Cindy Sheehan: "Leadership Void"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27666

Leadership Void
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-10-12 17:53. Cindy Sheehan
By Cindy Sheehan

“They are advocates. We are leaders.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in regards to “Anti-war activists.”

People of America, this is truly the problem with what was once a Representative Republic and now is a country run by “elected” officials who believe that they, individually and collectively, are above any accountability and are not answerable to their constituents. Our public servants erroneously believe that they are the leaders!

Ms. Pelosi made this statement to a group of reporters at a luncheon recently and she also went off on activists who have been participating in vigils outside of her chi-chi home in the Pacific Heights district of San Francisco. The people who are vigiling outside her house regularly, in a Pelosi Watch are only exercising their rights as American citizens to make their concerns known to a Rep who was elected from a district that is wholeheartedly against the occupation of Iraq and for impeaching the liars who got us into the illegal and immoral situation.

No, Ms. Pelosi, you are not a leader. You have proven time and again in what you laughably believe is a “mistake” free run as Speaker of a Democratic House that you will do anything to protect an Imperial Presidency to the detriment of this Nation and the world, particularly the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This Democratic Congress supported BushCo’s disastrous and deadly surge; handed him over billions of their constituent’s tax dollars to wage this murder; have by their silence and votes countenanced an invasion of another country; approved more restrictions on the rights of the citizenry to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure; Ms. Pelosi does not even know if “torture” (which violates international law and the 8th Amendment in our Bill of Rights) is an impeachable offense; and worst of all the impeachment clauses were taken “off the table” in an ongoing partnership with BushCo to make the office of the presidency a Congressionally protected crime conglomerate that is rapidly sending this Nation down a crap-hole of fascism. So, Congress has led us to a few things: war, poverty, oppression, unemployment, and an inexplicable continuance of the Bush Regime.

- snip -

I cannot speak for every Democrat, Independent, Green or disenchanted Republican (and there are many) in America, but the consensus from my travels all over this country is that we put Democrats back in power in both Houses of Congress to be an opposition to the Bush Regime and to stop the annoying “bobble-headed, rubber-stamping” approval of all things criminal and murderous. We did not wish to keep heading in the same direction but desired to go another way, which would have required the Dems to finally step up and forcefully counter and stop the high crimes of BushCo. They have failed.

MORE

[Kolesar]

1. That was poorly written and that first paragraph was atrocious

[BuyingThyme]

3. It was? How so?

[Kolesar]

5. A run on sentence with indecipherable clauses

[BuyingThyme]

7. Let me know which clauses you're having trouble with and I'll explain them for you.

[Kolesar]

9. It occurred to me that it reads like John Kerry talks

[stimbox]

96. LOL

Let me know which clauses you're having trouble with and I'll explain them for you.

:spray:
:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. A run on sentence with indecipherable clauses

Sentence fragment

[babylonsister]

11. She's a GOLD STAR MOM, not an English teacher. So what? nt

[BuyingThyme]

13. It's neither poorly written nor is it a run-on.

[babylonsister]

16. It just annoys me when people pick on the writing instead of the content.

There are some here determined to slam her for whatever reason.

[cali]

69. Just out of curiosity; what did you think of her

comment that the income tax is unconstitutional, or her statement that the democrats started all the wars in the 20th century but Gulf War 1, or that the democrats are the party of slavery?

[SidDithers]

85. Those questions are conveniently ignored...

by the "Cindy speaks for me" crowd.

Sid

[Gravel2008]

166. Pure facts, plain and simple.

Except maybe she could've said WERE the party of slavery. I'd like to see you try and deny that. Back in the mid 1800s I would've been a hard-line abolitionist Republican, but maybe you would've been of a different persuasion?

[proud2BlibKansan]

89. And many of those jump to Hillary's defense anytime they think she is being attacked

Can we say double standard?

[cali]

124. You could, but you'd be wrong- at least about me I'm defending Cindy in this thread

strongly, and I was well before you showed up in it. I don't like bullshit accusations or name throw at Clinton, and I don't like crap like Sheehan being associated with Lieberman. That's called consistency not a double standard.

I'll criticize Clinton on things rooted in reality, and the same goes for Sheehan.

