Riddle me this, Batman. Is Cindy embarrassing all Dems or just the ones who support the war?

Did she pick Ralm yesterday because he's DLC and a war supporter?

and btw Kerry voted yes on the IWR thereby supporting the war --- you seem to conveniently forget that in your efforts to smear others

I have no idea what you're talking about.

This gets thrown around a lot.

Some people still find it hard to believe that he has now decided to join the "nut roots" and "crazy Micheal Moore people" that his DLC constantly smears in opposing it FULLY.

I have yet to see him make a fully unambiguous statement that the U.S. needs to withdraw immediately.

I have yet to even hear him call for a full investigation, or even admit that Bush categorically lied to us.

You will have to forgive us for our guarded skepticism.

Just because a democratic politician fails to call for "immediate withdrawal," doesn't by default mean they support the war. Which of the dem presidential candidates (or potential ones) outside of Dennis Kucinich support IMMEDIATE withdrawal? Are they all "war supporters" too? This just seems like a meme started against Rahm because he occasionally butts heads with the left's golden calf (Dean).

Which is the Bush Administration.

For one, He is an enemy of this country and is fabricating stories of invasion - he is hostile. He is exporting his Czarist/socialist agenda to as many countries as he can influence with debt forgiveness or sweet oil deals ( you may recal the oil deals attempted here) to further his own cause. Recently, he announced he would not renewing the license of a radio news station known to be critical of him -further entrenching himself as the president. His hero is Castro. He is trying to eliminate free speech, fair elections and pretty much all of the freedoms that you enjoy doing and saying politically in this country. I am no Chavez expert, there is much more. Question for you, what is so good about Chavez?

I managed to put the Venezuelan Chavez out of my mind somehow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/César_Chávez

César Estrada Chávez (March 31, 1927 – April 23, 1993) was an American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. His work led to numerous improvements for migrant workers. He is hailed as one of the greatest Mexican American civil rights leaders. His birthday on March 31 has subsequently become a holiday in a handful of U.S. states, and a number of parks, cultural centers, libraries, schools, and streets have been named in his honor in several cities across the United States.

and any unkind word on them will generate swift attacks. Beware..

How's the weather in NC?

good bye

"I am no Chavez expert" -- You're right, you aren't...

You obviously don't know sh*t about Chavez -- either Hugo or Cesar...


Welcome to DU -- hope you learn how to google soon :hi: :hi:

are still living in poverty. Additionally, this guy is cracking down on free speech. And, then guess what, Venezuela will only hear what he allows them. Any guess what will happen to those who further attempt to speak out against His administration? Try asking a Cuban exile. To really bring this into perspective, go down there and call him names and start a website to impeach him. Think you will be embraced???????????

Cesar Chavez, who led boycotts on behalf of California's migrant workers.

Forgot all about the current well known Chavez.

that urged and supported the U.S. backed coup in '02... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

and that's your idea of "cracking down on free speech"?

Welcome to DU and it's time for you to learn to google :hi: :hi:

So,If it ever came to pass, Bush or our next president will be defended when their critics are silenced? My bad, I took those liberties for granted.

of a democratic government's elected president and that governments decision not to continue to allow that station to use THE PEOPLE'S airwaves to do it again...don't you understand?

So, we should shut down the media here too that protests? Violent protests? Is this Hugo Chavez?

would shut down any station that urged the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government in a New York Minute!

What's AMAZING to me is that Chavez allowed those f*cks in Venezuela to stay in operation as long as he did but he followed the letter of the law and waited until their license renewal... I don't think bush/cheney would have waited that long...

C'mon, let's have some real evidence if you've got any to support your knee-jerk opposition to (democratically elected) Presidente Chavez...

What part of Bush lying and what part of this war being BULLSHIT was exposed as false by her being connected to Chavez?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You seem to want to change the subject to Chavez- rather than the focus of the issue of the thread- which is her positions on the war.

LATE? Sorry- this thread is still active- all posts are subject to response until the thread is locked.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Forgive me- I failed to see what your point in attempting to smear Sheehan was- I'll assume you dont have one.

