Skip to main content

So according to the recced diary on Dailykos right now, 80% of those who took the poll think Cindy Shehan shouldn't run against Nancy Pelosi.  

This is a clear example of why Democrats constantly lose in the public spotlight, in the PR games.  

Those 80% of you just.  Don't.  Get it.  

Let me ask you this:

Do you really think Sheehan wants Pelosi's job?

Wait, let me rephrase that --

Two or three summers ago, do you really think that Cindy Sheehan WANTED to meet with George W. Bush?

Do you really think that she would have walked away satisfied from that ditch in Crawford Texas, had she ben able to meet with Bush and tell him, in person what she thinks?

You know the answer to that question.  So why are you acting so naive now?

You complain and complain that impeachment is "off the table".  You complain and complain about the media not covering the issue.

We gnash our teeth and tear our hair wondering how we can get the American people to wake up and consider bringing justice to Bushco.  

Yet when somebody figures out a great way to do exactly this, you scream in embarassment and say "gosh, no!"

Let me put it this way:  Cindy Sheehan has just figured out a way to ask this question of the American people and the media:

"Why AREN'T we impeaching Bush and Cheney?"

Why AREN'T we?

Cindy Sheehan is doing what the rest of us are powerless to do.  And you're telling her to shut up?  

That's just plain stupid.  

Let her go.  Support this.  I'm gonna support her all the way.  If I could, I'd open an office for her, I'd run ads everywhere, I'd hire her the best PR person in Hollywood.  

Because this is the first time anyone has put that question into the public mind:  

WHY AREN'T WE IMPEACHING THESE MURDEROUS CROOKS?

Why aren't we?

Originally posted to theyrereal on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:36 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not asking why impeachment is off the (29+ / 13-)

    table. Because I'm a grownup. And I do get Cindy Sheehan. She's damaged and she's no liberal/progressive. She would be nothing but a distraction for our Speaker of the House and I don't see why we should enocurage the tortured gnat in her fuitile quest.

    •  Wow (27+ / 0-)

      She's damaged and she's no liberal/progressive...I don't see why we should enocurage the tortured gnat

      I think there's a legitimate case to be made that her candidacy won't accomplish much, but where do you get off with the ugly personal attacks on her? Damaged? She did more than you or I have to undermine support for the war and support for Bush; she is easily the most important antiwar activist of the decade.

      "Tortured gnat"? That earns you a TR.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:37:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have been hanging around this blog for several (14+ / 0-)

        years and from time to time I find that I can troll rate people.  I don't know exactly how that happens but it does -- probably a bug in the system.  But it doesn't last long and I am sent back to the land of the judged.  During the times I have been allowed the capability of troll rating others I have never done so, but in this case I would troll the comment that you troll rated.  That person's remarks about Cindy Sheehan were cruel and insulting.  Good for you for troll rating the comment.  I have never seen a better use of that capability.

        If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

        by hestal on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:01:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is the income tax good (or constitutional, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mia Dolan

        for that matter)?

        If you say, yes, you're disagreeing with Ms. Sheehan.

        Based on her positions set out in her diary, she's no more a progressive than Ron Paul is.

        Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:43:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  hate the TR, but that comment deserves a BIG ONE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        waitingforvizzini

        i hate the troll rating... but besides plagerism, suspiciousmind's comment is the most deserving of a troll rating i've seen

        what worries me is that 26 people rec'd the comment... we scream about the DEMS and yet rec a truly insulting and horrible comment

        if anyone should be called to act, it is Cindy and all those who have been forced to bear the ultimate burden of BushCo's war...

        who the hell are you, suspiciousmind to say what you did? no, i'm usually a moderate person and give people benefit of the doubt, but that and the 26 recs puts me over the top

        gonna give you a donut too...

        "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

        by pfiore8 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:01:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please go read Sheehan's diary n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pfiore8

          When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

          by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's not about Cindy's politics (0+ / 0-)

            it's about her grief and that's what was wrong

            the comment was just wrong

            "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

            by pfiore8 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:20:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Did you read her diary? n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gutterboy, pfiore8

              When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

              by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:21:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no, did not read her diary (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, Mia Dolan, zombierain

                and it doesn't matter much what she says or what her policies would be...

                he attacked her grief and that, in my book is, as i said to the commentor, no better than Ann Coulter's comment about Edwards' dead son...

                no... i don't care if she's Scalia in drag... attacking a parent is the way i took it

                and she did something about it... she camped out in Crawford... she took abuse... she sacrified a lot

                i would bet, from her GBCW diary that she is one pent up and frustrated person and she probably wants to hurt somebody... anybody

                i'll read the diary, but i don't think it will change my feelings

                but thanks for your persistence... one should always come from knowledge and I appreciate your gentle nudge...

                if i change my mind, i'll let you know

                "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

                by pfiore8 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Harsh but not trollworthy (12+ / 0-)

      Uprated to compensate.

      The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

      by nightsweat on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:50:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tortured gnat? (15+ / 0-)

      That's just wrong.  I can understand your disagreeing with her decision, but the personal attack, ad hominem, on the mother who lost her son in Iraq, is wrong.

      "So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard

      by joanneleon on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:54:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I stand by the tortured comment, because (10+ / 1-)

        she quite clearly is. Her son's death has clearly damaged her. Which is what one would expect. What happened was awful. The gnat comment is not a value judgement on her character, its a judgement on her not so realisitic chances of beating Pelosi, or even making her point about impeachment.

        •  It is name calling plain and simple (9+ / 0-)

          and your rationalization only makes it worse.

