CINDY SHEEHAN-Will Run Against Pelosi If She Does NOT Seek To IMPEACH BUSH By 7/23

[kpete]

Sheehan Considers Challenge to Pelosi
Submitted by Chip on Sun, 2007-07-08 21:32. Activism
Sheehan considers challenge to Pelosi

CRAWFORD, Texas --
Six weeks after announcing her departure from the peace movement, Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

Sheehan announced in May that she was leaving the anti-war movement and selling her 5-acre Crawford lot. She said that she felt her efforts had been in vain and that she had endured smear tactics and hatred from the left, as well as the right.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24443

[mzmolly]

1. I'd consider supporting her if she ran as a Dem in the Primaries like

Lamont did?

[MADem]

3. The article says she would run as an independent, not a Dem. NT

[mzmolly]

4. Right.

I can't support her under the circumstances.

[DancingBear]

12. Wait a minute

You won't consider supporting someone who is and has been 100% stone dead correct about this war and the complicity that BOTH parties have with regards to it because she won't put a (D) next to her name?

I'm sorry, but that is fucking pitiful.

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch...

[mzmolly]

17. No. I won't consider supporting a so called progressive who will split the progressive

vote and hand the nomination to a Republican. Cindy doesn't have a record in the Senate so I don't know what her stance on the war was in October 2002, but I do know what Pelosi's was - "NAY."

[DancingBear]

30. "so-called" progressive

Un-fucking believable.

Words fail me - they truly do.

You swallowed it all - hook, line AND sinker.

You should be ashamed.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. oh give me a break. I support Cindy and I like her moxie. But attacking

another DUer because she has a different opinion is just counter productive. Better to have a debate instead of a flame war.

[DancingBear]

35. Sorry Charlie

When somebody calls a woman who sat in a god damned ditch in Texas for most of the summer and who showed more balls then anyone currently sitting in government anywhere a "so-called" progressive they deserve the scorn.

And more.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. Hey, I think Cindy's move is smart politics. That's why I wrote to you what I did.

Some people don't understand smart politics. They always think it's personal. It ain't.

Everybody's got an opinion.

And I would say that Dennis Kucinich has shown just as much "balls" as has Cindy. I mean, the guy had a mafia hit contract out on him because he stood by his promises and what was right. He was driven out of his job, home town, and ridiculed and disgraced because he stood up to the moneyed interests in Cleaveland , and wasn't vindicated until yesrs later.

So, yes, there are a few sitting politicians who do have the "balls" that Cindy has.

As a matter of fact, Cindy and Dennis share a mutual admiration I've heard. And they probably share the same truth in a great joke that greyhound made today. Here it is:

Honest = unelectable!

Funny and true.

[DancingBear]

53. So that means dishonest = electable ??

No, but that's what both parties want you to believe.

It's YOUR vote, my friend - make it worth something.

Remember the whole thousand mile journey starts with one small step thing.

Start walking - I'll be right next to you.

[John Q. Citizen]

63. It was greyhounds joke about the meme folks try to

tag Kucinich with.

As they say in Mexico, Arriba y adelante! Up and forward.

[mzmolly]

78. So do you think the Nader votes in 2000 were "worth something?"

That mantra sounds eerily familiar. However, I feel that my vote for Gore in 2000 was worth something.

[DancingBear]

105. Anyone who votes their conscience is making the correct choice

You can go and babble about Nader the straw man until the cows come home.

[mzmolly]

108. Where was Nader's conscience?

Do you think he has one?

[whopis01]

120. I understand your point about voting one's conscience, however the Nader issue is not a straw man

Everyone should vote their conscience. You will get no argument from me on that one. Also I do not think that any vote is "wasted" so long as it is cast and counted.

However, the reason that the Nader (or any third party) issue is not a straw man is because under our current form of election, a three way race can subvert the will of the people. If you have progressive candidate A, progressive candidate B, and conservative C running in race where A gets 30%, B gets 30% and C gets 40%, we end up with a conservative in office even though 60% of the voters wanted a progressive. That is not a straw man, that is a serious and real issue. That's why we have parties in the first place, so we don't end up with lots of similar candidates splitting the vote all the time.

In my opinion, our voting system needs to get revamped in order to prevent this issue. Either a ranking system for voting or requiring run-offs until a single candidate had more than 50% of the votes would solve this problem.

In the meantime, if Cindy Sheehan wants to run as an independent, that is her right to do so. If someone wants to vote for her in the election, that is their right to do so. However, it does point out a flaw in our election system.

[mzmolly]

77. Kucinich is a great progressive and so was Paul Wellstone,

and the list of Progressive Democrats goes on and on. We needn't leave the party to effect change, in fact we have a much better chance of doing so from within.

:hi:

Thanks for your post BTW. :)

[mzmolly]

75. Ask yourself why she was sitting in that ditch for a moment.

WHO was in office? And, WHAT "so called progressive" helped *'s ass occupy that office? And, HOW did that "so called progressive" do so? Did he run as a Democrat in the primaries, or wait and run as an Independent hurting our chances to have a President Gore in 2000?

Yes, Cindy "sat in a ditch" after tragically losing her son to this Republican instigated disaster. It's too bad she didn't take time to fully reflect on the recent historical events that brought her to Crawford in the first place.

[DancingBear]

106. Oh look , it's Ralphies fault again

Please - TRY and get a grip on what really happened. Go back and watch Edwards fall to his knees during the VP debate. Try and understand that Kerry and Edwards were pimping the war throughout their campaign. Try and realize that the election was STOLEN - and that if Bush needed 50,000 more votes he would have gotten them.

Your silly Nader bashing is just that - it convinces no one, and makes you look hopelessly naive and/or brainwashed in the process.

Oh, and just watch Obama or Clinton or Edwards or whoever stick an American flag pin in their label and sing terror to the heavens the minute it looks like we may get "attacked." After praying for God's help, of course.

[mzmolly]

110. I'm not talking about 2004.

I'm talking about 2000. In 04 "Ralphie" was a non-issue in spite of his taking Money from the Swift Boat Vets and his attempt to be a spoiler again. My point is that helping Republicans is never a progressive notion.

[John Q. Citizen]

122. ICF - It's Cindy's fault!

:)

[MADem]

112. These things always go down in flames. It's the nature of the beast.

Unfotunately, there's a cadre here who can't talk about anything she does in terms of her political impact (or her acumen) without getting all shirty about it. She's been elevated to sainthood by some, while others see her as a Ralph Nader--someone who had a good idea, once, who did a good thing, once--but now engages in counterproductive grandstanding designed to garner personal attention.

You are never going to get agreement on this matter, and you're guaranteed a flame war whenever she's mentioned. She has a cadre of loyal followers here who engage in the virtual "beat down" any time anyone dissents about her methods, her tactics or her effectiveness. The argument is usually along the lines that because she was forced to endure the ultimate wartime sacrifice of her beloved child, and because her protests against GWB were supremely effective, ergo anything else she does must also be supremely effective--even if it isn't.

There's no "discussion" going to happen with those folks--they are relentless, and will resort to the "I bet you" school of debate--I bet you voted Republican once/I bet you like (name a rightwing Democrat)/I bet you (put in anything that's "UNproGRESSive!!!"). It's incredibly childish. Two steps shy of the "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" method.

I think Cindy had guts, too. I thought the TX camp out was brilliant. I've disagreed with alot of the stuff she's done that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war, because I think she's politically tone deaf on those issues (I also get the sense that she's being "handled," and her handlers are well to the left of the breakdown lane, frankly--but that's tangential).

She certainly has the right to protest other things, unrelated to the war, but I and others have a right to disagree with her stances and her tactics. However, her 'faithful' will insure that anyone who disagrees with her and dares to mention it is pelted with personal invective. It's a time wasting effort to even engage them--the arguments deteriorate almost immediately.

