Attacks On Sheehan Reflect Badly On the DU community

[ludwigb]

This topic will probably be locked :(, but I'll say my piece anyway. Attacking Sheehan for taking on Pelosi seems contrary to the progressive ideals Dems are supposed to be representing. It would be one thing if Sheehan's run threatened to swing the seat to a Republican. But that's not the case. Sheehan is running to the left of Pelosi on an independent ticket championing values that (arguably) most DUers share, and Pelosi's failure to aggressively pursue those values. The key issue is not just impeachment, it's about the failure to pursue a progressive agenda that has led to low Congressional approval ratings.

Since when do progressive Democrats oppose independent runs and 3rd parties on principle, rather than on strategic grounds (ie, dividing the vote)? For example, was Matt Gonzalez's Green Party challenge to Newsom in 93 bad for progressive politics and San Francisco?

At the very worse, Sheehan will inspire debate and attention on the issues we progressives supposedly hold dear. What is so wrong with that? Is it really outside the realm of reasonable discourse to argue the Democratic party is failing its constituents? Or that alternative parties might be justified given the right circumstances?

The petty attacks here confirm the negative viewpoint of the Democratic party in the activist/anarchist/indymedia wings of the American Left. And they probably just piss off Sheehan, rather than encourage her to moderate her viewpoints on the Democrats, which I grant are frequently mistaken or confused.

Edit: Just to clarify my point. I do not object to constructive criticism of Sheehan or making fun of her sometimes silly viewpoints. What I object to are 1) spiteful, ad hominom attacks, especially arguments that she is mentally deranged 2) the idea that Democrats ought to object to her run because she is not running as a Democrat. 3) the notion that attacks on Democrats are an attack on you personally (which of course reeks of right-wing thought habits).

[lazer47]

1. It isn't us who are at fault,, it is Sheehan who is attacking a Democrat

that is aganist the rules of DU

[ludwigb]

4. LOL

Then maybe the rules ought to be changed..... I understand why the rules exist (prevent too many self-flagellating threads), but banning constructive criticism is just ridiculous for so many reasons.

[xultar]

7. Aren't people using constructive criticism when it comes to Cindy. Don't be BLIND.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. The rules apply to DUers

And as far as I know, Cindy doesn't post here.

[philosophie_en_rose]

75. Then the "no attack" rule does not apply to her.

[The Magistrate]

83. Constructive Criticism Of Democrats Is Permitted By The Rules Here, Mr. Ludwig

Obviously, there will be an element of subjectivity in applying such a standard, which we address by our consensus procedures, that require wide agreement among moderators that a comment is not constructive. Just about every shade of political opinion on the forum can be found among the moderators.

[CreekDog]

90. Go create a new website, Cindysheehanunderground.com

Then we'll see which is more effective in getting the job done.

And I'll take that bet by the way from anyone that wants to try.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Is Cindy now posting on DU??

Cool, what's her user name?

[wryter2000]

57. I believe Cindy does read DU

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she react to the "CS is a media whore" thread?

No one's above criticism, but can't we show a little more understanding than Bill O'Reilly does?

[proud2BlibKansan]

My point was that she cannot be accused of breaking the rules here

unless she posts. And yes, I believe she does read DU.

[wryter2000]

94. Thanks

I wasn't sure whether or not she posts here.

[philosophie_en_rose]

76. Name Removed.

:)

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Sheehan hasn't filed yet. Pelosi has taken the constitution off the table, and

Sheehan has asked her to put it back on the table.

No rules have been broken at DU. Perhaps Dems should focus on the rules broken by the current administration and ask Pelosi to put the constitution back on the table.

[xultar]

30. taken the constitution off the table....Exaggerate much?

[John Q. Citizen]

35. The Speaker can cut up the Constitution and take what parts she wants off the table?

Impeachment is in the constitution for a good reason.

If Pelosi took, say, the first amendment off the table would that be alright?

And would you then respond to complaints of taking the constitution off the table as an exaggeration?

People, if we don't stand up for the constitution and allow anybody to start taking parts of it off the table, we are in real trouble.

[xultar]

40. When Bush gets a blow job I'm sure she'll sign the impeachment with the blood from his balls

she'll have stored in her purse. :evilgrin:

[LittleClarkie]

48. Oh sure, then they can impeach ours and then we can impeach theirs again

Gee won't that be fun. Impeachment ping pong.