          The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true (Danny Kaye), -The Court Jester (1955)

          by waitingforvizzini on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:18:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Her point is not to beat Pelosi it IS to bring (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, esquimaux, pfiore8

          impeachment into the national conversation and keep it there. Some thing I don't think YOU can do.

          •  And (0+ / 0-)

            because she has become such a nutbag, she marginalizes impeachment.  

            When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

            by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:53:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Like I said there were a couple of historic (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JPete

              mistakes but she was far more right than wrong and I am sorry you didn't like hearing it, she probably didn't like having to write it. But isn't about that, it is about the horrific way she was treated by people she considered friends. Good god it makes us look like we would eat our own children and if you can't see the wrongness in how Cindy Sheehan was treated then I pity you and all the other democrats who think it was not only appropriate but a good thing. Shame on us.

              •  No (0+ / 0-)

                She wrote one of the most dishonest and offensive diaries this site has seen.  If it had been anyone other than Cindy Sheehan, she would have probably been banned.  She was treated badly because she wrote a troll diary full of Republican talking points.  She brought this on herself.  

                When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

                by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:09:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  She was treated badly (0+ / 0-)

                  by a lot of people here, long before this diary.  Are you saying that you supported her up until she wrote this diary?

                  "So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard

                  by joanneleon on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:58:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I supported her (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joanneleon

                    when she was protesting in Crawford.  I supported her when she was criticizing the Bush administration for the war they started.

                    I did not support her when she met with Chavez and Castro.  I did not support her when she blamed the war on the jews.  I did not support her when she endorsed Green candidates against Democrats.  I did not support her when she took up the the 9-11 conspiracy nutbags.  And I certainly did not support her yesterday when she wrote a diary full of Republican smears and right wing nutbaggery.  

                    My support of Sheehan (or of anyone) is not blind.  When they do good things, I support them.  When they do stupid and offensive things, I don't

                    I think some people have treated her badly.  But I think some of the perceived mistreatment was people holding her accountable for the stupid things she has done.  As I said a few days ago, if Sheehan wants to be a saint and above criticism, then she needs to be a saint.  If she wants to be a public figure, and now a politician, she can and should be criticized when that criticism is warranted.

                    When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

                    by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:10:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mia Dolan

                      I also didn't support her during most of the events you mentioned.  I just wanted to make the point that it wasn't just this diary that triggered the backlash, and also, that she was treated badly by some people here back in the early Crawford days too.  At times the treatment has been a fair reaction, and at other times, not.

                      "So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard

                      by joanneleon on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:28:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  It is egregious because we were ALL (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, jasoncinema

        so happy to use her and I mean USE her and now we kick her to the curb. Doesn't say very much good about us does it? So there were a couple of historical errors in her post but she was right about the important things and we were all so insulted she would say bad things about our party, well we need to fucking grow up! Man up, stop being a bunch of vindictive lazy cry baby bed wetters.I don't know do what ever it takes to stop riding on the coat tails of other people's pain to get our agenda done. Cindy a gnat? I don't know if that is fair but we have easily proven ourselves to be parasitic leeches with precious little honor or maturity. I'd rather be a Cindy than an us.

        •  Please (0+ / 0-)

          We were happy to use Joe Lieberman (the guy was the VP nominee, remember) until he turned on us.  Yes, when people smear Democrats with Republican talking points and adopt lunatic right-wing positions, they get kicked to the curb.

          When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

          by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:52:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And this makes us decent and honorable HOW? (0+ / 0-)

            It makes us stand out from Republicans HOW? It makes  me want to support this pack of jackals any more than the red pack of jackals HOW?

            •  Because (0+ / 0-)

              the Republicans tolerate liars and people who spew offensive crap.  We don't, even if its coming from Cindy Sheehan.  

              When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

              by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:04:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bush is not worth impeaching (0+ / 0-)

                This is some pretty offensive crap too:

                Pelosi’s argument against impeachment was, simply, that it wouldn’t be worth expending the political capital and effort to push the process forward.
                http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...

                "So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard

                by joanneleon on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:03:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                  There is a big difference between the lies and idiotic garbage that Sheehan was spewing, and the political calculations made by Pelosi.  Even if the Democrats could get enough votes to impeach, they will never get the 67 Senators needed to convict.  When is offensive is the idea that impeachment outweighs everything else.    

                  When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

                  by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Offensive (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mia Dolan

                    Pelosi's dismissive attitude and the refusal to do something substantive in this situation is as offensive or more offensive to me, than Cindy Sheehan's misguided statements.  Impeachment is a way of wrapping the multitude of crimes and problems into one action, and a way to stop further damage as best as we can.  I think that is why it seems to outweigh other priorities.  It looks like the public is moving in this direction too, and feels the same sense of urgency.

                    So we disagree on that.

                    "So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard

                    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:37:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Why the hell would this get 8 troll ratings? I've (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi9, cometman, tenaciouslee, dennisl

      seen far sterner stuff get by with nothing. You could call Hillary Clinton a whore or write about Edwards hair and not get this number of troll ratings.

      •  hmmm (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JPete

        The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true (Danny Kaye), -The Court Jester (1955)

        by waitingforvizzini on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:49:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes and (0+ / 0-)

        when someone else you are one of the first people whine about it, except of course when you do it.

        How's the saddle on the high horse you like to ride, starting feel uncomfortable?

      •  Ur comment not stern... worse, it's unkind (0+ / 0-)

        the comment is not any better than Ann Coulter taunting the Edwards' about their dead son and using it politically... in my opinion

        i hate the TR... but thought that saying such a thing about a parent in grief... and she has a reason to act... it's not hypothetical to her... what we're screaming about has happened to her... she lost a child

        she is entitled to be a little bit crazy... and we should be a bit more kind

        "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

        by pfiore8 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:09:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton's not a kossack. (0+ / 0-)

        Cindy most certainly is, whatever people think of her last diary.

