Holy Restless Leg Syndrome Batman... Cindy Sheehan Makes Democrats Nervous !!!

[WillyT]

"The sad Creature she has become..."

Let's just drink that one in shall we?

..................................

And I'm talkin to the people of the left\progressive and especially, the Democratic Party, of which I have been a member since 1974.

Yes... I suppose one could look at her as a sad creature. But then again, one would have had to have lost a child to a war based on lies to be able to make such a determination, no?

Or one would have had to have served a tour or two in the Hell Hole GW created after he "Mission Accomplished."

One would would have to be able to ignore or accept the fact that the current administration actually and intentionally blew the cover of one of the most important covert agents\brass plate fronts in our undercover war against the very people we are supposed to fear.

One would have to be so bereft of the rule of law, Habeas Corpus, the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, and any sense of responsibility, and common decency that they could actually say OUTLOUD, On This Board...

What a "Sad Creature' she is.

You want sad creatures???

Look at yourself in the fucking mirror!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. You know what?

I don't think she makes democrats nervous at all.

[OlderButWiser]

3. I agree...

...I think she is just making herself irrelevant.

[WillyT]

9. What Post Did YOU Stand In The War ???

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. It's irrelevant.

:rofl:

[WillyT]

16. Ya Know... It's Only Irrelevant Because There Isn't A Draft...

I missed the draft by one year in the early 1970's.

And ya know... I'm starting to think Rangel has a point. Everybody's comfort level is based on the fact that they don't think they have to go.

Funny that...

[OlderButWiser]

20. Not sure I understand

why you are asking me the question. I'm saying she is making herself irrelevant because she obviously will never be a friend of the Repubs and now she is making enemies in the Democratic Party. If you can't be part of one those two organizations it leaves you with irrelevant 3rd party campaigns.

[me b zola]

91. Understand this

That there was a political party to the left of the Democrats that was gaining a lot of power and enrollment that pushed FDR to address the needs of the people or the Democratic party would have become irrelevant. Rather than lose constituents and become irrelevant, FDR stepped up, turned left, saved the Democratic Party and created the strongest middle class that this nation has ever known.

Without a push to the left the Democratic party of the last 20 years has been pulled to the right, leaving the American people out in the cold.

All of the gnashing of the teeth regarding Cindy works against our own interests and is just silly. Let Cindy work from outside the party, we'll work within it and hopefully the Democratic Party will stop ignoring it's constituents and our needs.

[struggle4progress]

98. Ms. Sheehan's latest remarks put her far to the right of many of us

I'm all for left pressure, but ...

Income tax is illegal? Frankly, that's a right-libertarian line.
All the wars were started by Democrats? That's a rightwing line, too.

Don't p!ss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[rodeodance]

112. I agree, Those comments are bizarre to me. Yet I respect her activism and

agree she has stirred up a horrents next with those comments.

[John Q. Citizen]

120. Kind of like Bernie Sanders.....

[NotGivingUp]

135. When neither party is working for the people, it makes THEM irrelevant. nt

[w4rma]

115. Exactly. We Democrats want her to help us stop this war, not become irrelevant. (nt)

[WillyT]

4. She Definitely Makes Democrats Around HERE Nervous !!!

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. No, I don't think that's true.

She does make a lot of people nervous, I'll give you that.

[uppityperson]

22. Very good. Indeed.

[defendandprotect]

75. Just look at the long list of posts on Sheehan . . . all with a united message that she's nuts

or ATTACKING Democratic party.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Naw...just puzzled and a little annoyed.

[MADem]

14. No she doesn't. She makes them feel sorry for her. That's all NT

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

66. HEY, CINDY!!! IMPACTFUL PEOPLE WITNESS GREAT OBSTRUCTION!!!

What impactful people receive is A LOT of transference, a country's share of confusion and frustration and anger.

99.9% of the dung spewed at you has everything to do with all those throwing up their own crap, not your heart/mind/soul.

You, Cindy the Mom of a LOST SOLDIER, have no responsibility for others' weaknesses or failures or ugliness. You are responsible for your actions, all of which will always be admirable to me: actions awakening others to their own weaknesses/failures/ugliness,...but, they have to mature enough to face themselves rather than take the cheap shot and blame you.

Cindy, when you read the negativity,...remember ALWAYS where that negativity BELONGS,...and it is NOT to you.

[WillyT]

67. Exactly sicksicksick_N_tired... Exactly !!!

:bounce::yourock::bounce:

:hi:

[MADem]

76. Fine, I gather you disagree.

Read her own words. Now tell me that this woman who a month and a half ago (less, even) said GOODBYE America, my son's life was wasted, and wanted to go home and raise her family, has suddenly changed her mind, wants to challenge Pelosi AND do a sit-in at Conyers' office, doesn't need some help.

More and more, I think she's being used, I think her so-called user-friends are sucking her dry of her few remaining resources. They're probably after the money she got from the Camp Casey sale, that's why they've dragged her back into action:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525

To me, that is a cry for help. I really hope she gets some help from people who actually care about her, and aren't interested in using her for absurd sit-ins at the office of one of the most progressive reps in Congress.

YMMV and probably does.

[uppityperson]

84. thank you. Good thing to remember and well put. eom

[Madspirit]

74. She Makes Me Feel Proud. ...n/t

[robinlynne]

127. yes, irrelevant is funny considering she is the only thing these people want to talk about.

[lonestarnot]

5. They are getting a message from her that they certainly don't want to hear for some insane reason.

STOP THE FUCKING WAR ASSHOLES!

[MADem]

6. I agree with that statement.

And I can't understand why an expression of sympathy for a bereft woman should somehow be regarded as an insult, mandating a separate thread to rebut it. There's a lot of denial hereabouts with regard to Ms. Sheehan's behavior. She's a continuous contradiction of late.

[WillyT]

28. If I, Right Now, Told Everybody Here, I Felt Sorry For You... Wouldn't YOU Take It As An Insult ???

:wtf:

[MADem]

35. No, because that's your opinion. You need to stop running around trying to be the "opinion police"

IMO.

