Cindy on with Randi now

[LSK]

http://208.109.219.101:8000/live

Also talking about DU.

[NightWatcher]

1. we do need to "step up to the plate"

she felt pain from what some people here had to say about her.

Let's watch our mouthes DU.

[corkhead]

5. Doh! Randi just said that the "Democratic Underground" called her those names

not some idiot poster

[NightWatcher]

8. self delete

[corkhead]

21. I disagree. One of the things I like most about DU and Democrats in general is diversity of opinion

we're not koolaid drinkers. I don't agree with the "attention whore" comment, but others are entitled to post their unpopular opinions, IMHO.

I think EVERYONE is overreacting.

[gollygee]

33. I agree!

I like Cindy and have always supported her. I'm glad for all the work she's done. But not everyone has to like her. Not even everyone here has to like her. We have a wide variety of opinions, and that's a good thing.

[GenDem]

44. I think diversity is good and essential...

but is there any among us that are pro Iraq war? I think not. I just can't fathom anyone on this site going after a grieving mother that took on the Bushies almost single handedly. Criticizing Cindy Sheehan just seems like nit picking and eating our own.

She will always be the face of the Iraq War peace movement, and for that I will always hold her in the highest esteem.

I don't think it's overreacting when a DU post seems to be the straw that broke the camels back. If we can't unite about this war, what the fuck can we unite on?

[drm604]

20. This needs an immediate response.

"Democratic Underground" didn't say anything about anybody. Some posters on DU said those things. Randi should know better than to state it that way.

[onenote]

25. Randi should know better -- so why would she say such a thing?

[gollygee]

28. Well then she's not being fair

I like her and support her. But she can't expect all the people of any particular group are going to. The only person we probably all have a very similar opinion about is GWB. Short of that, there will be some disagreement. It isn't fair for her to say DU as a whole called her that.

[Beaverhausen]

2. Randi saying "democratic underground trashed you"

great. :eyes:

[devilgrrl]

4. Apparently, that is indeed the case.

:-(

[Beaverhausen]

7. not the whole website- a couple of posters

geez, you'd think she'd know democrats don't march in lockstep by now.

[devilgrrl]

11. All it takes is a few.

I agree with you btw.

[WiseButAngrySara]

46. Can you support this with archived links? Because CNN

attributed the 'media whore' comment to a RW site.

[devilgrrl]

54. No, I can't I missed all the excitement over the weekend..

ask someone else.

[WiseButAngrySara]

70. So did I! Just catching up. TU! ....n/t

[LSK]

6. well if you see certain threads today

From a select few...

:eyes:

[Cha]

27. Not our administrators..not most

of our members! Important distinction!

[devilgrrl]

3. She's trashing the DU trolls...

bwaaahahahahahahah. Assholes! :nuke:

[devilgrrl]

9. Gee whiz, she's so craves attention!

:sarcasm:

[helderheid]

10. THANK YOU

[derby378]

12. Is anyone from DU getting on the phones?

Jam the lines, jam the lines, jam the lines. Let Randi know we support Cindy so this bullshit comes to an end.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. Did anything come of this??

??

[LSK]

50. I have heard no callers supporting DU yet

[Nikki Stone1]

56. Damn!

:mad:

[johncoby2]

13. Unfortunately, this is Cindy.

If you dont agree with her 100%, she bashes you.

I am real supportive of her, but I have my limits too. I wish she had attacked the Rs who wouldnt over ride the damn veto of W instead of trashing our Ds in the House.

She has passion, but she lacked focus, and effective focus.

So, now she bashes DU as a complete entity.

my 2 sense.

[Mandate My Ass]

16. Project much?

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. She did attack the Republicans!!!

Repeatedly for a long time BEFORE she criticized the Dems.

Sheesh. The misinformation here is just mind boggling.

[johncoby2]

30. See what I mean?

Attack the easy ones.

