U.S. could have done better while Bill Clinton was president regarding U.S. farming competing with third world farmers he is trying to make amends for now. Yet the attacks and insinuations of insider dealings are all we hear about from the media. There has been no balance and little mention of the good that Bill Clinton's foundation has done and continues to do.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sander's wife, Jane Sanders, apparently may have a very checkered past in which while president of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011 she may have used institution funds to write checks to a resort vacation island run by Bernie Sander's best friend. What then followed was an alleged 200,000 dollar golden parachute firing of Ms. Sanders as a gentile manner of eviction from her job when she possibly could have been indicted instead. Has this story been vetted by the media? I check Snopes.com and this story has not been "Snoped", yet the media does nothing. Is it not media sexism to vet Hillary Clinton's husband while not vetting Bernie Sander's wife? Just another example of media sexism against Hillary Clinton.

And finally, Bernie Sanders has been making over 150,000 dollars a year as a politician for the past 20 years. His wife was probably making at least 100,000 dollars a year at Burlington College. So would it not be safe to say for at least a 7 year window of time, and presumably longer because people don't go from unemployment to 100,000 dollar a year jobs, that the Sanders were making the Equivalent of 1,000 dollars A DAY (not counting Saturday and Sunday) for a very long stretch of time. If you agree that yes, the Sanders were making a thousand dollars a day for the past 7 to 10 to maybe 15 years, why does Bernie Sanders have between 20,000 to 50,000 dollars worth of credit card debt? 

The Bernie Sanders credit card debt is a Carny trick. Bernie Sander's credit card debt creates the illusion that he is broke like the common man or woman. If Bernie Sanders and his wife were making 1,000 dollars a day for a decade or longer, why does Bernie Sanders have any credit card debt? Again, no vetting by the media.

And why is Bernie Sanders credit card debt such a big deal? Mr. Sanders is paying between 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year in "interest payments only" on that revolving credit card debt. For a politician who wants to spend MORE of other people's money to help the needy, Mr. Sanders is voluntarily paying 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year to the banks in interest rate charges on his credit card debt!  

If Mr. Sanders had no credit card debt he could take the yearly 5,000 to 10,000 dollars in interest rate charges he is currently paying and start donating that interest payment money to charitable causes that ask for 19 dollars every month to help a war veteran, a child with cancer, abused animals, and so on. 

Mr. Sanders has instead chosen to "Carny" his credit card debt for maximum political advantage and in the process has basically blown off helping 25 to 50 charitable organizations on a monthly basis with all that interest rate money he has been paying to the banks year after year. 

Mr. Sanders has willfully chosen to pay the banks interest rate charges rather than pay off his credit card debt and use the interest rate charge savings to help war veterans, kids with cancer, and abused animals. There is no stretch here, it's either keep credit card debt for political advantage and therefore keep paying thousands of dollars in interest rate charges every year, or use that very same money to help several dozen in need people and animals through various non profit groups on an ongoing basis. 

Mr. Sanders, why have you chosen paying the banks interest rate charges rather than paying off your credit card debt and then donating the savings to dozens of non-profits that help the truly needy?

If Mr. Sanders can't get the little things right, how can he be trusted to get the big things right? If Mr. Sanders wife has behaved in the very same manner that Mr. Sanders abhors on wall street, is he not the ultimate con artist for concealing it from the public? If Mr. Sander's is not vetted on these issues, and vetted soon, than Media Sexism will have once again roared to life in the 2016 democrat race. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Bursting the Bernie Sanders Bubble, Hillary Clinton with more than a 10% Popular Vote lead from all the Primary Contests so far.

Hillary Clinton holds a plus 10% popular vote lead over Bernie Sanders among all the 2016 democrat primaries. 