The "WTF" avatar notwithstanding. "WTF" is that people have a right to NOT think like you do. Progressives generally don't force people into robotic, lockstep stances about people OR issues.

People have opinions, and they WILL on occasion vary from yours. As to your rather loaded question, here's my honest answer: I would consider what you said, if you addressed me in a civil manner, that is, and in so considering, I'd also take into account other things I've seen you write. I'd analyze your remarks for clues as to your purpose and motivations as well.

You really should understand that not everyone thinks or feels the way you do. And that's the beauty of America--we're free to have our own opinions.

You'd probably be less stressed if you'd just agree to disagree, and stop WTF-ing and berating people for having a different viewpoint than yours. FWIW, it doesn't bother me that you have a different take on this matter. It would be nice if you could adopt the same attitude. Defend YOUR views, stop trying to shape or WTF/criticize those of others. That might be a good start.

[WillyT]

42. OK... Let's Try This Again... There Is An OP, That Has In It's Title...

"What a sad creature she has become."

Maybe you missed it. Or maybe you don't take being refereed to as "sad' or "creature" in an insulting way.

If that's the case, I apologize.

But I would take it as an insult, and I'm pretty dammed sure so would Mrs. Sheehan.

Am I wrong here?

:shrug:

[MADem]

49. It's a term. You'll have to point me to the thread for context, but no, I think

"sad creature," generally speaking, is just a term to describe someone who is unhappy and certainly not themselves. It's an expression. I am older than many here, in the past it was regarded as a sympathetic, not an insulting, term.

And I think that term, in that context, DOES apply to Ms. Sheehan. To my eye, she looks lost, lonely, upset, depressed, unhappy, angry and grief-stricken. I'm one of the people who thinks she needs to see a doctor, maybe get a little counseling. What I see on her face is that things are not right with her. What I also see by her actions is that things are not right with her.

I don't know what else to say to you. I don't agree with the 'rosy scenario, Cindy is fine' club. I think she's unwell. I think she is surrounded by assholes who 'handle' her, who hang on, and who use her to advance THEIR, not her, causes. I may be wrong about that, but that is what I think.

I hope she gets help, no one should live with that much pain.

And if that's regarded as an insult, again, I can't help that. It's not intended as one.

[WillyT]

64. OK... Read It Here, And...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1308239

I understand what your saying MD, I really do. But as the older brother of three sisters who was the only guy in the house after my father died when we were relatively young, I gotta tell ya that feminism was the Preachiness of the day, and if you called my mom, or any of my three sisters "sad creatures" ya just might end up with a fist in you gub. (I'm so proud, LOL!)

Maybe it was just the assumed condescension that motivated me to post. I dunno.

But please, read the post at the link, and if I'm sufficiently calmed down, I'll respond further.

:hi:

[MADem]

68. I think in that context, creature is closer to my meaning. The older meaning.

The "We're all creatures made by God" type creatures.

You could call Bush a sad creature too, if you were being charitable. I don't see it as a gender-specific term, to be honest.

The poster is reasonably annoyed. John Conyers has a VERY long track record of fighting the power from back in the day when that was not the simplest thing for a Black man to do. He's earned our respect over decades of hard slogging. It's inappropriate in the extreme, and disrespectful to a man who was standing up in the day when he could be lynched by crazy bastards for so doing, for Ms. Sheehan to start pulling crap at his office. Again. That stuff is just WRONG. It doesn't achieve the desired result--I swear, I see that crap, and wonder if ROVE is bankrolling the effort.

I really do think, more than ever, that someone who says that they are her genuine friend needs to sit her down and urge her to get help.

Have you read her manifesto from LESS than a month and a half ago? She wrote this, on DailyKos. It's pretty bizarre, to be charitable. She lashes out at DU in it for the comments of couple of posters--it's the "Attention Whore" Manifesto. Now, we here at DU may think we're big cheese, but we're a small percentage of the total people who know who Cindy Sheehan is and follow her activities. We just aren't THAT important in the big scheme of things, and we certainly don't all think alike, but she treats us as a single entity that regards her as an Attention Whore. Read the whole thing, at the link, but here's a clip: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525

...The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

At the end of May, less than a month and a half ago, she was saying she was going to take what she has left and go home. Next thing you know, she's telling Pelosi to do things her way, or else, and planning on pestering John Conyers?? I mean, come on. That's not being a mother to her surviving children. She has to realize that people pay attention to her words. And lately, she is a mass, and a MESS, of contradictions. She goes on, telling people she's FINISHED. Again, this was not quite a month and a half ago.

This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

Now, I am no shrink, but that manifesto has "Cry For Help" written all over it. IMO. The "Casey died for nothing" line suggests that she's starting to realize that all of this 'activity' isn't going to bring him back. It just delays the day when she has to deal with her loss.

So why won't her "handlers" let her say "Goodbye America," and let her go home to her family? And maybe get some help?

Is she the Gravy Train for them, or what? I really wonder who pays for all of her adventures--is she footing the bill for all of those people who surround her? Is she like Elvis, lonely in a houseful of "Entourage" types? I really do wonder if she's being used, because these About Faces after that angry letter of hers just do not make sense. At all.

She's pathetic, in the ORIGINAL meaning of the word (not the mean or snarky meaning)-- she is full of pathos, marked by deep melancholy, and profoundly sorrowful. I just can't understand why people can't see that she needs some kind of help.

She doesn't need to be prancing off to DC with a bunch of user-assclowns in tow. Again, that's my opinion. Others don't feel that way, and that's fine. She won't do any good for her cause, whatever it may be at this point--I'm not really sure--going after Conyers. She'll just further shrink her already shrinking groups of supporters.

Heck, maybe that's her goal--she's willfully self-destructing. I really don't know.

[Vilis Veritas]

124. I fear she is being 'handled' to use

your phrase. She has been spending a lot of time speaking to a certain Austin, Texas radio host. A notorious CT'er.

The fact that she is doing a Texas to Washington trip kind of tips the hat...

I hope she remains well and heals.