[proud2BlibKansan]

134. I wasn't talking to you Cali

But glad to see you notice when I arrive in a thread. How sweet. :)

[cali]

136. Well, seeing as you've insisted

that I'm one sidedly defending Clinton, and falsely claim that I support her, and as you've bitched about how I "attack" Sheehan, I just wanted to take the opportunity once more, to point out that you're wrong.

[proud2BlibKansan]

138. When did I accuse you of attacking Cindy?

[Elspeth]

21. True. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm no fan of Cindy, but her sentence was ok.

[Kolesar]

23. In the second paragraph, she refers to "this statement". Which statement is "this statement"?

The material in the first paragraph is Sheehan's writing, not Pelosi's words. So why is she referring to Pelosi saying something in the first paragraph?

AfterDowningStreet needs to provide her with an editor.

[BuyingThyme]

39. Look here --> ""

When you see words between quotation marks, it usually means that somebody previously used those words. In this case, all you need to do is read Cindy's letter from top to bottom to figure out from where the words came. That's the secret to good reading: Top to bottom.

Let me know if you need any more help.

[Kolesar]

43. those were my quotes, not Cindy's

"This statement" is in the first sentence of Cindy's second paragraph. She seems to be referring to some statement in the first paragraph. I read it three times and determined that it was stylistically poor.

[BuyingThyme]

51. You're not paying attention. Please concentrate:

Before you read what you've referred to as the "first paragraph," you need to read the stuff that comes before it. Top to bottom, remember? We covered that in the previous lesson.

Now, if you use the top-to-bottom reading strategy, you will find this right before the section which you have dubbed the "first paragraph":

"They are advocates. We are leaders."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in regards to "Anti-war activists."

So, now what you have to is apply these words to the subsequent words. Always remember: Top to bottom.

P.S. I just realized that it's quite possible that your computer is not displaying the quote because of a character incompatibility issue with your browser. If that's the case, I apologize.

[Kolesar]

53. I thought that was the title and the "speech" starts after the italicized text

thanks

[bluedog]

25. to be precise

Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP) was established in late 2004; Sheehan started this group.......different than
American Gold Star mothers....just to be precise

[proud2BlibKansan]

90. She is a Gold Star Mom who started Gold Star Families for Peace

Just to be precise.

[Zandor]

128. Well, that's more impressive than Speaker of the House

:sarcasm:

[Ghost in the Machine]

140. It's more impressive than anything you've ever posted

No sarcasm here, just facts...

[proud2BlibKansan]

162. Are you really comparing losing a child in a needless war

to being Speaker?

Tell me you aren't. Cause that's just too cold.

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. dupe

[conscious evolution]

103. You know how it is

When they can't refute the message they have to attack the messenger.

Boy I wish I lived in pelosi's district.I would write in Cindy for congress during the Democratic primary election.

[lateo]

14. So she doesn't have speech writers.

Who are you to criticize anyway?

[Zandor]

47. I can't write, but send me to congress

:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. If you can't write, then why are you always writing things here on DU?

:shrug:

[ixion]

17. It's not Hemmingway, but it's not that poorly written, either

I think her point comes across very clear, all things considered.

[Beelzebud]

100. And your posts are just poetry...

[SergeyDovlatov]

161. Good cause. Bad writing

[QueenOfCalifornia]

163. BwahhhAAAAaaaa

That is your problem with this letter?

Come on.

Who the hell made you the arbiter of what good writing is?

Just sayin'.....

[ooglymoogly]

167. Is that you miss Mc Giver.

Now don' be too hard with that ruler. After all we are not running a finishing school here.

[babylonsister]

2. 'We have the responsibility to hold both parties responsible.' AMEN, Cindy! nt

[Zandor]

41. Yes, the GOP and fruitcake independents n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

154. BTW Cindy...

When was the last time you pressured the RePugs?

Almost every time Cindy opens her mouth, she unloads her entire arsenal on the Dems, but barely pays attention to the RePugs.

Me thinks someone's priorities are screwed up.

[bvar22]

155. Not really.

The Republicans have never represented "The People", and its really a waste of time petitioning Republicans to adress the problems of the common people.

Democrats, on the other hand, are supposed to represent regular Working Americans, and I would expect them to be available to hear our problems. Now Nancy has declared that Democrats don't represent the little people either. :shrug:

BTW: I guess you missed that whole deal where Cindy camped out in the ditch in front of Georgie*s house?