[LSK]

32. you mean the ones who had ALL THE POWER until Jan 2007

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. No I don't see what you mean

You posted something that wasn't true and I corrected you. Your response makes no sense.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Ahem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00t8TbYizI0

(My message for Ms. Sheehan)

[WiseButAngrySara]

72. IMO, you were one of the reasons. ....n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. Really?

Cuz I haven't said anything about this whole mess until this thread.

Zero.

So, it's a strange opinion you have there, or a strange version of causality.

[jtrockville]

14. Two million people in DC.... WHERE WERE THEY?

Randy said we could have made changes if two million people showed up in DC. If Turkey can have a million people at a protest, why can't we?

[Fleshdancer]

15. Casey would have been 28 yrs old today if he were still alive.

As a parent I can't comprehend. I just can't. :cry:

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. This retirement is becoming a Barbara Streisand farewell tour...

[BuyingThyme]

19. That's about right. Particularly in that it's the same truth-hating

people who are attacking her.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Ah, the turnaround

Nicely played.

The Babs fans especially will love it...:rofl:

[Balbus]

26. Yeah, she sure is getting a lot of "attention" since her retirement announcement...

Oops! No he din't!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Dang, son

That's foul.

:rofl:

[Fleshdancer]

38. She just announced yesterday which was holiday

It's not far fetched that AAR personalities would want to talk to her today :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Aw, c'mon

I kid Cindy. I do.

[EFerrari]

57. Was that really necessary? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. Probably not

But it was sufficient...

[helderheid]

18. Happy birthday, Casey.

:cry:

[herbbrown]

23. Does this mean that Randi will give

Ralph Nader another shot after Cindi bashed the Clintons and their DLC ilk for keeping us in this endless war? Some on the DU will bash any great American to gain power no matter how hypocritical it may be.

[Individualist]

35. Damn the DLC!

The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler.

[dardango]

37. Cindy's Wakeup Call

Last week's crappy performance Reid, et. al, and now Cindy's statement should be a friggin wake-up call.

For as much blood, sweat and tears as progressives and liberals have given, we've got a million miles to go. IF we are to have any chance of achieving real change, we must start learning to work together.

We can have all the blogs, talent and ideas in the world, but unless egos are put aside and people focus on the big picture, it is a total waste.

Everyday we are reminded that the fascists who are taking this country down have added another piece their puzzle, while we bitch, argue and insult each other.

Put simply we need to wake up and get our shit together and find some kind of way to unite, because time is running out.

To quote Tom Petty, "It's Wake Up Time..."

Thank you, Cindy.

Dar



DemocracyInteractive.com

[welshTerrier2]

39. a real black eye for DU

i'm not saying it was deserved but Sheehan's comments and Randi's reading of them were a real black eye for DU. no, the "a.w." comment was not representative of DU. in poll after poll and thread after thread, Sheehan has received extensive support from the DU community.

nevertheless, a black eye.

i would love to see a couple of rules changed around here. maybe it's inappropriate for me to write this and the mods will choose to delete this post. i'm OK with that. this isn't my website. i care about this place though and this is solely my opinion. i say it to help; not to criticize.

DU has to strike a somewhat awkward balance in its rules. First, we should certainly stand for free speech. It is certainly not reasonable to expect so many people from so many different backgrounds to agree on everything in a political forum.

But, DU was never intended to be "totally public." Since its founding, DU has had an agenda. Paraphrasing from my recollection of the rules (sorry, too lazy to look it up), we are expected to be progressives AND we are expected to support Democratic candidates. Oh, what a conundrum that can be!!!

Most of the "banning" enforcement seems to focus on those who are either right-wing intruders or are just plain obnoxious to other posters. I think we can safely say good riddance to them. But when we tip-toe into the waters of real progressives and support for Democratic candidates, the water gets murky in a hurry. I'm afraid this dynamic tension led to today's black eye.

I have no problem at all with anyone criticizing Cindy Sheehan's TACTICS. But to paint her dishonestly as not being committed to her cause, our cause, is not in my view adequately progressive. Or, at least in leveling these criticisms, it seems incumbent on every poster to at least acknowledge the importance of ending the occupation of Iraq. Posts that solely trashed Ms. Sheehan without clearly demonstrating progressive values, a DU mandate, should be deleted and perhaps the non-progressive authors should be banned.