Peace

[EFerrari]

8. In order to be nervous, I think you have to have a pulse.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. In order to be a nervous democrat, they'd have to be a democrat.

:shrug:

[WillyT]

17. Well... Thank You For Sharing...

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

25. Very true. n/t

[Alexander]

72. So anyone criticizing Cindy isn't a Democrat?

That's very odd, since I read she was considering an independent third-party run against Nancy Pelosi.

I think we know who the real Democrats are.

[defendandprotect]

79. Any Democrat should be open to ideas for ending the war NOW --

[Alexander]

92. And Pelosi and Conyers aren't?

The clue phone is ringing.

The voice at the other end says, "We don't have the votes in Congress to end the war or impeach, yet."

YET.

[defendandprotect]

100. Is giving Bush more $$$$ for the war "ending the war"?????

I don't think so --

Conyers is for impeachment -- it is Pelosi who put a "STOP" on his investigations for impeachment.

Whatever the votes, keep making Bush veto legislation --

Additionally, this is an exaggeration when you may recall that when the Republicans are in the minority, then BLOCK and STOP legislation that Democrats want.

But when Democrats are in the minority, they can't seem to do that -- why?

I can also tell you that when the Democrats were in the majority -- Sen. George Mitchell was Majority leader -- he turned the Congress over to Senator Bob Dole, the Republican Minority leader.
Think about that for a while . . .

[creeksneakers2]

136. Dems did block stuff in the Senate

and the GOP has more power to block now because they have the presidency behind them.

[defendandprotect]

142. Sen. George Mitchell turned the Democratic Senate over to Sen. Bob Dole

I can tell you that because I watched that on C-span and the full course of it --

What did you hear prior to the last election except that the GOP were blocking the Dems --
and they were; they had them hog-tied.

What do you hear now ---- GOP blocking Dems.

When Democrats had the majority, did they pass national health care?

When Clinton was in the White House . . . they passed the fanatastic budget which gave us a surplus by what? one vote?

Now, I'm not saying that we should run a WHIPPED, lock-step Congress --
What I'm saying is that not every Democrat is working in the best interests of the public or the US.

Repugs, we know, of course are not --

[Turn CO Blue]

129. Cindy wrote a letter in May: Why I'm leaving the Dem Party

she has said it; she is not a Democrat.

Cindy wrote:
It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.


<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17784.htm>

[wildhorses]

2. not me

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

10. ... some Democrats.

However, some of us distanced ourselves from her when she decided to give Hugo Chavez a big body squeeze while condemning the US.

From my perspective, this is merely Cindy Phase III.


P.S. (on edit) Oddly enough, I actually embrace and applaud her announcement about considering a run against Pelosi.

[whathappened]

15. cindy is fine

she tired so hard to fast and burned herself out , climbing a hill as long as she did in such a short time just plain wore her out , now it is time to go home and get wht is left of her life back and let another take her place for the fight , this shit has been going on for my 60 years and i'm sure it will bearound long after i'm eating a dirt sandwich

[Purveyor]

18. Just by reading some of the threads on this heavily monitored by DNC forum, she's peaked somes

attention.

Cindy does have the ability to 'attract the camera'...no?

Godspeed Cindy. Smoke 'em out!!! End this illegal, criminal occupation of Irag...

[Fading Captain]

19. See, I debated this with friends

Back when she was being called St. Cindy and people selfishly catapulted her into idol territory, I told friends that the peace movement was making a mistake to start hanging on her every word, as if somehow, she'd become some sort of orator of the highest degree.

But Americans always want to celebrate the individual, and not the movement.

It's why we have Martin Luther King Day instead of Civil Rights Day.

Cindy was USED. Used by the peace movement. Used by Democrats. Used by the media.

And now, she's no longer convenient.

So she's being tossed aside and called a whack job.

That's sad.

But, of course, 15 months ago, when people were warned this would happen, they were ridiculed and called heartless, or freepers or trolls and everything else.

[knowledgeispwr]

21. Some of that is still going on...

some are still being called heartless, freepers, trolls and worse. Some still maintain that someone has to "lose a son" before they can criticize. Heaven forbid an idol be questioned.

[Fading Captain]

23. But why even question her

Don't make her an idol in the first place.
The way people kept talking about her, over and over and over and over, again, I think, gave her an overinflated view of her own role in politics.
And why wouldn't it?

Nearly everyone, receiving that kind of attention and adoration, would have a tough time keeping their sense of self-importance in check.

The lesson should be, stop making idols out of people.
And b) stop shouting down and shaming people who disagree with you.

The way people have acted in this entire Sheehan ordeal has been disappointing.

[Usrename]

44. That's a pretty shallow re-writing of history.

She asked "What did he die for?", back when everyone else in the entire country was too afraid of Bush and Rove and too afraid of being Dixie-Chicked to even look sideways at these monsters in Washington.

Who else is to be more admired than her?

Go ahead, answer me.

[Fading Captain]

50. Case in point, you've become insulting and offensive

NM

[Usrename]

58. What?

What did I say that insulted anyone?

What is offensive about what I said?

Oh, I pointed out how Cindy is a real person who has, so far, shown more courage than any other American in this nightmare?

Gee, sorry to offend people in the middle of their Cindy hate-fest.

Bad Usrename, bad!

:spank:

Gimme a break.

[PassingFair]

69. You threatened Democrats who voted to authorize the war.

An you continue to threaten Democrats who continue
to fund and support the oil grab, I mean war.

Not allowed.

No break for you.

[MADem]

95. Having differing opinions on political issues isn't being insulting or offensive.

However, accusing people falsely of board misconduct certainly isn't very nice.

[Madspirit]

78. Amusing

If you found that post insulting and offensive it's not going to be hard for us to make you weep, is it?

That was not insulting nor was it offensive.
Lee

[Fading Captain]

121. You can disagree

Without resorting to calling one's point shallow.

I could tell by the tone of that person's post that he/she was headed for a flame war.

No thanks.

Better things to do.

[MADem]

94. How has the poster become insulting OR offensive?

Those posts were entirely temperate and resonable.

