The "Cindinista" Movement

[Vinnie From Indy]

It is important that DU'ers realize that Sheehan has clearly stated that she is NOT a Democrat. She is NOT going to run in the Democratic primary. It also appears that she is now going to embark on a campaign to attack and smear ALL Democrats. Here is Cindy's view of OUR party:

"I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices
were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery
and were the party that started every war in the 20th
Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal
Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional)
income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not
one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent
citizens of Japan were brought to us via the
Democrats. Don't tell me the Democrats are our
"Saviors" because I am not buying it"

She is solidly establishing a pattern of bizarre and incongruent statements about a host of issues. Here is what Cindy said to the Vacaville newspaper AFTER meeting GW Bush as part of a Gold Star mother contingent:

“I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”

IN her latest diatribe she also offers this gem:

"I don't have the power to destroy the Democratic Party
as some people have written. The Dems themselves are
doing a good job of that and if they don't wake up and
distance themselves from George faster than the
Republicans are and if they don't realize that people
are more important than politics, they will go the way
of the Whigs and sometimes endings are as appropriate
and constructive as beginnings."

Her broad brush and glaring ignorance of the political process is stunning. If she decides to run against Pelosi as an Independent or Green or whatever, I sincerely hope Skinner doesn't allow her "Cindinista" followers to fundraise on this board. I also hope that Cindy gets some help. Her bizarre attacks and misplaced anger at ALL Democrats indicates to me that she needs it.

[wyldwolf]

1. If she runs third party, support for her on DU will be forbidden.

[Alexander]

32. Like support for Lieberman?

For some reason that never got around to being forbidden here.

[TheBaldyMan]

34. there was support for Liebermann ?!? Stone me!

Holy Joe always guaranteed some 'vigourous debate' but I'd say that Lamont had all the support as far as numbers and commitment goes.

[wyldwolf]

36. Yes, support for Lieberman in the general election was forbidden here.

[fjc]

2. It's a fools mission.

She'll be fodder for the news and comedians, but that is all her effort will amount to.

[blondeatlast]

4. I'm thinking the same thing. She doesn't seem yet to grasp the

manipulative powers of the media.

[William769]

3. She had her 15 minutes of fame, which was good for her and all concerned.

If she goes this route, it won't be pretty for her and if she thought it was ugly before, she ain't seen nothing yet.

[stellanoir]

5. FYI. . . She's gonna be on the Stephanie Miller show in less than 10 minutes or so.

[Elspeth]

23. Any report on what she said on Stephanie's show?

Thank you.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. In what way is she wrong?

Is it even possible on this board to discuss what she is saying, or will the apparatchiki prohibit any possible rationality of the Democratic Party's history and shortcomings?

[wyldwolf]

7. There have been many discussions on what she is saying.

:shrug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. We are discussing it now

I, for one, am fine with discussing the shortcomings of the Democratic Party.

I also believe that the greatest danger to our Democracy and our party is the river of corporate money that is needed to get elected. Cindy seems to be lashing out at everyone and she has offered no clear explanations or solutions to ANY of the gargantuan problems that face our country.

[Virginia Dare]

39. Certainly the Democratic Party is not without sin..

but to disavow yourself from the party in the year 2007 and cite one of the reasons being that they were the party of slavery is utterly ridiculous, outrageous and even laughable. Also to say that the Democrats will go the way of the "whigs" is ignorant and disengenuous at best.

I respected and cheered Cindy Sheehan when she presented herself as an apolitical grieving mother. I quite frankly didn't care what her party affiliation was, as it really didn't matter, she represented everyone who felt the war was wrong, and since she paid the ultimate sacrifice she lent the peace movement credibility and a voice.

I can understand her frustration and anger, and I also realize the urgency that she feels, but to go out and attack the best political allies that you have in your fight is illogical and stupid, sad really.

[ruggerson]

8. Her agenda is herself. She is mesmerized by her celebrity

and as often happens when not-too-bright people buy into their own publicity, they start to self destruct, right in front of our eyes.

[realbluesky]

10. I am shocked at the response to Cindy on DU

Perhaps she has said some things that may not be correct and that most on DU disagree with, but where were all of you when she stuck her neck out to condemn the war. She almost single-handedly brought the wrongness of the Iraq war to the national forefront. I believe we owe her a debt of gratitude for standing up to power and being a whipping post for the repubs.

As for running as an independent. That's her choice to make. And I understand her frustration with Pelosi. I, too, feel that Pelosi is ineffective and a complete failure as a leader. Taking impeachment off the table was an act that was so bad as to be unbelievable. Pelosi has shown absolutely no backbone, no direction, no leadership, and no character. Pelosi should be replaced in the next election. Not necessarily by Cindy, but by someone who has some intestinal fortitude.