[John Q. Citizen]

123. My take is a little different from yours. I'm in no position to analyse anything she does

because frankly, it's her life, and she's living it the way she can. I don't have enough information about who she is, why she makes the choices she does, about anything really. I'm just glad she's out there doing stuff. I'm glad she is either brave or fearless, I'm not sure which. I'm glad that she's acting from love.

I think that sets a good example, to be out doing stuff for peace, for justice.

If Cindy wants to go to Venezuela and meet the President, who care. You go girl! I'm glad she's making something happen. If she wants to take a stand on humanity and rights for Palistinians, hey, I'm for that too.

People here who are interested, who know her, post stuff she's doing. And then a bunch of other people, who I assume have no more info than I do, analyse it and critique it. Whatever floats your boat. I just accept and am grateful for her gift to all of us, and if I ever have the opportunity to lend her a hand, I will gladly.

To me, discussions about her tactics, her stratedgy, ect are silly. We should be worrying about our own tactics, our own stratedgy to create peace and justice. If we don't have one, then how or why should we be critique someone else who apparently does? If we have one, we won't have the time to worry about hers, we will be executing our plan.

They said MLKing was being handled, and that his "handlers" were left of the break down lane. How would I know, or even care? King was always being critiqued. "He should stick to civil rights, what's this Vietnam war shit?" Same deal. Cindy isn't King and King wasn't Cindy, and King wasn't a saint in my book either, just a guy struggling for peace and justice, the best he knew how. I'm glad he was. He gave us a gift also.

He also scared the shit out of a lot of powerful people too

I support Cindy because I support the struggle for peace and justice. I don't think there is a right way or a wrong way to struggle, to create, there is just the stuggle and the act of creation.

I don't see Cindy as a saint; just a human doing the best she can. Isn't that enough?

[MADem]

125. I have to take issue with some of your assertions

MLK wasn't handled, he was plainly doing the handling. He eclipsed the NAACP and was leading THEM around in very short order. He was an extraordinarily astute individual, and had he lived, might have landed in the Senate if he'd wanted to--for starters.

You can tell who's leading the convoy when you listen to his conversation with LBJ on Civil and Voting Rights. Here's an analysis of his chitchat with LBJ, it shows clearly that King was lead dog in the Civil Rights movement and knew the quid-pro-quo game well: http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind0601d&L=portside&T=0&P=547

King was by then expert at
telling Johnson what Johnson wanted to hear, and
managed to interrupt the Presidential monologue long
enough to tell Johnson what he felt Johnson needed to
know. He pointed out that, in the five Southern states
that Johnson lost to Goldwater in 1964, fewer than
forty per cent of eligible African-Americans were
registered to vote. A voting-rights act would produce a
coalition of blacks and white moderates, changing the
electoral map of the South. Johnson liked that. It
could be his greatest achievement, he said--"It will do
things that even that ’64 Act couldn’t do."

The whole article is great, a good look at the savviness of MLK, but that's tangential to the larger issue.

Cindy can, and will, do what Cindy wants to do. No one is going to, or particularly wants to, stop her. I don't think she's going to wait for permission from me or anyone else if she decides to run as an Independent. And that's fine. But if she does run, she needs to be treated just like any other candidate--the same tough questions, the same demands for accountability, and the same challenges when statements don't match from one week to the next.

While you may not see her as a saint, there are plenty here who don't share your more nuanced view of her.

As a public figure, and that she surely is, discussions of her strategy and tactics ARE fair game. We don't hesitate to dissect a speech or actions by Bush, or Condi, or any Democrat, or even unelected types like Al Sharpton or Pat Buchanan, for that matter, and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a course of action by that person, or a position that they take.

Cindy can't be given a pass, or excused from the same sort of scrutiny, if she wants to be taken seriously as a political candidate. And she can't play the "Grieving Mother" card as a politician--it doesn't fly.

You might not think there's a right or wrong way to "struggle" but there IS a successful and unsuccessful way to do it, if your goal is to get elected. Of course, if she doesn't really want to win, but just wants the publicity, she can run and say whatever the hell she wants. But if she's running to win, there IS a right way and a wrong way.

If you think that it's "enough" for Cindy to do the best she can, well, fine. It's enough for you. I happen to think that, as a public citizen, her words matter and she shouldn't say things she doesn't mean. It makes her appear less than credible, to be charitable.

And when her words plainly contradict themselves, as they have done of late, it's hypocritical to pretend they don't, just because she is a Gold Star Mother.

I don't wish her ill at all, I sympathize with her because of her painful loss, but I do think she needs some help. I think she's unwell, and this latest about-face seems almost like a cry for help, IMO.

YMMV, and probably does.

[John Q. Citizen]

131. I never said MLK was being handled, I said that it was suggested by hoover

and his surrogates that he was a pawn of the communist, socialist, and other ists, if you get my point. I don't believe he was, but others tried to make that assertian. And of course they asserted it as if it were a forgone conclusion.

As for Cindy, my guess is that if Pelosi doesn't put impeachment back on the table that she will run. I would guess it would be up to the people of San Fransico to treat her however they decide to. You could write them and give them your views I suppose but my bet is that they will do whatever they will do, so it might be a waste of your time in that regard.

According to sfexpat200 (a duer in the district) there may be others running for the seat as well because Pelosi's constituents are a bit upset with her, both about the supplemental and the removal of impeachment from the table especially given the fact that the district voted in favor of impeachment 60% to 40% just last Novenber, and many feel that Pelosi is ignoring their explicitly stated wishes.

People talk about other people. Whether it's the neighbor down the road or the newest contestant on American idle, gossip, speculation, and facination with others seems very human. I don't care if people do it, but i try to stick to what I know. I've read Will Pitts descriptions of spending time with Cindy, and others and she sounds quite charming, warm, intelligent, and dedicated to her issues. That seems to be the repeating themes. But I've never met her. I have read some of her writings posted on DU and she comes accross like that in print.

I'm sure Cindy's motivation is to move Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table, but if Cindy runs, she will run to win. That said she is probably aware that it won't be easy and that she may not win. In the AP story I saw she said something like, 'I will give her a run for her money,' but she never claimed easy victory.

My advice to you is sit back and enjoy. If Cindy runs and you want to send her money, great, if not, great.

I'm not sure what you base your diagnosis of Cindy on. Thousands of people run for office every year or two. How's theier health? And how would you know? I'm not going to lay a "Frist" diagnosis on anybody, but from what I've read on DU from people who saw her a few days ago at the sale of her "ranch" Cindy is healthy and chipper, and ready to work for peace and justice.

How about you?

[MADem]

132. Well, I'm not one to "sit back and enjoy"--unless it's the study of politics that I am enjoying

I can't support Cindy's candidacy, though. She seems unfocused to me, and I disagree with her Hugo chumminess and I find her tactics counterproductive. And if she does run, she won't win. If she means what she said, she'll have to run, because I can't see Pelosi doing anything along the lines of revisiting impeachment (without evidence that comes from hearings first) simply because "Cindy says so."

I'm not 'diagnosing'--I just don't think she is behaving normally. A month and a half ago she said, on these very internets, that she was packing up and leaving public life for good, to spend time with her family.

Now she's suddenly decided to run for office?

Hey, whatever. It's a free country.

[John Q. Citizen]

133. Well, to each there own. I guess you feel Nancy feels comfortable enough to ignore her employers

and just do whatever she wants.

I've noticed a marked change though recently. I think it has something to do with the rapidly sinking poll numbers toward the congress. They are at historic lows now, and they are significantly lower than before the people put the Dems back in control of congress. They are lower across the political spectrum, but the recent big drop in independent's views of congress does seem to be fueling a change.

