Regarding Sheehan and blind support for Democrats

I see that there is a post on the greatest page saying, basically, that if people want to support Sheehan's run as an independent against Pelosi, they should take it off DU. While I understand the rules of this forum, and I think I understand the feelings of the poster, I must respectfully disagree.

The main reason is that I can't blindly follow anybody, with respect to politics. We on DU are often making comments about the people who still blindly support Bush and the republicans, regardless of what information comes out about them - where they've screwed up on Iraq, shouldn't have been there in the first place, used the constitution of the U.S. as kindling for an explosion, etc. To still support Bush after everything is insane. The damage done to this country by him and his people will even affect the rich.

By the same token, I can not and will not place blind trust in democrats. But it goes beyond that: the democrats asking to be elected or reelected have to show support for the things I believe we need to do. Pelosi has a record that I have to take into account. She has to do more than just say we should end the war in her campaign speeches. Action is required. If she doesn't follow through on that, I'll consider the alternatives (and I do live in CA).

Let's take the issue of impeachment. I can understand why Pelosi and other politicians would want to take things slowly, build up a really good case, and not start out with impeachment. I support all the hearings and investigations. I can see how many people including myself would want action, not more talk, and how it could be wrong to immediately start impeachment proceedings. However, the evidence against Bush and the administration is so overwhelming, at least from my point of view, that to say something like "impeachment is off the table" is incredible, and ultimately unforgivable. To allow blatant disregard for the highest laws of the land - the constitution, specifically with regard to wiretapping - is to say it's ok, to give approval, to give the American people a big middle finger when all is said and done. Pelosi also recently said that Bush "is not worth impeaching." So authorizing wiretapping, torture, obstruction of justice in terms of the Plame leak, and denial of justice in terms of the US attorney firings, is not worth doing something about? These things and other fundamentally change this country in that they say you can break laws if it's for the right political party.

In Iraq, the figure of 650,000 people killed is 1/10th the number that Hitler killed. That's within an order of magnitude of, arguably, the most evil person known to the modern world. What does it take for someone to realize that by not acting against the person causing this crime to be committed, that they are at least inactively supporting him? And what are we killing these people for? It's hard to deny that the overall reason is likely so that Bush's friends can make a lot of money off of Iraq's oil. It fits with a lot of the other stuff Bush has done - helping his friends at the expense of anyone else.

How in the holy <you know what expletive to insert here> can anyone in power say no, this person is not worth impeaching? How can they say it's "off the table"? I for one will not be like that 26% who use faith-based politics, ignoring all the facts before their eyes to support the man with the right label - R. I will not vote on a brand name. That means that I may vote for an independent, or even a republican if they support the things that I think are right. By not giving the D's a blank check, I give them instead the responsibility to do the right thing.

-mwalker

Hear hear!

that's the rule.

I happen to think it's a good one. There are plenty of forums on the internet on which people can support Sheehan against Pelosi.

rights and vote... but as it is most can't be bothered. So, we are stuck with die-hard party loyalists who use the independent vote as a tool for the elections.

wins the primary "blind loyalists"?

Or actual Democrats doing their best to steer a very large boat sailing in some very turbulent water.

there are any number of forums, other than DU, where you can promote third party candidates. I think your need to post a separate thread from the one you referenced is an attempt to change the fundamental principles upon which DU was founded. There are rules, and why don't we let the Admins decide?

Hell, you can even start an "Independent Underground" and make up your own rules, if that's what flips your switch.

If you have another interest, feel free to explore that elsewhere.

1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democratic

Yes, the 4th definition is about the Democratic party. But the first three definitions are kind of quaint, wouldn't you say?

Underground my ass.

Blind, unquestioning support regardless of facts.

How very sad.

The main point I was trying to get across was that people shouldn't just follow their party but should direct its course. Following somebody, anybody, simply because they are of the right political party is stupid. What if Mr. X is a wants to nuke, let's say, all of Asia but he's a democrat? Do you vote for him? Then you're just a sucker for a brand name. They can get you to go along with whatever they want with the right label.