        "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Plato

        by JPete on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:23:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  i think it's the she's damaged line (0+ / 0-)

      isn't that what guys who have problems with women say...

      Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)

      by hypersphere01 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:05:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated...merely expressing an opinion. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gutterboy, Mia Dolan

      I happen to disagree, but that is no reason to slam people and try to hide what they say.  I am becoming increasingly annoyed at people who bash what are merely opinions around here lately.

      My own drunken blogging deserved it a few days ago.  This does not.

      The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

      by cometman on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:19:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those who oppose Cindy Sheehan (20+ / 0-)

    Are placing Nancy Pelosi's secure position ahead of the overall political goals of ending this war and bringing the Bush administration to heel.

    I don't live in SF. Even if I did I'm not sure I would vote for Sheehan. But she deserves credit and support for her effort to hold Pelosi accountable for her failure to do anything meaningful to end this damnable war.

    Daily Kos should not, and must not, ever become a place where we give incumbents the benefit of the doubt, where we excuse them from having to answer for what they have done, or where we let them off the hook at election time. Our democracy deserves and requires vigorous debate and if that requires a Cindy Sheehan run against Pelosi, so be it.

    Ultimately I think Kossacks voted against Sheehan because they are scared of her, because they know deep down inside that she is absolutely right, and they wish she would not keep reminding them of that fact. But Sheehan has never shied away from calling anyone out on their responsibilities to our nation, and our moral obligation to do everything in our power to end this war - even if it means taking on the Speaker of the House.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:35:54 AM PDT

  •  I thought she had intended to get out of.... (10+ / 0-)

    the spotlight and focus on getting her life back.  Running against Pelosi won't do that.

    I thought she wanted to focus on her family.

    I thought she wanted to find some peace.

    Running against Pelosi would go against all those things just weeks ago she said she wanted.

    I don't think she should shut up or anything like that.  But I don't think that running against Pelosi will do anything towards ending the war and instead may cost her more personally...emotionally and spiritually.

    I only advocate a run against Pelosi if it is well thought out and a serious intention, not done in a reactionary manner.

    •  I think she feels compelled to act (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YetiMonk

      Even though part of her wants to walk away from those costs, she knows she cannot do it. I find it inspiring - she's done more, and continues to do more, to fight against this war than most people here, myself included.

      I cannot see what is a more well-thought out or serious reason to run than to end a war.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:39:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think she misses the limelight (4+ / 0-)

        and her candidacy is not to end the war, but to impeach Bush.

        "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

        by MadRuth on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:08:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She needs to go home to her family! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MadRuth, kafkananda

          I appreciated her efforts to end the Iraq War with her simple question to Bush, "What is the noble mission"?  My National Guard SSG son was in Afghanistan that summer dealing with Cheney/Bushcos uninvestigated secret War Profiteering and their War Crimes.  Since that time she has gone off in so many different directions and has lost her simple message.  Being vulnerable, maybe she just got hooked up with the wrong crowds.  She can't help the impeachment effort when the media is talking about her wackiness and considering her a spokeman for the left-wing or the democratic party.  Sheesh, she has screwed up.   She sure is not a Democrat anymore either!

    •  I disagree, but I applaud your courtesy. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chesapeake, sdgeek

      No-one's seat in Congress is sacrosanct.

      As for Cindy retiring, I think she probably should, but I'm not in her head or her heart, and neither is anyone else here.

      If Cindy turns out to be a genuine threat to the Speaker, then maybe we need a new Speaker. If Cindy is no threat, then what's the problem with making a point with a fruitless run for office?

      "The Constitution's just a goddamned piece of paper!" -- G.W. Bush, Nov 2005

      by Jimdotz on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:44:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You don't get it. (18+ / 0-)

    If Cindy had chosen to run against Pelosi in the primary as a Democrat to raise the issue of impeachment, I would have been 100% behind her decision.

    However, she has chosen to leave the party and attack it with lies and smears.  

    She is finished.  

    In order to find his equal an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

    by Delaware Dem on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:38:50 AM PDT

    •  Maybe to you she's finished (4+ / 0-)

      Not in SF. There is NO danger whatsoever that her candidacy would lead to a Republican winning the seat. None. Zero.

      So with that out of the way, why not encourage her? I agree that it would be better if she ran in the primary, but that doesn't mean she's wrong or should be dismissed because she won't.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:41:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She will not win. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, Mia Dolan, kafkananda

        Pelosi won 80% of the vote in her last election.  Cindy may take that total down to 60%, but that is all she will do.  

        I will not encourage her.   She has chosen to leave the party and attack it and I will never encourage that.  I would have encouraged her if she had stayed in the party and ran in the primary.

        In order to find his equal an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

        by Delaware Dem on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:43:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree with you on the numbers (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YetiMonk, chesapeake, sdgeek

          She might poll as high as 30% but no more than that; 20% itself would be lucky. I do not place loyalty to party over loyalty to good causes or issues, and certainly not with Cindy Sheehan, who has deeply moral reasons for her stance. Finally, there is the very real possibility that her campaign could force some change in Pelosi's positions. Something needs to be done to wake up the Speaker of the House - why not this?

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

          by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:45:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eugene, do you endorse the following comments? (6+ / 0-)

            The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats.

            And that is but one paragraph of the slander.  You really need to reread that diary.

            In order to find his equal an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

            by Delaware Dem on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:52:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Part of them (4+ / 0-)

              It's an unfortunate mixture of truth and omitted facts (the Democrat Woodrow Wilson did bring us into WW I but with Republican votes in the Congress) alongside outright lies (the income tax is quite Constitutional, and FDR really had no choice in 1941).