And impeachment is gaining rapid popularity among Dem voters and independent voters, so it makes it interesting. The latest polls show it's got big majority support in fact among Dems and independents.

Investigations are hard when the White House won't comply by allowing testimony and documents. And that could take years in the courts to straighten out. And if and when it gets to the supremes, well we know who they work for.

If Al Gore suddenly decides to run in the Pres. primary, I don't think that would be so weird, do you?

I had a friend who used to say that "everybody is somebody's weirdo." Maybe Cindy is yours.

-edit for spelling

[MADem]

136. I honestly don't know how you extrapolated my sincere critique of

Cindy to "Nancy can ignore her employers." Really. I don't see how you made that leap.

Bridge too far, there. Pelosi wasn't the topic until you inserted her, and made assumptions about my views. I won't beat Pelosi to death, but then, I really do appreciate the difficulties she faces, perhaps more than many here. That doesn't mean I feel she should be allowed to ignore her constituency--though I really don't think she does.

I am an undecided voter who will declare for Gore if he runs. If not, I'll make my call when I need to. I study all the candidates quite closely against the day that I have to make that decision.

I don't consider Cindy a "weirdo" though. I find her a very sad, forlorn and sympathetic character, despite her histronics. No matter what she does, she's not going to get her son back. And it's plain to me, that's all she really wants. All the rest of it is just venting and rage.

[John Q. Citizen]

138. Vis a Vis Pelosi I was referring to this:

"...because I can't see Pelosi doing anything along the lines of revisiting impeachment (without evidence that comes from hearings first) simply because "Cindy says so."

Her employers say so, in a district wide vote by a 60% to 40% margin last November. And I'd bet that number is greater now than then.

Apparently according to one of her constituents (DUer sfexpat2000) many people in the district feel she is ignoring their express directions, their will.

Well we see Cindy through two completely different sets of eyes. I see her as hardworkin, optimistic, and determined. I'm sure she misses her son terribly, but I think she is turnig the pain and the grief into positive action. It's funny, the people I've heard/read who know Cindy, and from her appearance on The R. Rhodes show, I never got the same impression of Cindy that you did. I see her as tenacious, dedicated, and warm.

I've gotta go to bed. It's been good exchanging views with you. So long.

[MADem]

139. You keep quoting the very liberal, way left, very nice constituent, as though she is the paradigm

She is a delightful and articulate individual, a sincere member here, but she is hardly the paradigm of a Pelosi constituent. Even in Nancy's "liberal" district. She's well left of the norm, I will wager. And I'd put a lot of dough on that wager, too.

And if Pelosi's constituents want to sacrifice having the legislative leader represent them for a Republican (because that's the only other option--it won't be Representative Cindy, I promise you) that's up to them. I can't see them chopping off that nose to spite that face, though. I just can't. Even with all the wishing and hoping in the world...

I still think Cindy is very unwell, and being used. No one writes a Goodbye Manifesto one month, and suddenly comes out and says she's running six weeks later, without prodding from people who are using her for their own purposes--I think it's shitty to do that to someone who is that emotionally fragile, frankly. It says more about her so-called "friends" than it does about her.

We'll revisit this come Election Day, OK? I suspect Nancy will be reelected, unless she dies in the interim. Your mileage, obviously, varies.

[John Q. Citizen]

141. Well she lives their in the district. You aren't quoting anybody, just surmising.

I grew up less than 100 miles away, and I used to live in SF, and from my experienxce sfexpat is mainstream. My aunt lived in sf for years, and I have friends who live in SF who are telling me the same, independent of sfexpat.

Will Pitt is a personal friend of Cindy and he has never mentioned any of the information you seem to posses about her emotional well being. I suspect your information is from a distance and the more we write, from an agenda.

A Green came within a hairs-breath of being elected mayor in the last race. Not a Republican, because that's how liberal the district is. The Dem came in first in the mayors race, and the Green second.

Do you know San Fransisco well? Ever lived there? Or are you just going on what you imagine is the case?

[MADem]

142. Well, I used to live not too too far away, and my mileage varies.

I lived in Leon Panetta's old district, directly south of SF. Used to spend most weekends in the city. I also get out there on business every so often, less now than I used to, though.

How nice that there are two parties represented, D, and G, there. But still and all, I would be surprised if Nancy gets the toss. And if she does, it's the district's loss.

In any event, I simply can't take the opinions of a single poster, no matter how delightful, on a largely leftwing political site (the moderates and centrists are sorely underrepresented here, though they make up a larger portion of the party) and extrapolate them as a "meaningful" sample. Even if you want me to. That's just 'bad statistics.'

[John Q. Citizen]

144. I voted for Leon Penetta. His District was N. Monterey Co. to Sta Cruz. and I belive part of

San Benito.

San Mateo is directy S. of SF.

I agree that it would be an uphill fight for anyone to unseat Pelosi. It's possible but not probable.

I also think that Pelosi will put criminal investigation of the administration (impeachment) back on the table. At least I very much hope so.

[mzmolly]

65. Yes, "so called progressive." It's not progressive to oust a person who voted against the war,

and help insert a Republican in her place. 2000 should clue a few people in on the "differences" and how they impact the entire world. We're in this war because of the use of this very tactic by a man with an ego that came before human life.

Now, any ideas as to why Cindy won't challenge Pelosi as a Democrat?

[DancingBear]

107. Because she KNOWS the Dems are as complicit as the Repubs when it comes to this war

Geez, don't you ever read??

Oh, and in case you missed it we're STILL in this war, and the Dems have a majority.

I suppose that's Nader's fault, too? :rofl:

[mzmolly]

111. Ah, so Conyers = Cheney now?

Absurd. To lump every Democrat in with the Bushista is ignorant, and I don't wish to support ignorance.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Pelosi isn't in the Senate and wasn't in 2002. She's in the House. And this

is about impeachment for high crimes and misdomeanors, of which Iraq is only part of the charges.

If Pelosi stands up to Sheehan, and doesn't submit to give her 120 billion for an illegal...oh wait, that was the other guy, bush.

I mean.. If Pelosi stands up to Sheehan and doesn't submit to her demand that she preceed on impeachment, then SF will have a very interesting election in 08. 60% of the voters voted to direct Pelosi to impeach, just last November. My bet is the number in favor is higher now. I guess Nancy will have to search her soul and try to do the right thing.

[EFerrari]

38. Nancy is between K Street and her district.

:scared:

[John Q. Citizen]

42. If Cindy runs, can I sleep on your couch and put up yard signs during the day?

:donut:

I'll bring my own coffee.

[EFerrari]

43. Yep!

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. Me too? Me too!?

I'll bring donuts!

[mzmolly]

66. True, I meant to say the house/senate. Sorry bout that. But,

impeachment will not remove Bush without the votes. Further, I don't like the "my way or else" bullying tactics that Cindy Sheehan is currently using, sorry. One day she's running against Clinton, the next Pelosi. Each new threat contains a narrow "my way or else" criteria? I'm a bit puzzled at what she's thinks she'll accomplish? Does she think Nancy Pelosi will say "oh, I better do what Cindy Sheehan says?" It's a bit bizarre frankly.

[John Q. Citizen]

83. I never heard she was running against Clinton. I did read she

threatened to run against Diane Feinstien, but then Diane came around and did the right thing and Cindy didn't have to. That makes a lot more sense to me, since Cindy lives in CA.

It's not bullying any more than if Pelosi runs against Cindy. It's politics. It's not personal. Actvists are supposed to get elected officials to do the right thing, to move them over when they won't listen to their constituents.