Meanwhile several former republican operatives, Cenk Uygur and Arianna Huffington, and Move On Dot Org (with a failed attempt to form a Republican Move on group), and MSNBC and their Pro Wall Street Programming, continue to mislead the nation and democrat voters over Hillary Clinton's viability and credibility.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Cenk Uygur's Delusional, Deranged, and Amazingly Obtuse rant Against Hillary Clinton.

It's so hard to know where even to start regarding the Young Turk's Cenk Uygur and his recent Delusional, Deranged, and Amazingly Obtuse rant against Hillary Clinton accepting donations from big business & wall street. Let's start at the beginning.

Cenk Uygur's career was dramatically boosted by his affiliation with MSNBC. I can't seem to find when the affiliation started but I recall seeing Cenk on MSNBC in late 2007 and for sure in 2008 to help stop Hillary Clinton's 2008 democrat nomination bid. Why was MSNBC so against Hillary Clinton in 2008? It might have something to do with Hillary Clinton standing with Homeowners during the foreclosure crisis of 2007 and beyond. Hillary Clinton wanted a 90 day foreclosure moratorium so something could be worked out. You know, so homeowners could actually remain in their homes and avoid the financially devastating scar a foreclosure imbed's onto one's credit history for seven years or even much much longer if garnished payments are made towards a foreclosure debt that never dies. 

It turns out that Wall Street was completely against saving homeowners from foreclosure. Wall Street wanted their fraudulently rated mortgage backed securities investments, returned. Wall Street helping homeowners stay in their homes would not free up wall street's investments that had suddenly been exposed as falsely rated MBS investment schemes. MSNBC liked Barack Obama better than Hillary Clinton because he was keeping an open mind towards the foreclosure crisis. When the 2007 bailout vote was happening, MSNBC's commentators were practically having coronary's because the first congressional vote was no and the second vote was so close. Why would Cenk even dream of hooking up with MSNBC to further his career knowing how in the tank they were for Wall Street? 

Could it be that Cenk Uygur believed he could thrive within MSNBC's wall street connected confines while maintaining an entirely different perspective from that of his new found alliances? Apparently Cenk Uygur can benefit mixing with entities he disagree's with without becoming corrupted by them, but only Cenk can do that, It's not possible for Hillary Clinton to accept donations and input without actually remaining impartial, only Cenk is capable of that.

Cenk's career trajectory was amped up by working for a channel that had a vested interest in maintaining wall street's interests, even at the expense of MILLIONS of homeowners that were being exposed to foreclosure through a constitution busting scheme called parallel foreclosure.

So what is it Cenk, have you somehow managed to keep your integrity even while you promoted yourself on a channel that was a decidedly pro wall street teet sucking channel. If you answer yes, then what you are stating is that YOU can stay neutral and true to your beliefs even as you accept publicity benefits from a wall street friendly channel, but that Hillary Clinton can't accept monetary benefits and keep true to her own political instincts. And yet it was  Hillary Clinton who actually lost her 2008 democrat nomination chances because she stood with homeowners and against wall street regarding the home foreclosure issue. 

Meanwhile Cenk Uyger GAINED notoriety at the same time  Hillary Clinton was trying to protect homeowners by bashing Hillary Clinton and her save the homeowner's homes public stance. Gosh Cenk Uyger, you are such the man, and you were even the first one to want Bernie Sanders for president, as you keep reminding everyone every day of the week.

But there is even more derangement, how come it was ok for Barack Obama to have all kinds of wall street contributors and wall street influencers both contributing to his campaign AND then working for Barack Obama for the past 7 years, but if Hillary Clinton knows the same people, it's somehow really really bad?

Cenk originally was a conservative with somewhat disturbing views of women. Now year's later, Cenk has decided that he can go among those with whom he disagrees with on a myriad of issues and not change his own values while brontificating that a woman cannot do the same thing.

And Cenk, you're not that young anymore.

Cenk Uygur Delusional, Deranged, Amazingly Obtuse Rant Against Hillary Clinton.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Wah, Wah, Wah, Poor Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has most of the Super Delegates and it's just not Fair, wah, wah, wah.

