| Note to mainstream media members: I was a long-time Democratic voter, who supported at least 90% Democrats since voting for the first time in 1983 (voting in every available election for anything, including school boards and dog catchers). Oddly enough, I did not support Bill Clinton in 1992 because I was very angered by the way the Democratic Party had shielded Dan Rostenkowski, then-powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and refused to vote for a Democrat as President that year -- instead, I voted as a protest for Ross Perot (I thought him personally screwy, but his ideas on the economy were sound).
I start out with that because one of the myths about PUMAs is that we supposedly all were Bill Clinton voters who magically somehow transferred our affections to his wife, Hillary R. Clinton, when she decided to run for President -- and that's the furthest thing from the case (at least in my book).
I had nothing against Hillary R. Clinton at the start of this election cycle, but I was against what was called "the Imperial Presidency" -- i.e., two Bushes and then perhaps two Clintons in the highest office in the land in the past 20 years. Which means Hillary R. Clinton had to work her keister off to show me who she was, and how she'd govern, even though I had no dislike of her, simply because I was wary of the whole "Imperial Presidency" argument. (My late husband and I came up with that term way back in '02, btw. I know sometimes terms happen via gestalt and many people come up with similar or the exact same terms around the same time. Just postulate that this wasn't a new concern of mine, and be done with it, OK?)
I also have to admit that I viewed Hillary R. Clinton as the establishment candidate (how wrong I was, but I digress); this didn't help, either.
So, this year, I started out as a supporter of John Edwards; I liked his health care plan, I liked his care for our veterans and the poor. I believed he had workable programs, and I really thought his wife had a lot on the ball, which reflected nicely upon him. (This was long before there was any confirmation of the scandal in which he's now embroiled; I still think very highly of Elizabeth Edwards and always will. And note that no matter how flawed a messenger John Edwards was and remains, his programs are still sound and would work.)
When Edwards dropped out, I evaluated the remaining candidates thusly:
Bill Richardson: Overblown windbag, smart, but full of himself. He did not get my vote. (Nor many others.)
Barack Obama: This was tougher, because I'd read Sen. Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" and thought it an interesting political memoir. But I did not feel that was enough to base a Presidential campaign upon; further, I felt very strongly that Sen. Obama should've served at least one full term in the Senate before running for President (at least John Edwards served five years of his Senate term before he ran in '04).
And the longer I watched Obama, the less I trusted him or liked him; my evaluation was, then and now, that he is not ready for the Presidency at this time, and should learn more about how our government actually works in the U.S. Senate before he makes (another) full-fledged run for the Presidency. (We're seeing his inexperience up-front and personal now, especially with the whole crisis overseas in Georgia; Obama's response was lackluster at best, and made while he was on vacation. I still wonder why he's gone on so many vacations; how many vacations does a healthy 47-year-old man need?)
Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel I dismissed right off; I thought both had something interesting to say (though Gravel is really over-the-top in how he says it), but I knew they'd never garner enough support to win the Presidential nomination (in a normal year, where the DNC isn't trying to manipulate everything).
Thus, I came around to looking at Hillary R. Clinton for herself, and I liked what I saw; she was competent, she was qualified, she quickly educated herself on any new problem and remembered what she learned effortlessly. Definitely the right candidate for me, despite being married to a former President, and I gladly gave her my vote when I got the chance to cast it on a cold February day in WI.
At any rate, then came the caucus manipulations in other states; the outright fraud of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting of 5/31/08 in giving Sen. Obama 59 delegates he hadn't earned from MI (including 4 of Sen. Clinton's earned delegates), then halving them; the ridiculous and pointless statements by Pelosi, Dean, occasionally by Harry Reid, and many by Donna Brazile. I learned that I was not wanted or valued by anyone in the Democratic Party, save perhaps by Hillary Clinton.
Still. Hillary Clinton is not the reason I am a PUMA; had the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting done this on behalf of Senator Clinton, I'd be just as outraged on Obama's behalf despite the fact I didn't vote for him and have no interest in ever doing so.
Simply put: I am a PUMA because the Democratic process was thwarted. Period. And that has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton whatsoever.
And I will remain a PUMA as long as I continue to see corruption in what remains of the Democratic Party.
Btw, whom I support is none of your business, but yes; I do continue to support Hillary Clinton, because she at least learned my issues and my interests and figured out a way to talk with me and voters like me -- and point out that she has a way to better our lives by improving the economy and getting universal health care (getting rid of all the duplication of forms would be a great start) and working on the various strategies for lowering gas prices.
In other words, while Hillary R. Clinton decidedly speaks to me and for me in many respects, my vote is my own -- and despite the fact that I continue to support her, my decision to be a PUMA has nothing to do with her at all.
Most PUMAs I know support Hillary R. Clinton as a candidate because we know she was "done dirty" by the DNC. And we don't approve of unethical treatment of the lack of fair play, especially when it works against the only candidate who seemed to have any idea of how to help the forgotten lower, working and middle classes of the United States of America.
So, in essence, here's my take on why I am a PUMA:
I believe in ethics in government.
I believe in fair play and consistently-applied rules (not just Donna Brazile's "make up your own rules and apply 'em whenever you feel like it" nonsense, then say you were applying 'em straight up later on; yeah, sure).
I believe in fair reflection, and that votes should count as the voters intended them -- not by making up new voter counts on the spot and imputing motives to these phantoms later (as in the atrocious 5/31/08 RBC meeting of the DNC).
I believe the DNC must be reformed until such time it fairly reflects the will of the voters, not just the will of the party elites.
And I believe this:
My vote is my own.
My conscience is my own.
I will never vote for Barack Obama, as he was enabled and uplifted by those who did their best to subvert the will of the voters throughout the 2008 primary election cycle (most especially in his campaign staff.)
That, in essence, is what makes me a PUMA Democrat.
Hillary Clinton, as great a lady as she is, really doesn't have anything to do with my decision. (Got it, Shuster? Good.) |
