This from taylor marsh-McCain came with policy talking points and a goal. Our guy better get a debate drill sargeant in and do some work, because so far there’s no evidence he’s going to best McCain in them

Duh, are you just figuring that out TM?

I am going to be blunt. Your letter was not helpful. I couldn’t disagree with you more. I’ve copied many Puma letters and they all have several things in common. They promote our message and come from the heart. Even if it is grammatically incorrect, it is more important for us to promote our cause.

I disagree with your idea that I am only speaking for myself. Puma Pac, JustSayNoDeal, and others, all came together because we were disgusted with Obama and the DP. Two months ago no one in the media had ever heard of Puma or 18 Million Voices.

I stand by my comments about Gergen’s remarks. He implied that Hillary’s voters in WV and KY were racists. He took one stat from exit polling and labeled these voters. When a commentator implies race, I also think of class differences. There were other parts of the polling describing Hillary’s voters as well educated with upper incomes.

My last two paragraphs were not rambling. Obama’s flip flops, Hillary’s name as the VP, and others definining Obama are political cultural events that are unfolding daily.

What good is it to write a perfect pitch letter if Obama becomes the President? WE NEED TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT NOW!

This nation is one week away from nominating the scariest and weakest Democratic nominee in recent history. Your focus should be on defeating Obama and not another Puma’s grammar or letter.

I read your letter to the CNN ombudsman. More power to you for taking that initiative and writing a very thoughtful letter. You expressed a lot of ideas beautifully and I may rip off a sentence of two if you don’t mind for my own future writing!

If you plan to use that letter as a template for future letters, I have a couple of uninvited suggestions, if you’re interested:

1st paragraph: The more accurate, the better. Instead of saying “The other night…” see if you can actually pinpoint the date.

2nd paragraph: The way I’m hearing your argument, it sounds like a contradiction. On the one hand you’re asserting that Americans like to make up their own minds, while at the same time highlighting media bias. My feeling is that if Americans like to make up their own minds, media bias shouldn’t matter. But that’s probably a very subjective thing i.e., the way it strikes me own logic. But, my perspective is that the media impacts how people think because of the information it disseminates. Therefore, if the media doesn’t do it’s job by remaining objective, the public receives imbalanced reporting that subsequently may result in shifts in public opinion one way or another. Also, just a grammatical issue: I think you’ve used the word “bias” when it should be “biased”.

3rd paragraph: Instead of referring to the RBC meeting as “famous”, I’d at the very least refer to it by name.

4th paragraph: I would refer to Hillary as Senator Clinton as a sign of respect. Secondly, I think your argument is a little confused. First you state the media citing of racism playing a part in he WV and KY primaries. Then you concur that voters (and I would have said some voters) acknowledged that race did play a part. Then you cite education and income stats as if educated and/or well off folks can’t be racist as well.

5th paragraph: Needs a bit more work honing your idea. First, I think a message is always most powerful, credible and honest when it comes from an individual when you speak for yourself. You can’t truly make blanket statements re: how Clinton supporters and/or PUMA’s have voted in the past. I also think that saying “…we have no choice…” weakens your argument. Stronger to say what we have chosen instead (but I think that’s also very subjective). The sentence: “This cause is also against the Democratic Party” is a huge statement that comes a bit out of nowhere and could probably be better stated and explained. Finally, the last argument in this paragraph is false. Superdelegates are not obligated to vote in any specific way, including how their constituents (if they are elected officials) voted. Even Senator Clinton was trying to point that out during the primaries, particularly when Obama started to pull ahead of her.

6th paragraph: By this point, the letter is starting to feel like it’s hitting too many issues that are starting to come out of nowhere. It’s far into the letter to raise an entirely new issue and as a result it felt like you were starting to ramble a bit. If you want to bring up lots of stuff, best to consider listing what you’ll be covering in the opening, introductory paragraph. Then, as each issue arises in the letter, the reader has a reference point. Also, the third sentence is not grammatical. In general, I felt like you became less articulate as the letter progressed, perhaps as your emotions rose and your fingers got tired! Overall, this paragraph is a bit all over the place with sentences that could use more attention. The fourth sentence is one example. And, again, since the letter is from you and not PUMApac, I’d stay away from language like “us” and stick with “I”.

I think “The President…” should be a new paragraph and it’s worth saying The President of the United States.

Finally, I would consider a summary paragraph, which needn’t be long.

I hope my uninvited comments don’t offend you. I took the time to print your letter and write this precisely because I could see not only how passionate you were in writing it, but that you were taking care in how you were crafting your arguments. Please consider my comments an enthusiastic round of applause to prod you on in your writing endeavors!