Ultimately, we the people are the leaders of this country. If we've lost the ability to lead, if it's been taken away from us and we have allowed it, we are still responsible for what this country does. I share responsibility for the 655,000 dead in Iraq because I'm a citizen of the U.S. Likewise, if I help to elect someone who will not stop Iraq or the other things that are doing severe damage to this country, then I am directly responsible for it continuing. The responsibility is ours, and it is inescapable.

When the election comes around, I may have to stay silent in terms of Pelosi vs. Sheehan because one has the wrong label - I. The rule is that I can't use this board to actively try to keep a democrat from getting elected. But I really don't think the rule is says, or means to say, that we blindly support and follow democrats. I hope not!

-mwalker

Peace

Maybe I'm just a ridiculous optimist, but imho, being challenged can be a good thing for our reps. Complacency is the problem in a district like this one, not challenge.

There's little or no chance for the Republics to take this district and if Nancy hears a challenge, it might make her a little more attentive to progressives.

I feel a little worried because I think this is going to be happening all over the country. People seem to be upset and frustrated and wanting to kick tables over. I'm not wishing to unseat Democrats. I'm hoping Democrats will listen up. :(

:)

It's a threat to become a spoiler. Which is something else altogether.

If Cindy wants to be Nader, I'll give her the same respect I give him: NONE.

I think you're right. She should run as a Democrat -- or at least, I wish she would.

support her position. I don't like being torn like this. ;)

I'm not sure Cindy Sheehan could have the impact of Paul Wellstone with no political savvy or experience at all. It's difficult to thrust yourself into a national political race in this day and age, you've got to be very smart about it. Basically she's got a voice about the Iraq War, but what about the many other issues that she'll be faced with, especially as a Rep from California?

She took some very bad advice from whoever it was that was handling her in the past, so I just don't see her rising up to be a new Wellstone anytime soon, but maybe she's learned by her mistakes now. We'll see.

;)

so much for the meme that Democrats can't be effective voices for progressive change, and I think most of us would welcome Cindy Sheehan back into our fold if she chose to come back. :hi:

As usual, you are a voice of reason on this site:D Thank-goodness! I admire Cindy for the work she has done, but her drive has been through the emotional loss of her son. I think what's missing is her objectivity when looking at the overall picture. Hey, though, if I had lost a son or daughter, I'm sure I would take the fight to where it was like she did. No one can fault her for that, but to run against a seasoned politician, who I think is doing what she can under these dire circumstances, is taking a gamble. One she is bound to loose.

Cindy needs to use her energy and emotions in working to make sure these vets get the help and care they need. There, she could be invaluable.

Or advisors.

She seems to operate pretty much alone.

My sense of her some year and a half ago was that she didn't have much in the way of competent staffing.

So this is both her strength and her downfall. I mean, she is without the usual crowd of political consultants that keep so much of what the candidates focus on caught up in the last century. (Rolling Stone had a scary article about the role that the consultants have - the power of influence they wield. So the big moneyed politicos like Hill and Obama are focused on polls and "image" - some of which the consultants dreamt up like ten years ago)

She's her own person and this is the good thing about her and also her Achilles' heel.

is the day I cease my lifelong party affiliation and officially become independent. I take great pride in our ability to hold differing opinions and our ability to believe what we believe instead of what we're told to believe.

a Democratic candidate with a solid voting record of supporting progressive causes, personally.

Supporting the criminal conduct of these monsters is NOT a progressive cause.

Wasting a vote on a third party candidate in order to feel smug and accomplish nothing is NOT a progressive cause.

And who's the "monster" in your comment?

Just sayin' . . .

:hi:

continuance of the war, Lieberman of course is no longer a Democrat. The crux of our differences are in finding the best solution (which must by nature be a political one) to effectively end it. The bottom line is there is no good solution to this horror.

Rec!

There has been plenty of criticism of Dems in Congress on DU, esp. Pelosi, Reid & Lieberman even before he declared as an Indie. I would like to see the rule changed because many here are not Dems. I feel that this place is not a wing of the Dem Party but a gathering of non RWingers.