During the February 2008 democrat race, also known as the Plains States democrat caucuses (held in republican leaning states), caucus delegates went for Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin over Hillary Clinton even though state polling done just prior to the caucuses showed Hillary Clinton either tied or leading Barack Obama. Age, weather conditions, time of the caucus events, along with younger voters happily tricking trusting older voters into leaving events prematurely or dragging them out so long that the older folks simply left helped ensure an Obama victory in the Republican leaning Plaines state caucuses.

But during the 2008 democrat race, whenever democrat voters got to walk into an actually primary with an actual voting booth and voter's could choose when to vote from  morning, afternoon and part of the early evening, Hillary Clinton actually got more votes than Barack Obama. 

What Hillary Clinton's overall winning margin in democrat primaries is hard to exactly know, I estimate the overall winning margin to be around a 51.5% to 48.5% margin in primary  contests where voters actually voted like they do on election day. In the swing states the margin was more likely a 53% to 47% in favor of Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama had a huge primary voting edge in Illinois, South Carolina, North Carolina and a couple more states, whereas Hillary Clinton actually had closer victories in almost all of the swing states, just not with a wildly higher margin of victory that is less of importance as to actually winning each state.

During the democrat caucus month of February 2008 the over significance applied to Barack Obama winning republican leaning caucus states by non "fair reflection" winning margins of 2 - 1; along with the moving forward of the Illinois primary date from the usual late March date to the very first Tuesday in February 2008, enabled  Donna Brazille to cry racism because super delegates were all for Hillary Clinton even though Barack Obama was, ahem, winning caucus contests in republican leaning states where the caucus vote counts are actually done on pieces of paper, at night, and over a pro-longed period of time, which favors younger voters. Lets not forget that Michigan and Florida was punished for moving its voting date up, but Illinois was not, but that wasn't racist, apparently.

Donna Brazille demanded that the super delegates follow the will of the republican leaning caucus voting state's voters, versus being the "deciders" who actually tip the scale for which ever candidate they want to win. Brazille's premature antics resulted in an entirely too fast and too soon mass exodus of super delegates from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. 

But once the plain state caucuses in republican leaning states were over, a funny thing  happened. Hillary Clinton got over 55% of the popular vote the rest of the way. Based on the momentum going forward, the super delegates should have had the right to switch back to Hillary Clinton. However, if the super delegates had swung again back to Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazille would have once again cried racism. According to Donna Brazille, the super delegates should now stay the course and decide the democrat nominee even though Hillary Clinton was handily defeating Barack Obama after the February Plain's caucuses were finished.

So lets review 2008, because of a series of February 2008 caucus victories in republican leaning states, it was racist for super delegates to continue to stay with Hillary Clinton, but when the voting began in more mainstream states that actually use the voting booth to tabulate ALL the votes, and  Hillary Clinton was pulling the plurality of votes, it would have then been racist for the super delegates to switch their vote back to Hillary Clinton.

Flip to 2016 and the "woe is Bernie" meme in regards to the Super Delegates has begun anew.  It has just barely started but you will see it come to life in the next few days to the next few weeks, with the usual hostile progressive media groups leading the charge, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Fox will get in on it, so will CNN, and all of them will once again paint Hillary Clinton as gaming the system for already having most of the super delegates locked up.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Move On dot org Polarizing the 2016 Presidential Democrat Race.

In 2008 the mega polarizers of the democrat party including Huffington Post, Move on dot org, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, MSNBC, and others claimed that Hillary Clinton was "polarizing".

It is now 2016 and one of those polarizing elements of the 2008 race who accused Hillary Clinton of being a polarizing influence are turning out to be the BIGGEST polarizers of them all, that group is Move On dot org.

