No, she's not.
I know very little about Cindy Sheehan. I was also raised in a religious tradition that believes in and venerates saints. I'm not much of a praciticing Catholic these days, but I still know a little about sainthood. For instance, you have to have performed some miracles. And you have to be dead.
Cindy Sheehan, unlike her son who she's tragically outlived because of his death in a profoundly stupid war, is very much alive. And she has not, to my knowledge, performed any miracles. What she has done has garnered tremendous attention from her poignant and resolute request to meet with the man who ordered the war that cost the life of her son, about 1,800 other Americans daughters, sons, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, friends and neighbors, many soldiers and civillians from dozens of other countries, and tens of thousands of Iraqis. She's to be admired.
But she's not to be venerated, and we should not be obeisant. And right now, at Daily Kos, it's almost as if Cindy Sheehan has been canonized, as if she's been made a saint.
A little while ago I hopped onto
this thread, and I was dismayed. The diarist made a very reasonable point, even if framed in the unnecessarily snarky "jumping the shark" trope. But the points made in the diary, whether one agrees with them or not, were not unreasonable, or dismissive, or insulting. In fact, they were quite respectful to Cindy Sheehan.
But the reaction from many, especially many of the first people to comment, seemed almost religious in their zeal. It wasn't, it seemed, that the diarist leveled unfair or illegitimate criticisms of Cindy Sheehan, or had raised the possibility that she's talking about subjects that would lose her credibility with the vast majority of Americans who would otherwise be sympathetic to her lose and receptive to her message. No, it appeared that many immediately branded the diarist a troll for simply exhibiting the temerity to suggest that Cindy Sheehan and her action may not be beyond criticism.
As of now, I haven't seen anything to persuade me that Cindy Sheehan's motives are not pure. But just because one's motives are pure does not mean one can not commit harm. And even if one isn't committing any harm, we should not stifle any discussion of the possibility that she may have veered into discussions that detract from her cause.
What good does it do any of us if we can't even entertain the possibility that criticizing the effectiveness of Cindy Sheehan's endeavor? Are we creating a case of pure faith in Cindy Sheehan, where her words and acts are beyond reason and can only be accepted as articles of faith? We're not there yet, and yes, this is hyperbole. But after seeing things like I saw tonight, I'm afraid we're uncomfortably close to where uncritical acceptance of all things Cindy Sheehan is the norm.
And that has me worried.