Is your goal to cause a ruckus? Making false accusations is offensive, certainly.

[Fading Captain]

122. Use of the word shallow told me where it was going

Disagree with my interpretation of history. But there's no need to call it shallow. That's "pissing match" language.

[MADem]

123. Sorry, that's not offensive. At all. "Shallow" referred to your ARGUMENT.

You'd benefit from a review of the rules.

No one is permitted to say that you, personally, suck, but they are completely free to say your IDEAS suck. The poster's use of the word SHALLOW was plainly in reference to your rewriting of history. The poster didn't say you were a shallow person, simply that your historical interpretation was wanting.

If that sort of commentary is tripping your "offensive" sensitivity meter, you're in for a world of hurt here. You're completely off base with your assertion, at any rate. Again, I urge you to review the DU rules--you'll benefit from it.

[Fading Captain]

130. I am not hurt by it at all

I choose to end my communication with people when they stop communicating like civilized, polite human beings.

Someone calls my interpretation of history shallow.

They don't say where. They don't say why. And they they go on with an emotional outburst about how they feel about Cindy, yada yada yada.

Why would I respond to that? Why should I?

And now you have joined them by accusing me of rewriting history. You've offered nothing in support of your claim.

I appreciate your advice and concern for my ability to survive the perils of DU, but I think I'll do just fine.

[MADem]

132. If they don't say where or why, why don't you simply ASK those questions?

This isn't a restaurant, where a waiter serves you, after all.

If you need information or additional justification, or if you object to an assertion, the way to get responses to your concerns isn't to pout, call names and stomp off--this is a discussion board.

You aren't going to obtain clarity unless you DISCUSS the issues in question.

Quite frankly, your shallow interpretations weren't my main point, and I'm not particularly interested in discussing them with you. I approached you solely because your accusation with regard to another poster didn't meet the guidelines of the DU rules.

You say you won't respond, and you shouldn't respond, but you DID respond. With an insult to the poster.

That's not how it works here. That's all I'm telling you.

If you've been here before though, you might already know that.

[Fading Captain]

137. To be clear

I've never said he or she broke a rule.

I said he or she was insulting.

Calling a post shallow without an explanation is insulting, in my book. Hell, even if there is an explanation, it's still insulting.

And you;ve done it again, yourself: "Quite frankly, your shallow interpretations weren't my main point"

So, you have a couple choices.
Stop replying.
Reply, and tell me why you think what I said was shallow revisionism, and we can talk some more.
Or reply with more baseless critcisms or insults, in which case, I'm done with you as well.

[MADem]

141. Insulting people IS breaking a rule. If you say someone is insulting you, you are saying they are

violating the rules here.

I thought the explanation I offered above was pretty clear, again, without commenting on anything beyond what the post said. Your 'shallow interpretations' were not my main point--it's not my fault that they were shallow. And that's not an insult. You can't be glib and be angry because people don't find you profound. One more time--you can say IDEAS stink, you can't say PEOPLE stink. There's a nuance there. The first is NOT an insult, the second IS.

You need to understand that you can't dictate "choices" to me. I have plenty of choices, and the two you offer aren't on my menu. As I told you BEFORE, I am (still) uninterested in engaging you in the discussion you were having with the other poster.

As it appears that you are someone who (apparently, anyway) is new to this board, I'm giving you a bit of guidance about the rules to help you acclimate yourself here. If you've read them already, you haven't retained the information.

Again, I urge you to read them. It will facilitate your interactions with others here.

[Old and In the Way]

62. Welcome aboard!

Wise words. I've admired Cindy's willingness to be an outspoken opponent of this war and respect the moral high ground that she occupies. She's obviously frustrated at the pace of change, as we all are. I don't understand her recent, over-the-top comments about the Democratic Party, though.

[uppityperson]

24. She is appreciated but not idolized by many, still.

[Fading Captain]

33. By some, true

But watch the reactions of people when she is criticized ... it's a mob mentality.

Granted, some criticisms are unfair and unkind.

[uppityperson]

39. Criticism is different than bashing.

Why do some have to bash as soon as she is mentioned? It's a mob mentality.

True, there are those who idolize her, but most of us who support her see her as an individual with foibles. Why must someone be all good or all bad?

[Fading Captain]

40. There is no defense for people who bash her

And I am not defending that at all.

But criticism and bashing are two separate things.

[uppityperson]

43. True, and many of us are able to seperate out the Icon from the Person

Anyone who makes anyone into a Saviour is asking for trouble because to err is human. I think some want Icons to do it all so they don't have to, or are looking for the perfect papa/mama and suffer severe disappointment when a person turns out to be human. I think some are jealous, or afraid for some reason. Yes, there are things to criticize, but not bash.

[Fading Captain]

53. Agreed

And really, my critcisms aren't even with Sheehan.
They are with the people that vaulted her to some impossible status, then either a) attack those who question it or b) abandon her.

[uppityperson]

60. Madonna/whore syndrome, it is bad.

welcome to DU by the way.

[WillyT]

26. Oh C'Mon Man... You May Have A Point, But...

I would put it to you that almost EVERY mother that has lost a son\daughter in this war, or ANY war, has been faced with the time honored dilemma of sitting dutifully quiet about their child's sacrifice, and tossing the most legitimate fury-laden fit in history.

We are TRAINED to offer up our progeny for fodder. It has always been so, until the last several decades.

Cindy Sheehan attempts to put a stop to it, and I say BRAVO!

:shrug:

[Fading Captain]

38. Nobody is saying she shouldn't be an activist

All I am saying is that we shouldn't always prop individuals up as the ICONS for a cause. Once they reach ICON status, they start to cast shadows on the movement.

[RiverStone]

128. Yep - she was used alright

And ultimately, she expressed her rage and grief as she see's fit. I would never presume to ever tell a Gold Star mom how best to articulate her anger.

I may not agree with all her characterizations of the Dems party - but I give her big kudos for taking on Nancy. The same Nancy who barks, but never bites when it comes to impeachment and/or being more forthright to end Shrub's damn war.