Excerpt below from a Move-on dot org email. And, just clicking on the link makes one an Elizabeth Warren petition supporter even without seeing what one is clicking on first! FIVE BLIND CALL TO ACTION LINKS that automatically mean support for Elizabeth Warren running for the democrat presidential nomination, all in just this one email.  wow. I've defused the links so they are not active in this article on Daily PUMA's page.

Just because Warren might do well in the first two democrat presidential caucus and primary contests simply means Warren could weaken Hillary Clinton in the long run, and that is the very definition of polarizing, no?

Dear MoveOn member,

We commissioned a poll about Senator Elizabeth Warren's standing in critical presidential primary states, and the results are stunning: When Democratic Iowa Caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters get to know Elizabeth Warren, they overwhelmingly want her to run for president.¹ Our poll shows that if Warren ran, she'd have a real shot. Now it's up to us, together, to convince her to run.  Click here to automatically sign our petition, which says, "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." We turned to industry leaders at YouGov to conduct this poll, and this is what they found: Voters love Senator Warren's personal story, her status (asTime put it) as a "new sheriff of Wall Street,"² and, importantly, her major legislative proposals—lowering student-loan interest rates, expanding Social Security, breaking up the big banks, and holding Wall Street criminals accountable.This poll shows unequivocally that a majority of voters in the two critical states of Iowa and New Hampshire are what we'd call "moveable"—they're open to supporting Sen. Warren if we can tell them what she stands for. Realistically, the results don't say that Sen. Warren would win today—but they show that Sen. Warren has a real opportunity to build the levels of support she would need to win in both states if she decided to run. Now, it's up to us to keep urging her to get in the race. Will you join us? Click here to automatically join our petition, which says, "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." We can make these poll results send shock waves through the political press. And through some very strategic targeting—we can get them in front of real influencers in Washington and people close to Sen. Warren. But first, we need to show that our movement continues to grow. That's why we're asking you to sign our petition today, help us get hit our latest goal of 300,000 signatures, and show that the momentum from our campaign keeps growing. Click here to automatically join our petition. It says "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." Let's dig into the polling numbers a little bit.Our results show that after these likely caucus goers and primary voters learn about Elizabeth Warren's biography and issue positions, not only do a stunning 79% say they want her to run, but, in both states, Sen. Warren ends up leading all other potential Democratic candidates in a head-to-head ballot question.Here's more:

• 97% of survey respondents across both Iowa and New Hampshire agree with Warren's call to lower student-loan interest rates. 

• 92% agree with Sen. Warren's call to expand Social Security benefits.

• 91% agree with her statement about breaking up the big banks.

Those numbers prove that Elizabeth Warren's vision is powerfully resonant with the voters she would need to win the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary—especially the young voters who'll be critical to any victory in 2016. Sen. Warren holds more than a 20-point lead in a head-to-head match-up with other potential candidates among respondents ages 18-29, once they learn about her. Thanks to these results, we know that support for a contested primary is nearly unanimous among all age groups, and that a core segment of the winning Obama coalition—young people—are particularly excited about Sen. Warren.Our job now is to capitalize on these results—and we can do just that by showing that this news is encouraging more and more people to join the Run Warren Run movement.  Will you join more than 283,000 other Elizabeth Warren supporters by automatically signing our petition? Just click here. This polling shows that Elizabeth Warren has a clear chance to obtain the support she needs to win—and that her story and message resonate deeply with voters.By continuing to stand up to Wall Street on behalf of America's working families and working to create a more level economic playing field, Sen. Warren herself could have more than a fighting chance of earning the Democratic nomination for president—and we're intent on proving that to her.  Click here to automatically sign the petition, and join the growing movement.  Thanks for all you do.–Mark, Ilya, Erica, Ben O., and the rest of the teamP.S. Want to see the detailed poll results? Click here to read our memo and results.Sources:1. "MUST SEE: Poll Shows Big Opening for Elizabeth Warren in IA, NH," MoveOn, February 11, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=302997&id=108356-27787899-1XnYU_x&t=72. "The New Sheriffs of Wall Street," Time, May 13, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=302998&id=108356-27787899-1XnYU_x&t=8 Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Start a monthly donation here or chip in a one time donaton here. PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to #####  ########### on February 11, 2015. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here. 

