First as farce, then as farce with extra fart-sauce

Remember that silly-ass PUMA thing a few years ago? That negligible contingent of nose-cutting face-spiters who claimed to be “18 million strong”? That tiny but vocal group of nincompoops who joined hands with GOP ratfuckers in an attempt to throw the election to McCain-Palin because they were miffed when Obama won the primary?

Around three years ago, PUMA spokeskitties were being booked wall-to-wall on Fox News to exploit hard feelings over the Democratic primary. They predicted Obama would lose in 2008 because he’d alienated women. They were dead wrong.

Not only did Obama win handily, he did substantially better among female voters than John Kerry had four years earlier (56% vs. 51%). This despite John McCain’s cynical bid to use Sarah Palin’s lady parts as bait for women’s votes.

But being 100% wrong and wholly ineffectual is no obstacle to continued media attention, particularly in wingnut press outlets when there are rats to be humped in anticipation of the next election. So today a few PUMAs resurfaced on the Daily Caller to predict that somehow the primary butt-hurt that failed to materialize to stop Obama in 2008 has traveled forward in time to ruin the Kenyan’s reelection bid:

“After 2008 [Clinton voters] were basically told get over it, and they haven’t gotten over it,” Amy Siskind, president of the feminist advocacy group The New Agenda, told The Daily Caller.

Actually, “Clinton voters” did get over it, as evidenced by the election results. Siskind and her fellow PUMAs are rather pathetically still rending their garments, but who cares? Another blast from the past:

“Barack Obama wasn’t the women’s candidate in 2008 and he is not the women’s president midway through 2011,” Diane Mantouvalos, a 2008 Clinton supporter and co-founder of HireHeels.com (“a forum of power chics for Hillary”) noted.

It’s always Groundhog Day in PUMAville. But unless Palin or Bachmann end up on the GOP ticket (and perhaps even if they do), I doubt they’ll enjoy the same levels of wingnut attention they received last time around. Even people who think Bill Kristol is a foreign policy savant aren’t that dumb. Are they? Hmmm. We’ll see.

Posted by Betty Cracker on 06/20/11 at 05:14 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaElection '08Hillary ClintonNuttersSarah PalinOur Stupid MediaPUMAsYouTubidity

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Siskind. Mantouvalos. Schlemiel, Schlemazel, Hasenfeffer Incorporated.

Watching them claim the GOP male candidate who wears an orange tie & pocket square is far more gyno-riffic than Obama will be hee-larious.

But still not as funny as the Rainbow Blights who’ll claim the the GOP nominees have a gay rights track record that is 100% better than Obama’s.

Each to his (or her) LOL.

“a forum of power chics for Hillary”

I had to check. “Chics” is the D.C.‘s typo.

As long as we’re doing PUMAS and superheroes...

HTP, as little credit as I give the DC’s editorial staff, it would not surprise me a bit if the “HireHeels” peeps styled themselves “power chics” sans a “k.” They strive to emulate the “Sex in the City” cast in all words and deeds and seem like the type who would think such a pun vewy, vewy clever.

[Obama] did substantially better among female voters than John Kerry had four years earlier ... despite John McCain’s cynical bid to use Sarah Palin’s lady parts as bait for women’s votes.

Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if McCain’s bid tipped some number of them into the Obama column.

Well, considering how they kept talking about how they needed to be “wooed” by Obama, I imagine the PUMAs would fit in quite well with the Arrested Adolescent Twatwaffles at the “Breaking Up With the President” Attention Whoring Derby at Nutroots Nation.

Ka-thunk.  Ka-thunk.  Ka-thunk.  AAAAAAARGH! 

That is all.

Great, now I’ll have to spend my whole summer teaching rats how to use Mace.

So, these are Hillary Clinton supporters who are disappointed by Obama’s cabinet choices?
Ooooo-kay…..

“Barack Obama wasn’t the women’s candidate in 2008 and he is not the women’s president midway through 2011,” Diane Mantouvalos, a 2008 Clinton supporter and co-founder of HireHeels.com (“a forum of power chics for Hillary”) noted.

Yeah, I’m really looking forward to hearing these people explain how a Romney/Perry ticket is the real future of feminism.

Regarding the cabinet appointments thing, here is the salient paragraph:

Feminists have also taken issue with the fact that Obama’s cabinet only has a comparable number of females to the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Nothing about the Supreme Court, of course. But the wording there is interesting considering the PUMAs spent 2008 slobbering over the wonderfulness of Bill Clinton and longing for a Clinton restoration.

Feminists have also taken issue

Yeah, never mind the fact that most of these “feminists” quoted here are people who have no public record of fighting for gender equality prior to the 2008 primaries.

These PUMA’s; I’m highly suspicious.  Hillary’s current job is much more important than being VP, but that’s not good enough? 

Seems more like a multi-level marketing/ratfucking scheme with willing dupes who are more obsessed about their women-of-a-certain-age history of gender-based slights than about Hillary or actual political results.  Either that, or they’re just part of the Kocktopus that’s been better able to keep the strings hidden.

That tiny but vocal group of nincompoops who joined hands with GOP ratfuckers

Sure, assuming you can join hands with yourself. That whole thing was and is a GOP front from the word go.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main