              But I get where she is coming from - she's angry at the Democratic Party for their unwillingness to lead on the war. I wish she wasn't making some of these idiotic statements as well - it doesn't help her credibility - but neither do I think it yet makes her an illegitimate spokesman for the antiwar cause. If she were to campaign on those ideas, well, then I'd have a real problem with it, yeah.

              I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

              by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:56:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chesapeake

          Your logic is so infalliable.  As an independent she is a lunatic to be disappeared. but if she choose to wear your team colors you would encourage her.

          "She has the name recognition, the money, the glitz, she's got it all." Terry McAuliffe

          by naufragus on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:24:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Delaware Dem

        If she becomes a Junior Rep loyal dem, replacing Pelosi, cool!

        If she's doing it to rip the party apart, then people who care about the party are right to take offense.

        •  Why should she be loyal? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YetiMonk, chesapeake, sdgeek

          When have these Democrats shown any loyalty to her? They gave up the fight to end the war that killed her son.

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

          by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:46:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you reading the news today? They did (8+ / 0-)

            not give up the fight.

            And, Democrats stand for a larger progressive agenda which she opposes.

            Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

            by Geekesque on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:48:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Show me the money (0+ / 0-)

              Last time they folded completely unnecessarily.

              "I will veto any appropriations bill with a timetable". "OK, then we'll send you one without a timetable."

              What makes you think that the Dems will do any better this time?

              And as long as the Dems keep caving in, there is no progressive agenda.

              Army 1st Lt. Ehren T. Watada, Lt. Cdr USN Matthew Diaz, SPC Eli Israel: true American heroes.

              by sdgeek on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:11:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No, they did not give up the fight. They are (4+ / 0-)

            fighting right now.

          •  If she wants to run a primary (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque, chesapeake

            on Pelosi as a competing Dem, then she's a DEM!!!!!!!  and loyalty to the Dem party is relevant.

            That means loyalty to the party becomes an issue.

            If she wants to run against Pelosi as an Independent or a Green, ROCK AND ROLL!!!!! GO CINDY!!!! GO!!!!!!

          •  That is a lie. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musing85, inclusiveheart, Geekesque

            Do you even read the news anymore?   The 2008 Appropriations bills are on the floor with timetable language.  The battle has begun again.  

            In order to find his equal an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

            by Delaware Dem on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:53:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And what assurance do we have (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YetiMonk, chesapeake, sdgeek

              That they won't hoist the white flag again this time as they did in May?

              I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

              by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:57:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you want guarantees, go to a bank. (4+ / 0-)

                There are no guarantees in politics.

                Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

                by Geekesque on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:03:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't say guarantees (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YetiMonk

                  I said assurance - what reason do we have to believe that the Dems will behave differently this time than they did last time? If there is none, then that renders Sheehan's verdict on them accurate, at least on the specific issue of the war.

                  I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                  by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:13:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The Republicans are much less resolute than (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    musing85

                    they were last time.

                    Also, to be blunt, the last vote was Kabuki theater.  The Republicans pretended to put up a brave, victorious fight knowing that they would flip-flop later in the year for crass political reasons (though such crass reasons will produce a positive result).

                    Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

                    by Geekesque on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:15:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Republicans, yes (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      YetiMonk, DarkestHour, sdgeek

                      But that doesn't explain the behavior of the Democrats, which is at the root of the reasons for Sheehan's apostasy. And even if the Dems caved because they knew Republicans would flip in a few months' time, that cave did significant damage to the public standing of the Democratic Congress, and created mistrust about their intentions regarding the war. Dems need to repair that mistrust - and if they succeed in doing that, the reasons for Sheehan's candidacy go away.

                      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                      by eugene on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:16:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The plan all along was for the Democrats to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        musing85

                        cave this time.  It was never in the cards that there would be no supplemental bill passed.

                        Where they were at fault was setting the Memorial Day weekend as their deadline for surrender on that fight--they should have forced another vote.

                        However, a big problem was that the Republicans were going to filibuster anything that we proposed.  They told Reid that he got one shot with the supplemental that wouldn't get filibustered.  Once that was vetoed, nothing was getting through the Senate.

                        Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

                        by Geekesque on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:19:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And the problem with that would have been? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DarkestHour

                          There was absolutely NO need to cave in.

                          Sure, the Reps could have filibustered. All that would have done was not give Bush the Monopoly money he wanted.

                          Army 1st Lt. Ehren T. Watada, Lt. Cdr USN Matthew Diaz, SPC Eli Israel: true American heroes.

                          by sdgeek on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:13:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Because she's far less progressive than Pelosi. (7+ / 0-)

        Pelosi is in favor of taxing the rich, for instance.

        Taking the tough votes on this issue - rather than just taking potshots from the outside - should be praised as important steps in helping to end this war."

        by Geekesque on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:45:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I just sold a slave (4+ / 0-)

      No.

      Really.

    •  I'm not sure she was ever a member of the party. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque

      Didn't she used to be a Republican before her son's death? That would explain her very stupid comments in her diary.

    •  She's made a big mistake (3+ / 0-)

      by attacking the party and with the rest of her railing.  She is clearly overreacting to the way her believes she was betrayed by them.  The dems ran this last election on the Iraq war and on the crimes of the Bush administration.  They let us all down.  Cindy Sheehan is enraged and her judgement is off, IMHO, with the things she has said.  But the principle of challenging Pelosi's seat isn't crazy at all.  It's unfortunate that Cindy couldn't have kept it simple and stuck to the challenge message.  In any case, I think she could redeem herself once she gets her head together, assuming she really doesn't believe some of those things that she said, and that they were an extreme overreaction, and a questioning of everything she's believed in.