Krystal Ball is the latest Hillary Clinton Concern Troll, and yes, she works for MSNBC.

29 year old Krystal Ball, who claims to have been a big Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008 (lol, to that), has voiced her "concern" in an MSNBC commentary that 2016 is just not the right year for a Hillary Clinton presidency. This is known as "concern troll" commentary, pretending to want someone but then sobbing as they explain why "it just can't be, sigh".

In the past DailyPUMA has warned about MSNBC's Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome on several occasions. MSNBC's H.C.D.S. will also now be known as Progressive Insanity Syndrome, P.I.S. 

P.I.S. afflicts MSNBC and their inability to simply shut the f-up and let democrat voters decide who they want as their nominee in 2016. Would not surprise me if Arianna Huffington is lurking in the background, again. 

This person really hates Arianna Huffington.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Gay Marriage advocates like Rachel Maddow basically spit on heterosexual foreclosures for the past several years.

I can only take extremely small doses of Rachel Maddow (and never on MSNBC as they are still on my boycott list, along with the other cable news network shows found nearby) because she has perfected the art of coming off as a likeable, gosh gee whiz kind of intellectual fraud.

Rachel came on the David Letterman show earlier this morning, and may I add, right after Louis CK, who a few feminsts have put in their sites as being anti woman, a ridiculous claim. I just saw small portion of the middle of the Maddow interview and caught her gosh gee whiz act about gay marriage, and suddenly it dawned on me an additional reason about the gay marriage issue that is frustrating the heck out of me.

There have literally been millions of homeowners who have been unfairly foreclosed upon over the past several years and I think it is fair to surmise that MANY of them have been married, heterosexual couples.

Possibly those most severely victimized were those who had paid off their homes but were near retirement age or retired, and I think we can agree that at least 80% to 90% of those homeowners were either single, or heterosexual married couples.

For those who were already retired and simply wanted to slowly take out a modest amount of equity out of their home every month, many only had the option of a reverse mortgage. Reverse Mortgages require mortgage insurance which will basically take a THIRD of the total value of the home over the course of a 10 to 15 year draw on the equity, the interest rate charges on that reverse mortgage another third, and finally, only a third is left for the retirees!

That's it, approximately one third of the actual value of the home equity would go to the retirees were they simply wanting to take out a modest amount out of equity on a monthly basis from their home over a 10 to 15 year time period!

It's even worse if one was nearing retirement age but had lost their job prospects due to a combination of their skill set being obsoleted or just not fitting into a younger age demographic for certain types of work. Those over 50 and without a job who wanted to slowly pull out equity of their home would be forced to pretty much sell their home, even if they had already paid it off!

Did the gay movement move in and help these people, many just too old or beaten down by the system to really fight back, in their fight to save their homes? Please, show me the evidence, because I don't think it exists.

So what we have are what I despise most about progressive democrats, elitists who curry sympathy with the media by portraying others as being boarish, and Rachel Maddow is one of their leaders.

So tell me Rachel Maddow, is it really so weird that many heterosexuals who actually support gay marriage are ALSO PUT OFF by the insinuation that a gay marriage is identical to a heterosexual marriage (the fertility issue is a HUGE DIFFERENCE as it allows a gay marriage much more freedom sexually and when to choose to have kids), what did you do from your TV show pulpit over the past 6 years to help older homeowners keep their homes, most of whom were either heterosexual or single?

More likely, that time was spent by Maddow fighting for causes in which she could portray republican politicians as the oppressors, that's her shtick. 

Picture Maddow as the new kid on the block who sees a line of desperate people trying to make sense out of how all of their life long investments turned to mush, and then they can't even tap into their own homes, even if paid off. All Maddow does is walk on by diverting attention away from our older population that is suffering huge, unfair home equity losses and instead turns our attention to those wascally wepublicans who want to stop gay marriage and bust unions (got pension fraud?).