Did you read the piece by Larry Johnson in the NYT today? He says that a source close to the Dems in the house leadership tells him that Hoyer and Pelosi aren't speaking to each other because Hoyer is pushing Pelosi to impeach Chaney, and Pelosi refuses. Hoyer would love to be speaker, it's his passion. I prefer Nancy as Speaker, for various reasons, but if he will impeach, and Nancy refuses, I'm going to have to rethink that. I don't have a vote, but I bet some house members might be rethinking that, too.

It would also be good politics because the people are getting pissed off at congress, since, the war/occupation is bigger, larger, and more costly in blood and treasure now that the Dems control congress than before they controlled congress. Have you seen the lastest approval ratings of congress? They are lower now than they were last Nov. That's not a problem? Dems accross the country overwhelmingly want impeachment. Independants want impeachment by a clear majority. What's the hang-up?

Impeachment isn't about "winning" ie removal by the Senate, it's about accountabiliy. It's also about investigating the charges against this administration. It's not up to the house to remove anybody, but to bring charges if they are found by the impeachment investigations to be warrented.

Impeachment is the bringing of an indictment. Should Pat Fizgerald have not indicted Libby? Should he not have prosecuted Libby, because, in the end, the jury might be hung, or bush would just commute his prison sentence?

[mzmolly]

85. I think she eluded to it after others suggested she do so?

http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/pork/sheehan.htm
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=9779

However, I did not recall the Feinstein threat until you noted it. Thanks.

It's not bullying any more than if Pelosi runs against Cindy. It's politics. It's not personal. Actvists are supposed to get elected officials to do the right thing, to move them over when they won't listen to their constituents.

Politics effects people, Cindy's family among them. It's "politics" for me too, and that's why I can't support the same tactics that prevented a President Gore.

My point is that one can make a political statment by running against an incumbent from within the Democratic Party. Paul Wellstone was a great progressive who made this point time and time again.

Did you read the piece by Larry Johnson in the NYT today? He says that a source close to the Dems in the house leadership tells him that Hoyer and Pelosi aren't speaking to each other because Hoyer is pushing Pelosi to impeach Chaney, and Pelosi refuses. Hoyer would love to be speaker, it's his passion. I prefer Nancy as Speaker, for various reasons, but if he will impeach, and Nancy refuses, I'm going to have to rethink that. I don't have a vote, but I bet some house members might be rethinking that, too.

I saw that article JohnQ, and I also saw that Blomberg might run, hurting Democrats in 2008? I don't know what to believe from the assertions made by Larry Johnson today. Murtha being indicted?

However, if Cheney is impeached, a Bush appointee will be VP, I am not comforted by that personally.

Dems accross the country overwhelmingly want impeachment. Independants want impeachment by a clear majority. What's the hang-up?

A slight majority in some polls shows that the country is supportive. That small percentage could change with the wind. I do feel that if the people want impeachment, we need to carry out that will. However, Cindy can make this point by challenging Pelosi from within. That's my point, and I'm stickin to it. ;)

Impeachment isn't about "winning" ie removal by the Senate, it's about accountabiliy. It's also about investigating the charges against this administration. It's not up to the house to remove anybody, but to bring charges if they are found by the impeachment investigations to be warrented.

Indeed, we need to investigate and Pelosi has ALWAYS said "let's see where investigations take us." But, to suggest that we have to impeach by such and such date is absurd.

Impeachment is the bringing of an indictment. Should Pat Fizgerald have not indicted Libby? Should he not have prosecuted Libby, because, in the end, the jury might be hung, or bush would just commute his prison sentence?

Pat Fitzgerald brought evidence before a grand jury after a careful investigation. He wasn't threatened to "indict or else" within a specific time frame.

Honestly, I have no problem investigating, impeaching etc. I welcome the thought. But, the wheels of justice turn slowly as they say. Investigations will take time, and with the Bush pardon of Libby, our options have narrowed a bit.

Again, I think Cindy needs to make certain that what she does politically, will do no harm to the very people she is trying to help. Her sons death serves as tragic reminder to me of what can happen with Republicans in charge. Sorry, but to me, it feels like there is such a disconnect on her part when I hear her threaten to use the same tactics that failed the entire world in 2000.

Thanks for the respectful disagreement JQ.:hi:

PS - If I don't reply tonight, I've signed off, but I'll check back in the am.

[John Q. Citizen]

99. I'm hitting the hay as well. I will try to reply to your more salient points in the am, and

thank you too for your honest, intelligent and serious debate. I don't think we disagree on most points to any large degree. I also don't think Cindy is a bomb thrower, or relishes a spoiler role, I think she is attempting to move Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table, and I think she is helping to motivate regular everyday people to push for impeachment.

Take care!

[hooraydems06]

57. Again...

...the Republican candidate in the CT Senate race and a Cindy-Nancy-Republican candidate "X" three way race have the same chance of benefiting from the "split" vote. Remember how little vote count Schlesinger got in the CT Senate race? In Pelosi's district, the Republican candidate will be lucky if (s)he gets two thirds that much.

Please do some research on the district you're discussing before making the kind of declarations you have made in your above posting.

[mzmolly]

68. Welp, the mantra in 2000 when Nader ran was similar as well.

I dont need to conduct extensive research in this district to know who Cindy will be hurting - it's not the Republican.

[MessiahRp]

62. Two things...

1. Pelosi wasn't in the Senate either.

2. Pelosi is in a super Democratic district. No Republican will win there even if Sheehan and Pelosi went head to head.

Rp

[mzmolly]

69. Re number 1.

1. OOPS. I realize that I stated Senate instead. I was thinking about when Cindy was threatening to run against Hillary and said senate instead of house/senate - sorry.

Re # 2. I don't belive she can be certain of this, sorry. However, there is a way to be sure that Cindy wont help the Republican. She can run against Nancy as a Democrat in the primaries.

[hooraydems06]

56. That's your decision...

... but don't for a second believe that the two situations are comparable, except that the Republican candidate in either race have the same chance of benefiting from the "split" vote. Remember how little vote count Schlesinger got in the CT Senate race? In Pelosi's district, the Republican candidate will be lucky if (s)he gets two thirds that much.

[mzmolly]

70. I heard that same language when Nader ran in 2000.

I was right when I stated that he'd hurt Gore much more than Bush. There's one way to be certain, Cindy can run as a Democrat.

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. Do you live in Pelosi's district?

[mzmolly]

82. No, but I have donated money and a bit of time to Lamont.

"Support" comes in many forms. Do you live in her district? If so, can you find out why she doesn't challenge Pelosi as a Democrat instead of an Inde?

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. I don't live in her district

I would think it is pretty obvious why Cindy isn't challenging Pelosi as a Dem. Cindy's number one priority is ending the war. Whatever it takes.

[mzmolly]

87. And she thinks she has a better chance of doing that as a lone independent?

Or, by helping a Republican take the seat?

I dunno, again I don't get it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. Do you honestly think a Republican can win in Pelosi's district?

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

89. Depends.

But, why even chance it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. To force Pelosi to listen to her constituents

End the war and put impeachment back on the table.

[mzmolly]

92. Again, why not try to "force" Pelosi as a Democrat?

:shrug:

Regarding impeachment, Pelosi has always said "let's see where investigations take us." Cindy is not helping the matters she cares about if America is under the impression that Pelosi is impeaching Bush just because she was "threatned" by Cindy Sheehan.

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. "Impeachment is OFF the table"

That is what Pelosi said, so I doubt she is going to do a damn thing regardless of where the investigations take us. Besides, we have investigations and we know what bush has done. The list of impeachable offenses grows almost daily.

And Pelosi still says impeachment is off the table.

[mzmolly]

94. And when pressed she said "let's see where the investigations take us."

She's not going to shout IMPEACH before we take the majority. Now that we have the majority, we're investigating, but we are not having an easy time getting to Bush/Cheney when the criminals who can turn them over are pardoned as Libby was last week.