I appreciate the tolerance on DU for a wide range of opinions but it seems to me we have to decide who we want to be when we grow up.

Which brings me to perhaps a more sensitive topic: the business about always supporting Democratic candidates in the general election. I have a much tougher time with this one. On one hand, we're inviting trolls if we were to dismiss this rule. Anyone and his uncle could post here claiming to have such admirable progressive credentials while they trash Democratic candidates. Sorting out real progressives from frauds would become next to impossible. But what leverage do we really have if the Democratic Party pulls stunts like this last idiocy over Iraq funding. It was a criminal betrayal of all we fought for and all we valued. If it continues, does DU really want to enforce rules that require posters to march in lockstep behind such treason? Are we banned from using our votes as leverage if we want to continue posting here?

DU emerged out of the darkness of the 2000 election. Many are still very sore from Nader's third party campaign that some see as having cost Gore the election. FWIW, I never thought Nader should run. So, the point is, I'm sensitive to the origins of the "must support Democrats" rule. I'm not entirely clear I'm arguing to do away with it. But, in the end of ends, should I be deprived of posting privileges here merely because I believe the best way to effect change in the Democratic Party is to withhold my vote? I'm not saying that's something I necessarily plan to do; for now, it's a hypothetical. This isn't intended to make a case either for, or against, third parties. It's intended to simply ask what's wrong with insisting that my own party has to be held accountable when they so badly betray the values I deeply hold.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Great post - lots to think about

Yes, I have a hard time supporting Dems who support the war.

I can't stomach the DLC Dems here or anywhere.

And today, I am enjoying the IGNORE feature! :)

[herbbrown]

42. yea but what is a Democrat?

Is Joe Liberman a Democrat? To me Ralph Nader stands for a truer Democratic ideal than about four/fifths of the so called Democrats now in office. What about that Steny Hoyer; the war mongering Democrat? Cindy was out of line with quite a few in the Democratic party.

[welshTerrier2]

45. trying to understand but ...

i'm not really clear what point you're making. please elaborate.

i don't get too invested in who does or does not call themselves a Democrat. My post was focused on the impression DU has made (perhaps unfairly) across the online progressive community. And my post was an effort to explore the DU mission and what role our rules play on realizing, or obstructing, that mission.

[Robbien]

43. This site allows both centrist/moderates and Progressives

In my opinion, these two groups are not friends.

It is why there are many problems here.

[welshTerrier2]

47. from the rules:

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

That's the rule I referenced in my post. I don't disagree with you that DU has permitted "centrist/moderates" to post here. My point is that I think there's a difference between moderates and progressives (if we must use labels) and I was questioning whether we should more strictly enforce the rules by banning those who are not supportive of "progressive ideals." One can certainly argue that moderates could still be progressives; one could also argue that they are not.

[herbbrown]

62. I think I agree with you

I'm on the progressive side of the street, but I don't think you can stop moderate points of view coming in here. It's just that because someone says or belongs to the Democratic party means nothing. I don't think you can stop anyone at all on a forum without squelching free speech, and I certainly don't agree with Cindy or Randi (super ego) Rhodes for going after DU and calling them out, that was unfair especially on Rhodes part. She knows better how forums work. Best you can hope for is that the true believers come out and police the forum. Getting back to Rhodes, ever since I heard her go ballistic on Patti Smith for having an idea that was foreign to the Democratic line I've never trusted her. I don't know if you listened to the next segment, but by the end of it she was taking credit for the anti-war movement as well as telling us what a swell deal we got on the minimum wage, she's a windbag, bully. As far as Cindy goes I couldn't respect her more, she's been knocked down from every side and still did wonders, we all owe her a debt of gratitude.

[LSK]

49. the Progressives have always had the upper hand here

At least thats what I have observed.

[Robbien]

53. There really is no upper hand

there are more progressives, but the moderates are a very aggressive bunch. And the money in on the moderate side of the Democratic group.