I think Clinton's impeachment ruined things for us. We'll have to have pictures of Bush killing someone with his bare hands at this rate.

Meanwhile, a politician will not go after something when she knows the votes aren't there. The votes aren't there. Yet.

If Cindy helps to change that by bringing the thought of impeachment more into the public consciousness than great.

But the insults ain't going to help her cause.

[beaconess]

71. Um - the First Amendment and Impeachment are not comparable measures

at all.

Oh, never mind. . .

[onenote]

81. when there are enough votes to move the impeachment process forward it will be on the table

Blaming Pelosi just reveals a lack of understanding of the process. Pelosi's number one job is to count votes. And I'm sure she has counted them and I'm sure she is convinced, correctly, that an impeachment resolution in the House probably will fail because it will attract zero support from the repubs and more than enough Democrats won't support it at this time. Why? Because there are a lot of blue dog and moderate Democrats in the House who aren't going to support an impeachment resolution without there being at least a modicum of repub support. Why? Because in each of the two most recent impeachment matters, the vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to start the process had bi-partisan support.

[John Q. Citizen]

92. We lost the troop rotation battle . Should Reid declare longer rotations "Off the table."

Or should he have declared such earlier?

Taking a constitutional power of the congress "off the table" isn't a way to get votes or to get bipartisan support. It's a way to kill support and momentum.

[CreekDog]

91. John Q Public consistently accused Pelosi of being anti-constitution

It's his MO.

Apparently this makes for a stronger argument than simply quoting her saying that "impeachment is off the table".

He has to make it sound more serious by making her into a foe of the Constitution.

How many here think she said that she is against the constitution?

[John Q. Citizen]

93. Taking a constitutional power of the congress "off the table" is silly. I think Pelosi is

silly to have done so, and silly to persist.

I'm very glad that more experienced and reasonable people such as Sen Boxer have said that impeachment should be put back on the table.

I think the drop in public approval of the Dem controlled congress from 46% percent to 23% percent speaks for itself. If you are happy about that then I can see why you are happy with Pelosi's decisions, because they are directly related to each other.

Soldier on over the cliff if you must, but please don't drag the rest of the party down with you.

[truedelphi]

51. Exactly! n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

73. What?

That's against the rules of DU?

Really? :wow:

Then I suppose DU should bite me, and you should maybe re-evaluate the meaning of "progressive", eh? Democrats fight like family by nature. It's called debate the issue, unlike the fucking bubbas and sheeple 24-29% of the Republican party who couldn't sway from Bush, much less than find their ass with a funnel!

[wyldwolf]

2. you're mistaking your "progressive" ideal with the policies and procedures of DU

[sharp_stick]

3. Attacks on Democrats also reflect badly on the DU community

I thought DU was formed to support the Democratic community not third parties no matter what their goals.

[ronnykmarshall]

15. Thank YOU!!

While I don't agree with Cindy running against Pelosi, I'm sick of the personal attacks on her.

I also sick of the attacks on Hillary, Barack, Edwards and so on. It's come to the point that supporters of various candidates are treated like shit from rivals.

[xultar]

20. I'm a Democrat. She insulted MY ASS and I'm PISSED. What am I some stupid NEGRO

who supports the fuckin party of SLAVERY?

That made me :nuke: FUCKIN ANGRY.

[LittleClarkie]

36. Made me think about the women I saw speak at the State Dem Convention last month

One of them just got a chairmanship in the State Senate. She kept repeating how proud she was to be a Democrat. Over and over. She had us chant it even. And then there was Gwen Moore, first black Representative from Wisconsin.

Those poor dear deluded politicians, didn't they realize we're the party of slavery?

That one stuck in my craw as well. Cindy, whether she meant to or not, made it sound like it's better to be a Republican.

[oasis]

64. Congresswoman Maxine Waters visited Cindy at Camp Casey a couple of years ago. I

wonder if Cindy said anything about the "Party of Slavery" to a leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus. :think:

[Marrah_G]

98. I'm gonna guess no

[beaconess]

72. The God us'n Negroes have Cindy to show us the errors of our ways . . .

[three tears]

86. if brining up history pisses you off you have a problem

And incidentally I don't believe she said anything about your ass. Don't take things so personally;)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. simskl for President of DU!!