That said, I stand by my assertion that Sheehan should run as a Democrat if she's serious about challenging Pelosi and/or the war. She'd actually be more of a threat if she did.

Peace ProudLib. I'm out for the night.

:hi:

[MADem]

2. Well, I'm guessing she's running then, because I doubt Pelosi will leap up and say to herself

"Uh oh, I gotta motivate an unwilling, summer session legislature to push this issue forward NOW, otherwise CINDY's gonna run as an Independent!"

If Cindy means what she says, those who like the idea of her candidacy as an independent should say farewell and start volunteering for her campaign right now, because the likelihood that Pelosi would jump through a timeline hoop because Ms. Sheehan asks her to is remote in the extreme.

[emcguffie]

11. Seems to me we need to get rid of all those "traitors", as RFK called them.

I tend to agree with Cindy and RFK. Our reps are behaving as traitors, giving the corporations what they want, not giving us what we need. The only way out is to boot them all out. Or convince them that we will certainly do so if they do not start doing what we elected them to do. Even if they don't have the votes! With a little effort, they could get the votes. The whole country is upset!

Showing them we mean business is the only way they will understand that they must do what want them to do. If they refuse to do what we elected them to do, and what we communicate to them we want them to do, we must un-elect them. Otherwise, they can just keep on doing what they're doing.

Why would they need to change? Because we say, "Gee, Madame Speaker, it's okay that you refuse to do what we need you to do, we love you anyway."?

I tend to think not.

I would vote for her if I could. Happily. With relief. Except that I live in New Jersey. :dilemma: Maybe I'll move to California's 8th District so I can.

[MADem]

117. It would aid discussion if you could provide a link to RFK's statement.

I can't comment on it until I see it in context.

[emcguffie]

124. Sorry. A day late.

It was on the Greatest page yesterday. Now I can't find it. It's on You Tube.

I shall look for it.

It was wonderful.

[MADem]

130. I heard the speech just now. To be contextual, he was talking about the polticians who are in bed

with the ENERGY Emperors, the corporate baaastids like Exxon and Southern Company and Shell and so forth. His remarks were carefully and specifically tailored to the global warming issue, which Cindy Sheehan, to my knowledge, has not addressed in any substantial or sustained way so that I've noticed. Her main issues seem to be George Bush and the war.

RFK wasn't talking about the antiwar movement, or even shaping his remarks about politicians in that context whatsoever.

So, the "traitors" remark is really out of place if we're gonna be honest, here. I suppose you COULD extrapolate it because of the whole "War for Oil" theme, but RFK certainly didn't do that, or even suggest it, and I'm not about to put those words in his mouth. He might, one day, say something along those lines, but in that particular talk, on that particular day, on that particular stage, he didn't.

It WAS a great speech--it just doesn't have a direct link to Sheehan's major issue, though.

I suppose if we examined the portfolios of all of the legislators, and saw where their investments lay, and looked at their corporate donors, it would probably reveal a lot about where the politicians stash their own dough, and from whom they get their campaign contributions.

Someone would have to do a bit of slogging research to pull that string, though. Most of it is on the web, it just takes time....

[emcguffie]

126. Here's the link.

It's been a while since I've done this, very sorry. I'm not sure just how to do it. So the youtube is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9q3PR_Tps

The DU thread with the video is:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=39133&mesg_id=39133

[MADem]

129. This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Microsoft Network

The baaaastids!!!!!!!!!

Found a soundtrack...wonder how long they'll let that stay up?

I am listening to it now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLysg

[silverojo]

15. She knows Pelosi won't do it

Cindy's just saying this to gain support for herself as a candidate. Very smart campaign move, I must say--this sort of publicity is something no amount of money can buy!

[MADem]

115. Well, my mileage varies on that, but hey, we will just have to differ.

I think it's a childish move, myself. If she is going to run, she should declare and file. That's what serious candidates do. Not threaten--If you don't do X, why, I'm going to split YOUR vote and put a Republican in your job, and your district loses a Speaker! Yeah, that's REAL mature of her. Not.

That's Naderesque, IMO. You can, and likely will, disagree, but I'm firm in that opinion.

[EFerrari]

37. This district is FURIOUS with Nancy. And remember, we nearly

elected a Green mayor here last time out, most likely did but somehow those ballots ended up in the Bay. lol

:shrug:

[MADem]

118. Well, close only counts in horseshoes. The Green almost-Mayor DID file a protest, I trust?

I don't think her ENTIRE District is all that pissed at her, though. Of course, we'll see who actually challenges her, and how well they do. That's the real measure of electoral anger and angst.

[OzarkDem]

44. GOP is already moving on Iraq

If Pelosi is worth her salt, she had better be prepared to do something about it this summer, whether Cindy runs or not.

If she's thinking of taking the summer off, she'd better think twice.

[MADem]

119. Lugar and one or two others is still a long way from two-thirds of the Senate, though.

There's just no percentage in getting the House riled until those figures over on the Senate side get closer. These are horsetrades that happen (as Dave Obey pointed out), and the bills that are under consideration today won't be the ones under consideration, requiring appropriate supplementation and amendment, later.

You make your deals at the advantageous time. Right now isn't the time, but it could be September or the start of the new FY, if we're lucky and a few more GOP Senators start to shift. A few key players, and things could start happening quickly. We will just have to see.

[Raven]

5. I'm wondering why I'm annoyed by this. I am just as impatient as

Cindy but somehow I think she has jumped the gun. We know we have only so many votes and I question if Cindy could do any better than Pelosi can at this time. I think we need to keep pushing our reps but also face the reality of what we are dealing with.

[knowledgeispwr]

9. Votes

You bring up a good point about the votes. I think too many well-meaning people forget that we have slim majorities in both houses and even if we could get an impeachment in the House there won't be a conviction in the Senate. With limited legislative time and a media that isn't out friend, people need to think about if a failed endeavor is the best use of our time and resources.

[Raven]

13. I don't think this is a "failed endeavor" but I do think it is a long

term endeavor. I have been working in the anti war movement a lot longer than Cindy Sheehan and while I have not been sitting in ditches in Texas, I have been in the public squares in my area for years now. People are waking up and coming around and some people are getting frustrated. Democracy is not instant and while our reps have been exceedingly slow, they still need time to make this right. I guess I wonder who Cindy is listening to these days...not my son, for sure!

[silverojo]

16. So what?

If the House even STARTED the impeachment process, it would send a message that they're trying to do their job. Even if they don't succeed (which I doubt they could), it would at least show America that Democrats aren't complicit in allowing this country to be flushed down the toilet.

[Raven]

20. So you tell me how Cindy Sheehan going after Nancy Pelosi

advances anything. You tell me how many times it takes for us to take our eyes off the ball before we lose the ballgame. Tell me, please, how this advances anything.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. It puts all media everywhere focusing on the charges in HR333 to impeach

Chaney. More charges can be added.

It takes away the shield of executive privilege because executive privilege can't be used to cover up the investigation of a crime. the house will be subpoenaing witnesses to investigate the charges. Condi, Scooter, Rummy, heck, Chaney himself may be asked, or compelled, to testify under oath.

It puts the VP directly in the hot seat. Is he going to go sit in an undisclosed location during this time? Or is he going to be on TV a lot, with a lot of questions being asked? What do you think?

Then, in the end, if the Repos in the Senate don't hold Chaney accountable, the voters just might hold those Repos accountable. We aren't talking a blow job here, we are talking treason, sedation, undermining our constitution, spying on Americans, killing our troops for oil and lying the country into an illegal war and occupation.

People would say, wow the Dems aren't a bunch of spineless wimps that are often hard to distinguish from the Repos, except by their timidity.