Impeachment is not an option. It is a duty. Not impeaching is the democrats saying that what has happened over the last 6 years is okay. Impeachment proceeding should be brought against both cheney and bush even if there's no chance of succeeding. The reason is to let history record that the dems didn't just stand by and fiddle while the repubs raped the country and looted the treasury.
Let the repubs go on record and vote against impeachment and say those things are okay.

History will record this era, not as how bad the repubs were, but how the dems sat back and did nothing.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. And that's what the dems are doing...absolutely nothing.

[MuseRider]

11. Many of us were standing with her

in Texas and in other places. I know several who are with her now or just back from Texas. We know what she is doing and why she is doing it and we have respect and gratitude for her courage and unwavering challenge to the Bush** maladministration. You are not alone in your feelings but there is a loud contingent willing to take out anyone who, by going around the system that is in place, challenges the way things are done. Those of us who see the corruption in that system in both parties will support her when she needs it.

[realbluesky]

12. I appreciate your stand

I do believe, however, that the current system that is in place is THE problem.

When democrats elect representatives that do not represent them just because they call themselves democrats is very sad.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is, in my opinion, an immoral act.

Cindy is a hero in my book and should be treated with respect. When DU people castigate her for saying something that challenges the democratic party it saddens me and makes me ashamed. These are the same people who hide behind their computer screens and are afraid to step up and speak truth to power has Cindy has done.

[MuseRider]

13. We are on the same page here. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

21. Do not assume that because someone posts on DU that they are not also activists

There are good people here who have also been on the streets, although perhaps with less media attention than Cindy.

And Cindy didn't challenge the Democratic Party, she insulted it, while not even having all her fact straight.

[xultar]

22. DING DING DING! Great post.

[acmavm]

14. She almost single-handedly did no such thing. There was a

big anti-war movement before Sheehan, there will be one afterwards.

The problem is that there is just so much hypocrisy here. What she's doing is no different then what Liebermann (hateful bastard that he is) did. The difference is that she's against the war, he is rabidly pro-war.

But they're both dem bashers, two people who see themselves as being more important than they really are. And just like old Holy Joe, her shennanigans turn away more people than gain her supporters. The only hard-core Cindy fans are those that refuse to understand why her odd behavior and arrogance may suit her and her goals but sure as hell don't do much to help anyone win a national election. Her chances of winning are about as good as mine.

I'm pretty sick of Pelosi and her cavorting at picnics with bush** and her ass-backwards view of impeachment, but I'm not stupid enough or phony enough to go along with the 'anything Cindy does is perfectly okay with me' nonsense. She lost her son, she confronted bush** back before a lot of people had the nerve to do the same, all very admirable. But now she's beginning to look like she's not hitting on all cylinders.

[realbluesky]

15. You need to step back a minute

Apparently you can't remember back before anyone heard of her name. Was there any national figure speaking out against the war who was making consistent national news?

Cindy stood up. She may be flawed, but she took a stand. I do not agree with a lot of what she says, but a lot of what she says is actually true, just not palatable to democrats.

Comparing her to Lieberman is ludicrous. Lieberman is a republican in democratic clothing. He never stood up and took a stand except when it was politically expedient for him to do so. He is a pathetic loser and I am confident he will be out next election.

[Elspeth]

16. I remember demonstrations against the war before it started-- and before Cindy,

The demonstrations were large, in many cities, but they didn't get the coverage they should have. It was clear that demonstrations were not of interest to the M$M. They still don't seem to be, no matter how bad the war/occupation gets.

What does seem to capture media interest are individual people whom they can quickly make into celebrities. Cindy at Crawford became the reality show of the summer of 2005, probably because by that time it was clear that Gulf War II was not the "quickie" that Gulf War I was, and even some media types realized that a quagmire was ensuing. Because individuals in the media are just as mesmerized by the "reality show" as any other audience, they found the Cindy story compelling TV. The anti-war movement needed a voice and moveon.org gave Cindy support.

The anti-war movement is still putting pressure on Congress (now Democratic) to end the war, but people (including DUers) forget that Washington politics moves slowly, especially when the executive branch is so heavily one party and the Congress is (not so heavily) another and the Supreme Court is weighed down by neocon corporate-theocratic majority. And of course, the Senate still has that scourge Lieberman, but that is another story.

Nonetheless, the anti-war message IS getting out. We have some Republicans breaking ranks, which is what the Dems need before taking on an appropriations bill for Iraq, which they are about to do. No, it's not happening this minute, but Washington time does not always allow for instant change.

What bothers me about Cindy now is that she has done a bait and switch on the Congressional Democrats. Her campaign in the summer of 2005 and her tireless work through 2006 was about ENDING THE WAR. And that does seem to be Pelosi and Reid's focus. They have to tread lightly with such a slim majority and that powderkeg Lieberman ready to go Republican at the drop of a hat. (I think Lieberman is a MAJOR impediment, and that is underplayed at DU. We're blaming Pelosi for not getting the ball rolling, but when Lieberman is at the other end of the court threatening to stop the game entirely, the ball can only go so far.) Even so, Pelosi and Reid are pushing, small steps at a time.