[welshTerrier2]

59. so is the corporate money. n/t

[onenote]

51. exactly how do you define who is a progressive?

Let's stipulate: Dennis Kucinich is a progressive. So much so that he wouldn't even support funding with a timetable. But many here were supportive of the effort to enact a timetable and were upset that the Democratic leadership didn't push even harder. Are supporters of that bill "not progressive"? What about someone who demands an immediate pull out, but is supportive of gun owning. I don't think that person is particularly progressive with respect to the latter issue. How do we decide if they qualify or not?

There are lots and lots of issues and from what I've seen, there about as many opinions as there are DUers.

Frankly, a discussion group where everyone was required to agree with each other would be a waste of space imo.

[welshTerrier2]

58. it's not for me to define anybody

the DU rules say we are expected to support "progressive ideals". I'll leave it to the admins and mods to make an assessment.

i would suggest, perhaps, that those not critical of the Dems recent vote to FUND MORE WAR AND OCCUPATION are not progressives. of course, that's just my opinion.

[onenote]

63. then it doesn't sound like any change in the rules is needed

The rules say we're expected to support progressive ideals and its up the admins and mods to make an assessment.

[welshTerrier2]

65. i was merely pointing out that ...

i think the rule about "progressive ideals" has long been ignored when it comes to Party moderates.

just my two cents; certainly not my call.

and the question about not supporting Democrats in the general remains unaddressed as well.

[onenote]

69. well, I suppose you can start alerting every post that you don't think is progressive

And hope that the admins and mods have the same view of what is a moderate as you do.

I still think limiting DU to threads in which any posts expresssing a contrary point of view are deleted because they are "moderate" would pretty much destroy any value DU has.

[welshTerrier2]

71. i have no intention of alerting on posts by moderates n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

78. "Centrists" and "Progressives" would be a perfect match,...

,...IF there were such a thing as "Centrists" and "Progressives".

If there were such a thing as "Centrists" and "Progressives" they would vehemently share a common passion: solving problems that serve both their interests.

A "Centrist" (I think) would propose: "There is a way to maintain capitalist superiority AND sustain a middle class in this country".

The "Progressive" (I think) would propose: "There is a way to raise the poor above mere sustenance by requiring the capitalists to pay for the privilege of gaining wealth on the backs of this society."


:shrug: Would that be the positions of a "Centrist" and a "Progressive"?

[LSK]

48. regarding the supporting Dems in the General...

You seem to dismiss the whole primary process. This is where you should pour your blood sweat and tears if you are so concerned about getting rid of the Dinos. But in the general, there really is only 2 choices, a Dem and or a Rethug and you know 100% what you get with Rethugs.

[welshTerrier2]

55. no, i don't dismiss the primary process at all.

the DU rules seem to allow all the hostility and bitterness and ugliness one candidate supporter is able to muster against another. again, my focus here is on DU's objective. i'm expecting to work for a candidate in the primaries. it will probably be Kucinich.

I'm really struggling right now about whether to remain a Democrat. I have no interest in nor any illusion about third parties. At least not in the current two party system tyranny. But there's something more than voting for one party or the other. It's this simple: I cannot see myself voting for anyone I see as part of the problem. I just plain don't want to be associated with war and occupation supporters anymore. Where many here will look at the practical implications and measure vote counts and focus on which party will win, I look at a Democratic Party that badly betrayed me and the millions of us who fought for them and expected them to put an end to the damned war and occupation. I WAS willing to compromise with all this crap about deadlines. Each day we stay equals more senseless deaths. We should be out of there today. Not in 3 months or six months or any other nonsense.

The response "so, you're willing to elect republicans" just doesn't cut it anymore. I voted for Kerry in 2004 and worked hard to elect Democrats. I gave what money I had. I got elected to my town's Democratic Committee to do what I could. The bottom line is I don't want to help those who are so f^&king blind that they could have given bush yet another blank check. And this "we didn't have the votes" nonsense doesn't cut it with me either. Very few Democrats have pushed hard to end the occupation quickly. How many of them have called for immediate withdrawal even after all we've seen? Who among them honestly believes any progress of any kind under any definition will be made with bush in the WH? I see it as nothing but a sick political calculation or worse ... voting for more war and occupation is absolutely unconscionable and I will not pull any more levers for those who supported it or for those who have not worked hard and campaigned to end it quickly. very few are left standing above that threshhold.

so, yeah there are only two choices. one of them should have stood up and shut down bush's madness in Iraq. which choice did that???