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[QueenOfCalifornia]

165. i heart u

[BuyingThyme]

4. !kciK

[NeedleCast]

6. "Chi-Chi" home?

Of all the things that Pelosi does that warrent questioning and maybe even attack...is this the best Cindy can come up with?

[BuyingThyme]

8. This must be the first time you've read one of Cindy's letters.

You'll be relieved to know that she addresses many, many issues.

Let me know if you have any more questions or if there is anything else I can help you with.

[Kolesar]

10. Where do the girls in Pink go when they have to go to the bathroom in Pacific Heights?

[EFerrari]

That's a good question. I know that several of Nancy's neighbors

have been very supportive of those vigils. :)

[bluedog]

44. I hear they were moved out

and are now sitting in front of another neighbors house..I read this at freepland.......

[EFerrari]

45. I'm on that Code Pink list and haven't read that but

I am behind on my reading.

[Kolesar]

52. They get on the cell phone and call in a "Code Yellow"

Someone drives her to McDonalds.

[EFerrari]

57. Thank you for contributing to this discussion. n/t

[Zandor]

58. !

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

99. Do you read there often?

[bluedog]

116. not really

but its amazing what you find on that site........

[stimbox]

102. A bluedog in freepland?

Say it ain't so...

[NeedleCast]

12. Nope, I've read plenty of them

and this is actually one of the better ones because it's not an insane rant. Still think the "Chi-Chi" house reference is childish and petty.

Sorry if I'm poking your sacred cow.

[EFerrari]

31. That's what the right wing does. They attack the sanity

and the position of the speaker, not the argument.

[NeedleCast]

46. Shouldn't that be attackable?

Attacking the sanity of the speaker is by no means just limited to the right-wing. Left wing does it often enough to, we just tend to agree with the people doing the attacking in those cases, no?

Yeah, I think some of Cindy's past rants have been rather insane, or, at the very least, poorly thought out. We've beaten the whole "party of slavery" thing to death though, I think. Like I said upthread, there's plenty of arugments to be made about the job Pelosi is doing. I don't think she's quite the devil in sheeps clothing that some want her to be, but that doesn't really matter. I agree with several of the points Cindy made but, as is often the case, she can't resist making some silly, childish attack against Peolosi's "chi-chi house." To me, petty insults like that take away from her argument.

[EFerrari]

54. The RW pretty much branded attacking the sanity of their adversaries.

Gore, Dean, Kerry, Hillary, Dennis, etc.

And sure, attack that. But it doesn't forward the discussion to avoid the issue and attack the speaker.

Cindy is right. Pelosi is not a leader, she is a manager and a bad one. Who knew. I didn't know.

And the remark about her house is fair given that Pelosi decided to mourn the fact that Code Pink couldn't be arrested as she could have HOMELESS PEOPLE arrested for breathing on the sidewalk outside her home -- a sidewalk which she mistakes as her personal property, by the way. Who knew Pelosi was so comfortable with criminalizing poverty?

But, what do you expect from someone who calls her constituents "outside agitators"?

Frankly, I'm so profoundly disgusted by Pelosi, I should just hide all Pelosi threads just as I started to hide this one. That was my mistake.

[NeedleCast]

67. It works. Dems should try it more

Fight fire with fire, yeah? Okay, maybe not. Not really on topic anyway, hehe.

I've questioned Cindy's sanity before because hey, if some mad-man in an alley were saying something I happened to agree with it doesn't make him a credible source.

I'm no huge fan of Pelosi, but I think she's done a fair job with what she has to work with. I think some of you had expectations that are above a level that Pelosi (or anyone else) is capable of producing and that in some ways, you've set her up for failure. As someone pointed out a few days ago, there's a long list of things Pelosi HAS done since becoming speaker. Yeah, I'd like to see the war over and the troops home, but I don't think that's going to happen while G-dubs is in the house and in terms of political operating proccedure, I don't see how Pelosi can change that unless she can line every single one of the other Democrats up behind her. As Will Pitt pointed out a few months ago, politics, for better or worse, is a game of tit-for-tat. He even posed a question then: How?