I think it would accomplish a lot, and I think it would help out the Dems immensely in 08 - To answer your question

[EFerrari]

40. With respect Raven, Cindy is merely giving voice to Nancy's district.

And as politicians are risk adverse, they need some pretty stern coaching in that direction.

If Cindy doesn't run against Nancy, someone else will because Nancy's support among liberals here is pretty low right now.

[mzmolly]

86. But why can't she give a voice as a Democratic Primary challenger

sfexpat? That's what I don't get?

[EFerrari]

102. I dunno either. And, I think it's a mistake.

But, it may be about the establishment not wanting to rock the boat. I have to learn more about this because I don't really get it yet.

[AZBlue]

72. I'm not sure what the reason for their forgetfulness is.

For some it's a clear misunderstanding of how our government runs - you can tell by what they post. For others they just seem to have heard that we "have a majority" and don't really know how small that majority is. And, then of course there are the trolls.

[mzmolly]

19. I understand.

Wasn't she running against Hillary just a short time ago? :shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

22. She threatened to run against Hilary, too

And I have to admit that that bothered me at the time.

If she wants to run, she should run in her own district and not take on these experienced and entrenched candidates.

She has no chance of winning as a one-issue outsider, no matter how noble the cause.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. She did the same thing to bush. In your face mofo! They don't hear anything else.

I bet Pelosi will move on the issue. Her own voters directed her to impeach by 60% in favor last November in a county wide referendum.

Believe it or not, the goal isn't to remove bush through impeachment and conviction in the Senate. The goal is to bring the focus squarely and directly on the administration's crimes, to get out from under the bogus hiding of crimes by the nebulous excuse of "executive privilege," because executive privilege can't be used as a shield in the investigation of crimes.

If Pelosi acts to remove her self imposed lid on impeachment and speaks favorably and acts favorably to moving Kucinich's bill, HR333, to impeach Chaney, then I bet Cindy will call it a victory and not run. Remember, no one wants to impeach bush first, because if it were successful, then we'd be stuck with Chaney.

This is what activists are supposed to do. They are supposed to move politicians on the issues. I bet this will get Nancy's attention, because while Sheehan might not be able to win in SF, she would get a whole lot of the vote pie; Don't doubt it for a second. And she's just tenacious enough to follow through, i don't doubt it.

"The girl's got to use what she's got to get what she wants!" - a quote - I forget where it came from

[The Wielding Truth]

34. Go read about Mahatma Gandhi. His actions were extreme

too, but he had to get the attention of those with the power to make the changes that he felt in his heart were right. Cindy is sure that she must stop this unjust manipulation that is called "the war on terror" that has taken our once free country into a corporate gang rape.Republicons are stripping Our USA of it's credibility, respect for human dignity, constitutional laws, pubic ownership, and depleting our national funds. I see that she is taking a stand in the best way that she knows how. She is putting herself on the front line of politics.Maybe if she were an international or constitutional lawyer she may take another, maybe better, stand but she is standing and I applaud her.

[EFerrari]

39. It's not our job to face political reality. That's their job.

Our job is to keep pushing for what we want and that is what Cindy is doing.

[LittleClarkie]

54. "I question if Cindy could do any better"

This comment implies that Cindy would get the speaker position and have a chance to "do better." She likely would not get the chance. And someone she likes even less might get the speaker position instead, like Ralm Emanuel.

[MADem]

116. It's not the gun, though--it's the shark she's jumped.

Her farewell statement, posted elsewhere in this thread, but here is the link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525 said she was leaving, going home, wanted to spend more time with family, done with the Democrats, done with the "Peace Movement"--was written less than TWO MONTHS ago. The GOP has coined that nasty "flip flop" word for what she's doing. It will be used against her, just as the "flipflop" word is being used against Mitt "I was prochoice before I was against it" Romney.

She's not a credible candidate. She'll implode, if she even runs, IMO.

[Annces]

6. Sounds good to me

Why not expose Pelosi more. She may have a sensitivity to ridicule.

[ccpup]

7. but wouldn't * be out of office

by the time Sheehan went into Congress? Kind of makes this bumbling attempt at blackmail more than a little confusing. And being in Congress is a bit more than just impeachment. I trust the constituents have other concerns that don't involve Iraq.

[Robson]

10. It's a promise against Pelosi and the "DO NOTHINGS"

If they don't act now against the most incompetent, most unconstitutional, most corrupt government in US history that they will put candidates in place that will cause those pro-institution, pro-corporate, pro-war Democrats to lose in 2008.

We need impeachment proceeedings to begin now. The problem is that many of the Democratic Presidential candidates see that as muddying the waters for them....just as they saw voting aganst the Iraq War.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Probably, but they voted 60% to direct Pelosi to impeach. So it seems important

to them, at least.

[nini]

46. oh for God's sake - what does that have to do with anything?!?!

:sarcasm:

[partylessinOhio]

8. Go Cindy! Knock that BushLover right out the box!

"George is a lovely man," said Madame Squeaker.

[silverojo]

14. Damn, if only I lived in that district!

I'd vote for Cindy in a heartbeat!

Run, Cindy, run!!!!!!!!!

[onecent]

23. OMG! I LOVE your picture of Ann. LOL LOL n/t

[demnan]

18. If she wants to run a serious campaign

without anger or emotion, she needs to move to San Fransico, get involved locally, talk to people and maybe put some parts of the peace movement on hold for a little while. It would be tough work to mount a serious campaign as a representative, and also she would be running against the speaker of the house, which gives clout to any Congressional District. (Clout meaning earmarks).

I hope she would reconsider this idea. Not that she shouldn't run for office, but I'm not sure she isn't just so frustrated and angry that she's willing to try anything. I've been there. It's a frequent mistake that I make, so I see it in others. I think she should make a concerted effort to contact someone within Conyer's office and work to set up a meeting to discuss with him the concerns she has. It wouldn't hurt if she organized with constituents from his congressional district either. Working this efort with a Congressional leadership office might prove more fruitful than angry frustration.

[Yukari Yakumo]

21. Now that I think of it...

Can she even legally run against Pelosi? Is she even a legal resident of Pelosi's district? Or of California at all?

I'm leaning toward this being another attention mongering stunt. It's going to hurt the cause in the end.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Do you want answers to your questions or were they asked so you could

then come to a conclusion?

Was Hillary able to move to New York and run for Senator?

Now that I think about it, it seems like it was just a carpetbagging move to set up a run for Presidemnt, so she could get attention, stay in the limelight, and act important.

Does my question and conclusion sound as stupid to you as it does to me? Sorry if I'm being a tad harsh, but jeeesus, what is it about politics that you don't get?

[John Q. Citizen]

33. I think this is a well though out and effective tactic. Pelosi hasn't budged, even

as Americans, republican lawmakers, (and if you believe Johnson from the NYT,) Steny Hoyer has pushed to get impeachment back on the table. Pelosi's constituents voted 60% to 40% just last November in favor of impeachment

HR333, the bill to impeach Chaney, has 14 co-sponsors and growing. Cindy is attempting to use a pretty good tactic to get Madam Speaker to move on this issue, the potential loss of her house seat.

My bet is they've been brainstorming down in Crawford, and they came up with this, talked about it, discussed the pros and cons, and decided "let's try it!"

I think it will work. For one thing, Nancy must be aware that Cindy has a lot of street creds in SF. She's got friends, local activists, media savey and draw. And she's tenacious enough to actually do it.

Both Cindy and Nancy know she won't win the house seat; but the amount of votes she could draw away from Pelosi could allow a moderate Republican to take the seat away from Nancy.

Cindy is just using her best shot to move the Speaker on this issue. It's what politics are all about. I think it's a good idea, and I hope it moves Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table. I bet it will.