      "So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard

      by joanneleon on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:22:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with her action too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        and think her comments in her diary were unfocused on her core objective.  Since she camped out in crawford, I've loved listening to her talk - she always manages to find the heart and center of an issue.

        But her remarks in the diary wandered all over the place and were off the central point even for spoken off-the-cuff remarks.

        We've all done it - wrote something vast and fuzzy, straying from our main thought.  Usually after staying up too late and not having all our faculties together.  On the best nights, we stop at the [preview] and hit [cancel].  I'd be surprised if she actually re-read that diary before hitting [post].

        But despite that, I totally agree with what the diarist theyrereal was saying.  We know that Pelosi and the Dem leadership have been standing in the way of impeachment, and for idiotic reasons that misread the real feelings of the people of this country, the voters in 2006, and the core of their own party.

        Someone needs to shake the leadership up before they bring another 2002 style disaster on the party.

        What's so hard about standing up for your oath of office to defend the constitution and doing what we believe she knows is right?

        I hope Cindy's unrealistic challenge, if it garners enough support, will get Pelosi to reconsider how strongly her party's members feel about the need for impeachment.

  •  The point of the recommended Diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wmtriallawyer, Jimdotz

    was that No, Sheehan doesn't want to be a Politician.

    Fine.  She shouldn't be.

  •  No, I get it perfectly (12+ / 0-)

    She wanted to burn her bridges to the Democratic Party, and she did a bang-up job of it.  Thus, this site will not be a place for her candidacy.  She can run all she wants (I won't dispute her right to run), but she gets no support from me.

    An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. -- T. Paine (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:41:00 AM PDT

  •  primary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chesapeake

    Had she gone that route, the press would have whispered, now it shouted.  Also, Nancy sees how wrong she was--Sheehan lost a son, Pelosi promised not to indict the man behind the crime.

  •  I get it. (7+ / 0-)

    She wants to burn bridges and poison the well. Thanks for the lecture; it was tuned out as I always tune them out.

  •  If the issue is raising impeachment awareness (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, NCCarboys

    I believe I explained some alternative means to doing so and why they'reequally as useful as Ms. Sheehan.

  •  Your analogy is flawed, comparing a fight between (6+ / 0-)

    Cindy and Bush is not the same as a fight between Cindy and one of "us". I agree that we must impeach the son of a bitch but don't want to tear the unity apart. Fringe elements going out on their own to try to gain control over the party has always meant failure for "us". No more fringe groups getting any sympathy from me. I'm tired of watching the self destruction play out right before our eyes.

    "The tide is with us, let's all stop rowing the other way."

    by NCCarboys on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:52:55 AM PDT

  •  Can someone link to her diary? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YetiMonk

    If Sheehan had campaigned to primary Pelosi, in my view Cindy should be a slam-dunk (forget for a moment that Tenet poisoned the term).   But I find it strange and troubling that she's apparently going to go Green.

    I need to read her diary before I opine further here, though.

  •  wow, condescending garabe (8+ / 0-)

    i think you're the one who doesn't get it pal.

    No shit I know that Cindy Sheehan doesn't think she can win, it doesn't take much to realize this, anyone with an IQ above 14 should, but thanks for being so patronizing anyways.

    Your diary missed the point of most people's concern with Cindy, that being that she has jumped the shark and gone from being a leader in the anti-war movement to a fringe lunatic who hurts the anti-war movement.

    Pelosi is a very progressive rep who originally voted against the war. She wants to end this as much as anyone on this site. She is also outstanding at bringing in the bucks. Do we really want her spending extra weekends in San Fran, defending her seat from a lunatic who thins 9/11 was a scam, that Hugo Chavez is a hero and the Fed is illegal? Hello no! Her seat is safe as safe can be. I want her in New York and Chicago and Boston raising bucks for dems in competitive seats. Thats a MUCH better way to end this war.

    Georgetown University College Democrats Blog: http://democrats.georgetown.edu

    by The Hunter Gracchus GU Dems on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:57:21 AM PDT

  •  In my county in Florida, (5+ / 0-)

    we have lost everything to the Republicans.  We have a majority on our city council, but no Dem control of anything else.  We don't even have candidates in the pipeline to run for some offices.  I would rather see us spend our time and effort building our party from the bottom than see us wasting energy and money on protest candidacies at the top.  Let's try to focus on the seats that can really make a difference.

    That being said, I would love to see Bush impeached.  But I think it would be smarter for us to work on other things now and then after he leaves office see if we can't get the bastard to the Hague to be tried for war crimes.

    Carrie French, age 19, died in Iraq on June 5, 2005. Why?

    by Susan S on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:03:11 AM PDT

  •  Talk about not getting it (7+ / 0-)

    Hey, diarist, go actually read Sheehan's diary.  Did you see the way she talked about the Democratic Party?  Did you see the way she disavowed the Democratic Party?

    So fucking stupid.  The problem with Sheehan isn't her stance on impeachment - it's her false, inflammatory, right wing-esque attack on the Democratic Party.

    Why should a Democratic group support an Independent run against our own?  How do we "win" in the PR game by supporting a nutjob who thinks the income tax is unconstitutional, who thinks there was an unjust military "occupation" of New Orleans following Katrina, who thinks the Democratic Party is the "party of slavery"?

    Yea, great PR.

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:09:01 AM PDT

  •  i think the whole thing is a pr stunt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, hypersphere01, Bridge Master

    and an idle threat. the object being to get regular americans thinking about impeachment via the MSM.

    so far it appears to be working.

