mikemcc, I appreciate your thoughtful post.

Getting into the entire list of grievances that built up during the primaries will only rile people here up. My original post was directly addressing the panel in this article who were under the wishful-thinking misconception that PUMAs were some sort of GOP swiftboating plot.

I will address a few since you are surprisingly interested in understanding PUMA rather than minimizing it which has been the strategy since early June.

As far as the AUMF vote, this was Obama's key campaign issue. And yet there is a strong feeling among Clinton supporters that Obama was completely let off the hook by "saying" that he would not have voted for it IF he'd been in office. It seemed a ridiculous argument to many of us. This was confirmed after the FISA vote. It is incomprehensible he would have stood up to Bush when actually faced with that extremely tough decision.

To the contrary, Clinton's vote was seen as black and white by most progressives. Did they ever bother to read her floor speech? No. If you feel like it, read it. It may provide some context.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

More hypocrisy ensued as Obama supporters sang the praises of Biden, Edwards, Powell and just about anyone else who voted for the war, except Clinton.

As far as her "entitled" campaign, well, that was a strategic spin from the Obama campaign. John McCain is now using the same spin against him. It's obviously very effective.

But no need to rehash the whole campaign. I'll address your other questions:

I don't understand your statement that you were 'shown the door' by others within the party. Can you provide specifics?

The literal answer stemmed from an interview with Donna Brazile on CNN after the NC primary. When confronted with the possibility of Clinton voters not getting behind Obama she said, in effect that there would be a "New" Democratic party and that the party would win without its traditional base, the quote was something along the lines of "we don't need them." Big mistake.

The online battles in the blogosphere in which Clinton and her supporters were cavalierly being called racists by their fellow Democrats highly contributed to the feeling that we were no longer a part of this party and/or no longer wanted to be. As evidenced by this thread, when we raise the issues of Democracy or a fair vote, there's been a "get over it or go away" response from bloggers to party leaders. Now millions have heeded this advice.

Democracy issues:

MI and FL was a huge issue for us. Four other states also moved up their primaries: NV, IA, SC and NH. None of these states were penalized as Obama was expected to win them all. MI and FL where Clinton polled to win were set to be penalized. Obama took his name of the ballot in MI a strategic move to ensure there would be a controversy over the votes. If MI and FL had been counted in full from the beginning, Obama would not have had the illusion of a lead and Clinton would not have had the media screaming at her to get out. Penalizing states that they knew Clinton would win is widely seen as a manipulation of the system by the DNC. Now, as predicted, the delegates are being seated in full. Too little, too late.

There's also Federal investigation of caucus fraud in a dozen states. Do you see Huffpo or MSNBC reporting on that? Of course not. There will be no conclusions until after Nov.

The Suspension.

When Clinton was forced by the media and the Supers (many of whom Pelosi's PAC paid off in June) to suspend her campaign (again, unprecidented - most candidates don't endorse until the convention), the news networks instantly declared Obama the "winner" as we all know.

This is NOT historically what happens when neither candidate reaches the delegate threshold. Even in races far less close. It was a reckless manipulation intended to confuse people.

In other words, has been DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN for two months all in the name of this forced "unity." What about Democracy?

Finally: Roll Call. This is the true birth of the active part of PUMA. We found out in early June that Obama wanted to block a roll call.

This leads back to the media and the party misinforming the public.

Primary candidates ALWAYS have a roll call. Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown, Ted Kennedy and on and on... even Howard Dean in 2004 with 114 stinking delegates! A single ballot in race this close is absurd! And yet the pundits feign a look of surprise. Obama "allows" it. Unacceptable.

Historically many important nominations have been decided AT THE CONVENTION.

In 1932 FDR was 90 delegates short of the nomination and the DNC wanted another candidate (ironically from Chicago)... it took FOUR BALLOTS and he got the nomination. Kennedy was also short and it took two ballots. Yet this year, suddenly the democratic process is so threatening to our own party?

This last ruthless move by Obama and the party to control this election was the final straw.

The convention most likely will be a scripted sham instead of a real vote. But what the party can't seem to understand is their desperate attempt to control the election is the very thing that will make them lose it.

Hope this helped.

"A reality check? I'll see if I can reserve a bed for you at Bellview. Hang on. The help and the Thorazine are on the way."

Petty insults are used by frightened sheep who can only parrot the desperate spin of the MSM. You can't make a case for him winning and you know it.