I could have sworn that this thread pertained to Sheehan and protesters of the Iraq war- my bad.

ON EDIT- I have alerted the mods to your bizzare, homophobic accusations- good luck with your stay here.

At least my sarcastic assumption was correct!!!!

Still does not change the fact that I never said anything regarding her position on Iraq period! Her visit with Chavez had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Again, the first thread was whether or not she was embarrising Dems. - nothing to do with your hair length or whether you tuck in your shirt or the status of whatever relationship you have! Who cares?

The discussion of what protesters look like was a response to another DUer who suggested that anti-war people were all hippy fringe types- at least that DUer and my response was on topic- we were debating whether war protesters serve a good purpose or whether they are embarassing.

On topic-imagine that- try it sometime rather than going out of your way to accuse someone of being gay in such a homophobic manner.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You know the place as well as I do.

Actually, I even think bringing in Chavez could be arguably relevant, but you failed to make that case even when I gave you the opportunity to clarify.

Certainly discussing war protesters in general or her positions on Iraq are relevant to the topic. You have failed to make the case that they are not.

I thank you- I hope some of the good DUers read your homophobic post and realize what type of folks they happen to be agreeing with.

Good luck.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...that's what we do on discussion boards. Hell- sometimes I even AGREE with people on threads, or engage in related subtopics.

The rest of your garble makes no sense to me.

Maybe one day I will have the esteemed credibility and authority that you have, whoever you are.

I'll keep hoping. ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nice arguments you have presented here - so far you have establshed that I am somehow a gay man-as if it even matters, but then you retracted that intened slur upon being corrected.

Then you made the statement that discussing what kind of people make up war protesters or Sheehans positions on Iraq somehow have nothing to do with a thread discussing a Sheehan Protest.

You did not back up this "issue", but you get points for merely making the statement-as I'm sure someone will buy it or maybe even consider it relevant.

Oh- then you made fun of my DU handle-good one!!! I guess I'm wrong about even that!!!

WOW! What a great master of debate you are.

As I said, enjoy your visit and good luck.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I love it when you guys come on and agree or pretend to agree with the honest to goodness conservative DUers- maybe at least one will question why he or she happens to agree with some one who posts in your manner.

I never said anything regarding her position on Iraq period! Her visit with Chavez had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Further, the first thread was whether or not she was embarrising Dems. - nothing to do with your hair length or whether you tuck in your shirt or the status of your gay relationship!

Or not mistakenly.

about the dem party win in november that the media lauded him so heavily over.

bring the troops home, rahm -- bring the troops home.

that was one of the very, very, very big reasons people voted for dems.

She does not speak for all of us.

I sympathize with her loss, but she is really getting on my nerves.

The election was about a lot of things - it wasn't simply a call to "bring the troops home" and it certainly wasn't about Cindy Sheehan, no matter what she and her fans may believe.

:rofl:

look we are going to send MORE troops to iraq.

more money, more troops, more equipment, more of everything it takes to keep this war going.

americans concerned about the economy -- you bet -- and they have enough sense to figure out the war threatens them.

americans concerned about healthcare -- you bet and they're smart enough to know that the war will stand in the way of that.

americans concerned about the debt and deficit -- you bet -- and they know that the war stands right in the fucking way of everything that they want to see done.

it's the cost of this war that can and will stop the dems not cindy and her protests -- so better hope to god she protests and protests and protests.

all the things you PRETEND to care about are threatened by stupid politeness when none is required -- iraqis and americans alike are dying and being maimed by the boatload for this war.

what will it cast to heal the wounded -- that's money not available for something else.

what will it cost to repair and buy new military equipment -- that is money not there for something else.

i swear to god there is nothing, nothing more dangerous than a fucking moderate.

I would argue that those who oppose the war and distrust Bush are the ones who are taking the moderate position- those who disagree are the far-right enabling radicals.

lol -- sometimes i go both ways.

... and I don't support the war.

(Can you provide some indication that Rahm supports the war? I'd be interested in see that...)