What they are saying is that you cannot use this forum to campaign for an Independent candidate against the Democratic candidate. No one is stopping her supporters from starting a site dedicated to her campaign. This is a privately owned forum and the owner is not obligated to give you his bandwidth to support a candidate running against a candidate in his party.

I agree with your post. Censorship is not the answer and DU should include discussions about Cindy Sheehan's attempts to succeed Ralph Nader as ineffectual third-party candidate.

However, the censorship issue goes both ways. Sheehan's fan club should expect skepticism, but bristles at any sign of non-membership. I understand that Cindy Sheehan has lost a great deal and sympathize with her desire to do something, but strongly believe that her tactics are unwise. Some people think that that equals a personal attack or support for Republicans. It's very black and white for them. The PM brigade in full force.

For instance, someone in particular likes to ask "what has Cindy ever done to you" in response to other DUers. I find that question amusing, as Cindy Sheehan has increasingly become a public figure. There are criticisms that are clearly off limits (ANYTHING having to do with her son, for instance). However, questioning the truth or the wisdom of her accusations against DU or running third party seems to be the exact purpose of a place like DU.

So while I agree that censorship is not the answer, the pro-Cindy folks should realize that they tread in familiar territory. Nader did the same thing in 1999. Partisanship aside, did Nader accomplish any of his political goals? Unless this is about publicity (calm down, attention for an issue is not bad), Sheehan can't expect to actually win as a third party candidate.

If you support sheehan as an independent against Pelosi then DU will frown mightily and you might end up getting banned.

If you don't like it then start your own damn forum.

If you want to play here you have to go by the rules, and skinner makes 'em. Tough shit if you don't like it.

Blind following is foolish on spec, but it isn't that simple. If America learns only one lesson from these past years, I hope it is this: parties matter, and voting for "the man" you like best regardless of party is asking for trouble. Those who liked Bush as a person more than Gore and voted that way also voted for Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, Ashcroft and Dick "Captain Happy" Cheney.

Parties matter. The new prez beings more than a thousand people with him/her, those thousand are the ones who actually govern, they are all party stalwarts, and bad things happen if they're batshit crazy. You simply cannot remove party from the equation.

When the November midterms were looming, many DUers lived in House districts where the Dem candidate was anti-choice, or pro-Iraq, or similarly unpalatable. I pleaded with them to vote for that Dem, no matter how crummy they were, because they were actually voting to give Conyers, Waxman, Reid, Kennedy, Frank, Slaughter and other excellent Dems control of powerful committees. Electing one bad Dem noob with no power among 435 Reps was more than worth gaining the majority, subpoena power, hearings, and the rest of it.

Blind fealty is foolish...but as long as the Taliban wing of pseudo-Christianity controls the GOP, I will always vote for even the vilest Dem. Choosing between good and evil is easy. Choosing the evil that's more good is what makes the hair go grey, but the alternative is worse.

As Sean Penn's Willy Stark said in that remake of 'All the King's Men,' they're all thieves. But our thieves steal to help the people, and their thieves steal to help themselves. That's facile, sure, but true enough to keep me in the fold. Getting screwed over by teachers, pipefitters, mothers and minorities, i.e. the Dem base, is way better than the screwing we've been taking these last six years from the avatars of the other base. I'll take our thieves any day of the week.

Which makes parties matter. A vote for a scumbucket Dem Senate candidate or a crudball Dem presidential nominee is, for one example, a vote to repair SCOTUS. It's worth the bad aftertaste if it helps fix that nest of nutballs.

'parties matter'

Look at what happened when the Dem leadership decided to fund the damned war. They made a calculation, which was simple, keep the war going until 2008, so that the Dem candidate for president can have an issue to beat the Republicans with.

These "people" would rather kill off our troops and Iraqi civilians for a few votes than do something that is right, and we are supposed to vote for these assholes? What for?

Our so-called leadership has been ignoring the grassroots voters and instead taking their marching orders from DLC. They've found that they can do this and still be rewarded with votes. When bad behavior is rewarded, bad behavior continues. I can only control my own vote, but my vote will go to Dennis Kucinich, a man of integrity. I will NOT vote for any DLC member or anyone who allows DLC to lead them around by the nose because DLC is an organization co-founded by a PNAC signator, currently chaired by Voted for Torture Ford, and whose goal is the undermining of the Democratic Party.