Your disgusted with Pelosi because she didn't fulfill your expectations, but how high did you set the bar? What political candidate could have met your expectation? Do you think Cindy would be able to pull off what Pelosi doesn't seem to be able to?

I don't.

[EFerrari]

73. I am disgusted with Nancy Pelosi because of her unblinking

elitism.

You don't know this, but after one of my family members went homeless, I've worked many years advocating for the homeless in my city.

Her statement is unconscionable and more than disgusting.

Make yourself into a pretzel trying to pin Nancy's failures on me or on Code Pink or on whatever. That's your privilege. But we will continue to insist that our representatives REPRESENT us. That's their job. It's not our job to collaborate with their idiotic and destructive attempts at policy while our kids die, while they bilk us for their advancement and while they solicit our support WHILE they try to marginalize us.

I hope that is as clear as possible.

[Zandor]

74. Her statement was sympathetic to homeless people

If it had been homeless people, they'd have been arrested...she was pointing out that homeless people are dealt with harshly.

[BuyingThyme]

76. Her statement was intended to exploit homeless people in hopes

of diverting attention from her atrocious behavior.

[Zandor]

78. She was saying homeless people would be arrested

and protesters allowed a pass.

Her behavior aside, it's still hard to see how it was a swipe at the homeless.

[BuyingThyme]

79. The homeless have absolutely nothing to do with it.

[EFerrari]

83. That's the thing. I could have gone to those vigils but didn't.

It just felt bad to me. It felt like there should be a different, less intrusive way to handle this.

But, after listening to her say that she wishes those people could have been arrested just like homeless people are arrested, f#ck me. If CP goes out there again, I'm there.

[Zandor]

84. She didn't say that

You're twisting her words to create intent that wasn't there.

[NeedleCast]

86. It's clear

and I'm not attempting to pin your conception of Nancy's failures on Code Pink, or you, or anyone else. What I am pointing out is that many of you act as if you expected Pelosi to become speaker, wave a magic wand and we'd all go back to farting rainbows and dancing in flower-covered meadows. That's not how it works.

I agree with you that Pelosi can come off as elitist and I think I've refered to her as a shrill bitch on more than one occasion. I just think you and others set impossibly high standards of what she (or anyone else) would be capable of without a sweeping majority in the house/senate.

[EFerrari]

88. I have been incredibly patient with Nancy. A search of my posts

will show that.

[Zandor]

15. What has Sheehan-Lieberman ran besides her mouth?

She turned on our party.

[BuyingThyme]

18. Oh, you're a member of the Endlessly Fund the Iraq War So More People Die Party?

[Zandor]

19. No, I'm a Democrat n/t

[againes654]

22. Don't forget the Iran war drums he has been pounding

[Zandor]

26. Nope, agressive Hillary-style diplomacy

is my desire.

[againes654]

28. So you are totally against a war with Iran?

Edited to add: or do you just support ANYTHING that Hillary supports?

[Zandor]

34. How incredibly obtuse of a question

Few if any Democratic presidential candidates would make such a statement, and neither would I.

[againes654]

38. Well I will

I DO NOT WANT WAR WITH IRAN, AND I WANT TO END THE FUCKING OCUPATION IN IRAQ.

How hard is that to say?

[proud2BlibKansan]

106. So I take it you also favor 10 more years in Iraq?

Will you be enlisting soon?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Kolesar]

27. that's bullshit

I know she lost her son, but only a convoluted triangulation could pin that on the Democrats. Sorry

[lateo]

32. O Rly?

Maybe you were asleep when they voted to give Bush the ability to start a war.

[Kolesar]

36. "voted" " to give the ability"... that's like Colin Powell's highly couched language of qualifiers

it's bush's war

[MH1]

40. Bush said he already had the authority.

He would have invaded even if the IWR hadn't passed. But with Lieberman, Nelson and a couple others, it would have passed anyway; and if more had voted against it we might have been down a few more seats after the Nov 02 elections.

Do you REALLY think Bush wasn't going to invade unless Congress told him he could? And remember, Congress told him he could, only if he did certain things first. Which he didn't do.

[cali]

75. You do know that the majority of the dems in the House voted

against the Iraq War Resolution, right? And 22 dem Senators and 1 indy, voted against it in the Senate. So I suppose you could stretch things and say that dem Senators as a group had some responsibility, but you can't do that re the dems in the House- and that includes Pelosi.