Desperate measures for desperate times! Go Cindy!!! You speak more for me more than the wimpy party leaders who have not lead by example or action on ending the war or introducing impeachment. They have not done as advertised back in Oct of 06!

[bread_and_roses]

27. I'm with you, WillyT. I think Cindy Sheehan

is simply following the same course she has since her child died - without calculation, simply plowing on doing what seems to her to be the right thing to do at any given time.

I don't think she is particularly sophisticated about it, or - for goddesss sake, how cruel people are - "attention mongering" or whatever vile phrase I've seen used against her.

I think she's an ordinary person who's life was so blasted by loss that it simply became imperative to her to do what seemed right and logical, leaving inessentials by the wayside.

I could well be wrong, but if I am, I don't much care. Nor do I have to agree with her every action and word to see her as an inspiration. Because as a mother, when I think about what the loss of a child means Cindy's actions seem perfectly comprehensible to me. Would that more of us (I include myself) would do the same. To protect our own children and all the children of the world.

[WillyT]

32. Thank You kenzee13 !!! - And I Don't Agree With Everything She Says Either, But...

there are many here who are so worried about anything at all upsetting the 2008 Election apple-cart, that they would... oh, I dunno... trounce the mother of a dead soldier because she decided to have the guts to speak out?

Hell... who knows, with friends like these, who's to say who we might "out" once we get our way into power again.

:shrug:

[MrMickeysMom]

29. Why do people get bent out of shape when it comes to leaning on Dems?

I'm a life long Democrat, too. I don't see what Sheehan has done as pathetic at all.

What the fuck is wrong with having the kind of conviction with the Democratic leaders like Conyers? What's wrong with giving Pelosi a run if she can't step up with the most important mandate in this country's recent history? :think:

Franklin said it's a republic if you can keep it.

It takes true patriots to keep it.

[creeksneakers2]

138. Because of 2000

In 2000 we had the Green Party telling people the best way to affect change was to vote against Democrats and send a message. It ended up with Bush winning and the war in Iraq. Ironically, the message the Democrats got from the 2000 defeat was that they couldn't count on the far side of the base and had to run to the middle. 2001 through 2004 were the most spineless years I can remember. The far left was ignored.
The "send a message" strategy was a terrible disaster.

I'm amazed that anyone would want to try it again, just based on the same disproved theory.

The next time "sending a message" strategy elects a Republican we will face far worse. The Bush presidency will be remembered in the history books as "The Early Stages."

Lean all you want. Lobby all you want. Shout if you want to. But I get very upset when people try to sabotage elections.

[MrMickeysMom]

143. I could be insane, but that response doesn't make much sense

The Green Party perhaps was trying to send a message with Nader in 2000, yes, but do you understand that the sabotage of that election had more to do with voter intimidation, voter caging, Katherine fucking Harris helping to steal the election in Florida and Gore not challenging it in the Senate. Our Democratic party DID win, we just didn't fight (aren't WE fucking wimps?) There should be a clear message about what we need to do, fellow Pennsylvanian!

If the Dem's got the message "they couldn't count on the far side of the base" (where most people do NOT reside) doesn't it indicate they had bad advisors? No one can count on an extreme of any constituent. The fact that less than 50% of us bother to vote is an indication of the real problem. Stockholm syndrome, battered Dem syndrome- call it what you like, we need leaders to wake up the electorate. We've got the Goddamned number in the party, but nobody has faith in the strong party leadership.

Sometimes I feel like it would be terrific if we could leap into the future, if only for a moment in our minds. We might see how this period of time would be remembered. I would rather do everything in my power during this moment to make the representative form of government we're suppose to have do EVERYTHING for OUR interest. We have to stop this Stalin like administration and we have to do it by whatever means necessary.

[creeksneakers2]

145. The Greens love to point fingers

at everybody else for the 2000 debacle but never answer for what they did themselves. There's no getting around it, if the Greens hadn't peeled off votes in 2000 George Bush would not have been elected. The Greens said before the election that would be fine with them. They said there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore. The Greens gave the same justifications then as are being given for opposing the Democrats now. By the way, Al Gore did challenge the results of the 2000 election. He lost in the Supreme Court. The Democrats did fight in 2000. I don't think the Democrats have anywhere near the guts they ought to have, but they did fight. Whatever the Green Party did didn't solve the problems of Democrats' spinelessness.

I've watched politics and the most daring members of either party are those with 9 to 1 districts, who can count on their bases to back them no matter what.

Suppose there's no caging or voter intimidation in 2008. Its probably going to be a very close election again. Is the risk of giving the presidency and even the Congress back to the Republicans worth what little might be gained tactically if the send the message idea works?

I agree the spinelessness of the Democrats after 2000 was due to bad advisors, but also think there was no plausible way Democrats could have done anything else but run to the middle. If Al Gore wasn't good enough for the far left, who is?

I agree with your goal of stopping this Stalinist like administration and agree that very strong means are needed. I think the Democrats agree with that too. The only difference between us is the strategy to do it.

[Zomby Woof]

30. She doesn't make me nervous

She makes me roll my eyes with derision.

I do like that pic in the sig line... she looks like she is taking a big dump. :hurts:

[WillyT]

34. Wow... How The Mighty Have Fallen

Now THAT is sad.

[uppityperson]

41. that was rude and uncalled for and very insensitive. Shame on you.

On the other hand, if you can't tell being pensive with shitting, that tells me something about you.

[lonestarnot]

48. So roll 'em. But the only pic that I've seen taking a shat is that Chirpin'toff with the "gut"

feeling.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Madspirit]

81. What are you? 12?...n/t

[philosophie_en_rose]

31. Hardly.

I know her fan club likes to believe that every non-member should feel inadequate or in awe of her, so convince themselves that criticism equals anxiety rather than disagreement with her silly outbursts about taxes and democrats.

She makes me as nervous as Ann Coulter or Ralph Nader. Not very. No one has to fear Ann Coulter to note that she's ignorant. Sheehan parrots her talking points about democrats.

[mmonk]

36. Maybe here but not in Washington.

Only bush/Cheney scares them.