I find the argument that "Democrat X is bad, but he's better than a republican" disgusting. Pond scum is better than sewer scum, but I'll be damned if I'll drink either one. Even more disgusting are people who place party loyalty above integrity and the good of the nation.

In his OP, mwalker pointed out the hypocricy of criticizing republicans for supporting their politicians regardless of what they do, while some here do the same thing. I find blind loyalty abhorrent, whether it's republicans or democrats (see my sig line).

But in the Senate where the majority is slim at best, we've seen where Casey's pro-life stance has hurt the stem cell bill and so on.

And I put this out there. We progressives need to take up this challenge to run serious progressives in the Democratic primaries against every DLC centrist we can find and start seriously making our voices heard.

Here in Wisconsin our party chair is centrist hack (who lost in a Congressional race to the terrific Tammy Baldwin) who actually thought there was no conflict of interest in him lobbying for AT&T at the same time as holding the party leadership position. He used his considerable allies to screw with procedural votes last weekend and railroad a state party resolution forbidding lobbying while in a state party elected position.

He resigned from AT&T but only after the local papers embarrassed him over it and he trashed "the left wing of the party" for making noise to begin with.

We need to take our party back. Progressives are the grassroots. Progressives are the base. It is we who door knock, phone bank, work in the offices, walk in parades, host house parties and we are the backbone of every single campaign out there.

In this case Will I think it matters that we elect people on principle and if that person doesn't exist than band together with local liberals who can get someone to run.

We shouldn't be forced to have Bob Casey or nobody versus Santorum who was such an idiot that the dog he mentioned in his man on dog sex comment should have been able to beat him.

The fact is there aren't enough elected progressives and those who are not, and one can question Pelosi's punching power in this regard, need to be challenged because most of them seem more interested in retaining the status quo network of lobbyists and power over doing what the American people want and what's morally right.

Rp

I have said, ad infinitum, that we can't expect any guarantees with regard to impeachment. But we also have to remove the scales from our eyes, and not enable those who have already *guaranteed* their future conduct.

There is no doubt in my mind that Democrats have historically been a much more moral party than any other. Just show me the goods!!

she can do no wrong, she heals the sick, and she walks on water.

You can talk and talk all day long about the Dems and their record. But it won't change one very important fact:

Cindy Sheehan has no record. At all. Nothing. No political experience where she has ever been in a position where her decisions impact peoples' lives.

Its easy to take potshots from the cheap seats at elected officials, and the Sheehan sycophants have pretty much crafted it into an art form.

But when it comes to real and practical experience, and bringing about actual tangible change, what does she have to offfer besides rhetoric?

or adopting a sneering tone for party loyalty, why not get involved at the grassroots level?

You would be surprised how much there is to be done. If you walk in enough parades and distribute enough literature, you will be noticed and listened to as a worker. Eventually, if you are not a crackpot, the other grassroots people will notice you. You may end up in a leadership position. Or, you will get the local leadership to listen to you, and the higher-ups listen to the locals.

No party structure is perfect. A room with ten Democrats can have twenty different opinions. But once you start to get involved, you do have more of a voice. Lately, I have been in a position to speak directly to some of my elected Democratic office holders. I may be just one more hand to shake, and one more speaking mouth, but I do what I can.

When I saw Durbin, I was able to tell him directly that the people in my precinct were unhappy that the timetable was taken out of the war funding measure. I was able to tell him that one person he knew was not present at his event because he was more than unhappy, he was angry.

When he said, "I am sorry to hear that," I was able to tell him that Congress was losing its approval rating, and we needed to do something to keep our gains in the general election. I did not have much time to say these things, but I said them.

People, please do your part. I am a loyalist, but no one here has a right to call me a blind loyalist in a disparaging manner. I can see, but some of the time I am looking at my neighborhood and community rather than my monitor.

to get them elected.

Great post, thank you!

Version of Gandhi. If you are scoffing at that comparison a bit - I understand. But this is a different culture than the Hindu tradition that Mahatma was raised in. And so there are some profound differences.