Bushco has the lion's share of blame when it comes to the death of Casey Sheehan.

[Zandor]

80. And it set conditions to be met, it wasn't

a declaration of war.

In a sense, it was an attempt to constrain Bush or at least require him to meet certain standards.

[cali]

87. Oh no you don't . It was AUTHORIZATION with wide latitude

to let bush go to war. I strongly suggest you read Senator Leahy's speech on it. IMO, it was the best of the anti resolution speeches given.

[Zandor]

92. Bush didn't meet the conditions outlined

He blew off the resolution. It may have worked had he lived by it.

We didn't know Bush like we know him now.

[cali]

104. Tell it to Senator Leahy, 22 other Senators and 133 dem reps

From Leahy's floor speech:

The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress . . . Many respected and knowledgeable people–former senior military officers and diplomats among them–have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I. We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war.

There's much, much more in that speech, some of it scathing towards Senator's like Clinton

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. And what has Hillary and Nancy and our other Dems done

to hold him accountable for blowing off that resolution?

[Zandor]

113. Pressuring him to shorten the commitment

One is actually running for President. Wonder how far Sheehan would get.

[proud2BlibKansan]

115. Yeah that pressure has really worked hasn't it?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Zandor]

118. More than Sheehan's

People like Pelosi are real players. They are in the game. Sheehan is a pretender with no relevance.

[proud2BlibKansan]

123. Tell that to the 12,000 people who went to Crawford

to support Cindy in August 2005.

Pelosi may be in the game but she is doing a piss poor job of playing it.

[Zandor]

127. That was a long time ago

Sheehan has marginalized herself since then, in part by turning on Democrats.

[proud2BlibKansan]

131. As a proud supporter of her work for peace

and a friend, I can assure you she turns against war and anyone who supports it. And I can assure you she still has a rather large group of supporters.

[Zandor]

I wish you well

We want much the same, just different approaches.

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. I want our troops home and I want no war on Iran

You support a candidate who will leave our troops in Iraq and continue funding war in our name.

Hard to tell what you mean by wanting the same thing. :shrug:

[Zandor]

150. I want the same

But I don't believe the withdrawl can be immediate. I don't want war with Iran, but stating it can never happen under any circumstances is dishonest, IMO.

[lateo]

135. It doesn't matter how many of them voted for it.

Enough voted that it gave Bush the power he needed to invade and occupy. And since then what exactly have they done? Nothing...not jack shit. Except allow this unholy war to continue.

[cali]

137. Your ignorance and blithe disregard of the facts

doesn't make for a convincing argument.

[lateo]

156. By all means...

Show me where I am wrong...you consistently have one lining comment that are bereft of information to the contrary.

[Carolina]

110. EXACTLY

many forget the the Dem leadership and many in the party gave Bush moral, legal and political cover with their yea votes on IWR 5 years ago this month!

They enabled and they have blood on their hands!

[bluedog]

29. that is not called for....he died because he re-enlisted

and knew the possibility he would be shipped to Iraq.

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. No he didn't

He was told he could be a chaplain or a mechanic and stay stateside. He didn't want to burden his parents with college tuition so he re-enlisted.

BTW, any luck on the names of those Sheehan supporters who think she will become speaker if she beats Pelosi?

[bluedog]

121. nope forgot where I read it.....

but it sure seems like some on this board think so,,,like she'd do abetter job than Nancy.....read between the lines.....

[proud2BlibKansan]

130. And some of us understand WHY she is running against Pelosi

while others are too busy nitpicking her writing and making false statements about her supporters and her son.

[Yukari Yakumo]

153. That makes... no sense.

Once you finish your first enlistment, you still get the GI Bill upon a honorable discharge.

There was no need for him to re-enlist to get college tuition.

[Zandor]

30. Bush's war

But just keep attacking Democrats, Sheehan, and we'll have real peace with another GOP prez. :sarcasm:

[MH1]

37. That's a perverted twist of history.

Suuuure...it was DEMOCRATS who ordered the military to invade Iraq....

Suuuure...it was DEMOCRATS who ignored the pre-9/11 warnings and allowed it to happen, to create a casus belli for the war....

