From [link]

"Firstly, as PUMAs we are united in our belief that Obama is an usurper who used less than stellar / transparent / fair play methods as a way of clinching the nomination of the Democratic Party. We believe that if a free and fair primary election proccess was held, Hillary Clinton would have emerged as the party nominee. While all this might be water under the bridge, and Obama is now the nominee, his ascenscion to that distinction is not one we can or shall support. An illegality can never bring forth a legality. Breaking into someone’s home and stealing their belongings still makes you a thief, Obama stole my vote, and 18 million votes that came with it. That is personal, and cannot be undone."

Okay, then. I haven't yet found out what the less than stellar methods were, by looking at the site.

I've just discovered the NYTimes "Going Down the Road" series - where they send their reporters out on routes covered in the state guidebooks written by people in the Federal Writers' Project of the WPA.

So far, they've been to Vermont, Wyoming, Washington and Louisiana. They say that Iowa is next up and it looks like California and Florida will be coming up soon.

It's very enjoyable.

In the past, candidates haven't run ads during the opposing party's convention. I think that's the unprecedented part.

Yes, but McCain is saying that *tonight's* ad is going to be the "unprecedented" one; he's been running ads all week, at least during NBC's convention coverage.

Okay, I have a serious question because I just don't get this Obama-hatred from portions of the Clinton camp. I understand that Clinton was horribly mistreated by the media. I saw some of the misogynistic statements that were made without any sense that they were wrong.

But, what did Obama do that gets the Clinton camp up in arms to the point that they'd rather vote for McCain (or not vote at all)? IMO, they both said some tough things about the other in order to win the nomination, but I don't recall seeing anything that was above normal politicing.

I'm SO with you. The way some of the vocal pro-Clinton/anti-Obama faction are, I feel like I missed a really important news story about Obama eating a puppy on live TV or something.

There are some feminist blogs that I used to consider must-reads, and I really can't even go there any more, because their bloggers have the rabid Obama hatred without explanation.

"Firstly, as PUMAs we are united in our belief that Obama is an usurper who used less than stellar / transparent / fair play methods as a way of clinching the nomination of the Democratic Party. We believe that if a free and fair primary election proccess was held, Hillary Clinton would have emerged as the party nominee. While all this might be water under the bridge, and Obama is now the nominee, his ascenscion to that distinction is not one we can or shall support. An illegality can never bring forth a legality. Breaking into someone’s home and stealing their belongings still makes you a thief, Obama stole my vote, and 18 million votes that came with it. That is personal, and cannot be undone."

A common theme I heard was that, when the media shat all over Hillary for being a woman, Obama did nothing to speak out against it. Also, he once called a reporter "sweetie."

Therefore, he's worth trashing the election over. Apparently.

The PUMAs have claimed the title of "sore loser" from John McEnroe. (Actually, was that totally outdated? Does anyone even *remember* McEnroe's hissy fits anymore?)

Yikes,another named storm, Hanna

[link]

I've just discovered the NYTimes "Going Down the Road" series

That series always makes me do a double take because "going down the road" is a phrase used by East Coast Canadians for moving out West, presumably to find work.

I still disbelieve that the PUMA movement is real. (On the scale that the PUMA websites & blogs claim.)

Yes, but McCain is saying that *tonight's* ad is going to be the "unprecedented" one; he's been running ads all week, at least during NBC's convention coverage.

Where is he saying that? The article you linked to doesn't quote McCain. Unidentified campaign spokesbeings are saying that it's "exciting and unprecedented," but they're PR people, so that's how they talk.

I still disbelieve that the PUMA movement is real. (On the scale that the PUMA websites & blogs claim.)

One of the bloggers at the convention (don't remember which) painted the hilarious picture of the TV/print media trying desperately to find PUMAs and failing -- going up to every 60-ish white woman they saw, asking how much she hates Obama, and then just walking off in mid-sentence when she didn't if someone else with a Hillary button walked by.

Sure, there are a few people, but that's true of everything -- the image of it as a huge movement that was ready to scuttle the convention and/or election seems completely trumped up.

(Also the term says "Cougar" to me to an extent that's completely cringeworthy.)

There are some feminist blogs that I used to consider must-reads, and I really can't even go there any more, because their bloggers have the rabid Obama hatred without explanation.

Thankfully, by primary season, I had already abandoned about 95% of the white feminist blogosphere, due to their utter insanity when called out on some skanky race issues!

Except for HuffPost, I've basically eliminated the white, middle-to-upper-middle-class political bloggers from my reading, AIFG!

Then I accidentally click on links, and it's a world of Oh, Amanda Marcotte NO!

Yes, but McCain is saying that *tonight's* ad is going to be the "unprecedented" one; he's been running ads all week, at least during NBC's convention coverage.

Where is he saying that? The article you linked to doesn't quote McCain.

Ooops. I was equating the candidate with his PR people.

Unidentified campaign's spokesbeings are saying that it's "exciting and unprecedented," but they're PR people, so that's how they talk.

Well, it still doesn't make sense that *tonight's* ad -- which is what the PR people were specifically referring to, rather than the general running of ads at any time during the opposing party's convention -- would be "unprecedented," given that ads have been running all week, which is, in fact, precedent.

So that may be how they talk, but it's not accurate if they mean that the mere fact that they're running (another) ad during the Democratic convention is unprecedented. If that's what they mean, they already set precedent on Monday.

So it seems as though it must refer to something else, whether the candidate himself spoke those words or it was just a statement generated by his PR hacks.

So rare I had to share. A finance column that actually suggests that home ownership might not always be the best financial decision, including a discussion of the ever-popular mortgage-interest deduction: 10 Bank-Breaking Money Myths