Hey, help me out with this- are the people in DU. for or against Cindy Sheehan?

[Imagevision]

especially if she ran against Pelosi, (should Ms. Pelosi not end up being up for the task as the house speaker?

[az chela]

1. The ball is In Nancy's court.Lets see how many guts she has

[Cleita]

2. The democratic process supposedly lets other Democrats

run against incumbents in the primaries. If Cindy wins, Nancy is out, however, Nancy could pull a Joe Lieberman and run as an Independent, or vice versa. That's how the system is supposed to work. No candidate should be preselected nor not challenged because they are part of the establishment. It's time to shake a few other trees in our party as well, IMHO.

[WCGreen]

5. I honestly don't think that the voters in that district would thrown NP

out for a gadfly such as Cindy Sheehan...

[Cleita]

10. I think Sheehan is trying to stir the pot and rightfully so.

It will be interesting to see what occurs. I don't consider Cindy a gadfly though and I don't know why you would say that. She has been nothing but consistent in her anti-war stance and views. She doesn't waffle about what she stands for. That is no gadfly.

[WCGreen]

30. That is not what a GadFly is in this perspective...

It's an annoyance, as in that is all, I believe, she will be to Madame Speaker...

You and I may disagree, but in the end, I feel I will be right...

[Imagevision]

3. San Francisco is Sheehan's turf also...

[Hissyspit]

4. Um, false dichotomy?

What do you mean for or against? I'm for her existing. I'm against her deciding to eat a baby.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Mythsaje]

7. Ouch...

That was rather pointed.

Not entirely without merit, though.

[lvx35]

9. The thing that's frustrating is that we need to hold a line at some point.

We need to be strong and unified and stop attacking each other and our own leadership like Sheehan is doing. It was precisely this sort of rebellion from the Democratic leadership which pushed so many people to Nader in 2000, and may have cost us an AL GORE presidency, the reasoning being that AL GORE is not fundamentally different than GEORGE BUSH which in retrospect is complete nonsense.

[BuyingThyme]

11. I don't have a problem with a Sheehan-Pelosi show-down.

Actually, it's a dream come true for me. I've always been big on Cindy and way, way, way down on Nancy since before the election. From where I sit, the worst that could come of this is the status quo.

[MADem]

23. Well, you will have to do it elsewhere. It violates rule two.

Cindy Sheehan--if she even runs at all--said she's running as an INDEPENDENT, not a Democrat. That puts her in Holy Joe territory. And it also puts her outside the fold of this website.

[Skidmore]

27. I won't hold a line when our leaders enable an illegal and immoral

administration and its policies.

[lvx35]

8. Sheehan pissed me off a great deal at first, but now I have reconsidered.

It was because I love Pelosi, I think she's highly qualified for leadership, but these are also interesting times. It makes a lot of sense for me to want to see leaders without a lot to lose (like the son Sheehan lost) in those positions of power, because SOMETHING is making this current lot seem pretty fearful.

[MatrixEscape]

12. It seems, from what I have seen and read ...

That some DU'ers see her as a threat to their alliance with the party itself. In other words, like any other party member or third-party that enters into a race, she represents a Ralph Nader who steals votes from their favorite candidate, (who is also the party's favorite offering to the people). Those who are entranced by the party-line as the only choice or opposition to the other party are sure to feel threatened, and, if you take it tacitly and by superficial aspects only, they are correct. Any interlopers are only vote stealers and interfering with a solid, intact, pre-manufactured, two-party system.

What I think some DU's who take that protective stance fail to notice is that Cindy also represents something else that might be valuable and even worth consideration -- seeing how we have had a couple of movie stars enter the political arena based largely on their name, face, and acting abilities -- is that she is more like the common person, (her recent celebrity aside) than not.

While you may reasonably fault her and chide her for her lack of political acumen, it is good to keep in mind her background and beginnings. She is not of the elite, or their ruling mindset, or the schooling and privilege and affiliation to subjugating beliefs that goes with the package of money, powerful families, and business interests.