[bbgrunt]

37. It always takes some to martyr themselves for there to

be a change in the terms of the debate.

[TahitiNut]

45. Amen, cousin. (And I thought elephants were afraid of mice, not donkeys.)

Go figure. :shrug: (It's easy to fling feces from the cheap seats.)

[WillyT]

47. Bravo TN, Bravo !!!

:yourock:

[illinoisprogressive]

46. I don't think they meant it as an insult. for some of us we are trying to

understand why she went so far. She could have been a true and great figure of a powerful movement. Instead she took a wrong turn and has gone far fringe. She has taken things overboard. Many want her to pull back from this and retool to become a figure of respect and a great leader of a movement as she is capable of being.

[WillyT]

54. OK... Here I Go... About To Get Blasted Again... But

There were MANY in the Civil Rights Movement who plead with MLK NOT to speak out against the Vietnam War.

Thank god he didn't listen to them either.

Alright...

Post your obligatory "How dare you compare MLK with Cindy Sheehan" posts at...

Whatever Post # this ends up being.

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

80. Soooooo TRUE -- !!!

[Vinnie From Indy]

51. What I find amazing is that all of the Cindy worshipers

seem to be willfully ignoring her patently untrue slurs against Democrats going back generations. Now it seems that Cindy, for some of you, has become infallible. I personally think you should be ashamed of yourselves for so willfully excusing and ignoring her cry for help. You are doing her no favors by brushing aside her bizarre and patently untrue beliefs about history and Democrats. I take no joy in watching Cindy implode her own credibility. I wish her the very best and I hope she gets help.

Lastly, Cindy has decided to launch her political carrer based on monumental falsehoods about the Democratic Party. I am astonished that so many of you blind supporters screeching about doing the right thing and speaking truth to power would so nakedly ignore her own words of just a few days ago. Where is the truth in that?

[mmonk]

55. That's a lot to come up with and paint people with.

Everyone who supports her struggle to stop the madness or her right to seek redress with dems as well as repukes worships her or agrees with everything she says?

[knowledgeispwr]

65. That's disingenuous.

The post you're replying to was talking about a specific subset of those who support Cindy Sheehan -- those who completely ignore Sheehan's recent actions/statements and take constructive criticism/disagreement badly. That's not the same thing as all those who support the stuggle to "stop the madness." I also don't think anyone has said she doesn't have the right to petition any politician, democrat or republican.

[mmonk]

71. Fair enough but worship?

[WillyT]

56. "I wish her the very best and I hope she gets help. " - Thank You !!!

For making my point better than I could ever have hoped for.

Hats off to youse.

:eyes:

[MADem]

63. Well, I wouldn't worry about that too much, really.

The DU rules say very clearly that this site supports DEMOCRATS for elective office, and advises Third Party supporters who have candidates running against Democrats to take it to someone else's bandwidth.

If Cindy jumps into the Pelosi race as anything other than a Democrat running against Pelosi in the primary, we'll be saying "Farewell" to the Cindy For Representative in Pelosi's District Supporters. They won't be permitted to advocate for her here. They'll be pissed, but unless the rules are changed, and assuming they're enforced, as they always have been up to now, that will be the end of it.

And since Cindy issued a manifesto a month and a half ago saying she was leaving the Peace Movement and the Democratic Party, I would have to assume she does, as she said, intend to run as an Independent when (not if, when) Pelosi does not accede to her demands.

If she runs at all. I wonder if she will follow through with that. Of course, she also said she was going home to spend time with her family, but I guess she changed her mind, or something.

[defendandprotect]

82. We all need to talk about betrayal by Democrats --

Shutting off the Cindy Sheehan debate is trying to gag discussion of the "betrayals."

No -- we don't have to advocate here for third parties --
but we should not advocate against the existence of third parties.
There's a difference.

We don't know yet what's going to happen -- whether Pelosi will come around -- and
Sheehan may run as a Democrat??? It's possible.

Cindy made this move because Bush "pardoned/commuted" Libby -- all leading back to Bushco lies intended to take us to attacking Iraq for OIL and control of the Middle East.
And there was no move by the Democratic leadership towards impeachment.
Which followed their renewed funding of the war -- !!!!

We need accountable Democrats --

and we need to listen to anti-war and pro-impeachment voices --

who have their own ideas about how to end the war and STOP Bushco.

[MADem]

86. Cindy Sheehan is no longer a Democrat. She said so.

Right here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525

The DU rules are pretty straightforward. And I agree with them, FWIW.

I am a DEMOCRAT. I come here to discuss political issues with DEMOCRATS. I don't particularly want to have to wade through a boatload of incessant third party chatter and hectoring in order to do that.

My interest is the election of DEMOCRATS. In that regard, my interests and the interests of the site owners CONVERGE. They tell the third partyers who are running against Democrats to take it elsewhere.

My point, which you might not have taken, is that if Cindy Sheehan runs, as she said she was doing, as an INDEPENDENT, than anyone advocating for her against Pelosi will be shown the door. It's in the rules.

No one is stopping anyone from helping Cindy, if she runs, they just can't do it here, on a site that is dedicated to getting DEMOCRATS--not Greens, not Independents, and not Libertarians--elected.

I'm not being obstreperous--it's all in the rules. Review them, you'll see I'm not making this up.

[WillyT]

88. Well I'm A DEMOCRAT... And As A DEMOCRAT... I Might Want To Hear...

what others are thinking and saying about our DEMOCRATS, just to get a feel for whether our DEMOCRATS are keeping the good will of the people who voted for them, or whether those same DEMOCRATS are blowing it for the next election.

Anywho... that's one of the reasons I come here, as a DEMOCRAT.

:shrug:

[MADem]

96. That's fine, but if she runs as an independent, you are just going to have to hear that somewhere

other than DU.

I didn't write those DU rules. I do heartily agree with them, though. They aren't optional, either.

They have similar rules over at Kos, as well. Ms Sheehan has apparently been "troll rated" at that website.