At least republicans are bold and obtuse with their sometimes outdated viewpoints, Maddow is simply cunning, yet both have lost the huge moderate base.

I hope Hillary Clinton can navigate around both extremist philosophies and tap into the huge moderate base that has been deprived from having their issues discussed by the fringy media.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton want to save America, they should buy Current TV from Al Gore.

Current TV is for sale.

Current TV is a news channel create in part by Al Gore that is aimed at the next generation MTV crowd. Amazingly, Current TV only generated 19.7 million in ad sales in a full years time in 2011. By contrast, Current TV collects around 82 million dollars in revenue from cable companies that carry the channel.

If Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton want to save america, they could go a long way towards that goal by buying and converting Current TV to a MODERATE democrat and MODERATE Republican based news channel. PBS for the masses.

The second trick would be to leverage the price per household that Cable TV pays Current TV and move the channel number above 100 to the general vicinity of Fox, MSNBC, CNN and CNBC. Perhaps the purchasers of Current TV could offer a price freeze and even rebates based on total ad revenue for the next four years. In exchange for that perk the Cable TV and dish networks move Current TV into the 60's numbers where the other Cable News Network channels can be found. 

We are done with change in this country as long as the progressive led radicals on the left continue to duke it out with the neo conservatives on the right. It is actually the moderates from both parties who get things done. 

However the new George Soros / Arianna Huffington instituted formula is too scare the party moderates from each political party back towards the progressive and neo conservative flank within each party.

The result is political polarization. Those who called Hillary Clinton a polarizing figure in 2008 were the real polarizers. 

Current TV may prove to be the best chance our country has to systematically bring the moderates from both parties back into the leadership roles of the democrat and republican party.

If the Clintons are serious about undoing the damage from the years 2000 through 2016, they need to start NOW, and buy Current TV.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

The Power of a woman to make a man's shoulders slump, or, how militant feminists just focus on how bad men are and not on the power women already have.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dateline, Lost in Suburbia, revealed the power of a woman in the clip presented above. If women already have power over men, then why can't militant feminists worry about being better women, rather than simply pointing at men as the bad guys?


Militant feminism appears to exist for the primary purpose of reminding women that men use whatever means necessary to rule over them. 

What militant feminism is remiss in doing is demonstrating how one sentence from a women's lips to her man's ears can make the man's shoulder slump.

As you can see in the very short video clip above (first there is a 15 second commercial), the husband's shoulders slump as he listens to his somewhat daft wife, who has held exceptionally high positions in the corporate world when she was employed, talk childish gibberish.

Rather than believing that men want to rule over women, I think it is safer to say that men fear stupid women, or women who just can't differentiate between how their own father treated them and how their husband tries to be a team provider for their own family.

Look at the power this woman has to deflate her husband's shoulders with just ONE sentence. It is absolutely amazing. Then she goes on about how he doesn't love her because his job does not pay enough, she is just so out of touch with reality at that moment in time.  


Later in the video, when it's revealed that if she brought in as much as he was bringing in, they could actually pay all of their bills, she seems to refocus on herself, and I would assume her husband is grateful for that respite.

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

Outing Hilary Rosen, why do some Hillary Clinton traitors end up at the Huffington Post?

I outed Hilary Rosen four years ago on my Hillary-Wins blog for her Huffington Post faux article on why she still was supporting Hillary Clinton even though in her words Clinton no longer had a chance to win. 

Click here to see full Hilary Rosen 2008 "Concern Troll"  article.

Hill Buzz had come up with the phrase "concern troll" regarding Obama operatives that would pine for Hillary even though they knew it was impossible for her to win.

