Declaration of Objections

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Objections

The members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and By-Laws Committee violated The DNC charter on May 31, 2008 by meeting in private, in direct violation of the Sunshine Rules Provision of said Charter.

On that same day, the Democratic Party grossly violated ethical standards when it awarded four delegates to candidate Barack Obama based on actual votes for candidate Hillary Clinton, and in addition, awarded him delegates based on votes for "Uncommitted."

Earlier in the campaign season, the Democratic Party violated its own Delegate Selection Rules by applying penalties to only two states who broke Section 11 calendar rules, even though five states broke those rules. In addition, Florida and Michigan were originally stripped of 100% of their delegates, even though the rules stipulated a 50% penalty.

The decisions of the RBC meeting mentioned above are evidence of sexism and authoritarianism within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Caucuses are a violation of the one-person, one-vote and secret ballot principles that have been cornerstone Democratic values for more than a century. They produced a skewed and unfair result this primary season. Caucus states are also over-represented in the pledged delegate count, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle.

Sexism was allowed to flourish as never before not only because of the behavior of the mainstream media, but also by the actions of many in the progressive online community, the stark silence of the Democratic Leadership and because ordinary Americans, male and female, engaged in it as long as it advanced their favored candidate.

Barack Obama and his campaign exploited racial issues in the primary campaign, which risks setting back the Civil Rights movement, and cynical Democratic leaders, as well as some ordinary Democrats, approved of this campaign tactic.
The voices of 18 million voters who supporter Hillary Clinton have been illegitimately silenced, ridiculed, and subjected to outright fabrications on the part of the mainstream press and the Internet press.

The evidence is present, for anyone who wants to see it, that authoritarian tendencies fueled by greed are on the rise in the Democratic Party.

Now, in view of the dismissal of one-half the Democratic voters of this primary season, their social degradation, in view of the unjust actions above mentioned, and in view of the disenfranchisement of the voters in two states, and because we do feel ourselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of a free and fair primary election, we insist that the Democratic Party address our objections, or risk the loss of our votes come November.

In entering upon the work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we will use every instrumental within our power to affect our objectives. We will employ agents, circulate tracts and flyers, blog, advertise in all media, petition state and national Democratic leadership, and endeavor to enlist the press in our behalf.

Resolutions

Resolved, that the Democratic Party must seat the full Michigan and Florida delegation in adherence to the thoroughly Democratic principle of one-person, one-vote.

Resolved, that Michigan delegates must be awarded according to the actual votes cast, specifically that Hillary Clinton must be given 73 delegates and Barack Obama must be given 0 (zero).

Resolved, that Hillary Clinton's name must be offered on the first roll call at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August of 2008, in accordance with tradition for 16 of the last 18 Democratic National Conventions.

Resolved, that caucuses should be abolished, and the Democratic Primary system in its entirety must be reformed to better reflect the one-person, one-vote principle, as well as the equal representation principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Resolved, that millions of women and men alike no longer think of the Democratic Party as the party for women's issues, or for equality and fairness, or for the protection of abortion rights, and will no longer vote for them based on such criteria.

Resolved, that the cynical exploitation of cultural issues will not be rewarded with votes, and that it is part of the PUMA mission to educate the electorate about such abuses.

Resolved, that the PUMA movement is comprised of traditional and loyal Democrats who have carefully watched and recorded the events of the 2008 Primary campaign season.

Resolved, that 18 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, more than any other presidential primary candidate in history, and they have a right to help shape the agenda and processes of the Democratic Party.

Submitted July 4, 2008

Copy with links here: http://annabellep.wordpress.com/2008/07/ 04/declaration-of-objections/



Display:


Re: Declaration of Objections (2.00 / 3)

Sigh.


Ornithological Vaccinations and Aviary Heuristics
by OVAH on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:12:14 AM EST

You dishonor Hillary's wishes (2.00 / 4)

by being a member of PUMA. Shocking how little you seem to care about her.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:15:54 AM EST

Re: You dishonor Hillary's wishes (2.00 / 4)

I am not a member of PUMA (and yes, by now I know what it means), but the reason for that is not Sen. Clinton's wishes.

I am a supporter of Sen. Clinton, but I will act and vote in a manner that I feel best, without (primary) regard to her wishes.

