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.