Best post ever. :thumbsup:

[three tears]

85. That doesn't mean we should be nasty to third parties

We the democrat/progressive/liberal whatever-you-want-to-call-it community share many of the same goals, and have more in common that we have different. We are starting to sound like the extreme wing of the republican party, we feel the need to be personally insulted when anyone says something we disagree with. That sort of reaction reflects worse on the DU than anything Cindy said. Incidentally I don't agree that "attacks" on democrats reflect badly on DU

[xultar]

5. Why is it when people voice their opinion about Sheehan it is a bad reflection on DU

but when people here criticise Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi it is constructive debate and criticism.

Why is it we don't lockstep behind the Democratic party but we gotta lockstep behind Cindy?


EXPLAIN that for me. This double standard shit has gotta stop.

[leftynyc]

10. Is Cindy running as a Democrat?

That's the difference.

[xultar]

13. So we can or can't or can't use constructive criticism where she is concerned...

I don't get what you're saying.

[ludwigb]

18. Yep there is a double standard

The sort of ad hominom attacks on people like Cindy are not tolerated for the mainstream Democratic politicians you mention. Cindy, as a progressive who answers only to her conscience, doesn't get the same respect as craven pols who supported the Iraq war.

The truth is that it is possible, even likely, that Sheehan is doing more good for this country than Pelosi. That Democrats aren't even willing to consider this possibility only underlines the case for a progressive 3rd party.

[xultar]

24. Sheehan is doing more good for this country than Pelosi...That's your uninformed opinion

See I criticized you and Cindy. So am I reflecting bad on DU now.
You gonna say I'm attacking Cindy. She's not running as a Democrat and she insulted my party. I can be pissed and criticize her all I want. She put herself out there and she and her supporters need to be able to hear it and answer to it.

PUHLEEEZ We don't fuckin lockstep.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Which attacks?

I'm sorry, but anyone that DOESN'T consider that she might be mentally ill needs to form a clue. Since the poor woman lost her son, she has thrown literally everything in her life away to fight against the war. That is not the picture of perfect mental health in any regard. And anyone who claims this is an "attack" is a complete fucking asshole, because there is NOTHING WRONG with having a mental illness.

[ludwigb]

61. Maybe

But such accusations are in very bad taste, and don't do anything to convince other side (in this case anti-war Americans) that supporting Democrats is useful. It tells them that if they disagree, then you are likely to classify them as mentally unstable before listening to their arguments. It's fine to draw psychological profiles in academic work or even in private conversation, but doing so publicly doesn't serve any useful purpose.

[three tears]

87. thank you

[emilyg]

28. Thank you - I agree

[dmallind]

29. normally hate to do this

but I can't add much more, or write that clearly, so yep - what xultar said.

[kikiek]

67. That really puts it in perspective. Good job thank you.

[Mythsaje]

8. This is what I had to say about it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1300797&mesg_id=1300797

[knowledgeispwr]

11. Progressive ideals?

Since when is being against the federal income tax a progressive ideal?

[Cameron27]

52. It's not a progressive ideal,

and it makes me question where Sheehan stands on the issues. Her slave-owning warmongering, bob dolesque rant against MY party was insulting and unnecessary and she should expect to be called on it.

[knowledgeispwr]

68. It causes me to question as well...

Will all those who are ready to fall in lock step behind Sheehan's candidacy question her stances on the issues besides Iraq and impeachment, where she stands on other policy issues? What will she do when the Bush admin is out of office (when Sheehan's hypothetical term would start) and we're on the way out of Iraq. How much sway will she have being an independent candidate that has burned bridges?

[LittleClarkie]

12. She has every right to run for that seat. She has no right to be insulting herself.

People will react to being insulted.

And she is also open for discussion, what with being a pubic figure and all. Once you put yourself out there, you take your lumps for good or ill.

[xultar]

17. Yes. She put herself out there. So she's gotta be able to take the criticism. She doesn't get

the opportunity to insult people like she did and then cry uncle and unfair play.

[LittleClarkie]

31. She doesn't cry uncle. Her supporters do often enough.

But she did leave the public arena pretty publically about a month ago. So i guess that's sort of crying uncle. It didn't take, though. Rather like a poster who says "I'm going!" waits for the "Oh NO, don't GO" and then never does actually leave.

[Ian David]

14. I was right with her until she called Democrats "The Party of Slavery."

Attacking Pelosi was fine with me.