So, in that sense, she has a greater potential, both practically and empathetically, to represent her constituency. After what we have seen in the last seven years, the record of seasoned, well groomed politicians is not at ALL hard to beat. If fact, we might be refreshed by having every day people lead us.

I mean, come on now! Would you hire Jr. to run YOUR company? Well, maybe if you were out to really screw every employee you had deep into the ground and get some good profits while it totally collapsed so you could go buy an island to live on with the profits. Hey, that sounds like .... uh ... heheh.

[lvx35]

15. "money, powerful families, and business interests"

Your right what you said about that, but therein lies a major problem with Sheehan. There is now, and has been for many thousands of years, a lot more to politics than popular support: you named three such things above. If Sheehan can't get support from these power structures, she will be a complete lame duck even if she wins, with corporate media bashing her around the clock, undercut by other bought and sold politicians. The sad truth is that the current Democratic leadership has the right idea with slow moderate change, because they can actually DO it without losing power. There will be no grass roots candidate with power until we the grass roots take it, monetarily or otherwise.

[MatrixEscape]

18. Good point,

But that sounds like a vicious circle approach with no results on this end.

We saw Bush take the grass roots and turn it around with Rove's total manipulations, to his favor for the powers that be. They wanted it, he got it!

I conjecture that the opposite can be true if we open our minds to it. The grass roots can take a step towards nullifying the position you present by its sheer attempt and presence.

It today's dynamic politics, it seems that any inducement to slow, moderate change is a virtual tactic to undermine another form of opposition and render it null and void in the end. This has to be dynamic and bold and experimental in every respect.

Are we that far along that, no longer can Mr. Smith go to Washington, so to speak? Are we that entrenched in this system that we can't present an opposition that exists on its own and not only to appease the entrenched system itself? If that is the case, then why bother with the political process at all? It sounds like it is so sown up that anything we might do is merely an anticipated action that can be easily countermanded.

[lvx35]

26. Politicians just ride the waves of power, they don't make them.

that's what I'm trying to say. If we think that throwing some individual into the riptide will change the waves, we're wrong. We actually have to draw up our power and make the wave we want her to ride. Yes I support this kind of thing, but I am acknowledging that right now no such wave exists, and Cindy Sheehan alone can't create one on her own. And without that wave there is no reason to try to put her there, nor to complain about what our candidates have to do to catch waves.

So in a sense, I don't think that there is a reason to participate in the political process at all, to the extent that we are talking about just trying to get somebody into DC, and thereby ignoring our own power as individuals. I think we're at a point where politics has to get really local, really about expressing individual power through clever thought and deed. The clatter of a million keyboards isn't doing much, and we (I'm talking about myself here) need to ackowledge it.

Which is why I love what Al Gore is doing outside of politics, he's demonstrating power without the priveledge of being elected. That's the right idea that we seem to be lacking right now. But yes, I support this kind of thing, but what's really needed at this point is the plan of how to get that tsunami rolling.

[Wetzelbill]

13. I like both

Nancy is a politician, Cindy is an activist. It's Cindy's job to shake things up and stir people like Nancy into action.

I doubt Cindy has much of a shot at beating Nancy tbough, but what she has to say is important and it might be just the kick that Nancy needs.

It's not a black and white issue though. I see people trying to oversimplify it, predominantly over the war issue. Right now, I say that the democratic process allows someone like Cindy Sheehan the chance to challenge an incumbent like Nancy Pelosi, so if Cindy wants to do it, best of luck to her. I admire both women though. If they end up in a race with each other, well good luck. In the end, I care about what's best for the country, so I'd weigh them on their positions on all the issues and just decided from there.

I do know that I wouldn't want Steny Hoyer to be Speaker, and that's what you would get if Cindy won. So in a way, people who want to bring the troops home, may create an even more troublesome situation by electing Cindy, because it puts Steny in the top spot. I can't say it would play out like that for sure, but it is potentially a worse situation.