If I think Cindy's not going after "THE DEMS" but instead just select Dems who are not against the war, then I think I might have a better time of supporting her. If she recognizes that Pelosi is on her side, and Murtha, and Feingold and Kerry, if she picks her targets according to their stance against the war, I think I could understand what she's doing.

I was just wondering if I made the mistake yesterday of thinking she was going after Dems as a whole.

It was known to everyone in the media that Powell lied in his speech to the UN- show me where Rahm ever even brought this up before the invasion.

Hell-show me where NOW he states that he wants to get to the bottom of it.

At best, show me an unambiguous statement from him that he is for pulling out the troops.

If you vcant do anything of the sort, then forgive us for assuming he was for it from the beginning and still is to a degree.

Someone makes an unsupportable statement, but it's my duty to prove that the statement is wrong?

How convenient.

Based on this backward logic, we could assume that :

1. Hillary Clinton believes that vampire bats are the greatest threat to national security.
2. Dennis Kucinich favors funding the establishment of cannibalism is the U.S.
3. Barack Obama supports the violent overthrow of the South African government.

Care to prove me wrong? :eyes:

But fortunately, about the only effect of her actions will be to re-assure many swing voters who went Democratic this year that they did not by doing so align themselves with "the protest crowd" they continue to despise. It will be helpful in the long run to break in some degree the popular identification of radical extremists with the Democratic Party.

That's a twist I hadn't thought about; very clever thinking Magistrate.:thumbsup:

Or was it more indiscriminate, as in "any Dem press conference will do"? I'm trying to be open minded.

Ms. Sheehan seems to have bought into the whole "ultra" line, typified best perhaps by our distant cousins at 'counterpunch', and Rep. Emmanuel is one the chief demons in that particular school of political theology.

Ms. Sheehan seems to have bought into the whole "ultra" line, typified best perhaps by our distant cousins at 'counterpunch', and Rep. Emmanuel is one the chief demons in that particular school of political theology.

Next you will tell us that Rahm and the DLC had Bush's number all along, and that their support for his war was "giving them rope to hang themselves with" or some other nonsense.

If only the DLC types could "keep their powder dry" over Sheehan as well as they did when it came to fighting Bush.

like the people who don't know when NOT to deny someone the right to speak to their constituency. I wanted to hear what Rahm had to say. Cindy decided for me that I didn't have that right.

May I remind you that it was not just Rahm, Steny Hoyer and Lousie Slaughter were also there with a whole host of Dem's. Rahm is not the issue in this case, the actions of Cindy Sheehan and co are in question. So many of us have worked so hard for at least 6 years now to get a Democratic Congress that we don't want it squandered by one faction. The party is unifying and that is vital, she is not helping.

;-)

It always surprises me when people who do take radical positions seek to shelter themselves in other terms, as if being a radical were a thing to be concealed, to be ashamed of. Of course, to be a radical is by definition to be in a small minority, but what of it?

"...to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas."
And the progressive and liberal membership seems to be growing in Congress, becoming the largest bloc if I'm not mistaken, mirroring the actual leanings of the citizenry.

Radicals, particularly those who attack Democrats, and who view the Democratic Party's leading figures as indistinguishable from Republicans, remain without representation in the Congress, and without much influence in our country's political life.

Quite lterally: it bears no resemblence to the facts of the Party's history over the previous several decades. Radicals of the left have never, ever, been predominant in the Democratic Party. Liberals and Progressives have been major strains in its ranks after the start of the twentieth century.

"I tell you, young man, the theater is not what it once was, and what's more, it never was."

Howard Dean and the people have revived it and now it is up to all of us to keep alive and not the poison the DLC has been giving it.



John

O8)

Sounds like projection to me.

I really wished that Emmanuel could have maybe been more savvy about it and tried to engage her.

If the radical positions, and the radicals pressing them, that typify even large protests such as those by A.N.S.W.E.R. and W.C.W. enjoyed much popularity with the voting public, those would be mainstream positions, and define the content of elected official's speeches. Over the last forty years, this has conspicuously failed to happen, and the persons who engage in them have tried on just about every possble explaination for this except the idea that a great many people do not much like them.