Calling ALL OF US the party of slavery that started all the other wars is NOT fine with me.

Painting all Democrats with a broad brush that will be used by Fox Noise, day in and day out, is NOT fine with me.

[RestoreGore]

16. Yes, God forbid REAL freedom of speech prevail here

And personally, I don't care what Cindy Sheehan does because my world doesn't revolve around her. I however do not believe she will garner much support for her cause if she continues to attack Democrats en masse. I never owned slaves and neither did any of my relatives or ancestors. I also never condoned a war and my relatives have been shot and have sacrificed in wars past to preserve her right to run in this system. So don't think you (in general) can come on a site and act all high and mighty and not get flack for it. If you (in general) can't take the heat on a message board, then maybe you just aren't cut out to put yourself in the public spotlight.

[LittleClarkie]

38. ESPECIALLY if she plans to run for office

She WILL get pummeled repeatedly. You have to have a thick skin. People will question her and criticize her, and I don't want to hear at every turn "How DARE they attack a grieving mom!" It WILL come with the territory.

[Mike Daniels]

53. She just gave her opponent prime campaign material this week

Repub, Dem, male, female, young, old....99.95 percent of the county will not vote for anyone who made the ridiculous claims Sheehan made earlier this week.

[bluedog]

21. but she can go on "morning joe"

and run the party down because the bill passed to give bush a billion dollars to fund the war?........if she plans to run.she should know who votes for what...and I want to hear her now say the Democrats back bush when the GOP voted against letting our troops get some rest before shipping out again.....who will she blame now???

[NCarolinawoman]

47. Yes, I heard her on "morning joe" playing scatter-shot.

She was saying something about running against Pelosi because of what happened with Hurricane Katrina.

Yeah, righhht.....

[LittleClarkie]

49. Is there a transcript of that?

What the heck...?

[NYCGirl]

69. Looks like there's a filmclip of it here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Nonsense! Sheehan has...

one issue, one most of us agree with, but still one issue that does not automatically give her license to upset whatever order is out there without a reasonable alternative.

She issued a threat to the present power structure-- a threat that has very little behind it. Many may be disppointed with that power structure, but no one has come up with a viable alternative structure that will get what they want. Cindy Sheehan has certainly not come up with it.

And what is this threat? That if Shrub is not impeached she will run next year and if she wins take office after Shrub has left office.

The silliest of political theater is going on here, and if we are all free to attack Pelosi for what some see as being ineffective, we are all most certainly free to attack any challengers who will be even more ineffective.

[lazer47]

26. YEA,, what he said

[xultar]

27. That last sentence is BRILLIANT. Your reply needs to be a thread on it's own.

[Ress1]

44. Agree,

she turned her back on us over a single issue and I'm sick to death of her.

[NoPasaran]

23. The activist/anarchist/indymedia wings of the left

Can kiss my shiny steel ass.

Speaker Pelosi has my support.

Cindy Sheehan's "friends" should encourage her to get real help for her anger and grief, not applaud every idiotic pointless stunt she chooses to perform.

[xultar]

43. I agree. i'm not saying theyshouldn't do their thing...just not @ my expense.

They spend more time attacking Dems than the Rethugs.

[Lasher]

25. Looks like you missed Sheehan's rant where she called Democrats the party of slavery

And she was just getting started. She went on to mention, among other things, the evils of "...permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes...", which is a right wing myth. Maybe she's not as progressive as you think.

That tirade, particularly with it coming on the heels of her bitter resignation from public life, is what caused me to write her off. As a Democrat I've had it with her, but it's not because she's decided to run against Pelosi.

If you haven't seen it already I wish you would consider reading this thread and the entire linked article:

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

[ludwigb]

34. Fair Enough

Your (useful) criticisms are not the problem. I'm not yet convinced, however, that Sheehan wouldn't be able to do more for the progressive movement in Congress than Pelosi. And I think she still deserves respect for her accomplishments.

[xultar]

39. Doesn't Pelosi deserve respect for hers? I mean she is the first WOMAN speaker.

I don't dislike Cindy. I rather like her balls and respect her courage. I respect her fight and love her to death. BUT.
When she effes up. I will let her know. Just like you let us know when The Dems eff up.

She insulted me though. You're asking me to respect her (which I do) while you openly disrespect the party that Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Reid, Edwards and my parents belong to.

That ain't right.