She has indeed healed the sick - there are probably a half a dozen people who approached her with hatred and anger. After all, they had lost a child in the war and did not share her feelings but then she embraced them and helped them see the world differently. Through meeting with Cindy they changed their minds - they came to understand her point of view.

If you have never considered what it must be like to lose a child to the insanity of a war such as this - the fact that she has attempted to be true to the ideals of pacifism and to be true to the higher aspirations and inspirations of the self - well, I could not do that. If my son died in the wasteland of Iraq -I cannot even say what would happen then. But my actions would probably resemble those of a McVeigh rather than Sheehan's. I lost a friend a few years ago - and I think the government had a hand in his death. It is through Cindy's example that I turned to prayer rather than firepower. For that alone, I bless her.

Do you think what she has done is easy?

She is a political rogue - but in these times, maybe that makes sense. After all, if you are not by now rather unwilling to conform to the old ways of machine politics - maybe you haven't been paying attention and learning the lessons.

I personally cannot support the traditional politicians. I want the visionaries. The world and its reality is as we make it - if we do not defy the odds - then we are not going to survive in any manner that is meaningful.

And with as much caring, Cindy Sheehan unlike many mothers who lost their sons and daughters in Iraq, chose the spotlight and those same mothers say feel exactly as Sheehen does, and want answers and a stop to this occupation...However, they did not find or seek the spotlight as Sheehan found necessary to do...And these same mothers losses are no less painful...There are many brave, courageous mothers protesting & fighting against this war in so many ways, and Sheehan is one...Just as there are many fathers who love just as much and no less than the mothers while trying to stop this occupation for profits by these corporations and this lap dog administration.

to treat Sheehan supporters any differently, regardless of popularity. Otherwise the rules are a farce.

and Lieberman is not. I happen to support progressive values and I think most DUers do as well.

So I see a HUGE difference between Lieberman and Sheehan. But it will be interesting to see how DU handles this. IMO, if they block threads about Cindy running for office, they will lose a large chunk of DUers. But I certainly don't know many who would quit because they supported Lieberman.

They'll never stop equivocating Lieberman and Cindy, no matter how many times you and others point out the very important differences. Those we lost over lieberman, good fucking riddance. (Mr Benchley)

days -- with voting machines and central tabulation, the candidates are more accountable to those who control the machines and financing than to the "Democratic" party...

but you can't do it here. If you don't like it, to bad, leave.

I have no objection to her running against Pelosi. But its time for Dems who want to make a difference to get out there and take over leadership of their own party.

you've touched on something I have been thinking about for a long time

for many years we have been thirsting for leadership - real leadership, not photo-op'd depiction of someone acting presidential.

it's been evident over the past couple of years just how desperate we are to quench that thirst - anyone coming out with some sort of big statement condemning bush/cheney results in multiple threads calling for "x" to run for president.

This is not just a phenomenom limited to the left - it's nationwide and it's a bit scary

in the MSM much is made of haircuts and who you would have a beer with - little on issues and substance... haircuts and beers do not qualify or disqualify someone to be a leader - but it can sure as hell get one elected

Skinner's message board, Skinner's rules. One major goals of this message board is for it to help get Democrats elected to office. Advocacy of third party candidates in races where there is a Democrat running hinders this goal.

that are upheld here. Would it be so bad to support a more progressive independant canidate against someone like Nelson or Lieberman (when he was Dem) or if godforbid Zell Miller were running as a Dem? I understand the reason for the rule of Dem only here on the site - but I think that we, as progressives should go more with the spirit of the rule than the word of the rule. As long as support is still being given for a progressive canindate and the person is not just some freeper here to stir up trouble, I don't see any problem with supporting a non-Dem, especially if the independant happens to be more Dem-like than the Dem.

the rules state that Democratic Party candidates should be supported.

:applause:

:)

:hi:

:hi:

I'm certainly not "blind" about what's going on, I just don't think that supporting outside candidates is a proper or constructive course at this juncture.

It's doing the best you can within a 2 party system.

Pelosi a bath in SF Bay as a appetizer for impeachment, more power to them.

