PUMA’s are very dangerous creatures, inhabiting every state and every major city.  These predators congregate wherever sore losers are found, feasting on the blood of the ill-informed and the apathetic.  PUMA’s are vicious hunters, usually attacking from behind or underneath their prospective prey.  They are known to be afraid of 47-year-old African-American men, changing the status quo in Washington, blue dresses, and the word “hope.”  Their demeanor is characterized by bitterness and frenzy, and they have been known to attack without provocation.  If approached by a PUMA, mention the words “Iraq,” “winning fair and square,” and/or “maybe in 2012″ and they will, according to rumor and latest reports, burst into flames and be reborn again from the ashes of their vindictiveness and callousness.

The PUMA movement (PUMA = Party Unity My A**) has been a force to be reckoned with throughout both the Democratic primary and now pre-convention season, and still the question lingers:  Why can’t Hillary supporters just admit that their candidate lost, and try to mend the disastrous Democratic Party before the general election?

I’m sure that this post will add fuel to the flames of the debate, but really folks – it’s time.  The Democratic Party has been split for over a year now between the Hillaricans and the ObamaNation, and the coming convention will not help ease the tensions.

Of course, to make her supporters feel better, Hillary also will have a roll call at the convention, so that the PUMA roar…I mean, the voices of her supporters can be heard, as if the Democratic National Committee whined and agreed when Hillary supporters called “do-over’s, and no backsies!”  Oh, and lest we forget, the Obama campaign is helping to cut down her massive campaign debt – but he’s apparently still a horrible choice, what with his campaign run on $25 donations and his big smile….

It seems that the Obama camp is looking to shake hands, play nice in the sandbox, and put a Band-aid over the wounds left in the party by divisive, vindictive PUMA’s and their attack style of politics that polls have shown America is sick of. Even in Pennsylvania, a state known for its strong Clinton support, primary exit polls showed that 2 out of 3 voters said that she attacked Obama unfairly.  And yet the PUMA rage lives on.

Alright, their candidate isn’t in the spotlight anymore – but from a party standpoint, this is the perfect time to act together!  Polls across the board show distrust in the Republican Party, the failings of the current administration, and the desire to change the direction of the country.  The party has chosen, and Hillary herself has endorsed, a promising candidate ready to step up to the challenge. And still, the PUMA movement bitterly stands, stomping an icy foot at poll results, shouting “The Hill Will Rise Again!” and proving to the nation that the embarrassment of a few can and will undermine the best interests of all.

Of course, the main debate returns to Obama, in his choice for his vice presidential nominee.  The veep spot, as I call it, will need to be someone who can help unite the party, strengthen Obama’s message, and provide clear-headed advice and strong-willed support to policies in the best interest of the country.  By now, you all know that the choice is wide-open, and that the announcement will be coming soon – but for the PUMA’s out there, this announcement means their vote.

Many PUMA’s are saying that if Hillary does not win by her roll call (the aforementioned “do-overs”), and is not picked to play second fiddle (which Hillary will never play, even if she is given the role), they will either not vote, or vote McCain – that’s right, vote against their best interests, What’s The Matter with Kansas -style and hope…I mean, pray, the next four years don’t bring our country further into war, poverty, economic trouble, diplomatic chaos, political polarization and disaster.

What a sad state of affairs, to watch your country sinking and your countrymen calling for help, and punching a hole in your life raft just because you want a woman to be the one asking you to row.

We’ll find out soon enough if the PUMA’s will be happy or not, but rest assured that the damage is already done to the party and the country, and the next four years – regardless of who is elected – will be spent licking the wounds inflicted by 18 million sore losers of the Democratic process.

Frankly, I think having too many articles about the price of gas (or the price of eggs, or any prices for that matter) constitutes nothing to the issue at hand, and the end result is nothing short of a website that sounds like a whining seven-year-old girl with a skinned knee.  That being said, this is not an article about gas prices. This is an article about the American spirit.