[hooraydems06]

60. No, *NO* Republican...

"moderate" or otherwise will ever "take the seat away from Nancy". But as I've said elsewhere, should hell freeze over, and the "moderate" Republican somehow manage to snatch the seat (which would have to mean that 8 other left wing candidates joined Sheehan in splitting the progressive vote, and every single person expected it to be a protest vote for their candidate that hardly anyone else would support at the ballot, but it turned out they all got a good share of the total) if Nancy wanted the seat back, she could take it back in 2010 for sure. But it doesn't matter, because no Republican will *EVER* crack more than 15% in that district.

[John Q. Citizen]

71. Your right, and 15% would be pushing it. Gawd I love San Francisco. I

used to hitch up there from Sta. Cruz when i was in high school and just wonder around with my girlfriend, around the park out to playland, through the mission, China town and North Beach.

I'd ride up with my brothers friends and see bands at the Bill Grahams new fillmore on Market, at Winterland. I marched in mobilizations against the war at the city hall, thousand and thousands crammed into the park in front.

My aunt lived in the bank of America plaza building on Market and Polk, way up high, with a balcony facing the East Bay. I had another aunt who lived in the Sunset until she finally moved to a retirement home in Walnut Creek.

In the eighties I had a room in a second story rent controlled flat on Petrero Hill with a killer view of the bay and a roof top deck. I'd come in early in the morning and smell the coffee roasting company wafting their delicious aroma through the empty streets as I searched for a parking space. :)

Blooms Bar had the most killer Juke Box. The Palace Billiards on Market was a trip back to the forties and fifties hay day of pool halls, like something from The Hustler. They had flipperless pin ball machines, made before they invented flippers for pinball machines. South of Market was the hot and heavy club scene, I hear it's all gone now.

And the food. Man the food.

Anyway, I sure hope Pelosi puts impeachment back on the table, and quick. It's time.

[Pyrzqxgl]

24. How many damn times does this have to be announced?

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. No one is forcing you to read any thread you aren't interested in

:)

[Bitwit1234]

25. So lets do that to all the democrats and throw the elections to republicans.

If the democrats don't pass a law that does this...or does that....get a high profile person to run against them. Then neither will get the position and the republicans are bound to win. This is a jerk crap answer to a situation.


Any thing that gives the republicans the advantage is wrong wrong wrong. There is no way Sheenan would get the position, all she would do is give it to the republicans.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. I agree. Pelosi taking impeachment off the table gives the advatage to the Repos

It's wrong, wrong, wrong!

So what are you going to do about it?

I know what Cindy is doing about it. She's legally blackmailing madam Speaker to get her to move over on this issue. And it's good for the Dems that she is, no matter how much they whine about mean ol' Cindy Sheehan.

Man, that woman scares the crap out of power faster than you can say "exlax!"

[karlrschneider]

48. You're right...look how quickly she got Chimp to end the Iraq "war."

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

50. I didn't say that, silly. But she did make him run and hide. That's a fact!

[karlrschneider]

55. He ran and hid at his own pig farm? As opposed to going...where, exactly?

:eyes:

[hooraydems06]

61. No, once *AGAIN*...

... I don't know about other districts, but a Republican will never, NEVER manage to win this district, whether it's a three-way race, a five-way race (with it's the GOP, Nancy, and three more left-wing candidates including Sheehand), or even an eight-way race with Sheehan and four more left wing candidates. If you want a comparable example, Google the election results for Tony Blair's constituency when he was up for reelection in his district in 2005, and see how many candidates they were, and how Tony was still reelected handily even when his most notable left wing challenger was a famous man who's UK soldier son died in Iraq.

[KharmaTrain]

103. Shhh...You're Making Sense

So letsee...Pelosi is all evil as she didn't jump when we said to and isn't stomping boooosh all over the place, thus we need to take out our frustrations on her and not those who are putting the real roadblocks in the way.

She's evil because 17 Repugnicans don't have the stones to cross over to convict boooosh, cheney or gonzo. 11 won't even jump over to look into putting an end to the Iraq madness or putting any real checks against the runaway power of this regime.

Pelosi has had to walk a tightrope of various Democratic factions from many here who want boooosh's ass in the worst way and the "blue dogs" whose votes have to be there for any major bill to move along. Seems many here want a monolith party...kinda like the Repugnicans under DeLay where he could snap his fingers and impeachment happened or held open votes or twisted arms to rule with an iron fist.

It appears Ms. Sheehan wants the same thing. I'm as frustrated about this invasion as anyone. I've donated money to Gold Star Mothers for Peace and various other groups Cindy's been associated with, but this is one bridge to far for me. Instead of seeing the political landscape as it is, she's wishes it to be her way and is lashing out now at the people who, in the long run, stand the best chances of advancing her agenda.

Has Pelosi been tepid about going after booosh? Take into consideration that the Democrats had been out of power in the House for the past 12 years...12 long years of being locked out of any real power and bringing in many who had never worked in a majority environment at all. And now Sheehan wants to challenge a leader...embarass or do even greater damage to the party that stand with her more than against her? This tactic will only relegate her further from being a respected voice, not make her bigger.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

27. And I will do whatever I can to help her!

F'ing-A Baby!

[John Q. Citizen]

47. I'm hoping Madam Speaker sees the light on in the dining room and

takes that pot o'impeachment out of the House lunchroom refridgerator and puts it back on the table. I'm betting she will.

I think I'll write a letter to Nancy Pelosi and tell her so myself. While I'd love to come to San Pancho and spend some time knocking on doors and putting up yard signs, I'd rather eat, cause I'm starving for some juicy justice, and the gruel I've been surviving on is running a little thin.

I encourage everyone else in SF, and around the country, to also write to Speaker Pelosi and tell them they are hungrey, and if they don't get fed, they are bringing some flowers in their hair and some good walking shoes!

edited to add - And don't forget your clip board!

[Seen the light]

49. Didn't she quit?

Am I missing something here?

[EFerrari]

51. If Cindy doesn't challenge Nancy, district progressives will find someone

who will. Nancy has been ignoring her constituents for years now and she's about used up their/our goodwill. And, we still have legitimate elections here.

[calteacherguy]

52. Cindy Sheehan has become a pathetic figure. She's making a fool of herself. nt

[Swamp Rat]

59. Pathetic??? A Fool???

:wow:

[calteacherguy]

74. She needs therapy...and I don't mean that in a condescending way.

She needs to get help, the way she is living now is not helping her to move on.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. Well it sure comes off as condescending

How dare you imply that she has not had therapy. How would you know?

[MADem]

127. Well, maybe what he meant was that it didn't take too well.

She certainly is contradicting herself a lot lately. Just slightly over a month ago, she issued a couple of ultimatums--said she was leaving public life, leaving the Peace Movement, leaving the Democrats, and going off to spend time with her family and live a private life because a couple of people on DU were mean to her. That was her DailyKos Diary entry--I posted the link elsewhere on this thread.

Now, she's gonna take on the scrutiny of a race against an incumbent with a leadership position? That's hardly leaving public life. Guess the "spend more time with family" thing ran its course in a hurry, perhaps?

And saying she's going to run as a "threat?" Blackmail as a publicity stunt?

No matter what way you slice it, it doesn't come off as too well thought out.

We'll see if she files in the next couple of weeks.

[proud2BlibKansan]

135. She didn't say she was leaving public life

And she is trying to move Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table. Surely an astute political observer such as yourself can see that. It is not only a well thought out plan, it is brilliant. And you can expect more true progressives to announce similar plans.

[MADem]

137. Well, let me give you the link, again, and a few paragraphs of direct quotes

Cindy's title for this opus was "Good Riddance, Attention Whore"--and if this isn't a Grand Farewell, I don't know what is. I've underlined the parts that more than suggest that she's out of public life, though she does say she'll help individuals still. What, we're supposed to read tea leaves now, and treat her words like mysterious symbols for something other than what they say???