[defendandprotect]

99. I am a democrat -- small "d" --

I vote as a "Democrat" -- for Democrats --

We are all talking about electing "Democrats" . . .
As I said, for all we know, Cindy may finally run as a "Democrat."

Sheehan is irritated with the actions of the leadership in giving new funding to Bush for Iraq.
She's irritated that they haven't reacted to the "pardon/commution" of Libby which underpins the LIES about WMD and Iraq.

There is a big "IF" you are citing in what Cindy will actually do in the future.

And I personally would not advocate for Cindy if she ran even as a Democrat against Pelosi because it would make no sense to try to take down a Democrat --

Let Cindy run as a Democrat and take down a Republican -- why not?

In the meantime, this is merely a threat to Pelosi -- perhaps just hoping to wake her up re impeachment and ending the war???

Presumably we all want the same thing --
deauthorize the war
stop funding the war
end the war NOW

and I'm for impeaching Cheney/Bush -- I'm for doing the investigations and getting the facts on the record.

[MADem]

101. Well, I am a Democrat. And this is a Democratic Party supporting website.

As is Kos.

She's not going to run as a Democrat. She's running as an independent. Unless she's lying about that. See here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

I'm sorry, I think this poor woman is very sick. She says that Woodrow Wilson started WW1, that FDR started WW2, that our party is the Party of Slavery, that she supports far-right wing income tax policy--she's all over the page. And not in a nice way, either. Her platform is, as many of the posters at Kos said, "batshit insane." Read the comments at that link--they're ready to toss her out. She was "troll rated" which I gather is not a good thing. One of the posters broke down her "platform" of sorts, from her manifesto:

The Federal Reserve is bad, scary thing
The federal income tax is unconstitutional
Woodrow Wilson started World War I
The Democrats are the party of slavery
FDR started World War II
Japan was the victim in WWII
The US should end its occupation of New Orleans
911 was a controlled demolition

Pelosi isn't going to be threatened at all by someone who first, doesn't know her history--not just a little bit, but AT ALL--and second, is since May, anyway, in the habit of writing somewhat grandiose, inaccurate and plainly delusional manifestos.

There's no polite way to say this--her commentary reads like a crazy person wrote it. Cindy doesn't seem to realize that words have consequences, and she can't change her mind every other week and keep her credibility with average voters of normal intellect. She can't ramble on about how if Nancy Pelosi only does what she says, then "balance will be restored to the universe"--that's just NOT a normal or logical statement. She's not Obi Wan Kenobe, and the Force isn't With Her. She's coming off like, sad to say, someone who is mentally ill.

This poor woman is sick, IMO. All you have to do is read her writing and it becomes apparent that she's a bit off and needs some help. People who ignore that and keep pushing her forward, cheering her on, like she's an antiwar wind-up toy, should be ashamed of themselves. And the people who are living off her money are even more dispicable. Wonder how long that cash from the land sale will last?

I just can't see this ending well for her. She needs help. IMO. YMMV and probably does.

[shadowknows69]

52. Here here

K+R

[mzmolly]

57. I'm not nervous for Democrats, I'm nervous that she is becoming

irrelevant/un-focused. That's not good for anyone who wants to see this war end.

[Yukari Yakumo]

89. Too late

See Post #59.

If she wants to do the peace movement and the impeachment movement any favors, she should just stay quiet and disappear from public view. Most of her actions and most of what she's said after the original Camp Casey has utterly destroyed any credibility she ever had. She hurts both causes by merely being associated with them.

[MADem]

93. Her lastest manifesto is, er, interesting

She says some things that are, to put it kindly, factually off the wall. I really think she is being used, and the more I read her writings, the more concerned I am for her well-being, frankly. Just a month and a half ago she was ready to leave the Peace Movement, "Goodbye, America" she said, she wanted to spend time with family and conserve her scarce resources.

And all that "we" talk sounds to me like she's got some good "friends" who are helping her spend the money she got from the sale of that patch of land by BushCoVille in TX. There is no "nice" way to put this--some of this comments she makes sound like they are coming from a disordered individual. The run on sentences, the absurd and false assertions--this latest opus is far worse than the "take ball, go home" one of a month and a half ago: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

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 especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians.

I have nothing personally against Nancy and have found our previous interactions very pleasant but being “against” the occupation of Iraq means ending it by ending the funding and preventing future illegal wars of aggression by holding BushCo accountable. Words have to be backed up by action and if they aren’t they are as empty as Cheney’s conscience.

If Ms. Pelosi does her Constitutional and moral duty by July 23rd, then I believe some balance will be restored to the universe and my organization, People for Humanity can carry on with our humanitarian projects, if she doesn’t we will carry on anyway with a campaign to run to boot. I hope this challenges other people who desire healthy political change and not temporary band-aids to replace other Democrats and Republicans who do not conform to the beatitudes of peace, sustainability and the rule of law for everybody, not just poor, or marginalized persons.

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.

I wouldn’t put myself in this if I were not serious and committed to making America a better country than we have now and holding people to a much higher standard than politics as usual. I am rested, restored to health and ready to rumble and realize that if ever there was a time for politics as unusual, it is now!

Gee, last time I checked, Hitler and Hirohito weren't Dems, were they? And she's suddenly to the right of Attila the Hun on the issue of taxes? Who's she listening to, you gotta wonder?

If you read her entire diary, you see a real change in her writing style, her comments, and the change isn't for the better. She doesn't get a unanimous "Three Cheers" over at Kos though--she gets a lot of "You're batshit crazy, " and "Don't run" and "Go away." They're much meaner over there than people are over here, frankly. She's been "Troll rated" over there (whatever that means--I gather it isn't good).

Her so-called advisors and friends ought to be ashamed of themselves. If she deconstructs, and to my view, she is well on her way, it's on their hands. I think that using a Gold Star Mother for craven, fringe political reasons is lower than low, myself.

[mzmolly]

117. I think she's listening to Lew Rockwell?

I am reluctant to believe the rumors of a love affair, but upon reading her latest rant it makes me wonder how much influence the man has over her regardless.