But, now, Cindy is changing her tune with the Congressional Democrats: ending the war is not enough; Pelosi has to now start impeachment hearings or risk a challenge in the general election to someone who will get completely destroyed in the Washington game (should she win). Cindy is an activist: she can shout and scream and get attention for a cause and not waver. That is great for an activist. What she is NOT is a politician, and as much as you might hate politicians, they have skills that are crucial to moving 545 people to a single goal. Can you imagine Cindy's first month in office? She would be clobbered by the Washington insiders who would consider her a naive basketcase and she would be rendered ineffective almost immediately. She would get LESS done than Pelosi or anyone else. She'd be a deer in the headlights.

Cindy needs to stay an activist and not get involved in politicking. She also has to stop this unfair bait-and-switch tactic. She wanted Congress to stop the war, and Pelosi and Reid are working, behind the scenes, to get that done. Congressional Republicans are not breaking ranks just by accident. It's been months and months of shaking hands and arm twisting, and convincing Republicans that it is not in their best interest to keep this war going during election season. Yes, it's selfish self-interest and not moral clarity that is driving many Congressional reps and Senators, but either way, they are now talking about withdrawing troops and benchmarks and NO ONE is saying "cut and run" anymore.

Ending the war is on the table. It will take time, especially with the stubbornness of the executive branch and their complete lack of shame and integrity. But it will happen.

Instead of celebrating that the "radical" notions of John Kerry and John Murtha are now under serious discussion, Cindy is emotionally dissatisfied with all Democrats and has decided to attack them. Maybe it's because she feels snubbed? Maybe it's because when she met Dubya, he was nice to her. (I hear he's actually very persuasive one-on-one.) Whatever Cindy's emotional needs are, she needs to get them met without destroying the party--and the movement--that has been trying to end this war since before she came on the scene.

[knowledgeispwr]

17. Nice post...

Very well spoken and thought out. I'm especially glad that you brought out the politics aspect and how the system doesn't always move as fast as we'd like. Too many of us forget (or never knew) how the government and politics work.

[Elspeth]

20. I have some friends who have gone to Washington for different causes

And one friend who works for a Federal agency. You have no idea how difficult it is even to hire a secretary in the government!

The only comfort I can offer is that the ball may roll slowly, but it will pick up momentum.

[LoZoccolo]

19. "almost single-handedly"

No. There were protests before the war, and huge protests right at the start of the war, before people had even heard of Cindy Sheehan. She does not get all the credit.

[bluedog]

25. hugh protests in March 2003

all over the US and world....no she did not start this anti war protest by herself......

[mzteris]

35. ayuh

WIKI: There have been considerable protests against the Iraq War in the buildup to and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Between 2002 and 2005, protests were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.

These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. In some Arab countries demonstrations were organized by the State. Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.<1>

According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.<2>

Contents
1 Prior to the invasion of Iraq
1.1 January 16, 2002
1.2 October 26, 2002
1.3 October 31, 2002
1.4 November 9, 2002
1.5 January 18, 2003
1.6 February 15, 2003
1.7 March 8, 2003
1.8 March 15, 2003
1.9 March 16, 2003
1.10 March 19, 2003

2 Invasion to the fall of Baghdad
2.1 March 20, 2003
2.2 March 21, 2003
2.3 March 22-23, 2003
2.4 March 24, 2003
2.5 March 25, 2003
2.6 March 27, 2003
2.7 March 28, 2003
2.8 March 29, 2003
2.9 March 30, 2003
2.10 April 7, 2003

3 After the fall of Baghdad
3.1 April 12, 2003
3.2 October 25, 2003
3.3 June 4, 2004
3.4 June 5, 2004
3.5 June 27, 2004
3.6 August 29, 2004

3.7 October 2, 2004 (THIS IS THE ONE CINDY TOOK PART IN)
3.8 October 17, 2004
3.9 November 30, 2004
3.10 January 20, 2005
3.11 March 19, 2005
3.12 June 21, 2005
3.13 August 6, 2005 to August 31, 2005
3.14 September 24, 2005
3.15 November 4-5, 2005
3.16 March 18-March 20, 2006
3.17 April 1, 2006
3.18 April 29, 2006
3.19 August 9, 2006
3.20 September 21, 2006
3.21 September 23, 2006
3.22 October 5, 2006
3.23 November 3, 2006
3.24 January 4, 2007
3.25 January 10-11, 2007
3.26 January 27, 2007
3.27 March 11, 2007
3.28 March 16, 2007
3.29 March 17, 2007
4 See also
4.1 General anti-war
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
7.1 Specific demonstrations

[Alexander]

33. When she went from a grieving mom to attacking "Zionists" and Democrats...

is when she lost me.