You are one helluva blogger here, and I really respect you a lot...so I thought I should express that opinion.  You have often stated that we (Clinton supporters) should do as she wishes...


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, that isn't really the issue. (2.00 / 1)

Many of the PUMA people are the ones who always seemed so devoted to her -- the ones who seemed to genuinely care for her as a person. I've often thought that their inability to accept Obama is a byproduct of their inability to let go of Hillary. That's why I'm always pushing for them to consider what she wanted. Her endorsement meant a  lot to me. I would have supported Obama regardless, but her endorsement made me feel more enthusiastic about it.

Personally, I think people should vote on policy. Then again, I'm biased because that's how I vote. If you voted for Hillary on policy, then it's pretty clear who you should support in the GE. If you didn't vote on policy, then... *shrug* No clue how you'll decide.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, that isn't really the issue. (2.00 / 1)

I choose candidates based on policy positions, and experiences that allow them to implement those positions (I was a Biden supporter).

And no, it is not clear what I should do in the GE.  I know that Sen. Obama will likely win in a landslide... but I will probably wait till Oct before making up my mind.

The big issues are Iraq, economy & environment.  And on all 3, there are quite a few unknowns about both candidates... or have you not noticed the jockeying for reposition that is currently going on (oh duh...you have a diary on that =)


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:08:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh, yes, both candidates seem (none / 0)

to be modifying their positions on a few things...

Well, I'm not sure how issues like Iraq, the economy, and the environment would make it unclear how you should vote in the GE... It's pretty clear which candidate I agree with more often. But hey, if McCain suddenly does a 180 and starts touting my favorite policy positions, I might join you in your uncertainty. ;)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:16:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh, yes, both candidates seem (2.00 / 1)

well, I will wait to see how they reposition themselves...


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, that isn't really the issue. (2.00 / 4)

You should stop pushing the "Hillary wants us to" statements. When people say that, it makes their appear naive about politics.  It is making no impression but an irritating impression on those you are hoping to influence.  There is a lot more to it than support for Hillary Clinton, and not being able to "let go".  In fact you state above that something a person said is condescending.  Well having that view of why people are not supporting Obama is condescending in itself and insinuating that they have some sortof emotional issues.  People are individuals, not robots.  Because Hillary does something, that does not mean that they should blindly follow her, or that she really believes that they should.  There are many issues that came out of this campaign besides supporting personalities, and many would like them resolved before they fall into blind support over yet another candidate because they have a D after their name.

And as it is developing in so many cases lately, Obama is not close to Hillary in a lot of policy issues anymore either.


by Scotch on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:10:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good, I hope it's irritating you. (2.00 / 3)

I'm sick of PUMA and its apologists. I've lost my patience with that particular "movement".


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good, I hope it's irritating you. (2.00 / 6)

Frankly, I am not part of PUMA, nor do I necessarily support what they do in all instances.  However, I just hate to see people talk and act as though they have no mind of their own, or that Clinton would expect that they act any differently than where their principle's take them. She doesn't want a blind following of her every move and desire.  She is not giving orders and expecting that people follow them in place of what they believe and feel.  So the hillary wants you to do this and that, and you are going against her wants and needs if you act like an independant being is just bogus.


by Scotch on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:34:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good, I hope it's irritating you. (1.20 / 5)

You sound confused.  Are you sure you aren't a PUMA?


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:36:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary (2.00 / 7)

is a politician. She has to do what she is doing in support of the democratic nominee. Voters do not have the same constraints.

Her true supporters were not so much for Hillary the politician as they were for her competence and abilities. That does not translate into blind support for a candidate that does not fulfill those needs.

What I take some issue with are the people that claimed to be a Hillary supporter and quickly turned to become an Obama supporter. Those people are nothing more than fair whether democrats imho.


by Coldblue on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:59:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (1.75 / 4)

What I take some issue with are the people that claimed to be a Hillary supporter and quickly turned to become an Obama supporter. Those people are nothing more than fair whether (sic) democrats imho.

I'm not sure if you really know what that means.


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:38:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, I thought those people were just Democrats.  I'm pretty sure that in a parallel universe, I'm unabashedly supporting Sen. Clinton right now.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 2)

You constantly abuse ratings based on disagreement or nothing that is evident.  Resolve your issues somewhere else.


by Scotch on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (1.00 / 1)

"You constantly abuse ratings based on disagreement or nothing that is evident."