:eyes:

[lateo]

49. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

[Carolina]

117. Bush and HIS enablers war! They're equally culpable

This week marks the 5th anniversary of the Congressional vote granting ... Bush unprecedented war-making authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing... As a result, the responsibility for the deaths of nearly 4000 American soldiers, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the waste of over a half trillion dollars of our national treasury, and the rise of terrorism and Islamist extremism ... rests as much in the hands of the members in Congress who authorized the invasion as it does with the administration that requested it.

...remember this: the October 2002 resolution ... had the support of the majority of Democratic senators as well as the support of the Democratic Party leadership in both the House and the Senate.

Seven of the 77 senators who voted to authorize the invasion ... are now running for president. While the Republican candidates remain unapologetic, the Democratic candidates have sought to distance themselves from their vote, arguing that what is important ... is not how they voted in the past, but what s/he would do now... Such efforts to avoid responsibility should be rejected out of hand... No reasonable person... could have supported the resolution authorizing the invasion five years ago ... the tragic consequences of a U.S. invasion of Iraq and a refutation of falsehoods being put forward by the Bush administration to justify it were made available to every member of the House and Senate...

Some ... who voted for the war resolution and their supporters have since tried to rewrite history ...were alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others ... that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict and related problems...

Therefore, claims by Senator Hillary Clinton and other leading Democratic supporters of the war that they were unaware of the likely consequences of the invasion are completely false... members who now claim they were “misled” about Iraq’s alleged military threat fail to explain why they found the administration’s claims so much more convincing than the many other reports made available to them from more objective sources that presumably made a much stronger case that Iraq no longer had offensive WMD capability.

... those members... who supported this resolution believed, or claimed to believe, that an impoverished Third World country, which had eliminated its stockpiles of banned weapons, destroyed its medium and long-range missiles, and eliminated its WMD programs more than a decade earlier, and had been suffering under the strictest international sanctions in world history for more than a dozen years, somehow threatened the national security of a superpower located more than 10,000 miles away.... that this supposed threat was so great that the United States had no choice but to launch an invasion of that country...

...This shows a frighteningly low threshold for effectively declaring war... As a result, support for the 2002 Iraq war resolution is not something that can simply be forgiven and forgotten.

by Stephen Zunes
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/10/4445 /

[Virginia Dare]

59. That's a "party of slavery"--esque statement.....n/t

[Marrah_G]

60. That is bullshit and you know it

Take your right wing "it's all the dems fault" memes elsewhere.

[martymar64]

164. Not all Dems, just some.

There are many that voted against it but the Dems that voted for it were probably hoping for a quick victory to cover their vote for enabling war. But we know the war hasn't worked out that way. Many of them have seen the error of their earlier positions and votes. Other like Lieberman, etc stand by their votes or just try to fog the issue with double talk ( the non-answer answer)
Those are the ones that need to be exposed. They do no credit to us as a party.

[Elspeth]

33. How do you equate Sheehan with Lieberman?

Lieberman was voted out by the party rank and file but supported by the top of the party structure and was returned to the Senate.

Sheehan has never been voted in by the rank and file (and probably won't) and the top of the party structure will have nothing to do with her.

These are two entirely different cases. The Lieberman election was a betrayal by the upper echelon of the party apparatus. Cindy's non-starter candidacy is only a small, personal act of rebellion that isn't going anywhere. Lieberman is an absolute scandal. Cindy is, at this point, just sad.

[Zandor]

35. Agree to a point

but they are both traitors to the party. Birds of a feather.

[cali]

77. Traitors to the party?

Just puke. I hate the way people throw around the word traitor for anyone they disagree with or don't like, as if it were confetti.

[Zandor]

82. Sure are

How in the heck aren't they traitors?

[cali]

91. self delete

high school stuff.

[cali]

94. It's sleazy to associate her with Lieberman

Lieberman can be characterized that way because he was a long servig dem, who when defeated in a primary, turned around and ran against the man who beat him fair and square as an independent. Sheehan was a dem voter, not a major figure in the party.

If you can't see the difference, you're being deliberately provocative and trying to slime her by associating he with someone DUers can't stand.

And I know that's what you're doing. It's high school stuff

[Zandor]

95. She is opposing a Democrat

Geez, look back at your own posts...party of slavery, etc. Any Democrat should be repulsed by her.

