I support Cindy but I do not agree with her tactics by interrupting the Dem Pres Conf.

I feel that she's jumping the gun in some respects because the Dems haven't even started yet.

The Republicans are already complaining that the Dems aren't doing anything about the war and we bashed them for rushing things because we wouldn't have gotten control until today.

I don't think blasting the Dems prior to taking control is a good move for getting our troops home.

I'm posting that I disagree with her tactics. I didn't say that I disagree with Cindy, I didn't call her names, I'm just saying that I dont' agree with her tactics.

Now, I know some of you will disagree with me. I respect that and I understand.

nm

if you want to be literal...since 2000.

I'm sure the bugman was happy

She has one very important priority, and it's pretty important to the rest of us, but we must get our ducks in a row and solve some of the lesser problems first.

IMO, a smarter tactic would have been to keep the heat on Bush and give the Dems a chance to at least get sworn in. But she got what she wanted...the press flocked like a magnet.

she was at least @ a Dem one.

I'm afraid that by using those tactivs she'll lose the opportunity to be involved in more. She needs to be invited and involved but no one will want her around if she is unpredictable. I just think she is going to lose the ability to speak and be heard out of fear from making us look out of control.

Leading the pack yesterday in that manner appeared (at least to me) as desperate. It might re-start her getting press again for a short time, but she's going to find herself quickly sidelined.

Her message has the majority of the American people on her side. Her method needs to evolve though, and she's missing the opportunity to really become a force to reckon with.

that says some Dems are shifting over to *'s surge for "6 months". WTF! If this is true then we must apply whatever pressure is necessary!

Haven't found the article yet.

WTF? I'M NOT OK W THIS!:

Good news for the White House as Bush prepares to announce this plans: The New York Times reports "key Senate Democrats say they could consider supporting a short-term increase in American troop levels in Iraq, a stance that reflects division within the party and could provide an opening for President Bush as he prepares to announce his revised plan for Iraq as early as next week." Also in the New York Times, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft comes out against "an American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, 'govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself,'" calling such a move "a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond." Scowcroft, a highly respected top aide to the first President Bush, may help sway some Republicans not to call for leaving Iraq now.

-snip

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070104.htm

The only problem is that if Dems don't go with the surge then all troop deaths from here on out are our fault.

The World Can't Wait attacking the Democrats from the left might be a good thing. They can appear to be taking a moderate stand, with attacks from the left and taking attacks from the right from the Republicans. Taking attacks from both the left and right can make them appear to be the moderate ones, and maybe get more support from the rank and file voters in the country. It all depends on how the Democrats handle all of the dissent.

coming from... It may be nearly impossible for her to be pragmatic about this critical issue at all...

That's why I think her friends and supporters need to be non-judgemental in their criticism. We want both her and the Dems to be effective, afterall. We need to help identify the best ways for both to occur and help her see that as well. IMO

out with the duck, soap, bathwater and bath tub?

:shrug:

No one wants to gag her--just make her more effective. I hope she can take some gentle criticism.

innuendo.

This place is weird, sometimes. I have supported Cindy in every other thing she's done and I still support her content, but I think her timing sucked on this one and distracted both from her own message and that of the new democratic congress.

FWIW.

There was a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of the Administration to start an illegal war. What have the Dems said about this?

will investigate and do oversight.

Can't they at least get the door unlocked and turn on the freakin lights first?

And I hope they heed her message, and don't pretend there isn't one they ought to heed.

:shrug:

are starting to change their mind about Bush's proposed escalation of troops. Unless it is true that some of them are starting to fall back into the old patterns of giving this war criminal what he wants without question.

In that case I think she is right to remind them of why the hell they won Congress back in the first place. The majority of Americans who voted want this travesty to END.. not ESCALATE.

the better the chances are the Democrat's chances for taking the white house. If the Democrats oppose any and all troop "surges" they are doing all they can to get out. About the only way the Democrats in cangress can fight troop escalations is to withhold funding for the war, and if they do that, Bush will accuse the Dems of deserting the troops.