    This is the BEST DIARY EVER!

    by Marlboro Lite on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:10:00 AM PDT

  •  Well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shadetree mortician

    if her candidacy does gain any media traction (the only kind it could get, really), I'm thinking it would be a good opportunity for Nancy Pelosi to reestablish her cred as a leader of "all Americans", not just the SF communist left, or whatever people think it is. It's a time honored tradition to appear more mainstream by playing off a fringe candidate. It would also be a good way to disassociate oneself from an increasingly embarassing (and seemingly unhinged) Sheehan without disassociating from goals like ending the war.

    In one of the many many many comments, someone compared Sheehan to Bush, which has a certain resonance to it (the strange ideas, the grandiose thinking). But beyond that, and more to chew on as we prepare to elect our next president: there are some people (you know who they are, you may have had them as a boss, or a teacher, or maybe you're one yourself) who can function reasonably OK as normal citizens, but become insufferable when given power or a brighter spotlight. It is to the country's grave detriment that men like Bush and Cheney were entrusted with the most powerful seats in the world, but I think one lesson is not necessarily that Bush and Cheney are the most evil or crazy people in the world--I think there are a lot of people running around at least as evil or crazy--it's just that those people aren't president and vice president and given access to the power to carry out their evil and craziness. Our job in choosing a president ought to be to ensure that people from the "evil and crazy" pool aren't allowed to become president. We didn't do so well in the last 2 elections.

    Put the circular firing squad in the circular file.

    by JMS on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:10:13 AM PDT

  •  impeachment (0+ / 0-)

    is a waste of time and cindy sheehan is a wannabe demagogue trying to keep her 15 minutes of fame going

    •  To theyrereal: (0+ / 0-)

      the above comment illustrates the harm that Sheehan's misstep yesterday will cause.  Sheehan's rhetoric actually furthers the arguments of anti-impeachment partisans and may very well serve to discredit the entire effort.

      I'm in a distinct minority in that I do think Sheehan can recapture her credibility, and there is a possibility, if she retracts some of her statements, for her challenge to Pelosi to yield media focus on the question of impeachment.  But the way that she chose to introduce her run yesterday does nothing to that effort.

  •  This whole debacle has made me ashamed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hypersphere01, chesapeake, EAP

    of the community.  I see now that we didn't take Cindy's side against Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Bush because we respected her courage and her loss, but because she was fighting our fight for us.  Now that she's refined her focus and we see it's departed from the party line, we're throwing the same shit her way that they did.  It's disgusting.  We're disgusting.

    •  I AGREE WITH YOU.....WE'RE DISGUSTING !! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chesapeake
    •  She didn't refine her focus though (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bridge Master

      She repeated inflammatory and false rhetoric (the verysame rhetoric parroted by Limbaugh partisans) in effort to justify an Independent run.  I read departures from the party line on this site daily, particularly since the war funding debacle.

      I can only speak for myself when I say that I was and am supportive of Sheehan insofar as she has taken her unimaginable grief and used it for positive change in this country, something she has certainly done up to this point.  I won't however encourage and applaud mistakes and missteps like yesterday's diary.

      •  I should clarify (0+ / 0-)

        by "refining her focus" I mean she adopted politics that were less comfortably vague to those of us who, it now seems, co-opted her for the sake of our anti-war cause.

        •  I think it is a mistake (0+ / 0-)

          for Sheehan supporters to encourage (her very human) missteps for the sake of launching meta-narratives about others.  I see this happen a lot here: people upset (with the party, with the progressive or liberal movement, or even with this site) defend what they otherwise may not defend because they see situations in the context of their larger grievances.

          Sheehan's diary yesterday did not advance the cause of impeachment.  As someone who supports what Sheehan has done, I don't think I do her any favor by encouraging her to call the modern Dem party a party of slavery.  If she is to use the "Independent run" tactic to push impeachment into the national discourse, she's going to have to be focused, clear, and standing on principle, not mere disgust.  Because in the end, if we have any hope of impeaching the Bush Crime Family, the Democratic party leadership are going to have to be the ones to pursue it.  Repeating ahistorical garbage about the Dixiecrats and pretending that they have anything to do with the modern Dems hurts, not helps, the impeachment effort.

          I'm not going to watch her throw away hard-earned credibility by applauding things like yesterday's diary.

          •  I myself neither support nor encourage anything (0+ / 0-)

            she's said, or her challenge to Pelosi.  I never followed her political activism closely, and of what I've heard over the years I probably disagreed with more than I agreed with.  I just sympathized with her when the right wing started slinging mud at her, and now I'm hearbroken to see the such large segments of the left wing doing it.

            •  I can understand that (0+ / 0-)

              but think about it: when we impeach Bush and Cheney, it will necessarily be the Democratic party leadership which leads that effort.  So what sense does it possibly make to wholescale smear the Democratic party (repeating right wing caricatures and untruths while doing so)?

              I have no problem with those who have objected to the more venomous ad hominem attacks on Sheehan.  But her decisions of late have been mistakes, and it helps, not hurts, her efforts to point that out.  She can be a serious activist for the end of this mafioso administration.  Or her credibility can be spent on nonsense.  That's all I'm sayin.

            •  And allow me to add (0+ / 0-)

              one more thing: there's no symmetry between the left and right in this country, none.  The right smeared Sheehan because she told the truth.  They didn't care that she lost a child, they didn't care that her views of the Iraq War were correct.  They smeared her because they were told to smear her because her truth threatened the warmongers in this country.

              She's being attacked here because (conservatively) 60% at least of this site wants to see a criminal administration held accountable through impeachment and their deeds discredited so that it cannot happen again.  They will attack any and everyone who they perceive as threatening to that goal, even a bona fide left wing activist who has jumped the shark (how I wish there were people around Sheehan willing to tell her the truth and be friend enough to let her know when she's going off course).

