Can you be a ground zero PUMA if you don't still support Hillary Clinton? Part II.

So why did the Democratic Party Higher ups secretly plot against Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election? They believed their chances of retaining their own position in Congress would be strengthened if Barack Obama was elected instead of Hillary Clinton.

The problem with this type of me first, the country second position is two fold. First, it is really selfish to care about one's own political career to the point where you only support a presidential candidate based on a mythical belief that one presidential candidate's speech making ability will help keep you in your office.

Just because a politician may like one candidate's "charisma" more than another, is that enough? "I like this candidate, therefore he will help me keep my seat in Congress?" The answer is a resounding, of course not.

Reason number two on why it is an unknown as to which candidate can help keep any politician in their position. There will usually be an inevitable "push back" two years after a new political party gains control of the white house. In recent times, 2 years into the new presidents term the side that lost seats during the presidential election actually will gain some back.

Ironically, what Pelosi and Reid did may actually backfire on them because they may not have supported the best candidate and are more likely to lose their seat, not less likely as a result.

I'm all for that, that's for sure.

As for the PUMA movement, I would love to see PUMA's who don't necessarily agree with each other to at least consider supporting the idea that anyone who deceived Hillary Clinton in 2008 SHOULD NOT be re-elected, even if it means voting republican in those particular instances.

Can you be a ground zero PUMA if you don't still support Hillary Clinton? Part I.

Yes, it is a rhetorical question. You cannot be an original, ground zero PUMA unless you also support Hillary Clinton because the two are completely intertwined. You can be a conservative PUMA who has moved on and now supports Sarah Palin, that's fine, but that is not the same as being an original PUMA. (should I add an H for Hillary Clinton and call it PUMAH?)

Lets be clear here, the original PUMA movement was in direct response to the democratic elite in the party not only wanting Hillary Clinton defeated, but actually making sure their coup took place before ALL THE VOTES OF THE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS WERE COUNTED!

One only has to look to the republican leaders to see how out of line the democratic political leaders were in the 2008 election. Late in 2007, John McCain was well under 5% approval on a fox poll, it might have been as low as 2%.

John McCain clearly was not the first choice of the republican higher ups, yet the people, the people of the republican party over time chose John McCain EVEN THOUGH JOHN McCain had virtually no financial support.

The same cannot be said of the democrats, who tried to end the democratic race BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED! When a politician such as Hillary Clinton receives 50% of the popular vote even though the opposition has more than twice the money to spend and has the support of the media, the democratic higher ups, and billionaires such as George Soros, it just may lead to the formation of an independent group of Hillary Clinton supporters who call themselves PUMA's.

In Part II of this article, I'll give a simple explanation as to why the democratic party higher ups decided to corrupt their own party.