Most people who do not immerse themselves in political lfe, which by definition includes the unecided swing voter, draw none of the distinctions that so concern us here: to them, the Democratic Party is the Left, and the Left is the Democratic Party. Their idea of the Left is in many ways a charicature, but charicature is an exaggeration of real elements when it is successful. Most of these people do not much like what they perceive as the Left, and since they blend this with the Democratic Party, some extraordinary pressure is often necessary to get them to vote Democratic in spite of it. Such pressures were present in this past election, and the defiance of the popular will with regard to Iraq the present administration is embarked on may well carry these forward to 2008. But occassional "Sister Souljah" moments will probably be of some assistance in preserving their attachment to the Democratic Party.

...is the swing voter's sudden awakening to the fact that "the protest crowd" are their next door neighbors and fellow carpoolers.

NGU.

It would be nice if it had, but it has not, and will not.

...to the peace movement in my community. Investment people, and veterans, and mainstream middle Americans. And I have watched their neighbors awaken to the fact, and warm to the fact. And I saw the culmination of that on November 7.

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hell-even Time magazine acknowledged that grass-roots played a huge part in spreading the word with regular old people being their person of the year.

I can tell you that several of my cousins, aunts and uncles voted DEM in '06 based on the emails and links I sent to them- Rahm, the DLC and the pro-Bush media had little to do with their awakening that led to oppostion and distrust of Bush.

ANSWER ans all of that is old FOX news talking points from years ago-O'Reilly and Rush saiy all the exact same shit-you should no better than to emulate them.

You need to update your smears on the people who are right about not trusting Bush or the pro-war crowd.

The current anti-war movement is not comprised of a majority ANSWER members- its regular old working class folks like me- spreading the facts online and in their communities. With NO help from Rahm and the DLC, I might add.

Have you ever seen me express support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or suggesting that "trusting" the current Republican regime was the right choice in political action?

Are you seriously stating that my views are nothing more than a parroting of Fox News and Limbaugh?

Do you really think that amounts to a sensible engagement, or constitutes some sort of an argument that anyone will feel obliged to give the slightest weight to?

If you think the current popular dis-enchantment with the venture in Iraq amounts to wide-spread agreement with the general lines of radical protest against it over the last several years, you are doomed to disappointment as political events unfold over the next couple of years. The people are repelled by the spectacle of incompetence and the fact of defeat staring them in the face: they are not repelled by immorality and imperialism and the like. Political figures over the last couple of years who have denounced the incompetence of the enterprise have been routinely denounced by some here as supporters of the war who simply want to fight it better, and if you were to apply the same standard to the people at large, you would convert the great majority of persons who say they no longer support the war into supporters of it once more.

Whether the popular view of and image of 'the protest crowd' is accurate or not is quite beside the point: it is a real factor in our country's politics, and will remain one. Persons pressing the sort of line Ms. Sheehan is pressing, and acting in the manner in which she is acting, are viewed with great disfavor by the overwhelming proportion of voters in this country. People do not identify with persons and things they dislike, and in many cases will continue to dislike them, and react unfavoreably to them, even if they actually have some points of agreement with them in their views. Pushed to a sticking point, they are quite likely in many cases to vote their emotional distaste rather than their possible rational agreement.

"The mind wobbles...."

"...they voted AGAINST the Rape-Publicans." Hmmm... Now where have I heard THAT talking point?

Listen Judge, I'm not saying you're "parroting" anyone. I know you better than that. But I am saying you're buying into the Cons' spiel rather easily...

NGU.

So long as your response is an accusation of "buying into the cons' speil rather easily" you will only succeed in alienating others, and insulating yourself against wider understanding, that might help hone a more effective and popular line.

Maybe he would have if she had allowed them to finish speaking. He came back later and spoke as did, I think it was 4, others.

When they were done, they took questions. They were more rushed because it was later. Cindy missed her chance, I suppose.

I'm NOT sticking up for Rahm Emanuel. Really don't know a lot about him.