"I am finished working IN or OUTSIDE OF, this system" seems pretty plain to me. Running for office? That's "In the system" I'd say. "I am getting OUT before it totally consumes me" is pretty straightforward as well. The "Good-bye, America" is icing on that cake.

But hey, what do I know? She says she's finished. She says she's getting out. She says GOOD-BYE AMERICA. This was a month and a half ago. Whatever...I only read and write English!

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

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

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too...which makes the property even more valuable.

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

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

It’s up to you now.

I'm sorry. I don't think her "plan" is brilliant. I don't think she HAS a "plan." I think she's making an ass of herself, again, and squandering her sorely diminished goodwill with Average Americans--you know, those people that the fringes on both sides of the aisle disdain. The ordinary, average, plain ones who vote, and who empathized with her before she started prancing off with Hugo and behaving rather bizarrely. She's probably doing all this because she's not well. That's my opinion. And I think her "friends" aren't her real friends, otherwise they'd respect this very recent DailyKos "cry for help" manifesto and stop shoving her to the fore after she said she was finished, for their own purposes. And that is my personal view of the matter.

But ya know, we aren't going to come to accord on this. EVER. I feel genuinely sorry for the woman, and you egg her on. I think she needs help, that she's in desperate straits, and you and others think she needs to keep plugging on with a message fewer and fewer are listening to, because she's lost her main point and has become a caricature of her former persona.

We're just not on the same plane on this matter and never will be.

[proud2BlibKansan]

140. No we aren't on the same plane

You continue to insult her and criticize her (yet you feel sorry for her?) You claim she needs help, as if you are some kind of fucking therapist (and how much more insulting can you be than that?)

And I actually know her and know for a fact how healthy and vibrant and RIGHT she is.

I actually put my money where my mouth is and my feet to the ground and do whatever I can to end this damn war and bring our troops home while you type long winded passages on an internet discussion board.

But on one point we do agree. We are definitely NOT on the same plane.

[MADem]

143. For the life of me, I fail to understand how honest criticism is "insulting"

What you are doing, though, is insulting my intelligence when you make a halfassed and untrue assertion like that. It's not a nice trait, that--attempting to bully those with whom you differ into silence by making untrue claims about what they have said. FWIW, too, it has the very opposite effect to the result you are trying to achieve.

I don't claim to be a therapist, fucking or otherwise. I said in this thread that I am NOT "diagnosing" her. I simply have a feeling--based on observation of her actions--that something is not right with her, and that perhaps she's being used by her handlers. It's a feeling, and it is an opinion. I don't demand that you endorse it--see, I, unlike you, don't MIND if you have a different opinion. If I saw someone running around in circles speaking gibberish I'd venture an "opinion" that there was something "not right" with that person, too. She's flipflopping like crazy, saying one thing one month, something completely opposite the next--and in rather dramatic fashion, too. When people call attention to themselves like that, sometimes they're asking for help.

I'm happy for you that you "actually put your money where your mouth is and your feet to the ground." Those two facts, that please you so much, have nothing to do with what I said, though. If you don't like "long winded passages," don't write ones that cast aspersions on me or my motivations, and you won't be "forced" to view the "long winded" replies. If they really trouble you, too, there are ways that you can manage to avoid viewing them altogether.

[ellisonz]

64. Yes, yes she is...it's really kinda sad.

[calteacherguy]

73. It's VERY sad, and I feel like she is being taken advantage of and being used. nt

[Vidar]

90. Trying to force a corrupt politician to do the right thing is pathetic????

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. Not on my planet

But apparently it is pathetic on other planets. :)

[ellisonz]

104. 60/67.

[Beelzebud]

109. Replace "Cindy Sheehan" with "Nancy Pelosi", and you have a point.

Nancy Pelosi has become a pathetic figure. She's making a fool of herself.

[Individualist]

58. I wish I could vote for her!

[KittyWampus]

67. Gee, I thought Sheehan was OUT of politics. Guess she's over that little tantrum & on to another

Democratic Underground doesn't support Independants who run against DEMOCRATS and that includes Sheehan.

[mzmolly]

76. And, I thought she was running against Hillary?

:shrug:

[MADem]

113. Well, she said she left "The Peace Movement" and then she said she left the Democratic Party

And near as I could tell, you are correct, she DID say she was taking her ball and going home.

Here''s her DailyKos diary where she starts out with the "attention whore" theme (HER words, mind you, that she says were directed at her): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525

She accuses people of blind political loyalty, in essence, and states in rather broadbrushed fashion that no one, save her, wants peace: I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. That's hardly the way to win friends or influence people--it's hardly the way to be politically effective, either. Statements like that don't motivate people to want to join the cause.

She also doesn't particularly LIKE "The Peace Movement" because not everyone in said umbrella movement likes her:

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

And here's the "take ball, go home" bit:

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

Guess that "Spend more time with family" gig didn't work out too well, and she needs something to fill her days, perhaps?

She doesn't seem to realize that her statements ARE taken down and published, and they're available for others to read. She is a walking, talking barrel of continuous contradictions, to put it nicely. If the Corporate Media can call Mitt Romney on his choice and other flipflops, they certainly have the right to call her on hers--and they will, make no mistake. My take on her candidacy: Fuggedaboutit. She won't win. She might cut into Pelosi's vote. I'm not from Pelosi's district, so I don't know the demographics. I do think a constituency would be idiotic to toss out a Speaker for a freshman Republican, though--because that's what they'd get in a three-way race if Cindy was able to split the vote effectively (and I doubt she'd do it, myself). Cindy has no hope in hell of winning. I don't know her odds of being a Nadaresque spoiler, but if I had to guess, I'd say that wouldn't work too well, either.

[Zomby Woof]

79. Hm

Maybe she is an attention whore.

By the time the new term would start in 2009, Chimpy will be back in Crawford falling down drunk on his bike. Impeachment would be moot.

[mzmolly]

95. "attention whore?"

Pathetic that anyone who calls himself a progressive, would use this loaded sexist language AGAIN to disagree with Cindy Sheehan.

[MADem]

114. To be fair, Sheehan used the term about HERSELF in her "Take Ball, Go Home" farewell on DailyKos

It was the TITLE of her piece, where she, in broadbrushed fashion, accuses ALL of DU of being "mean to her," No wonder she gets so little respect around here--to get it, you have to give it. She takes a dissenting post or two and extrapolates it to the whole community--bit of a persecution complex, IMO: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525

"Good Riddance Attention Whore"
by CindySheehan
Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:57:01 AM PDT
I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.

If she can't stand the heat of a small faction of a small online group (in the big scheme of things) like DU, she's gonna have one helluva time in the big, bad world of elective politics.

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. Chimpy will be in Paraguay

He won't be coming back to Crawford. The cowboy image won't be necessary anymore once he is out of office.

[Seabiscuit]

101. Pelosi will ignore Cindy just as she ignores us. So she deserves to be punished

for it by being defeated in 2008 by Sheehan. That's all Cindy's saying. And I agree with her, and KUDOs for saying it.

[Blue-Jay]

121. yeah. THAT'S gonna happen.

:eyes:

[Robson]

128. The most important thing that Pelosi can do now is IMPEACH Bush and Cheney

If they are allowed to skip off as ex-Presidents without being challenged on their corruption and their flaunting of our Constitution because some political adviser hacks think it might negatively affect the 2008 elections for Democrats is total hypocrisy.

They who have stolen elections and stolen the lives of many young members of the American military must be challenged so it never happens again.

[L. Coyote]

134. Sheenhan should run against a Republican. She could become a Dem, right?

If she becomes a Democrat, she could run against a Republican instead.