Of course you should vote your conscience in every election. If you think replacing Pelosi with Sheehan is a good idea, you should work to make that happen. I do however believe that if Sheehan is running as anything other than a Dem, you should create a different forum rather than use DU to promote her candidacy.

I myself am wary of Sheehan. If I am not mistaken, she voted for Bush and has voted primarily GOP her whole life. That tells me that until she was delivered the devastating blow of the loss of her son, she voted for candidates that were against a women's right to choose, racial equality, union workers, the poor and the homeless. IN addition to her brief affiliation as a Democrat, her retiring and coming out of retirement within the span of a few weeks is troubling to me. I am also mildly put off by her claim to be the "face" of the anti-war movement. She is not, by a long shot, the sole leader of the anti-war movement.

If Cindy does enter the Democratic primary I wish her well and I will look forward to a spirited debate here on DU about the candidates.

The Republicans openly advocate and scam for a one party state, which is a form of dictatorship. The Republicans have shown that they believe they are above the law. They have no respect for the rights of individuals.We've seen with the US Attorneys scandal that the GOP is working on making elections meaningless. America is headed toward fascism.

The only institution that can stop the Republicans is the Democratic Party. Dump the Democratic Party and the GOP takes over. Its that simple. The Iraq war, impeachment, or any of the things Cindy Sheehan is talking about are not as important as heading off a fascist takeover.

I agree that there is a point where one can't go along with the group. On the other side of that, if we all don't compromise with each other we won't have a group at all. Terrible things will happen.

The party system says if you disagree you are free to try to change the direction of the party. But once the disagreements are voted on, we all are obligated to support the whole. If instant impeachment advocates win the primaries, I'll vote for them. Nobody is asking for blind obedience. The Democrats ask for common sense loyalty.

You write: "the democrats asking to be elected or reelected have to show support for the things I believe we need to do." The word "I" is important here. If you don't want to be part of the group I don't see why you advocate what the rest of us should do. The Democrats should support the things "WE" want them to do, whenever its practical.

Many of the same people who are advocating ditching the Democrats now have advocated ditching Democrats for many years now. They always have a new reason cooked up. If it were not for people on the left working against Democrats in 2000 we wouldn't have Iraq or impeachment or any of this. Back in 2000 the left wing opponents said its more important to make a defiant gesture than worry about results. We can see how wrong that idea is now. Results matter.Its not just a matter of what you want,its what your actions will cause. There is nothing moral about an action that causes a terrible result.

To answer your other questions about Pelosi - If I drew a continuum of all the potential voters in 2006, I'd have people who wanted to impeach Bush on the left, people who wanted to have investigations and strict oversight of Bush in the middle, and people who backed Bush on the right, you could see how lopping everybody off who wasn't in favor of impeachment would cause Democrats to lose. The Republicans were well aware of this and THEY were the ones trying to make impeachment an issue. Nancy wisely chose winning. Losing wasn't going to help get anybody impeached.

I'm sorry that these Cindy Sheehan/Dump the Democrats/Impeachment threads are getting so much attention, many times hundreds of responses. The news says the Bush White House is panicking because their Iraq war support is collapsing. Democrats are making great progress on the war and are close to beating Bush. Democrats also put contempt charges against the White House on the table today. While not impeachment,criminal charges do show Bush that his lawlessness won't be tolerated. Contempt prosecutions could well lead to a Constitutional showdown which could lead to impeachment. "We" are getting there, with our friends, the Democrats.

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

If anyone has earned the right to speak here, it is Cindy Sheehan.

The rules of the forum again: "Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

I believe that Cindy Sheehan is very much in agreement with progressive ideals. And she has certainly shown that she *generally* supports Democratic candidates, as long as those candidates support Democratic ideals. Because she has seen, as many of us here have, that the Democrats we elected in November 2006 are failing to support their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution, she has bravely announced her departure from the Democratic Party. If she did that in a moment of deep frustration and heartfelt emotion, I think she has already earned the "political capital" to merit the understanding of this whole community. Not only that, she deserves the support of this forum as she publicly airs for herself (and for a lot of us), what she sees as a "cancer growing on the Democratic Party." Those are my words, but I think she would agree with them.