In a fabulously mediocre article in The New Republic, Jonathon Lear “humorously” explains the rationale behind Sen. Hillary Clinton’s gas tax holiday.  Basically, as he explains it, the concept of “us and them” used in her argument for a gas-tax holiday has only a few likely rationales behind it: Clinton is serious (and therefore, seriously crazy), she is not serious (and therefore, is attempting to legislate through fear), or she is simply living in a dream world (in which case, do you really want her to be your next president?).

For those of you who have not heard of this gas tax holiday: the basic idea from proponents of the plan, like Clinton, is that our country should not collect taxes on petrol-chemicals for a certain period of time, in order to stave off some the current financial strain people are facing due to rising gas prices.  Opposition to this plan points out that gas taxes help to pay for the upkeep of the American infrastructure.  Since we have enough trouble with bridges collapsing across the country, it may be in our best interest to shell out an extra couple of bucks to keep our roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. safe.  There’s no sense in saving on gas if road conditions prohibit you from getting where you need to go in the first place.

But back to how this is not a post about gas prices: the true issue behind the idea of a gas tax holiday is the same issue that is behind the Federal Relief Fund that will be sending checks out to taxpaying Americans in the coming days and weeks.  Reports show that mass transit rider-ship is on the rise, and food banks across the country are receiving more and more requests.  Polls show that most people will either save the money from their relief checks, or use the money to pay off credit card bills. Our economy is suffering because of rising fuel costs, the exportation of jobs to foreign factories, continued military spending for the war in Iraq, etc…. but more importantly, it is American morale that is playing a major part in our economic troubles.

People are scared, and they are right to be.

That is why Clinton’s “us and them” rhetoric is so dangerous. Her attempt to appeal to scared citizens through the use of divisive, fear-mongering language is like something out of a bad, Cold-War inspired propaganda movie, where OPEC looks “red” while making a ton of green. What we need instead in this country is a hero, of sorts; no, not Barack Obama or John McCain.  The hero we need is not a person, but rather the great, unifying American spirit that has been shown to overcome all odds, from secession to depression, communism to terrorism, and just about every challenge we have faced in between. All we need is the strength to come together, and the clarity of vision to recognize that it needs to happen soon.

Maybe.

Clinton mentioned, in an interview with WMJI Radio, that she will be continuing in her fight for the nomination. With primaries in Idaho, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Montana South Dakota, and (since they cannot seem to understand the party rules) Florida and Michigan in the coming weeks, Clinton is down in delegates, superdelegates, funds raised, campaign advertising funds spent, and states won. She needs a miracle to win the nomination. So why would any opinion writer think that, against all odds, Hillary Clinton’s continued action in this race is a good thing?

Clinton, at this point in the game, cannot win the nomination by pledged delegates alone. Her chances of winning the majority of superdelegates that she needs are slim. We could speculate a myriad of reasons why Clinton is still in this race, despite the odds, but one singular truth exists: Clinton could actually help Obama by staying in.

Now, listen up all you “Obama-ians”…I agree that Clinton’s continuation in this race could be seen as divisive. Sure, it could split the party in two, and make the Democratic Party look weak at a time when it needs strength. However, consider this: John Kerry won the Democratic nomination early in the race in 2004 (in March), which led to months of open season on Kerry’s ability to lead the country. This year, John McCain effectively won the nomination on Feb. 29. Where are the swift-boat tactics now, yelling in the streets about John McCain being too old, or four more years of Bush-Cheney style government, or anything that has to do with the Maverick?

Clinton can work to resolve the division in the party by mounting a full-scale attack on McCain. Let’s be honest, Clinton fans; we know she is good at political attacks, and its fairly certain that she is not going to win anyway. Unite the party by pointing out weaknesses in the Republican machine! Clinton’s rhetoric has changed in the past weeks, from one of “We’ll keep fighting, and damn the odds,” to “Let’s make this a Democratic year.” Clearly, she sees (or at least her speechwriters see) the end of the line coming.