              •  I disagree about the absence of symmetry (0+ / 0-)

                she was attacked by the right wing in defense of what they wholeheartedly believed was a noble, vital cause.  Not necessarily the pundits, and most probably not the politicians, but the citizen authors of so many hateful letters to the editor, so many counter-protesters, and of course bloggers.  But I don't mean to argue the point; I make a great, conscious effort to see objective symmetry, so I could be deluded ;)

                I appreciate that you engaged me in this conversation -- seeing your respectful criticism of Mrs. Sheehan has eased my anxiety over the situation.  I agree that it's necessary that she hear objection to her plan.  I only hope it's increasingly more like yours and less like Sean Hannity's.

    •  Well put, Junior Bug (0+ / 0-)

      . . .because she was fighting our fight for us.  Now that she's refined her focus and we see it's departed from the party line, we're throwing the same shit her way that they did.

      That's exactly it. I am a loyal Democrat, but the party is extremely compromised by corporate money. Of course this does not include people like Dennis Kucinich and others who refuse to be compromised.

      However, the "party line", as you so aptly put it, has been seriously compromised for years, and specifically since the shameful vote in the fall of 2002 giving Bush the nod to invade Iraq.

      •  Have you read her diary? (0+ / 0-)

        Have you seen the kind of nutbag shit she is writing?  

        When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

        by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:32:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Her anti-war rhetoric (0+ / 0-)

          was likewise characterized by the right-wing as "nutbag shit," which is why they so cruelly harangued her the way the left is now.  The right's sin against Cindy Sheehan wasn't that Limbaugh et al disagreed with her on principle, it's that they assassinated her character, and now we're doing it just the same, even so far as using some of the same language they used.

          •  Well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927

            The Republicans were wrong when they called her anti-war rhetoric nutbag shit.  But her diary yesterday was truly nutbag shit.  No one here is assassinating her character.  She did that on her own with the offensive troll diary she posted.  Some people just don't think Sheehan should be held accountable.  

            When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

            by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:17:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And they are inexplicably (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mia Dolan

              defending shenanigans.  Supporting Sheehan means calling out missteps, not excusing them.

            •  Calling her "crazy" (0+ / 0-)

              is indeed character assassination.

              •  You must not have read her diary (0+ / 0-)

                "Crazy" is a charitable description of the garbage she posted.  

                When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

                by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:03:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes and no. (0+ / 0-)

                  When she said that the dems had started  all these wars, did she really that?  It is historically false, a really pathetic lie, if it is a lie, and so on.

                  Or did she mean that the dems had led the country into all those wars, which is at least very close to the truth - at least as I understand those words - and not nutty.

                  Seems to me we have a choice on interpretation.    

                  "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Plato

                  by JPete on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:49:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please (0+ / 0-)

                    Lets start by revisiting the passage in question:

                    The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats.

                    The entire passage is basically a smear job on the Democratic party and a re-hash of Republican talking points.  As to what she meant, first of all its not accurate - Panama, Grenada and the first Iraq war come to mind as wars started (actually started, not just entered) by Republicans .  And if she really meant that the Democrats led the country into wars, it doesn't really go with her theme of smearing Democrats.

                    Oh, and the income tax is unconstitutional?  That isn't just right wing, that's cuckoo for coco puffs material.  The Federal Reserve?  Did Ron Paul write this for her?    

                    Maybe she's not crazy.  Maybe she's just a right-wing liar.  Again, I think crazy is the more charitable explanation.

                    When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

                    by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:21:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I ended up writing a diary about interpretation (0+ / 0-)

                      in response to a lot of the comments.  You probably won't believe much in it, but I think there are other interpretations than yours that are pretty plausible.

                      "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Plato

                      by JPete on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your logic in that diary (0+ / 0-)

                        would make Rush Limbaugh proud.

                        When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

                        by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:47:35 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  On the contrary, (0+ / 0-)

                          my point is extremely well grounded in theories of interpretation.  

                          Here's what I said to someone else that maybe explains part of the underlying reasoning:

                          There is a real problem with interpreting others as you do.  If Cindy is really evil, then there is no reason to think she believes anything she says.  But if there is no reason to think that she believes anything she says, then we have no evidence for her views in anything she has said.  That means we have no evidence in her words that she is evil.

                          The argument I have just given you above is a reductio ad absurdum.  It is the sort of reason why it is a cliche in theories of interpretation that if you interprete someone's words as evil you are almost certainly wrong.

                          Your interpretation leaves us without any reason to take anything Cindy says as meaning anything about what she really believes.  And that means your interpretation undercuts itself.

                          Mind you, not that science persuades anyone in emotional forum like this.  But you might look at this passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; the two thinkers referred to - Davidson and Quine - are genuine intellectual giants of the 20th Century.

                          ... one cannot assign meanings to a speaker's utterances without knowing what the speaker believes, while one cannot identify beliefs without knowing what the speaker's utterances mean. It seems that we must provide both a theory of belief and a theory of meaning at one and the same time. Davidson claims that the way to achieve this is through the application of the so-called ‘principle of charity’ (Davidson has also referred to it as the principle of ‘rational accommodation’) a version of which is also to be found in Quine. In Davidson's work this principle, which admits of various formulations and cannot be rendered in any completely precise form, often appears in terms of the injunction to optimise agreement between ourselves and those we interpret, that is, it counsels us to interpret speakers as holding true beliefs (true by our lights at least) wherever it is plausible to do (see ‘Radical Interpretation’ [1973]). In fact the principle can be seen as combining two notions: a holistic assumption of rationality in belief (‘coherence’) and an assumption of causal relatedness between beliefs — especially perceptual beliefs — and the objects of belief (‘correspondence’) (see ‘Three Varieties of Knowledge [1991]). The process of interpretation turns out to depend on both aspects of the principle. Attributions of belief and assignments of meaning must be consistent with one another and with the speaker's overall behaviour; they must also be consistent with the evidence afforded by our knowledge of the speaker's environment, since it is the worldly causes of beliefs that must, in the ‘most basic cases’, be taken to be the objects of belief (see ‘A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge’ [1983]).