But, we need to remember that free speech is NOT reserved for those who yell the loudest and drown others out.

Next time they may come for you.

Perhaps voters who elected DEMS prefer an anti-Iraq war position to an ambiguous-"let's wait and see" position that appears similar to Bush's?

Sorry- bit it was the "protest crowd" and their cousins in the "net-roots" who made people aware of all the fucked up things that Bush did in Iraq- it certainly was NOT Rahm, the media or any of the other cowaardly DLC ass-kissers.

So sorry- but voters appeared to have listened to Sheehan, Jon Stewart, Macacca, the "nut roots" and all their "radical" friends & relatives who have been informing them. It was THEM, not Rahm etc that woke everyone up.

Looks like the trend shows they voters nare ot too impressed with the pro-war, anti-withdrawal arguments put forth by various DLCers.

Sorry- but if anyone is behaving foolishly- its the 100% DEAD WRONG idiots who trusted Bush instead of listening to the "protest crowd" that was and is 100% on the mark.

You seem to be two years behind the times- the public has woken up and AGREES with "the protest crowd"- they have come to not trust Bush or support the war either.

Maybe some day the hemming & hawing cowards in the DLC wil catch up with this reality.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with what Cindy Sheehan is doing. She is trying to demontstrate what many Americans and many more each day want. An end to this insane war on other countries and the war on our own freedoms in this country. One can only be silent for so long.



John

*'s plan:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3039620&mesg_id=3039620

I believe it was a way to get the point across that the elections were about ending our involvement in Iraq. Do folks here think MLK Jr should have remained silent on the issue he so fervently worked on?

Was she after Rahm in particular yesterday, or did it not matter which press conference she crashed. That is my specific question.

my guess is it was directed at Rahm.

As with so many in the MSM and even here, (there are 24 hours in a day and) to insist that "YOUR" part of the huge sweeping Democratic agenda, including even the swearing in to the Congress, overshadow everything else and be initiated IMMEDIATELY is crass and derisive.

As much as I support her efforts, she should have been directing her energies elsewhere yesterday. There are still 203 Reich-wing Congress members she could have interrupted.

She simply gave the Reich more sound bites to rub our faces in.

Since some have yet to oppose it in any meaningful way that voters understand.

If Sheehan gave the RW talking points, it is only because some DEMS allowed her to by not focusing on THE issue.

I call BS- your argument seems to be "Sheehan is allowing the RW to remind people that many Democrats are responsible too"

Since we are so worried about what Sheehan will remind the RW to say-perhaps the moral position would be make it impossible for the RW to make such a claim, rather than blame Sheehan.

Until then, you can call bullshit all you want, I stand by what I say.

That's my observation. The ones that think Iraq should be the 51st state.

going after the Dems as a whole before they'd had a chance to take power (which is how I was taking it to be honest) was missing the point. There is a RW pundit saying that now she is the Dems problem. I would like to think she's more specific than that, that she's only a problem for those who don't support stopping the war.

with so many threads about this matter........we need to give her a forum......thers is plenty of other news going on.

I feel Cindy has the right to say and do as she wants.......but when a party has NOT been sworn in yet......she makes herself look foolish......and thats all I have to say on this petty matter........

the party as a whole. I think that's overstating her intentions. I think her point might have been specific to Rahm, and/or more hawkish Dems.

That would make her actions yesterday make more sense to me, and get on my nerves less.

But near as I can tell from this thread, folks are on autopilot when they see the word "Cindy" and post pretty the same thing in every thread, for and against, regardless of the specific question being asked. That was not my intention in this thread. We didn't need another thread to fight in.

I'm trying to understand, is all.

the Democrats were about to be sworn into a majority position in Congress, so I have to read it as her statement to all of them.

I'd like to see what she had to say.

It makes a difference to me.

I'm a Dem, you see, and I helped elect that majority.

therein lies my problem with the disruption.

I probably should have been paying more attention yesterday, but anyway...

"Protest organizer David Swanson told AFP said they wanted to underscore their displeasure that Democrats, in the view of peace activists, are not aggressively holding the Bush administration accountable for missteps in Iraq.

