What do you think of Cindy focusing on Hillary?

As someone who doesn't mind Hillary, I think Cindy's going too far to make her point. Her sights should remain focused on the real criminals like Bush and Cheney who lied to get Hillary and so many of the other Democrats who made the mistake of voting for the initial war approval. Whatever their position is now concerning "staying the course", my current problem with Democrats who voted to authorize the war is that they should at least stand up and have the guts to admit they made a terrible mistake based on Bush's lies. However, this thing between Cindy and Hillary just seems likes it's one more personal witch-hunt against one of the Clintons. Too easy.

I'm somewhere between choices 2 and 3, but I picked choice #3 (please don't tell anyone!). I think Bush, and Bush alone, should remain the focus of her attention.

That's what makes her so real.

If she is campaigning against Hillary's re-election then we have a problem.

I don't like what she is doing now. She hasn't thought it through. It is awful to lose a child. That said she should remember who caused the problem in the first place.

So she helped cause the problem in the first place.

One of the most important things we can do is not letting Hillary and others like her sell us out.

Hillary MUST be called to account for her vote for the war. I don't want her to think she is going to get a free pass from those of us who worked hard to oppose this illegal war.

John Kerry should be challenged too, particularly if he decides to run.

And every other Democrat who voted for the war should stand up in public and apologize. That is, if they want to run for re-election.

Be against the President and Senators and Congressmen who were for the war, whether they are Republican or Democrat. But I think she should keep the focus on the war. Keep the message on the President for now.

If Hillary becomes President and keeps us in a war then it will be time to criticize her.

...and prevent any possible run for Pres in 2008, I'm not going to be sad as a result.

...I'm inclined to agree with Cindy. It's not so much that Hilary voted for the war, but that she did so calculating that it would help her politically. That I can't forgive.

Why not Kerry, too? Or Liebermann? Or ANYone who voted yes? This is too singular an attack and while it may be good for Cindy, it's not good for Democrats to have ANY one of our top candidates singled out like what's going on. Cindy's putting Democrats in just about the same boat as Bush, and as a loyal Democrat, I find that insulting. Bush is responsible for starting this war with his lies, not Hillary, nor Kerry, nor any Democrat.

You have proof? Cut the crap. I get disgusted with the holier than thou attitude about the war. The administration presented a scenario of danger and got away with it. Most people thought it was true. It wasn't but people voted on the information at hand. I don't agree that we should continue because killing of more military personnel is not an example of our commitment to the ones who died.

I don't think we should pull punches on anyone just because they are democrats.

If they voted for this war, they voted to kill 2000 soldiers. We agreed to invade Afghanistan because there was a clear, irrefutable link to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

We pulled inspectors out of Iraq, we ignored their findings, we delivered ultimatums and we did not have any form of global consensus about invading. We didn't have an exit plan or strategy, and we as unprepared for being there as gradeschoolers, strategically, financially, and morally.

Notice I haven't even started to refer to Iraqi pre-war intelligence. All of these things are what our supposedly "wise" senators should have weighed in on. When Kerry said he'd vote to do it again even with current knowledge, he lost me, forever.

And Hillary and even Senator Jesus Walking On Water Christ deserves the same distrust and derision for making a stupid, ill considered hawkish decision.

Our soldiers are dead because of that incompetence. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead, children shot and blown up in the streets by our "heroes" and their "heroes" (the insurgents).

She is parlaying her support this summer into being someone that you have to come to and appease or gain the favor of in order to get her support. That is politics but I don't really think it becomes her or helps out her message. It is a long run strategy but it doesn't help in the short term.

one side or the other "looking good" . if she was exclusivly just going after pro-war republicans would you be complaining? you think she should be a partisan hypocrite?

you called me on that and you are right. She shouldn't be partisan but then I really don't think that THEY are going to want to hear much of what she has to say so it would appear that she really only has a say on one half.

She really should be down the middle or at least NOT partisan (like Bono).

I've heard of her remarks, but Yahoo's top news stories on Cindy Sheehan include NO references to Ms. Clinton.

There are also a bunch of stories that show some people want Ms. Sheehan to shut up.

I'm surprised Yahoo didn't have those references, because they sure were covered everywhere else.

There were no reports of Ms. Sheehan focusing on Hilary.

I thought your thread was dealing with the present....

anybody who thinks hillary or the dems should get a free pass can't be serious. how can anybody be such a hyprocrite to think that ?

Hillary wasn't Commander in Chief when we went to war....

What was interesting about the summer wasn't that Cindy was there...it was that Commander "Bring em on" was so obviously terrified of meeting her in person. If Chimpy'd have come out of Rancho Corrupto and mumbled some bullshit to her face to face, the story would have died down immediately. But he didn't have the balls to...and let's face it, his whole sales pitch was based on the idea that he was "brave"...

But semi-seriously, splitting the anti-HRC vote into 3 answers. Tsk, tsk its too much like a faux news poll on shrub.

And the difference between Bush's rhetoric and a realistic change of course to end the war. She isn't helping to clarify the choices when she gets sidetracked with Hillary. In order to get the course changed, there has to be lots and lots of people repeating the correct solution. "Out now" doesn't say anything about HOW and until Americans understand that there really is a HOW that can end this, they've got nothing to get behind.

but we do need to attack the criminals before we deal with the Vichy Democrats.

You nailed it.

:applause:

A lot of activists start out attacking the side who leads the country into the position the activist opposes. At some point they get frustrated at making no progress, and they decide that part of the problem is that the people who should be on their side aren't wholehearted enough, and thus they are part of the problem.

This leads them to attack and split their natural allies, and to lose focus on their real enemy. It's a sign of frustration. They attack the party they can have the most effect on, to feel like they are having an effect, and in the process they help the party they are most opposed to.

Nader did this. Ted Kennedy did in 1980, for a short while. Jerry Brown tried to do it in 1992, but luckily his "I'll take no corporate money" pledge prevented anyone from hearing him. We just the other side do it over Harriet Miers, and saw Pat Buchanan hurt Bush Daddy in 92.

Smart parties anticipate this. IIRC, Gingrich and DeLay have both talked about promoting the far left to undermine the Dems. The Repubs supported Nader in 2000. I'm sure, or at least hope, that the Dems were feeding the fire with Miers and Buchanan.

Hopefully Sheehan won't be so easily manipulated. I think it's great that she blasts the Dems who failed us over the IWR. It gives her more credibility, and obviously the Dems deserve it. Hopefully she'll stay focused on the worst enemy when the chips are down. She won't win her cause by attacking Hillary, no matter how badly she hurts her. She'll just divide Bush's opposition.

There were a substantrial number of Democrats who opposed the war to varying degrees.

But unfortunately, the Democratic Party did not unite to prevenmt when it mattered. So politicians should be accountable as individuals for their actions then and now.

The Democrats like Hillary who supported it from the beginning are just as responsible as Bush for what has happened. They remain responsoible if they do not stand up against it now and at least admit they were wrong.

more then 15 minutes.

For Ms. Sheehan to attack Sen. Clinton.

Obviously Sheehan knows that Bush is the real enemy, but the idea is we need to demand that our own leaders be accountable and be there for us as we fight Bush. If they won't stand with us, they can do even more damage to our anti-war cause than Bush, who everyone knows for sure will be pro-war.