Sheehan has no one to blame but herself.

[Doctor Panacea]

37. Agree

I agree, realbluesky. I hate all this manufactured antagonism toward someone who is really a hero in trying to protect America against the criminal Bush administration.

I just this minute turned Air America Radio OFF when that fool Lionel started bashing Cindy again.

Please, Air America, give us Sam Seder back and send Lionel down the crapper.

[ieoeja]

41. "manufactured antagonism"

Yes, you caught us. We are just pretending to be angry at her for calling us the "party of slavery". Truth is, that doesn't bother us in the least bit. In fact, I believe Skinner's motto is, "Democrats: the Party of Slavery and War".

:sarcasm: for the impaired; you know, the sort who believe we are faking our antagonism.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Not only does she need help, but her co-dependent proper-uppers are exploiting her.

She needs to learn how to deal with her situation and get the kind of progress that she wants to see in the world constructively. The things that she has been doing have not been in that direction. I think she needs some therapy to work out these issues.

But instead, she is surrounded by people who reinforce outlandish behavior, and egg her on by paying for it.

[MasonJar]

24. I am a democrat (yellow dog type) and I hope Cindy does not become the

next Nader. I admire her greatly, but the 08 election is too important to mess around with. We simply cannot survive if another GOPer gets the presidency. I am not as upset with Pelosi as some of you. I am, however, glad the the pressure is being kept on her.

[michael.098762001]

26. Cindy, the Paleo-Conservative

>...The Democrats are the party of slavery
and were the party that started every war in the 20th
Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal
Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional)
income taxes...

All talking points drilling into Young Republicans and Libertarian Free-Market Capitalist Ideologues.
Cindy has been dating Lew Rockwell, a Right-wing libertarian social conservative. Check out his website.
Remember Bob Dole in '76 saying all the wars in the 20th C. had been, "Democrat wars."? Abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank and the income tax are views of the furthest right-fringe of the GOP.

[Vinnie From Indy]

27. Exact;y!

Sheehan's own words reveal her complete lack of political skills, knowledge of history and understanding of the need for good government. She has serious problems and she will undoubtedly be swept aside as irrelevant and unbalanced should she continue making such outlandish statements and vicious attacks against ALL Democrats.

[MrPrax]

42. Not sure about all

of the wars...but pretty damn close.

Oh you don't HAVE to be right wing to criticize the democrats -- you can easily do it from a left wing advantage point. ;-)

[demgirlamerica]

28. ummm

i think she is showing she is sincere. she didnt align with us to bash bush, she did it because she thought our leadership would end the war and impeach bush. too many of us put party first, and our independence second. i always saw sheehan as a lunatic. i cant support her, but i dont condemn her either.

[ProudDad]

29. Ain't it time for a flame bait rest?

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:


No recommendation -- let it die, folks...

If you want a Cindy Flame-fest, it's already been done, just go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3365802

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheBaldyMan]

31. could you provide sources tfor those quotes please

without them it does look a bit suspect.

[NaturalHigh]

38. Pelosi should point out...

that we feel sorry for all mothers who lost a child in the war (or in any other circumstance). However, despite our sympathy, that doesn't mean that Cindy Sheehan isn't an absolute nut who has an addiction to publicity.

My sympathy for Cindy Sheehan remains. Any respect that I might have had for her once is gone.

[Jed Dilligan]

40. You know what? I hate being in this party.

I've been driven here by a neocon agenda too evil not to resist and forced by expediency to lay down with corporatists, drug warriors, globalization gurus, and other forms of scum.

I am waiting for ANY third party to provide a reasonable alternative. Cindy ain't it. But the idea of opposing her because of how she feels about a PARTY is pathetic.

[KurtNYC]

43. Ahh, name calling

Sandinista ---> Cindinista. I would say that is clever but it isn't.

It is a weird analogy which makes you a Contra. So you get your funding from the basement of the Whitehouse? You organize death squads? why would anyone want to use such an analogy.

I think we would do well to organize around causes and goals rather than people and personalities. People are flawed and can be torn down but causes are either right or wrong. And on my scorecard name calling is pretty much worthless.

[Vinnie From Indy]

44. Not so fast!

OK smartyboy!

I would have preferred another word to Cindinistas, but I couldn't find one to rhyme with batshitcrazy.

As for your point about worthless endevours, I think my name calling pales in comparison to Sheehan's public attacks on the ENTIRE Democratic Party. I would assume that you also deplore her calling Democrats "the party of slavery"? How worthless will it be to spend money and time supporting a woman that intends to split the Democrat votes in Pelosi's district using vicious untruths and falsehoods about OUR party? Feel free to keep contemplating your navel while rome burns, but I refuse to.