The Huffington post 2008 article written by Hilary Rosen was a classic "concern troll" literary fabrication. Rosen pined for something that she realized was no longer possible (even though her claim that Clinton's democratic nomination in 2008 a lost cause was actually untruthful) Concern Troll equals "I feel your pain, but now its time to come to reality".

Rosen's recent attack against Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney,
smells of the kind of attack that Hillary Clinton was subjected to early on in the 2008 democratic race by Soros, MSNBC and Huffington Post operatives.

Hillary Clinton was attacked during the 2008 democratic nomination race as having done NOTHING during her time in the white house but direct white house staff to serve crumpets and tea to her tea party guests in between her shredding whitewater documents with her fingernails. 

And once again, we can find the Huffington Post taking the worst shots, witness the Ari Emanuel hit piece on Hillary Clinton. The Emanuel article ridicules Hillary Clinton for claiming to play a role in inspiring Irish women to be catalysts in the Irish peace treaty.  

This was the typical Huffington Post bile that has been regularly heaped at female politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, or those connected to politicians such as Ann Romney, or ridiculing Irish Housewives for the insinuation that they had any influence in the Ireland peace treaty, women just don't matter unless Arianna Huffington decides they matter.

Dick Morris possibly had the most outrageous quote of all... 

...Clinton critics like Dick Morris, a onetime political adviser to President Bill Clinton, ridiculed her foreign agenda as little more than ceremonial fluff.

“During her international travels, there was no serious diplomacy, just a virtually endless round of meetings with women, visiting arts-and-crafts centers, watching native industries and photo opportunities for the local media,” Morris wrote recently.

Inspiring women across the world to become more involved in their own communities to saving lives by meeting with women who were in danger of becoming political shrapnel until Hillary Clinton gave them a public spotlight; are we supposed to believe Morris's patriarchally dim witted view that these highly regarded but under publicized politically active women in foreign countries that Hillary Clinton met with just did not matter?

The republicans accused Hillary Clinton of being "Billary", while the Soros/Huffington Post MSNBC led Obama supporters accused Hillary Clinton of being the equivalent of a "Whitehousewife", that is quite some range. 

Hillary "Snowball" Clinton had the neocon republicans and the progressive democrats questioning her time in the white house. The smart people, the moderate liberals, the PUMA's, knew better.

4 years later, and Hilary Rosen trumpets the SAME THEME of trivializing women when she speaks of Anne Romney, and of course, its from the Soros fortified cesspool known as the Huffington Post.

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

Why does the Republican Party refuse to highlight the damage the liberal media and higher democratic officials did to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign?

(Edit note - April 07, 3:22 pm pst, 2012. After posting this article on March 22, 2012, Obama has now aggressively reached out to women!  Obama Attacks GOP on women's rights )

The Republicans could win the 2012 presidency by reminding the american people of the media and talk show host abuse that Hillary Clinton was exposed to in 2008. 

However, It appears that the republicans would rather lose the 2012 presidential election than remind the world how the 2008 democrats, the male dominated news media, and the corrupt higher echelon of the democratic party ridiculed both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

In case republicans have not noticed, democratic women voters fervently believe that democratic spokesholes like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and on down the line are somehow more pro women than republican spokesholes are.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton was treated so shabbily by her own democratic party that the media had to resort to pretending that none of it  happened. Keith Olbermann looked right into the camera and actually said...

"I never told senator Clinton to get out of the campaign, I never even suggested it....go back and read your talking points carefully, again".

Here is a partial list of the political atrocities Hillary Clinton had to face in the 2008 democratic election.

Political Favoritism: The democratic higher ups froze delegates from the Hillary Clinton strongholds of Florida and Michigan because both states moved up their primary dates. Meanwhile, Illinois, the state that gave Barack Obama his biggest margin of delegate victory in the entire country, was allowed to move up its primary date from the end of March 2008 to the beginning of February 2008 with no sanctions! North Carolina, another Obama stronghold, was given an extra 28 delegates FOR NOT moving up their primary date.