[LittleClarkie]

41. Not as a freshman Representative she won't

Especially if she's not caucusing with the Dems as an Independant. I'm not sure what she'd accomplish as a lone voice. It's not even like as if she'd get the Speakership. That would probably go to Emanuel or Hoyer, two people I think many DUers would like even less.

[Why Syzygy]

45. income tax

is unconstitutional. The ammendment was never fully ratified. It also refers to employees of the United States as being taxable, not citizens. We are all owned by the State now, so that point is almost moot.

[Lasher]

63. The sixteenth ammendment was properly ratified.

This is according to the courts established by the Constitution.

And that ammendment says,

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Emphasis mine.

[xultar]

32. So you're saying that activist/anarchist/indymedia wings of the American Left

want to be the Democratic party?

Y'all should start your own. Why take the sloppy seconds brokedown milquetoast ineffective Democratic party and make it your own. Seems to me you hate it so much anyway.

Make your own. Call it the activist/anarchist/indymedia wings of the American Left Party. I might even join.

But don't come up all in my house shit on my sofa and call me an idiot. That shit ain't right.

[NaturalHigh]

33. I didn't realize criticism of Sheehan was verboten.

I'll say this as plain as I can. I don't like Cindy Sheehan. Yes, I feel great sympathy for the loss of her son. However, I have lost all respect for this shrill, whining, attention-seeking nitwit who seems to go into withdrawals whenever her name isn't in the news for a couple of days.

As I said in another thread, I'm looking forward to the media skewering her and showing her up as the ass that she is if she decides to run against Pelosi.

[calteacherguy]

37. Sheehan is no better for the future of the Democratic Party and Progressives than Karl Rove. nt

[xultar]

46. She's for the end of the war. That puts her LIGHT YEARS ahead of those fucks.

[bluedog]

42. Hear her speak on Morning Joe

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=d9bbcd4f-ce04-41bd-861d-1a29e2a7b244&p=Source_Scarborough_Country&t=c1151&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/&fg=



maybe this will open your eyes!!

[bmbmd]

50. She is clearly no longer a democrat.

Fire at will.

[smiley_glad_hands]

54. We cant even pass a resolution in the senate

protecting the troops, I'm not going to fault Nancy because of a handfull of republicans.

[mitchtv]

55. Goodbye Cindy

Go run in Vacaville, where you came from.I was non committedly supportive of Cindy and her goals, now, she can go scratch.

[Vinnie From Indy]

56. The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife

I find it mildly amusing that some "Cindinistas" here on DU have attacked those that point out Sheehan is a bit nuts as being "blindly loyal" to the Dem Party at the expense of our integrity and belief in the rule of law. HA! It seems to me that after reading Sheehan's wildly misinformed full frontal attack on generations of Democrats, it is the "Cindinistas" that are exhibiting blind loyalty at the expense of their integrity. Her words hang around her neck like a millstone made of ignorance, denial and ego. If she does have advisors, they should tellher to read a history book and shut the f*ck up about Democrats being the "party of slavery" and institutional warmongers.

[philosophie_en_rose]

77. Cindinistas.

:rofl:

She could advocate eating puppies and they'd break out the bbq.

[LostInAnomie]

58. You're right. We should be more focused on getting slavery back, passing unconstitutional taxes...

... and starting more wars. After all that's they real core of the party. :sarcasm:

I'll never understand why so many on here want to stifle criticism of a public figure. Especially, a figure that has made great progress in marginalizing the anti-war movement through foolish actions, and is determined to assign collective guilt for past sins we had no control over.

She's a clown and we shouldn't give her any more of the attention she craves.

[jonnyblitz]

62. After what she said in her KOS diary entry, I would expect people

here at DU to respond to it BECAUSE most here are loyal Democrats !!They should be allowed to respond to the criticism without being scolded or told they can't or shouldn't. Who cares how it "reflects", people should be able to speak their mind within the boundaries allowed. I say this as someone who probably has more in common with the activist/anarchist/indymedia wing of the left than I do with this place or the Democratic Party.

I support Cindy and her cause but if she is going to publically criticize others she shouldn't be placed above criticism herself and her "targets" shouldn't be told to STFU. :shrug: :hi:

[AZBlue]

65. "March along, that's right, keep up the pace, don't step out of line"

Wow...what I think really reflects badly on the DU community is the attempt to stifle another's opinions and voice!