[Robbien]

14. How can you even ask the question as if everyone in DU thinks the same way

"Are the people in DU for or against Cindy Sheehan"

Answer

People in DU are for, against, don't care, don't know, and none of your business.

[Raine]

16. Good answer

and I couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

[Apollo11]

22. "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists"

It's exactly this kind of black-and-white way of seeing the world that got us into our current mess.

I will listen to what Cindy says, but I don't think she has any kind of special powers that make her infallible.

She is a citizen, and just like every other citizen she has a right to say what she believes.

I definitely respect Cindy for taking a stand against this war - and taking a lot of heat in the process.

But I also respect Nancy Pelosi for her leadership. I think she is doing a good job in difficult circumstances.

Nancy has to represent the whole House - not just the progressive caucus.

[JCMach1]

17. Why doesn't she run against a prominent CA Repug???

I will roundly condemn her if she goes through with this...

[Connonym]

19. I haven't gotten my talking points memo so I don't know the official answer

oh wait, it's the other guys who think with a script. Nevermind.

[Lasher]

24. Just follow the herd.

I think it is important for the Democratic Party to prevail, so I'll be there too.

[Lasher]

20. If Cindy ran she would not risk giving CA-08 to a Republican

Nancy has won in that district by at least 80% every time she's run, so it is highly unlikely that if Cindy ran as an independent she would siphon off enough support to throw the race to a contender other than herself or Nancy. And you would think that if Cindy did win, that she would caucus with Democrats in the House. The most important thing to me is making sure Cindy doesn't go thundering in and throw the race to some chickenhawk flat earth Republican, but it looks like that wouldn't happen.

[MADem]

21. Let's quote the DU rules for the answer to that question. It's pretty clear, since she will run as

an Independent--if she runs at all.

From the detailed link at the RULES page:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Unless Pelosi gets hit by a bus, she's the nominee. The Cindy supporters will have to rally their faithful elsewhere.

[Yukari Yakumo]

25. If Cindy does run, it'll be interesting to see what Skinner does.

If Cindy does file the papers to run, it'll be as a Independent. No primaries. She had already divorced herself from the Democrats.

Now here's the rub.

If Cindy does run, will Skinner enforce the rule? This would effectively force him to ban all mentioning of her, in all forms, in these forums. If he fails to enforce the rule, he opens the door wide open to a Freeper invasion who can claim that if he doesn't enforce the rule where it comes to person A, how can he enforce it against person B.

[MADem]

28. I can't see why he wouldn't. This isn't "Independent Underground"

I know a few people think it's trivial, but it's one of the reasons I really like this place. When the rubber meets the road at Election time, the fringe hangers on, the Naderites and so forth, have to--because of the rules--take a powder, and we aren't subjected to that "Ralph is da Man, fight the power" nonsense, or happy horseshit ad nauseum touting a hopeless loser candidate--we can get down to business, and work to put Dems in office.

It wouldn't force him to ban all mention of her, though. Her candidacy could be discussed, just like I talk about Dogshit Mitt Romney's candidacy on a regular basis, it just couldn't be "advocated." We wouldn't be stuck with thread after thread about Heroic Cindy battling the "Evil Nancy" and things of that nature.

And here's the thing about that "Fairness Doctrine" of sorts--Skinner doesn't HAVE to be fair. He could, if he so chose, make an exception for anyone and anything if he so wished. It's HIS playground, we're just here at his invitation, using his swings and monkey bars. This is a private enterprise, and if he wanted to be patently unfair, he could do it--he could even change those rules to accomodate his change in stance. And we'd not have any resort, save whining!!

[Forkboy]

29. "all mentioning of her,in all forms"

Wrong...people can talk about the race,if it happens,they just can't advocate for Sheehan.That doesn't mean that the entire topic is off limits.

I love the sudden concern for the rules here!