Now I can't claim to be perfect, but I try to only give 0's and 1's when someone is insulting.  I think I give more 2's than 0's and 1's combined (but I could be wrong).

If you have any problems with specific ratings, I'd be happy review them.


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (2.00 / 3)

You seem unable to tell the difference between insults and expression of opinions.  Funny how you never find anyone who follows your political leanings insulting. Just those who disagree with you.


by Scotch on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary (1.50 / 2)

You seem unable to tell the difference between insults and expression of opinions.

Insults frequently are expressions of opinions.  It's actually quite rare that an insult is not an expression of an opinion.

Funny how you never find anyone who follows your political leanings insulting. Just those who disagree with you.

So are you saying that I'm not troll-rating enough?  Or are you saying that I'm not dishing troll-ratings equally between PUMAs/McBloggers and Democrats/Progressives?

I'm probably not perfect in my ratings and I don't pretend to be.  Maybe you are?

Thank you

It's been about 10 minutes since we last re-fought the primary wars and I'd forgotten already how horribly Hillary was treated.

Wait.  Did you TR me there for saying something there that you disagreed with?  A comment that 5 other people found mojo-worthy?

Like I said, if you think I "engage in ratings-abuse", please point it out to me and I'll review it.  And don't go throwing stones . . .


by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:28:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So her "true supporters" (2.00 / 3)

weren't concerned with policy positions? Because, you see, I'm concerned primarily with policy. I guess that's why I'll support the nominee, despite the fact that Hillary got my vote and my advocacy during the primary. When it comes down to it, I'm smart enough to vote on policy, not personality.

What I take some issue with are the people that claimed to be a Hillary supporter and quickly turned to become an Obama supporter. Those people are nothing more than fair whether democrats imho

IMHO, you really don't know the meaning of the phrase "fair weather". A fair weather Democrat would be one who votes Democratic only if they're perfectly satisfied with the nominee and the party. A fair weather Democrat, like a PUMA member, for example, would prove him/herself incapable of prioritizing, and would reject the nominee for whatever silly reason helped him/her sleep at night.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:44:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You have to be kidding me (none / 0)

< boggle >

You're smarter than this, CB!


by Bee on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not a fucking child (2.00 / 4)

I can "not honor" anyone's wishes I choose to, and I will choose to whenever those wishes don't align with my principles. If you've got a problem with my principles, that's one thing, but read the document again. Because if you've got a problem with my principles, then you've got a problem with the founder's principles.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:01:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice prose. (1.25 / 4)

PUMA means "batshit crazy" at this point, but I do admire hte prose.


by username on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17:35 AM EST

Re: Declaration of Objections (1.33 / 3)

Ah, yes, the "loyal" and mature Democrats behind "Party Unity My Ass."  The Founding Fathers of idiocy.  

How anyone can rally behind a moniker dreamt up by a five year old and convince themselves that they're freedom fighters is beyond me.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:21:28 AM EST

Re: Declaration of Objections (2.00 / 4)

Resolved, that the PUMA movement is comprised of traditional and loyal Democrats

Ignoring the rest of the inaccuracies, inanities, and ignorances in this post, I must say that this is patently false.  PUMAs are by no means loyal Democrats; loyal Democrats support the Democratic nominee, who is by the acclamation of all (including Hillary Clinton, in whose name you supposedly are doing this) the Democratic nominee for President.  

If you support anyone else for President - including nobody - you are by definition not supporting a Democrat for President, because at this moment there is only one Democrat running for the office.  You are thus disloyal to the Democratic Party, and regardless of whatever else you consider yourself to be, you should not call yourself in any way a "loyal Democrat."


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:27:14 AM EST

Not to mention... (2.00 / 2)

PUMA was founded by a woman who claims to be a lifelong Democrat, but in reality has never given a single donation to a Democratic presidential candidate, not even Hillary--but she has donated to George Bush in 2004.

If there are any real "loyal Democrats" in PUMA, they have been masterfully and thoroughly duped.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:19:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Declaration of Objections (none / 0)

hey Anna et all...

