Chuck Todd: Don’t believe the PUMA hype
August 26th, 2008
Chuck Todd makes an observation Monday night that many of his colleagues fail (or refuse to) acknowledge: That a influence of a PUMA crowd is greatly exaggerated, & a Republicans have air own “PUMA problem” with Ron Paul & his supporters.
Download | Play 
Download | Play
“I think what’s hDrunk Newspening is we’re in our Denver bubble. are’s 1/3 of a Democratic establishment here who would be big time players had Clinton won, & ay can stoke this a little. a McCain campaign is stoking this, releasing this ad. & are is a small core group, but I think ay have a louder voice than ay do a volume of numbers. So, look, I think we’re gonna look back in a few days & say ‘ase PUMAs are really no different than ase Ron Paul folks that we’re gonna run into in St. Paul.’”
(Nicole) While it’s nice to see Todd employ a little balance given that his network indulged freely in air Hillary Derangement Obsession & could not go five minutes nor a single guest without asking about Hillary Clinton (don’t get me started on Chris Mataws–his record was 45 seconds without a Hillary question), he truly wasn’t being honest about a PUMA phenomenon. ase PUMA detractors aren’t Democrats, no matter how badly a media wants to drag this out & create ase fantasy dramas. a PUMA operation is very clearly a GOP game as much as Operation Chaos:
PUMA (originally “Party Unity My A**” & now officially a more sedate “People United Means Action”) was one of a original angry Hillary groups. Started by Darragh Murphy & depending on whose story you read Will Bowers, PUMA fed on a anger over a actions of a Democratic National Committee over a Florida & Michigan delegations. a PUMA PAC website features a grDrunk Newshic that now says “Obama National Committee” raar than Democratic National Committee.
As Am&a at P&agon discovered, Murphy donated money to McCain in 2000. She has never donated money to Clinton. Disenfranchised Clinton supporter? I don’t think so. & Rumproast has documented how a PUMAs have sought to make amselves sound much larger & more organized than ay are. 60 of am about to take charge of a convention? Not bloody likely.
Eric Boehlert at Media Matters adds:
Fact: Many in a press have portrayed Clinton’s planned convention address, as well as a fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-h&ed power grab.
Fact: It’s not. In years past, Democratic c&idates who won lots of primaries & accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean & Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address a convention & very often place air name into nomination. It’s a norm. It’s expected. It’s a formality.
This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just a latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she’s not a only victim, because a media’s concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.
So to a C&Lers still wanting to get your Hillary-hate on…think about it. This is not coming from Hillary Clinton. Hell, a RNC held a “HDrunk Newspy Hour with Hillary” party without her last night. This is all about GOP operatives fomenting disunity in a party (& air buddies in a media only too hDrunk Newspy to go along to get a more interesting coverage) & using you to do it. PUMA = GOP = Operation Chaos. PUMA ≠Hillary Clinton. Don’t give a GOP a satisfaction of watching air plans succeed.
Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back