[Alexander]

66. If Cindy Sheehan used constructive criticism with Democrats, she would be more helpful.

Instead she rips off Bob Dole quotes, discusses centuries-old history (badly) and accuses the Democrats of being in on some grand Zionist conspiracy.

If that's all she has to contribute, there is no one else to blame for ridicule but her.

[uppityperson]

70. NASTINESS reflects badly on the DU community. nt

[Phredicles]

80. Right; I'm disappointed by some of the things Sheehan has said, BUT

I'm really perturbed by the viciousness of some of the response. It seems to me, for example, that it's possible to disagree with Sheehan without starting a poll about her where every possible option is a crude insult.

I mean, we want - or so I thought - for common citizens to get involved and become activists. And for a long time Sheehan's activism was the only coverage the anti-war movement was getting. I think we owe her some gratitude for that. While some of her recent comments are way over the top, the response has been just plain ugly.

[philosophie_en_rose]

74. Attacks on DU and Democrats reflect badly on the Sheehan community.

[Lord Helmet]

78. baloney

this ain't Lockstep Underground ya know

[ripple]

79. Sheehan's attacks on democrats

reflect badly on the democratic party.

I fully support free speech, but it works both ways. Cindy's actions and statements are fair game for criticism.

[Buck Rabbit]

82. To the left of Pilosi? Libertarians are as Far Right as you can get on economic issues.

While I agree with Libertarians on some social issues and on the war, they are THE enemy if class and economic inequity is a major issue to you.

Sheehan has evolved from apolitical anti-war where she had a very powerful influence, to leftist anti-war (like me) where she was one of many and easily dismiss able to 2/3 of the country, to an antiwar Libertarian?

I hope she has not become a libertarian as has been rumored and supports her use of Libertarian screed in her attack on the Democrats. IF she has become a Libertarian than I thank her for her opposition to the war but pray she never holds any political office. Oh and fuck Ron Paul too.

[calteacherguy]

84. Sheehan's actions reflect badly on all of us...you have it backwards. nt

[cassiepriam]

88. Very bad karma to attack a person fighting for what is right, to stop the killing.

Dems are on the very wrong path going against someone
who is doing such good work.

[CreekDog]

89. Cindy's attacks on Democrats reflect badly on her

And it's not an attack to call attention to Cindy's mistakes especially when they undercut the Democratic effort.

[rexcat]

95. Sheehan appears to attack anyone who disagrees with her...

I don't like her tactics and I don't support her at this time. I did support her early on but she just does not get the political reality of the situation concerning the impeachment of Bush. It won't happen because the repukes in the US Senate won't let it happen. The votes are not there to do it.

There are more important things for Congress to do. There has been some wonderful legislation voted down by the repukes in the US Senate and some good legislation vetoed by Bush. I think there will be a further shift in the Congress in favor of the Democrats in 2008 if the Democrats can frame the issues before the repukes do.

[JNelson6563]

96. Attacks on Conyers reflect badly on Cindy

and expose a special kind of stupid one generally just finds among keyboard commandoes.

Sorry but that's the way it is.

Julie

[Marrah_G]

97. A public figure states lies and half-truths about Democrats and you think we not going to speak up?

I couldn't care less if she runs against Pelosi. I just don't want to hear the fanatics campaigning for her. I also don't want to read the broad bush slamming the entire Democratic party in post after post by her supporters. If I wanted to hear that crap I would read FR. They can make their own web site for that. They can make the Anti-Democratic Underground or the Sheehan Underground and use their own bandwidth.

She started this flame fest with her asinine accusations. She should not be surprised when the people of the Democratic Party give her the finger in return.

[Cameron27]

99. The problem is that a whole lot of us are working our

collective asses off trying to get Democrats elected and these broad brush anti-party attacks are insulting & defeating. I sometimes criticize Democrats as much or more than anyone here, but I didn't become a member of DU to see third party advocates bashing the entire party.

[Marrah_G]

100. That's exactly how I feel

You just said it alot more clearly then I have been.

[rabies1]

101. You are 100% correct.

We hear enough negative talk from Rush, Coulter, Bortz, Hannity etc. Personal attacks against her are best left to this strange group of people who claim to be Republicans.

[robcon]

102. I am am not attacking Sheehan for challenging Pelosi.

I attack Sheehan because she's a dope - making spurious claims on wars and slavery.