Dear Cindy: Please Don't Run

On July 25, Cindy Sheehan announced that since Nancy Pelosi failed to move to impeach Bush and Cheney by Sheehan's deadline two days earlier, she will run as an independent for Pelosi's seat in Congress. I have a lot of respect for Sheehan, but I hope she'll reconsider.

First of all, should impeachment really be a litmus test? Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to haul the president before the Senate--look how much fun the Republicans had with Clinton. I understand why some of my Nation colleagues are so keen on it. But it's not going to happen--the numbers in Congress and Senate aren't there , and I don't care how many people sign petitions and call their congressperson, that is not going to change. Despise the Democrats for caving in -- on war funding, on FISA, on abstinence-only education. Pressure them, confront them, make them feel your wrath. But to insist that they work themselves into a lather for what is essentially a symbolic gesture with no chance of success? I don't see the point of that.

Second, Sheehan's run is futile. There's a place for outsider candidates, even longshots. Ned Lamont lost his Senate race, but first he won the primary and he ran to win. Moreover, even though he lost the race, he made his point: his candidacy put the Democrats -- and the media -- on notice that antiwar feeling was far deeper, and antiwar opponents far better organized, than they had believed. Nancy Pelosi has been a cautious -- too cautious -- leader, and if a lefter candidate could take her seat, fine. But let me go out on a limb here: Sheehan has no chance of defeating her, and still less chance of moving into an open seat because the impeachment of Bush and Cheney has moved Speaker Pelosi, next in line, into the White House. Sheehan's candidacy is less like that of Ned Lamont than it is like the barely visible symbolic third-party runs of Jonathan Tasini and Stanley Aronowitz for Governor of New York. She'll get more media than those gentlemen, because she and Pelosi are national celebrities, but I doubt she'll come much closer to victory. Thus, instead of showing the Democrats how strong is the threat from the left, it will show them how weak it is.

Third, and most important, Sheehan already has a crucial role in our politics: as an activist. More than any other single person, she changed the discourse about the war. She put a middle American face on the antiwar movement at a time when it was widely caricatured as a ragtag collection of hippies , Stalinists, and movie stars. She forced the media--and the country -- to acknowledge that antiwar feeling was widespread and growing and included even red staters, even military families. By her simple demand that Bush meet with her and explain why her son died, she pointed up the president's evasions and befuddlement and arrogance -- the ban on photographs of coffins, his seeming lack of concern for the deaths of soldiers, his basic refusal to engage. No matter that she sometimes seemed to be conducting her political education in public. She was a mother wrenched out of her ordinary life by tragedy -- that is a very powerful and inspiring symbolic role.

Maybe Sheehan got tired of being a symbol, a catalyst. I didn't really understand the somewhat murky blog post she wrote in May, announcing her resignation from the antiwar movement , but her frustration and impatience were clear enough.

Still, the place for symbolic protest is in protest movements. Elections are about something else and are played by different rules. There, symbolic figures are mostly wasting their time, and tend to emerge smaller than they went in.

CORRECTION: As is noted in the comments thread, Jonathan Tasini ran for Senate, not Governor of New York. He competed against Hillary Clinton in the 2006 Democratic primary, and did not run as a third party candidate. In the primary he received 115,943 votes (including mine), or 17% of the total. Sorry for the mistake!

One More Thing: As you can see, I'm giving the comments thread another chance. I value people's responses to what I write, so as long as the discussion is relevant and civil, I'll keep it open.

Comments (193)

1. "But let me go out on a limb here: Sheehan has no chance of defeating her, and still less chance of moving into an open seat because the impeachment of Bush and Cheney has moved Speaker Pelosi, next in line, into the White House."

   Then Ms Pollitt, she is STILL just a symbol, even if she's tired of it.

   This is either an act of vanity or naivete...but not importance.

   Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 9:55pm

2. Spot-on, Katha!

   Posted by seria at 08/11/2007 @ 9:58pm

3. GREAT TO SEE THAT KATHA REACTIVATED COMMENTS!...

   I agree with Seria (and, evidently, Mask too, though it's sometimes hard to tell!) that she is right on in her analysis, as usual (and if it gets any hotter, to quote Groucho, she could probably use a big fan).

   I also wondered what happened to Cindy Sheehan? Did some kind of sneaky neocon mole slyly "get to her" or is she simply, as Katha puts it, continuing "conducting her political education in public"? Much as I also admire her, it would seem that she may still have a long ways to go in this area.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 08/11/2007 @ 10:34pm

4. Posted by W_M_BEAR 08/11/2007 @ 10:34pm

   Sorry, if I wasn't clear...yes, I agree with Ms Pollitt.

   The question still remains...vanity or naivete. I don't accuse Ms Sheehan of the vanity, mind you. She has "advisors" (less generously somebody might put them down as "handlers") and they influence her on her actions.

   They're either dumb or have some ulterior motive. Dumb if they think that Ms Sheehan is going to even survive the 8th Calif. primary. Dumber still if they think she can win as an Indy.

   Ulterior motives? Well, there's the obvious...money. Fund-raising from across the country from leftists who either think Sheehan can win or just want to hurt or teach Pelosi a lesson for not impeaching. Campaign coffers are notoriously porous, and a good deal of "Cindy's Friends" could fatten their purses.