If you read her entire diary, you see a real change in her writing style, her comments, and the change isn't for the better. She doesn't get a unanimous "Three Cheers" over at Kos though--she gets a lot of "You're batshit crazy, " and "Don't run" and "Go away." They're much meaner over there than people are over here, frankly. She's been "Troll rated" over there (whatever that means--I gather it isn't good).

That's very sad.

[LostInAnomie]

59. I'd have to take her actions seriously for her to make me nervous.

That's the problem. Through her short sighted and poorly planed actions (chanting at newly elected Dems, short term hunger strikes, meeting with Hugo Chavez, "The Party of Slavery", etc.) it's become easy for people to not take her seriously. And, with her as a figure head it's made it easy for politicians and the media to not to take the anti-war movement seriously. We can't afford a "leader" that only serves to marginalize the movement.

[Phrogman]

61. I don't like many people, but I do like Cindy Sheehan, she's got more backbone than

the entire U.S. Congress.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Marrah_G]

114. Freeper stuff like this?

Taxes are bad
Democrats endorse Slavery
Democrats start all the wars

You mean Freeper stuff like that?

Oh fucking spare me. When someone attacks the Democratic Party they should damn well expect that the Democrats here will respond.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[MADem]

119. You might want to read the rules of DU before you go off on a poster like that

DU's very RULES don't support third party candidates who run against Democrats. The poster's non-support of Sheehan is in complete concordance with DU's views on this matter--even if you find it "offensive." Quite frankly, your trying to bully someone out of their opinion with hectoring comments like revolting, uncalled for and cold hearted is equally offensive. Bullying never works, except with the weak-minded.

This website's purpose it to elect DEMOCRATS to office. Not third party candidates. People who don't like that are, per the DU rules, invited to seek bandwidth elsewhere.

And it's not ambiguous, either.

They aren't loving her over at DKos either. She's been told she can't post campaign materials or advocate over there anymore. She wrote a rather dramatic and slightly condescending farewell note to them too, that didn't go over too well.

Again, reread the DU rules. You need first to understand the purpose of this site. And second, your comments--particularly the FREEPER remark-- are WAY out of line.

[Phrogman]

133. How ya dooin Google Earth?

Lookout! They'll lock you up in Terra Del Fuego for saying things like that....

LOL

[MADem]

134. WTF does that mean? Are you drinking? nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

109. You're against Cindy Sheehan, against impeachment and against cutting war funding.

Are you entirely certain you're in the "right" place? MKJ

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

102. The DLC trolls aka the folks who disagree with me

Ah-huh.

[Vidar]

104. If you're not for impeachment, you are an enabler of this monstrous regime.

[LittleClarkie]

106. You're either with the President, or with the terrorists

Same sort of binary thinking.

I am not the freakin' DLC, dude.

[Vidar]

107. Didn't say you were, just that you're inadvertently helping Bush.

[creeksneakers2]

140. Who is helping Bush?

The biggest threats Bush has now are Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers. Cindy is going after both of them and trying to wedge off their national bases. Cindy is working to minimize the Democratic vote. I'm sure Bush loves this. "See how you like her on your access road."

[Virginia Dare]

111. I guess you would count Mike Gravel in the enabler column then..

he says impeachment is a waste of time, as it would take at least a year of time and resources that could better be spent getting the troops home.

Things aren't so black and white, you know.

[Vidar]

131. Yes, I would.

[creeksneakers2]

139. Could you please be a little more definite about that? n/t

[Madspirit]

73. k&r...Yay You!...n/t

[OwnedByFerrets]

83. K & R

[Swamp Rat]

85. k&r

[deacon]

87. If you are for impeachment being on the table it's an example of how to

get it done. She is more mainstream that either the congress or bush. Where she is out of the mainstream is she is actually doing something about it.

[snot]

97. "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" -- R.W. Emerson

Cindy has been through hell, and I don't just mean losing her son, although that's hell all by itself. And she's a housewife, not particularly trained in public relations etc. That said, she's extremely intelligent and wise; and she's probably manged to do more than any other single individual to help turn the tide of public opinion against the war.

From my own observation, I would say it's extremely unlikely that she would be particularly subject to manipulation by "handlers" or anyone else. I mean, I know we can all be influenced; but I've seen her up close in the context of her supporters, and it seemed clear to me that she was the sun and everyone else was orbiting.

I haven't followed the details re- what she's been up to lately, but she's entitled to change her tune to meet her own needs as well as to cope with changing circumstances and follow the path that from time to time seems most constructive.

If she's being attacked for inconsistency or whatever, bear in mind that most of the media attacking her would go out of their way to make a mountain out of Travelgate while covering up high crimes and moral turpitude by Repubs. We've got to get over blaming the liberal victims for the acts of their conservative media attackers -- that's a whole 'nother issue, the solution to which has to do with drastic re-regulation and/or re-organization of the media.

The most important thing is for as many voices as possible to be raised loudly and continually against what is clearly wrong. Cindy is doing that, more than most.

I have nothing against strategic suggestions for improvement; but all humans deserve respect, and Cindy's certainly got mine.

[6000eliot]

105. If she can push these fuckers into doing what we elected them to do,

which is END THIS FUCKING WAR, then I am all for her.

[mzmolly]

118. Impeachment will not end the war. We don't have the votes we need

to oust Bush. All it will do "at this point" is alientate the Republicans we need on board to actually end the war via funding cuts.

[cassiepriam]

108. Yes, if Dems cannot do the right thing, Cindy will. We are the sad creatures.

[rodeodance]

110. I am glad she makes Dems in Congress nervous!

[Fly by night]

113. If Cindy goes after John Conyers, she needs to pull her head out of her self-important ass.

[MrMickeysMom]

144. You know, I just don't understand comments like this at all

I suppose it implies that her mission is to go "after" him, and that she is too self important. I see no evidence of either.

Whatever, dude or dudett...

[BlooInBloo]

125. Yummy! Let's also drink in that we're the party of slavery! yumyum!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

126. Tsk, tsk. How dare she question the bosses and frighten the "moderates"?.

What next? Hold the politicians accountable?

How very un-democratic.