                          "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Plato

                          by JPete on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:04:59 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            Cindy Sheehan is not evil.  Her activism was driven by the death of her son in an unjust and illegal war, not by any complex understanding of the world.  Her quote just shows that she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about.  Clearly, she didn't come up with that garbage on her own - she is naive and is being exploited by people - the 9-11 truthies, the anti-semites, the Ron Paul tax nuts, etc. - who don't have her interests in mind at all.  And the result is that someone who was once a real progressive hero, is now just a clown.

                            When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

                            by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:56:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Refined her focus? (0+ / 0-)

      Adopting lunatic right wing positions and talking points is "refining her focus?"  

      It's disgusting.  We're disgusting.

      Fuck you.  

      When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

      by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:31:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cindy no longer has credibility (4+ / 0-)

    I have total sympathy for Cindy's loss.  It's a terrible thing that I can't imagine going through, and I wish her well and believe that she's well-intentioned.

    That said, those good intentions do not make her credible, realistic, or rational.  The woman has morphed (with encouragement from that most potent drug of all - attention ) from sincere, answers-wanting mother who deserved nothing but sympathy, to dictator-hugging crazy-rhetoric-spouting tinfoil-hatted fringe-dwelling circus act.

    If you really want the worthy causes she's backing to be taken seriously by the people who are in a position to do something about them, send in someone who still has credibility.  At this point, because of her own actions and erratic behavior, Cindy is a liability to whatever cause she attaches herself to, not an asset.

    If you want people to take a cause seriously, you send in someone with facts, logic, reasoning, sense, and credibility.  You don't send in Whoopie The Clown, full of emotions and thrown confetti, but a conspiracy nut's grasp on reality.  When she stands up to say Bush should be impeached, people are going to go, "Isn't that the woman who thinks Hugo Chavez is a great guy, and who thinks the Twin Towers went down by controlled demolition?"  And they're going to dismiss her... and everything she's saying.  Because she's said too many crazy things, people aren't going to bother trying to sort out the instances where she's making sense.

    To quote the Beatles' "Revolution", "If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow..."

    "I am a comedian and poet, so anything that doesn't get a laugh ... is a poem." - Bill Hicks

    by shadetree mortician on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:45:12 AM PDT

  •  I feel very sorry for her (3+ / 0-)

    but the diary she posted yesterday was trollish, and she was reading out of the Ron Paul policy playbook.

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      and her supporters do her no favors by encouraging her mistakes.  Sheehan worked hard to establish credibility; lost a child, camped out for weeks in the hot sun and withstood deranged attacks from the right.  Why applaud a diary which erases that credibility?

  •  Enough. With. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waitingforvizzini, kafkananda

    The. Period. Thing.

    Already.

  •  She is Ron Paul (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, DemocraticLuntz

    I actually read her diary so I do get it.

    I'm crumbelievable. Bloomberg isn't.

    by clonecone on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 06:58:33 AM PDT

  •  who knows (0+ / 0-)

    i am surprised the law and order crowd isn't screaming from the rooftops about the criminal behavior.  well not really.

    Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)

    by hypersphere01 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:02:51 AM PDT

  •  No, Daily Kos gets it (7+ / 1-)

    The diarist and the Cindybots are the ones out in la-la land.

  •  Cindy's posturing is narcisstic opportunism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gutterboy, Bridge Master

    I believe the Daily Kos "get it" and after reading her blog yesterday, (and the other pro-Cindy diaries)boy, many of the respondents REALLY "got it".

    And for all the reasons and arguments, pro vs con, with impeachment almost daily on Kos, folks still "get it".

    Its a dated argument.

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

    by dcrolg on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:12:13 AM PDT

  •  Why arn't we impeaching the creeps? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JPete, theyrereal, NCCarboys

    Because that wouldn't be 'nice'.

    This tactic of trying to be 'nice' above all else failed for Gore.

    It failed for Kerry.

    And it has failed for Pelosi on the war supplemental effort.

    So it has to work now.

    •  I agree with you on not being 'nice'. I also (0+ / 0-)

      think we simply cannot afford to fight among ourselves and attacking the "OUR" Speaker of the House is not the way to go. There are other ways to persuade her to back impeachment. Still having said that, I also cringe every time I hear the pacifists rearing their ugly heads. America never has and never will follow weak and timid leaders. They will only follow the angry, the passionate, the bold.

      We can't combine the two different points into a selling point to begin attacking our own. We have to handle our own internal differences without that anger and passion. After all, we are supposed to be on the same team.

      "The tide is with us, let's all stop rowing the other way."

      by NCCarboys on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:49:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are two kinds of people here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JillR, Gutterboy, Boisepoet
    1. Those who think Cindy Sheehan has become a crazy nutbag, and
    1. Those who haven't read her diary yet.  

    When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush"

    by Mia Dolan on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:05:48 AM PDT

  •  Cindy's "candidacy"... (0+ / 0-)

    would be the greatest boon to the Republicans imaginable. They are salivating at the prospect.

    There is no upside to this at all for the rest of us.
    Besides, America is laughing at her. Whatever legacy she may have forged will be gone for good.

    TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

    by Niniane on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:25:53 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site