"We were there to lobby. We wanted to tell them that 'we in the peace movement won this war for you, and we have the impression that you're turning your back on us from day one,'" he said.

"We want Democrats to turn off the money and investigate the crimes," Swanson said.

"Pelosi (incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi) has said cutting off the money is off the table and impeachment is off the table. This is not what we elected her to do."

I rather take issue with several statements here. That the peace movement won the election for the Dems. That they elected her to do certain things. But nobody I can think of ran on an impeachment platform. So I wonder who "we" is supposed to be. It sure wasn't JUST the peace movement.

I think they may be overstating their importance. Several things won this election. The war. Gas prices. Ethics. Health care. Even global warming (I live in Wisconsin and you'd think it was spring here).

I wasn't too pleased when Moveon.org said that they'd bought the Dem Party with their donations and it belonged to them in 2004. I get a similar feeling here.

I wish they'd made it more clear who they were targetting in the Dem Party. But like Cheney, they seem to have used buckshot.

I agree with you that she’s being overly generous about the effectiveness of the peace movement. I think that the country tipped against the war for a lot of reasons, not just because of the peace movement, so I think she’s wrong about the extent she played in the election too.

No one ran on impeachment (did they?) so I don't know what she's talking about there.

This sounds so much like third party sentiment with Democrats being chastised in the same broad strokes as the Republicans that I’m tending to bristle against it.

I hope I’m wrong, but it doesn’t look as though there was any targeting for specific Democrats going on. Whatever their intention was though, I actually wanted to hear what Rahm had to say about ethics, so they lost me on this tactic. (and I'm saying this as someone who generally doesn't give a hoot about E. Rahm)

What good would it do her cause to embarass the ones who oppose the war?

:shrug:

Just askin'. :hi:

NGU.

just when they were about to take power, which bugged the stuffin's out of me. Part of what Rahm was doing there was kicking off the 100 hours, hence what he was doing had value to the Congressional Dems.

But it occured to me that Cindy wasn't worried about why Rahm was there, just that the person heading the press conference was someone she wanted to target. Some might call that tunnel vision, but it would make what she was doing more palatable to me if I didn't feel like she was attacking the party as a whole. I'm starting to think I jumped to the wrong conclusion yesterday.

Am I making any damn sense here?

I haven't really been paying much attention to all the ruckus about this. Cuz I figure this is what we've been saying all along. Right? That our work doesn't end January 4th. It just begins. Right? Once we put the Dems into power, then we need to hold them accountable. Right?

So anyway, your reasoning makes infinite sense to me. There are plenty of Congresspeople and Sentors who openly and vocally support Cindy. And she supports them. And they all know who they are. So why on Earth would she feel any need to protest them? On the contrary, isn't her protest in effect supporting them?

:shrug:

NGU.

Her group had been roaming the Capitol protesting, and just happened, by chance, on the press conference.

Don't know how this was known.

Looking for the article.

This is not the article that I was speaking of, but, rather interesting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1761135/posts?page=11


But, it appears they planned this well in advance.

seems to me she's waaaaaaaaaay past her earned 'fifteen minutes'. has been for some time now.

I would hate to think that a DUer shared that kind of naive wishful thinking with those "gentlemen."

Newsflash:

MORE voters, not less, agree with Cindy more than ever before.

than about 3,000 American and 600,000 Iraqi deaths.

It's not about decorum, it's about getting things done. There is a train a leavin' called the 110th Congress and Cindy Sheehan and co seem content to throw themselves on the track; she is fast becoming politically irrelevant. Moreover, she's lucky Steny Hoyer or Louise Slaughter didn't take the mike and chew her ass out for hurting her own cause, I bet they wanted too, but they've got a little more sense than that.

:eyes:

Unless he can adopt a moral and fact based position on Iraq, I dont want Rahm to be the face of my values or issues, and I dont think Cindy does either.

worth. Cindy is the one who has stood up against a very powerful cabal and at great personal risk. She is a mother and a concerned citizen to be praised and lauded. Good for her if she called a democratic war advocate to account. I am personally not too impressed with Emmanuel after his attacks on Dean.