[cali]

108. You didn't address ONE single point in the post I wrote to

which you're responding. And no I don't like her comments, and I disagree with a great deal of what she says, and I strongly dislike the rhetoric she uses, but I recognize the good she did, and the loss she suffered and I don't refer to her disrespectfully, or call her names.

[Zandor]

114. I see Democrats called lots of names

Not always comfortable, but that's DU.

[cali]

122. you're a hypocrite. You don't like it when people name call

people you like, but you have no hesitation doing it yourself to people you don't like. And you still haven't addressed the points I made, or what Senator Leahy said, that points to your bullshit about the IWR.

[Zandor]

126. Nobody like 'their people' called names

but it is rough in here during the primaries.

Lieberman is doing more damage electorally simply because he had the power. Sheehan would be doing the same damage if she had the power. And she is using whatever influenece she has to tear down Pelosi.

You seem to want to give her a pass because she can't do as much damage as Lieberman. Her intent is the same.

[cali]

129. I don't give her a pass.

But I have no objection to her speaking her mind or running against Pelosi. And Lieberman has caused such incalculable damage, not to a party, but to a nation and the world, that even to compare him to her, is ludicrous.

[Zandor]

133. Huh?

You have no objection to her running against Pelosi but are up in arms about Lieberman running against Lamont?

Frankly, I wish they'd both ride off into the sunset. Maybe we can agree on that.

[Beelzebud]

101. You're a traitor to rational thinking... Get a fucking clue.

Equating Sheehan with Lieberman?

[Zandor]

107. That would be Sheehan

You have a tag supporting a third party candidate.

[EFerrari]

98. There are hundreds of people in Pelosi's district

that had the opportunity to disagree with your assessment last Sunday.

Cindy was at our impeachment action. She looked rested and ready to roll. That crowd didn't find her sad in any way. My regret is that she isn't challenging Pelosi as a Democrat but, that's not up to me.

It was a beautiful day on the beach and I'm glad I got to chat with her before the whole crowd knew she was there.

[cali]

120. ahem. Most dem Senators and Reps supported

Lamont after he won the primary. Just saying.

[ConfidentialStatus]

141. She turned on our party

And now she's (Cindy) being a true Patriot by fighting for our country in a peaceful way. However Joe is another story.

[bonito]

160. Ahh

:wtf: Are you smoking?

[Zandor]

24. "a country run by “elected” officials"

What, Pelosi wasn't elected?

What has Sheehan-Lieberman ever been elected to?

[cali]

81. It's really creepy for you to refer

to her that way. I'm not a fan of Sheehan's, but she can be criticized without being totally and grotesquely rude and disrespectful of that. She is deserving of credit for standing up to bushco and focusing a much needed light on the travesty of this war.

[Zandor]

42. A child can write better

than that first so-called sentence.

[Kolesar]

48. Cindy's chapter on the press in her last book was super-boffo. You'd have enjoyed it.

Well, you would have appreciated it. She busted the stenographers for the president and had a story you just "have to hear" about how Anderson Cooper retailiated against her. It was an excellent read! A bit profane, but, I can deal with that. I picked it up in the library and was transfixed.

I think she had an editor or a ghost writer helping her.

[EFerrari]

I've met Cindy. We all need editors but she sure doesn't need

ghost writers.

[me b zola]

55. if you can post the same attack against Cindy 10 times in under a minute

...I will give you a prize. Hurry!

[Zandor]

61. She couldn't spell 'cat' if you gave her c-a-

How am I doing?

[me b zola]

142. That's a start!

Now, just repeat that 10 times--quickly!

[Forkboy]

149. When you can do so let us know.

[Marrah_G]

50. This should not only be locked, but deleted.

A badly written attack piece by a non-dem against a Democrat has no place on DU.

Let her campaign bullshit be printed elsewhere.

[Zandor]

56. Third party candidate opposing a Democrat n/t

[atreides1]

62. Freedom of Speech

As long as you like it!

[Zandor]

64. Private site, support of candidates against Democrats prohibited n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. People are "supporting" what she said, not necessarily her candidacy.

[LittleClarkie]

145. We shall see if the mods see it that way. Maybe if she hadn't mentioned the woman she's running

against by name.

