Not that I want to get into the middle of the name calling going on here, but-

Okay, a PUMA, as I understand it, is a former Hillary supporter, who is, for some unknown reason, railing against a candidate who holds the same positions and has similar if not identical policies as Clinton does on most issues, specifically on women's issues. Instead of voting based on their issues, they are threatening to vote for a candidate, or through inaction helping a candidate, that is about as polar an opposite of Clinton on women's issues as you can get without going to one of those militia compounds. This does not necessarily mean a PUMA is a woman, although it seems to be implied.

Jeb, Smith, and others, you seem to have implied here that you are PUMAs, while perhaps not directly saying so. If you really don't see yourself as PUMAs, then just take the letter's title as misleading. But at the very least you must concede that you are still somewhat anti-Obama, and still kinda pro Hillary. That I think is a fair statement.

Now, I asked you this yesterday Jeb, and I don't think you really answered me. Hillary is not going to be the POTUS nominee. And she will not be Obamas running mate, for a whole host of reasons. Perhaps you think she should, but most people don't, myself included, but that's another argument. That being said, it seems that all this muckraking and passive agressive stuff being leveled at the Obama camp is going well beyond any need for a cathartis, and seems to be outright revulsion and hatred for Obama the candidate.

And yes, before you say it, I know you get it just as hard from Obama supporters, I see it. I've done it myself a few times. But I am trying to be civil and intelligent about this, and I am not talking about them or to them right now. This is purely for PUMAs or PUMA like minded people here, and attacks on the Obama campaign.

I need to ask, again: What is it about Obama that you or other PUMAs have a problem with, because it can't possibly be his stand on issues, because they are basically the same as Hillary's. What is left other than his gender, or worse, his race?

You can't just say you don't trust him- why don't you trust him, what exactly has he ever done to give you any reason not to trust him? You want to say he doesn't have enough experience? Then you need to explain why this supposed lack of experience is really enough of a problem for you to sacrifice your ideals to another neocon administration?

Look, you don't answer to me about this, or anyone else. But what exactly can I or anyone else really conclude other than you have a problem with his gender or the color of his skin if you don't?