That they even PRETEND to wonder why hardly anyone in the Democratic base trusts them is laughable.

1. People are talking about Cindy again. There are some that don't like her anyway...some that think she's worn out her welcome and had her 15 minutes of fame. She's rarely on mainstream media channels, although I heard she'll be on Sean Hannity's show tomorrow. I'm sure that will be amusing... either way, Cindy and her cause (which many support) are back in the news. There would only be a very small chance that she would get ANY airtime otherwise. That's what good activists do...get visibility and headlines.

2. The Democrats in the Beltway need to be constantly reminded why they were voted in. One major reason is that 80% of Americans don't support the war. Cindy did her action during Rahm Emanuel speech for good reason. He and Rep. Steny Hoyer think that setting up a withdrawal program in Iraq could backfire for the Democrats in 2008. Emanuel has also attacked George Soros and MoveOn.org for various reasons and has openly chimed against Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

n/t

she attacks all Democrats and does harm to our party.

I dont think she harmed the party at all- Rahm & Hoyer need to be reminded that the war is a major issue and that the activist community who put him in power is not going away.

She was doing them a favor- if we are still in Iraq in '08- dont think the media, GOP and probably much of the public wont blame us too.

Oh, and if you're going to post bait at least spell Rahm right.

and a pretty decent discussion, as Cindy threads go. Hence, no flamebait here.

Honest disagreements are not always flamebait- and posts that allow people to continue to question the political agenda and motivation of either can be a good thing.

Having said that, I do beleive there is at least one new poster who is trying to make actual flamebait- gay baiting and what not.

I saw a lot of celebrating, but no leadership. I think she showed up just in time to remind folks of the real reason for the party. Our side didn't win because of Rahms' genius. And we didn't win because it would be great to finally have a woman as Speaker. Its the war the war the war. And something must be done on that immediately. That is the first and only real issue here.

It's not just the War, it is the Bush administration as a whole. What tunnel vision. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha aren't leading? Puhlease. Democratic politicians are not children who need to be constantly reminded of the fact of the Iraq War...I think the country got the message on Nov. 7, 2006.

:evilfrown:

The country did not GET the message on Now 7th. The country SENT the message on Nov 7th. Now it remains to be seen whether the politicians on both sides will do what is now required. Let us not forget, up until election day, the GOP "leaders" were claiming everything was fine in Iraq. That's why they lost. And the Dem "leaders" stuck to slogans like "we need a new direction" and such. The new direction is OUT. And only by public pressure will this common sense new direction be taken.

Our side did not get elcted because of the minimum wage issue. I'm all for that, and many more good ideas from our side. But that ain't the reason for the season.

Go Cindy!

Part of the country sent the message on Nov. 7th and part of the country got the message on Nov. 7. This is still a narrow country. The vote was not so much Iraq War as it was anti-Bush. It's both/and, not either/or. The message was not just "we need a new direction" it was "we need a new direction so we can leave without chaos." Elections aren't public pressure? I also resent your use of quotations in 'Dem "leaders."'

Go Howard! Go Harry! Go Nancy! :evilgrin:

home. And let't have some jobs and healthcare waiting for them when they get here.

(A play on words from the OP)

If Cindy Sheehan is the new Malcom X, then Howard Dean is the new Martin Luther King Jr.!

:evilgrin:

There are plenty of Senate Dems that voted for Iraq I haven't seen her go after them. Even though I hate the DLC I still think it was a cheap shot.


From reading the post from today I'm starting to think this Sheehan thing has more to do with a power play within the party and less to do with the War in Iraq.

Everyone outspoken Democrat who is to the left of LIEberman is hurting the Democratic Party.

But every outspoken Republikkan who is to the reich...I mean right of Orrin Hatch is energizing the republikkan base.

who have good reason to be embarrassed?

nt

We need a million more Cindy Sheehans to call B.S. on this war to the people who support this regardless if they are Democrat or Republican. There's plenty of blame to go around.


John