[BuyingThyme]

63. Then most of my posts should be deleted.

[LittleClarkie]

146. You're not running against Pelosi. And you don't advocate for Cindy's candidacy in most of your

posts, do you? Then why would you be deleted?

[BuyingThyme]

171. I'm taking the Fifth.

[bluedog]

72. some known blogs don't allow her

rants to be posted......since she decided to run against a Democrat

[LittleClarkie]

147. Kos for one, I think.

Here, I think they'd be allowed as long as she wasn't talking about Pelosi by name. That's the down side of running against the woman.

[backscatter712]

170. IIRC, Cindy GBCW'ed from Kos.

Technically, she's still welcome to post there if she wants to. Kos himself did ask her not to directly shill her campaign against Pelosi on Daily Kos, but she can post on other things.

[backscatter712]

169. No. Deletion should not be used that way.

IMHO, post deletions should be reserved for one of three things: Freeper disrupters (as in actively trying to disrupt discussion here at DU,) spammers, and legal/public safety issues (threats against the President, addresses of kids broadcast to encourage harassment, etc.)

Unpopular or annoying opinions don't qualify, IMHO.

The mod's privilege of post deletion should not be used for Stalinesque purges. Deletion should be a tool used very infrequently.

[The Question]

65. Yeah

She's with the 9/11 Truth Camp now too

[EFerrari]

66. Welcome to DU.

[Zandor]

71. 9/11 Truth Camp? Maybe "loon" isn't a stretch n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. How dare she hold our "leaders" to account?!!?? You'd think they work for us.

Shameful of Cindy to think that people might have a say in their government when it's run ever so nicely by the professional politicians. Why they've promised to end the war by 2013,.... maybe,... if they have the votes,...and we don't need the bases in Iraq for a war with Iran that they are willing to sign on to.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

112. I sat with Pelosi's senior staffer here in SF and got lied to in July.

He said, we are going to let Bush hang himself. I asked by what mechanism this would be achieved and he avoided my question.

Nancy hasn't held a townhall here in over a year -- when the last one she held was an unfortunate accident between her antiwar constituents and her self.

I don't know what else to say. We have been sold so far down the river, a paddle won't help us.

Have to take a walk now.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[proud2BlibKansan]

125. Hissy, thank you for posting this but

I don't see the point in sharing Cindy's blogs here anymore. Those of us who really are interested in what she has to say can easily get on her email list or go to any of the numerous websites where her writing is praised instead of picked apart. Even though I think the majority of DUers are supportive of Cindy and her work for peace, her blogs here just seem to bring out those who dislike and ridicule her.

I just spent time reading the obnoxious comments posted by global warming deniers on a local blog and I swear they aren't as hateful about Gore as many DUers are about Cindy. :banghead:

[LittleClarkie]

148. Some are indeed hateful, I will grant you. Some merely critical

and some others just critical of the occasional action but not the whole package. I personally don't like it when I see them being lumped together and/or told that since Cindy lost her son that they have no right to say what they think. That's usually what I'm doing in these threads, defending people's rights to criticism without being called haters.

However, there are those who really do have a pretty big bug up their butt about her, and I've said something to them too when I thought they were over the top.

[EFerrari]

158. I tend to agree. This doesn't seem to be the right venue

and it will only get more problematic when the campaigns really start up.

[LittleClarkie]

143. I wonder what she means by "elected" officials

in quotes.

Surely she doesn't think they were all elected erroneously.

[Speciesamused]

144. BRAVO to those activist camped

out side her home. What a great way to tell her she
needs to shit or get of the pot..

[Kajsa]

151. OK, I'd like to hear what Cindy's plan is.

She didn't cover that at all.

Isn't she running against Pelosi?

Every since Cindy came out with the tirade against
Democrats, ( party of slavery, started EVERY war
in the 20th century( which is wrong), etc, etc.)
I can't support her.

[LittleClarkie]

152. She doesn't need a plan if she doesn't think she can win

She's sort of like Dennis. She's just there to have an effect on the debate, not because she thinks she can win per se.

[unkachuck]

157. thanks, Cindy....n/t

[salib]

159. Cindy has the courage of her convictions

What could be greater in a Democracy?

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

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