Just take a close look at the Ethics Package the Dems are proposing!!

quietly, but prominently in the room, have done the same thing? You think that CSPAN and the news networks wouldn't have panned on to her - and interviewed her afterwords? Isn't it likely if this had been the tactic that post-press conference interviews would have asked the dems what their opinions per the issue (what ever sign posted) were?

I think she could have gone about this differently - and with a little more dignity - and reaped a better effect (being heard - and visibly "keeping the pressure on".

They announced their "first hundred hours" agenda quite a while back, and ending the war, not surprisingly, isn't on it. This makes tactics such as Sheehan's inevitable. If our Dem leaders can't take it, they should get serious about withdrawal. Until then, I think that Sheehan is right to follow the cameras.

Da Prez is about to back-door another escalation of his war. This matter is urgent, and I can't blame Sheehan for not being willing to wait for a press conference with the correct backdrop. If even one-tenth of us had shown even one-tenth the dedication she does, this war would already be over--or never would have started.

Well-behaved citizens are ignored, these days.

has for a plan. Second...they want some win's under their belts before hitting the hard stuff.

Why do the brain surgery first when you can fix the cut on the finger?

...many/most of our Dems are beholden to the same corporate interests as are the GOPers. They are nearly as unlikely to "hit the hard stuff," unless we remind them, constantly, of the importance of ending this stupid war.

The brain surgery is way past due.

I don't know where I stand on the actions taken at this point. But I certainly understand the motivation. I do not want them forgetting what the people want. I do not want them sweeping the issues under the table. So I can suffer the actions of a few fanatics for right now if it keeps their feet to the fire a bit.

They are already getting off topic and have forgotten why they were elected.

It's an important topic, but it's not the only topic.

When Cindy Sheehan first started her crusade, I thought she was a very important voice who needed to be heard. She put a fact to the thousands of families who have lost children in Iraq. I even thought she was right in her "sit-in" near the Imperial Pig Farm.

Along the way, however, she seems to have lost her direction. I'm starting to think she (or people around her) are becoming atttracted to celebrity. When she talked about running against iane Feinstein last year, I just rolled my eyes.

Now, she's crashing Democratic press conferences BEFORE we even take power. I thought it was just rude, as she has been treated very well by many within the Democratic party.

I'm afraid that, if Cindy continues on this course, she's going to end up a parody of herself and her original mission will be harmed. She will be percieved not as a grieving mother seeking answers but as a shrill media-junkie who has made this about "her" rather than about the war dead.

how disruptive was the 'protest'? I keep reading references but have no idea what happened and thus can't form an opinion.

If it were not really disruptive, but symbolic, than I would have no problem with that - as it would be giving voice to "hope with accountability" that many have at this time per what the dems might be able to accomplish on the Hill regarding the war. Free speech - and I would guess that some present would be sympathetic.

If it were terribly disruptive, than it goes past symbolic - and potentially builds ill will and the possibility of more easily dismissing such voices and opinions as "fringe" in which case it would be counter productive.

Can anyone give me a quick summary of what happened? Thanks.

no one could speak above the chanting. Not what I wanted to see after waiting a decade for a Democratic majority.

not the time. Understand the motivation - but sometimes strategy in order to try to achieve an end is needed.

With all the brouhaha over what Cindy did, the fact she is is making the lives of the troops a priority has been forgotten. I'd be willing to bet they would be grateful to ANYONE willing to do ANYTHING to get them out of the hellhole they're in. It's so easy to criticize or say "Why didn't she wait?" from the safety of a computer screen and not while fighting for your life.

the dems need a shock to the system early on.

They are still politicans, and too likely to forget us in this first blush of power returning.

Rahm needs that shock more than others.

Cindy speaks for me and many others doing this.

Not everyone puts their faith in politicians since to date what have they actually done to bring any lasting change .

We still use war without thinking and we still seem to support war , hell even many of the dems supported this attack on Iraq .

No one with any sense can excuse the dems for voting for this war , they should have known it was wrong as many of the US citizens did .

I don't buy into the dems excuses for voting for this war , it was nothing but a political position on their parts .

My impression of Cindy is that she believes it is the voice and actions of the american people that will make the change for once not the votes but the actual actions of the citizens .

Cindy needs to give the elected a chance to do their jobs.She was obnoxious today and I didn't appreciate it at all.