On the flip side, while her attacks on Obama certainly aren’t helping with voters who take any politician’s statements at face value (a tragedy in this country), she is certainly bringing up issues that Republican strategists have been reviewing for months. She is pointing out weaknesses that Obama will have to work out if he wants to become the next president. Therefore, Hillary attacking Obama (yes, divisive, I know….) actually shows Obama the holes in his arguments, and he can keep filling them with “Hope” and “Change.”

Hillary has already had her time in the White House – even bought the coordinating official White House “I’m with Stupid” T-Shirt set. The best she can do now is help her party pull down a win…right after she recognizes that she will be making a valedictory, not victory, speech.

Now, before we begin, I would like to say that I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be great, but that order is only because of alphabetical order, not because I want to Clinton as President. Frankly, I want Obama.

But, taking that out of the picture, let’s take a look at the news and let’s understand what’s going on with this whole Clinton/Obama ticket idea. On March 5th, the day after Clinton won in Ohio and Texas, she said that she would openly support a dual ticket, but said that the people of Ohio voted who they wanted on top. “That may be where this headed, but of course we have to decide who’s on top of the ticket,” Clinton said. “I think people of Ohio very clearly said it should be me.” She thinks that it should be her..

Why?

The last I checked (and I check at least five times a day as if it is going to change five times a day), Clinton was behind in delegates, the popular vote, and as time goes on, the Superdelegate count becomes more and more narrow. This week alone, two Superdelegates who had originally pledged their support for Clinton agreed that they were changing their support to Obama. Last I checked, two less Superdelegates for Clinton and two more for Obama meant one thing: they wanted Obama.

But, for some reason, she feels that Obama would make a better Vice President than a President. Now, I agree that the two working together would ensure a Democratic victory. I just don’t agree that Clinton should be on top of the ticket. And neither does Obama. In an article reported on CNN, Obama said, “With all due respect. I won twice as many states as Clinton. I’ve won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So, I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place is offering vice presidency to the person who’s in first place.”

Obama knows the same thing that I know. Clinton is in second place and yet she is insisting that she be the President. Now, I know that the news I’ve reported is a few weeks old, but in the Times very recently, there was a post in the Caucus that talked about how a former Clinton aid had created a website that insisted upon a Clinton/Obama ticket with Clinton as the President.

So, I ask once more…Why?

Obama is currently winning. As each day goes on, Clinton’s chances of winning become harder and harder. So, my question to Senator Clinton is: how can you have the audacity to offer the current leader a second place position? Now, if you want my advice, I think Clinton should back down, admit defeat, and then perhaps a Clinton/Obama ticket can occur, but instead, Obama will be President and Clinton will be Vice President. But…I don’t think everyone would agree with that.

But, I can tell you one thing…The popular vote currently agrees with that and so do the delegates. I think that’s what matters, right?

It all started on January 28, when Sen. Edward Kennedy and his son Patrick both made public endorsements for Obama. Since then, Robert Kennedy Jr., and his sister Kathleen Kennedy Townsend have both endorsed Mrs. Clinton. Even Maria Shriver, a Kennedy, has come out to express her support for Obama, while her husband Arnold Schwarzenegger is publicly supporting Sen. John McCain.

However, the most startling of all connections between the candidates and the Kennedy’s has nothing to do with the Kennedy’s who are currently alive. Connections and comparisons are being made right now between the Kennedy’s of the 1950′s and 60′s and the current Democratic candidates. While there is no perfect political analogy, the similarities exist and are striking.

As anyone who follows politics can tell you, there is no shortage of media outlets and political pundits claiming that Obama is a reincarnated, African-American version of John F. Kennedy, and the connection is not far off. Obama has very high poll numbers with young voters, as did Kennedy. Likewise, Obama claims to be an agent of change, as President Kennedy was, and has similar stands on poverty, healthcare, and education. Abroad, however, is a strange coincidence, since it was Kennedy’s administration that aided the Baath Party in gaining power in Iraq, and Obama’s goals is to end that reign of power. Likewise, both Kennedy and Obama stood for a reduction in troop activity in their respective wars.