We have a country to save, and we'd better get at it. We don't have time to watch our neighbors with suspicion, and rat on someone who doesn't measure up to some arbitrary standard of party loyalty. Party loyalty is for small minds. There is so much bickering going on in this forum, with so little attention to the real details of what is happening to our beloved country.

I often think about the number of people that I understand lurk at DU, and the number who post here regularly, and think that if we could just harness that energy to *demand* that we get back to democracy, instead of the rapidly-growing fascism that is overtaking us, we could move mountains.

If our leaders won't lead, then we need to abandon those "leaders" and take the power that we already have, as We the People, and refuse to support, through contributions of time, or our dollars, anyone who will not take a stand against tyranny -- whether they be Democrats or Republicans or Independents.

For whatever she may lack in finesse, Cindy Sheehan has the heart of a patriot. She is behaving in the grand tradition of our forefathers who finally had enough, and put their own necks on the line for the country. To the extent that we tolerate the hand-waving that has passed of late for oversight, we are complicit in the death of this country.

At the same time that Nancy Pelosi said that George Bush was "not worth impeaching," she also made reference to the *marvelous* (paraphrasing, but a word in that vein) election we are all going to have in 2008. Give me a fucking break. A world of damage can be done in 18 months, thousands more lives can be lost. I want to see Nancy Pelosi's Joan of Arc act, if she's got one. I'm tired of her Helpless Wimp Enabler/Speaker act.

But to turn from my ongoing anger at Nancy Pelosi, I am forced to ask myself: What is wrong with us that we mind-fuck with each other here at DU, and let our highest Democratic principles swirl down the drain. I ask myself how I am going to look my grandchildren in the face, 'ere long, and explain how we, a nation with *everything* at our fingertips, simply stayed at home while the nation died.

All of my life, as a WWII soldier's daughter, I've heard about the deficiencies in character of the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians, who *just let it happen.* And now the whole world is watching as we Americans show our own lack of good character by our failure to rein in our own rogue regime.

Maybe we should (myself at the top of the list), spend a little less time posting here, and a little more time dialing the phones to *demand* (Al Gore used that marvelous word this weekend at Live Earth) that the Congress do its job, or expect a pink slip from the American people. I am not a political strategist, and I'm open to new ideas. I just know that we are not helpless!

Maybe Cindy Sheehan is floundering a little, in terms of what to do with her grief, her frustration, her determination to make a difference. I light ten thousand candles to her bothering to stumble around and shout and try to achieve some change. She isn't perfect, but damn it all, she's engaged.'

I'm in screaming mode tonight. My daughter's 25-year-old friend is going *back* to Iraq on Wednesday. She's just a young woman who joined the Guard as a third job, in the hope of getting a college degree. Her name is Legion!!!!!!!!!! And I am so ashamed of this country, and so ashamed of my own inability to snatch Sarah, and all the others, from the Jaws of Danger.

I am unable to understand the opposition to Cindy here on DU - of all places.

Finally we have someone who is going after what we all support, and then people want to tear her down.

Does anyone here listen to Randi Rhodes? She understands and supports Cindy.

“Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only ? No matter how big its membership may be is no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently. “ Rosa Luxemburg

We never stick together. We lose because we fracture out of spite. You'll never have an ideal candidate.

Furthermore, no one is asking for blind support. It is simply called opening your friggin eyes and realizing that the road concerning war/peace and destroyed/saved country only goes in two directions; this way or thataway. If you aren't walking down this way, you're helping to cause us to go the other way. And anyone condoning going the other way can feel free to go the fuck somewhere else, with all due respect.

It's not about blind support. It's about simple common sense deduction and rational reasoning. Are the Dems perfect? Nope. Are they the best way we have right now to get to where we want to go? You friggin bet. The Dems have enough goddamn obstacles thrown in their way already. Anyone contributing to their obstacles; thereby also throwing obstacles in the path of betterment for this country; is my political enemy and enemy to peace. Those of us saying such things are not the ones who are blind. Those who think the outright vitriol and calls for abandonment towards the Democratic party is actually going to help our cause somehow, are the ones that are blind; and ignorant.