[onenote]

64. if Kucinich isn't struggling with remaining a Democrat, why are you?

[welshTerrier2]

66. let me see if i follow your logic here ...

are you saying because I MIGHT support Kucinich in the primaries and because he is remaining a Democrat, that I'm under some kind of obligation to do exactly as he does?

clue me in to that logic if you would ...

and perhaps Kucinich is remaining a Democrat because he wants to remain a Congressman. I'll let you in on something, I do NOT plan to be a Congressman.

[onenote]

68. my point is that Kucinich holds to the same positions you do

He was unsuccessful in persuading his colleagues to support that position. Did he decide to leave the party? No. And its not as if you can't get elected to Congress as an independent. Take a look at Bernie Sanders. Yet, I've not heard a peep from Kucinich about leaving the party.

[welshTerrier2]

73. Kucinich holds the same positions I do?

do you actually know what positions I hold? I'm surprised by that.

one of my positions is that we should not support those Democrats who just voted to give bush more funding. Does Kucinich agree with me?

[KharmaTrain]

77. We Have Now Entered A Parallel Universe

My last Cindy Sheehan post. This topic is all but spent.

So a radio host on a small number of stations that barely reaches a fraction of not just Democrats, but DU members (with no promotion) and Cindy Sheehan has somehow destroyed this website? That's there's some hidden DU agenda going on here...hell, maybe this place with need its own DU Conspiracy forum...and then everyone will be tombstoned.

This Democrat doesn't take his cues from one politician or another...I don't agree all opinions here or think of thinks in terms of black and white. This is another one of those black/white games. Either you're 100% with Cindy no matter what or you're some evil cretin. Why bother to have discussions since it's either my way or the highway on many issues here...ya know "ya just don't get it".

Personally, I like the spirited debate that happens here...the questioning of all candidates and causes. The standards that are held against those who don't hold our views must be held up to those who supposedly do...and when they excede those standards (as Cindy did in her early days) we support, when they don't...or someone feels that's the case, they should be able to state their case...agree to disagree and move on.

Personally, I'm blissfully unaligned...and DU helps keep me that way. I'm here for the discussions...not a pity party or session of group think. You learn more when you disagree and attempt to discuss rather than ape talking points or give blind obedience to a candidate or group and then put on blinders.

I know a lot of what I post here either is ignored or rattles some chains. So be it. As a longtime dues paying member of this community I feel I should be able to vent my spleen for the money I donate...and even if no one bothers to read it or respond, it's off my chest...life moves on. It's time others here took a step back and look at a bigger picture here.

If you think its bad here now, just wait til next January and the primaries and the election trolls over-run this place.

[Breeze54]

52. Randi is doing an AWESOME JOB!!!!

Go Cindy!! Go Randi!!!

:woohoo:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

60. I like her and I can understand why she's disgusted with the Democrats.

I understand totally.

[LSK]

61. Randi is to be on Washington Journal Friday Morning

:bounce: :bounce:

[Geek_Girl]

74. I may get flamed for this

But the idea of a couple of douche bags sitting around in there underwear posting inane garbage on DU is a silly reason to quit the anti-war movement. I'm sure the underlying reason for her leaving has nothing to do with DU and more to do with her health and family.

[Subdivisions]

76. I agree. Besides, I've seen Cindy take on a lot worse in

person as she smacked down an asshat during the dedication of Camp Casey. I'd hate to think that some guy getting a kick out of stirring up trouble on DU while scratching his nuts and wiping powdered sugar off his pie hole with the back of his other hand could run her off.

But as for health or family reasons for her sudden exit, I would think that she would just come out and say that rather than finding some lame excuse or fall-guy.