I have no problem reliving the Primary season and Obama's victory..

tap yer toes..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0F6dLtG1 tI


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:30:13 AM EST

Re: Declaration of Objections (2.00 / 1)

Let. It. Go.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:56:21 AM EST

This is NOT a GBCW post (2.00 / 4)

I'm leaving this blog for awhile guys. This sudden surge of PUMA members on a Democratic site are making it hard to find a decent read or conversation. It's troll diaries or flame wars and it got old last week. I'll come back when Jerome gets the new system up and running. See your around peeps!


No way. No how. No McCain!
by spacemanspiff on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:14:04 AM EST

Re: This is NOT a GBCW post (none / 0)

Hate to see you go, spaceman. Understand where you are coming from, though. I'd be tempted to join you if I didn't think that's exactly what they want. Darn if I'll give them anything they want.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Declaration of Objections (2.00 / 1)

Sigh


by MWinnie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:25:41 AM EST

Tag a PUMA today! (1.25 / 4)

Support the PUMA tag-and-release program.  Don't allow these fascinating beasts to be a harm to themselves or others.

Tag a PUMA today!


by spunkmeyer on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST

Quick, Marty - into the DeLorean! (1.33 / 3)

We've got a primary to win!


by spunkmeyer on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM EST

It behooves everyone to pay close (2.00 / 2)

attention to the anger of the PUMA movement.  This is an expression of true disaffection within the Democratic party by large numbers of longtime activists.  Responding with ridicule only exacerbates the problem.

So while I am not a PUMA per se (I plan to vote for the nominee),
I agree with many of their goals, particularly the goal of reforming the party's anti-democratic primary system.  

As for what Hillary would want, I couldn't  care less.  My concern is not with her wishes, but with what I expect from our election process.


by Radiowalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:41:51 PM EST

Re: It behooves everyone to pay close (1.00 / 3)

If I thought that these were actual disaffected Democrats, I might be concerned.  As it is they are simply not credible as party members.  Their actions and beliefs are completely foreign to any logic I understand and they are irritating beyond belief.

Trying to make a mockery of the documents of our founding fathers and the basis of our fine country immediately made me want to tell the diarist to blow it out their ass.

Trolls, Republicans, Crybabies.  I, for one, have had more than enough of the PUMA Peeple.


accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking
by Sychotic1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It behooves everyone to pay close (none / 0)

Hey, have a happy July 4 anyway... and blow it out your....oh, never mind.


by Radiowalla on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:00:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Declaration of Objections (2.00 / 5)

this is the right thing to do, but it won't help a thing.  Barack didn't need to fan racism, it was unnecessary, or maybe it wasn't?  There is a dearth of leadership everywhere these days, that's why Putin is still in charge in Russia, why Bush hasn't been impeached, by Pakistan was able to sell bomb technology and still get American military aid.   That's why the only thing Bush is right about, the suffering in Africa, won't go away, the world is facing a depression which will harm the poor the most, and kids, and women, and we had the chance to get a truly qualified president and instead we are guaranteed someone ineffective. Barack is a committee, who knows what he thinks about anything, he gets cards and doesn't even know they've been stacked.  So, it's pissing in the wind, but if we don't even speak, then what are we?  


by anna shane on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:43:48 PM EST

Re: Declaration of Objections (1.25 / 4)

One would have thought anna, in the time you spent away from here, you would have learned to express yourself in a way that people can understand. Alas that has not happened, and have returned as you left, angry bitter and unable to let go of the primaries.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Declaration of Objections (none / 0)

but at least you didn't surprise anyone and enroll in charm school? It's okay, this is small stuff, there are much bigger things to concern ourselves with.  


by anna shane on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yuck (none / 0)

Haven't checked in in awhile. I feel bad for that dead horse you are beating.


by mikeinsf on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:06:34 PM EST

Well said, anna belle (2.00 / 2)

I have voted straight Dem for over 20 years now, and finally this year am seriously considering voting Green for the first time. After the way Clinton was treated, and the way Obama has gone on the issues, I'm pretty much through with the Dem party. So sad.

My main issue is universal health care. Obama will not bring it about and my state will not go for Obama, so I feel free to vote for whoever supports universal health care.

I am not a member of Puma, per se, but can really see their issues. Nothing like taking delegates from one candidate to give to another to make a group look like they are really corrupt, for instance. I thought only the Repubs did that.


by splashy on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:24:27 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.