Move On Dot Org's caucus caper. This will go down for me as one of the all time "Who let the children out" moments in politics. Move on Dot org was founded by George Soros specifically to protect democrats from the kind of ridiculous impeachment attacks that Bill Clinton was put through. 

Move On Dot Org's growing clout was used against Hillary Clinton by steering the caucus contests to Barack Obama by a massively inaccurate 2-1 margin. Read the comments sections here to see how delusionial the Move On dot org people are in defending what they did to Hillary Clinton in 2008.

ACORN probably also had a hand in 2008 as well, especially in the caucus contests.  Check out this image of how the precincts that bordered Illinois all went for Obama, lending some statistical credence to the allegation that Obama supporters were bussed into Iowa to vote in the caucus contests.

Credit Card Gate:  Nancy Pelosi received a VISA IPO and in return appeared to table the credit card reform bill act of 2008. At the same time, Barack Obama was accepting prepaid credit card donations with false names and addresses, and was the only candidate to do so. After Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Obama took credit for the passage of a weakened credit card reform bill act that should have been passed a year earlier. One key element to the weakening of the credit card reform bill act was the deletion of a consumer's right to opt out of a change in terms.  Apparently Barack Obama's admiration of Jamie Dimon of Chase Bank, who is a fellow Chicagoan, lobbied to take have the opt out right removed from the credit card reform bill.

Republicans may have some women bashing spokespeople, but the democrats have more! The list of supposedly "nice democratic men" who used their position of influence to both ridicule Hillary Clinton and hype Barack Obama is A LOT LONGER than the list of backwards thinking republican men who have recently bashed women over reproductive issues. How about people like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, David Letterman, all of whom were pandering to their younger viewers back in 2008.  

Then there was Al Gore and Edward Kennedy who did not back Hillary Clinton nor remain neutral either.  Kennedy went as far as to deny Hillary Clinton a chance to work on a health care reform committee were Hillary Clinton to stay in Congress after Obama was declared the democratic nominee. Each one of these men used their bully pulpit to make jokes about Hillary Clinton while trying to look cool in their support of Barack Obama.

Even the women ganged up against Hillary Clinton in 2008. The irony for me in the number of highly influential women who went against Hillary Clinton is not that they should have automatically supported Hillary Clinton, it's that they could have remained neutral until the 2008 democratic nomination race was decided by democratic voters.

Here is the short list of prominent women who caved in to George Soros, Barack Obama, and the billionaire elite who were afraid of having a women as president. Arianna Huffington, Maria Shriver, Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow, Taylor Marsh even Elizabeth Edwards, rather than simply support the democratic party nominee as decided by the democratic voters, went out of their way to support Barack Obama BEFORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS HAD VOTED.  

Yet NONE of these women will take even an ounce of responsibility for the home foreclosure debacle that Barack Obama has done very little to stop, something Hillary Clinton vowed to solve as soon as she became president.

The allegedly liberal media was all in for Barack Obama in 2008. As a lifelong democrat, it was only by accident (literally) that I ended up watching MSNBC for 10 straight days while recuperating from an injury. I want from being completely ambivalent about which democratic candidate won the 2008 nomination, to being stunned at the level of badgering that Hillary Clinton was getting from the media, both television and newspaper. 

In my opinion, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert did more to destroy the fabric of middle america than any other trio of personalities working for one station has ever achieved.

Huffington Post may have been the biggest Hillary Clinton detractor, actually surpassing MSNBC.

On top of what Hillary Clinton went through in 2008, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, who David Letterman repeatedly referred to as "O'Bachman" have also been repeatedly ostracized by a male dominated media in both news and late night television. 

The republicans nonchalance to the liberal female presidential bashing facts listed above will most likely result in defeat to Barack Obama in 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGv6XBxk1IA&t=1m32s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGv6XBxk1IA These are two links to Moore's youtube Larry King youtube video, unfortunately they are not embedding properly here.

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