Clinton, on the other hand, is following the same path as Robert F. (Bobby) Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy was born into a political machine, while Clinton married Bill to start her own. Both moved to New York and established residency after a year. Both went on to win a Senate seat while being an outsider. Both were loved by New Yorkers as Senators, and both started their campaigns for President and watched their popularity drop. Both were called “ruthless and unprincipled,” and were known for their intensity and vigor. Clinton also claims to be an agent of change, as Bobby Kennedy did, and both stood for minority rights and interests. It should come as no surprise that United Farm Workers has endorsed Clinton, when their founder Cesar Chavez was a proud supporter of Kennedy.

The scariest part of these analogies has yet to be seen. Both of the Kennedy brothers were brought down at the height of their popularity, and are ingrained into the American memory as martyrs of the American democratic dream. Both men died while serving our nation, in their respective fashions.

It is very bad karma, in a manner of speaking, to show this startling similarity between the Kennedy’s and the candidates, but history does have a way of repeating itself. Are we to expect that either candidate will be brought down by the actions of others? Are these two candidates, who are making history just as the Kennedy’s did, going to wither away into the American memory as an “almost” icon?

We can only hope that they shake loose the bonds of history, but with the number of Kennedy connections increasing with every endorsement and the battle between both candidates, and the Kennedy family, bad luck seems to be the only kind of luck fate wishes to bestow on the Democratic Party.

I digress. The point is that there is just too much darn money in these campaigns, and I see it hurting our country. But how, praytell, can too much money hurt a country? Most folks are of the opinion that “too much money” is a completely made-up term created by those who did not have money in the first place, or something along those lines. However, it is not the candidates that have the money, but rather the donors.

Every campaign needs donors, whether it is for the Presidency of the United States or a public school’s PTA elections. The problem with donors: there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Let’s take one of the biggest lobbies in the country: Big Tobacco. The manufacturers of a product that we know, as a fact, has no beneficial purpose, and is known to directly cause cancer. Any rational society would think, “umm….maybe…and this is just a thought, here….but maybe we should stop selling things that kill taxpayers.” However, Big Tobacco also happens to have a lot of money; money that can be used to help out a candidate, like the candidate who promises to keep our kids smoking Camel’s and our seniors on oxygen tanks, all for the quick and almighty dollar.

Welcome to the world of American politics.

But don’t candidates need the money to run successful campaigns? Signs cost money. New suits cost money. Advisers cost a lot of money. So do t-shirts, buttons, hand-wipes (since shaking the hands and kissing the babies of the nation leaves one at the mercy of the germ-gods….), food, housing, a campaign bus, gas for the bus, etc. Commercials are expensive. But what would happen if all we heard about the political process was the issues from the debates, and the articles in the paper? That cuts out all the advertising, all the buttons and t-shirts, and certainly cuts the cost of hand sanitizers dramatically.

Why don’t we do that? Simple: The American public is just too darn lazy to pick up a paper and read about the issues. We want our candidates to choke us on their ads, beat us with their signs and slogans, and eventually we end up picking the wrong guy (or perhaps in this case, girl…) for the job. It’s time to make a change.

In this country, the land of opportunity, and of equality, we are slowly watching our former republic dwindle away into a disillusioned plutocracy of hereditary hedge-fund owners and a couple of progressive idealists who are, on the greater scale, ignored.

Want to make a change? Read something. Talk politics with strangers. Save that $10 that you were going to spend on a campaign bumper sticker, and then you could eat one of the 75 million donuts with one of the 75 million cups of coffee, sitting next to your favorite new live-action hero, the Incredible John Q. Public, and know you made a difference.