   But either way, you're not going to see "Rep. Sheehan" in 2009.

   Posted by Mask at 08/11/2007 @ 10:58pm

5. Why not leave her be to do her own thing?

   Agreed her chance of winning ain't better than a Vegas slot paying off $100 on a pull. So what! Same with FineGold, KuciKuci, Pauli and a few others!

   IS thinks Ms. PULL+IT has ulterior motive or been a$ked to nudge Sheehan a bit to save the Democrats from major distractions she will pose as an Independent candidate.

   Run, Cindy, Run! Do it if that's what your heart tells you to do! I disagree with your war views, am sorry about Casey but you are the real McCoy!

   Partisanship aside, would be a great show to watch!

   Posted by is is IS at 08/11/2007 @ 11:20pm

6. hooray for cindy!

   someone has to shame pelosi into showing a little courage. these corporocrats said they were going to do something about this occupation thing the corporicans started, yet they haven't even been able to conjure up some anti-war smoke and mirrors. how are they going to fool voters they will be different if they can't even do that?

   is she going to set up her campaign office in a tent outside of pelosi's district office?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2007 @ 11:47pm

7. Fund-raising from across the country from leftists who either think Sheehan can win or.....

   Posted by MASK 08/11/2007 @ 10:58pm

   Only from "Leftists"? Recall I donated to Joe Momentum's campaign? I would consider making a (smaller) donation to Ms. Sheehan....harder to justify than Joe but I can find a way to rationalize it, WILL C!

   Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 12:09am

8. This is punditry at its worst:

   -Predicting. So Sheehan doesn't have the slightest chance. Never mind that her campaign hasn't even begun, or that the district is more liberal than its representative, or that voters may be energized by the chance to send a powerful message to Congress. None of that matters when you have a crystal ball.

   -Pontification. As Ralph Nader might say, what business is it of ANYONE to make pronouncements on who should or should not run for public office?

   -Self-importance. Ms. Pollit advises Cindy Sheehan--publicly-- how best to be an activist and, ultimately, how to live her life. This kind of unsolicited counseling is as offensive as it is vain.

   -Fact-free, reason-free. This column is little more than a cascade of unsupported assertions. It is bare of facts and reasoned argument.

   Posted by daniel flei at 08/12/2007 @ 12:15am

9. Oh, damn. You people are going SANE on us, are you? Crap.

   First of all, Should impeachment really be a litmus test? Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to haul the president before the Senate--look how much fun the Republicans had with Clinton. I understand why some of my Nation colleagues are so keen on it. But it's not going to happen--the numbers in Congress and Senate aren't there , and I don't care how many people sign petitions and call their congressperson, that is not going to change. Despise the Democrats for caving in -- on war funding, on FISA, on abstinence-only education. Pressure them, confront them, make them feel your wrath. But to insist that they work themselves into a lather for what is essentially a symbolic gesture with no chance of success? I don't see the point of that.

   Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2007 @ 12:54am

10. I agree with Daniel Flei; and would elaborate by saying Pollitt's (along with so many other so-called "authorities" et alia) dismissal of impeachment as not having the votes, doomed to fail, etc. misses on several fronts: the media would be FORCED to cover it and show the results of the investigation(s) for EVERYONE to see, engendering a public (and Congressional) response that would be HUGE; and, possibly most importantly, it would mean that the Dem leaders & members would be doing what they are REQUIRED to do under their oath of office AND the Constitution. Doing the right is STILL very powerful, and boy do we need it !!! Oh, yes, thank you Dennis K !!

    Posted by agoraphile at 08/12/2007 @ 01:53am

11. Once a nation sinks into Fascism and destroys it"s rights and freedoms such as those in the constitution destroyed by Bush and company, is no going back, As Hitler before him proved that the only people killing other people for whatever fictitious reason, are the devils henchmen. One side as noxious as the other and all guilty of the greatest sins possible in a "genuine" Christian world.

    Posted by Ken Gourley at 08/12/2007 @ 05:56am

12. Pollitt neglects to mention, or probably hasn't bothered to find out, that "outsider candidates", specifically Green Party candidates, have successfully competed on numerous occasions in Pelosi's district.

    Most notably, Matt Gonzalez received 48.5% of the vote against Pelosi's hand picked mayoral candidate Newsome in 2003.

    Sheehan will need to do very little to pick up a large fraction of this vote and if she is able to work with the Green Party she will have a large and effective local political organization behind her.

    This is in no way a quixotic run-though given Pollitt's track record of apologetics for the Democratic Party it comes as no surprise that she would want us to believe otherwise.

    Posted by john.halle at 08/12/2007 @ 07:34am

13. So in other words, you're saying "Cindy - we've exploited your grief and anti-semitism for political points but you need to know your role and do it! It's fine to run for office (sic) but not against one of us!"

    Posted by woodyee at 08/12/2007 @ 08:33am

14. Katha - Are you related to Teri Gross (Fresh Air)?

    Posted by woodyee at 08/12/2007 @ 08:34am

15. The Anti-Mask. And ignoring the lunatic fringe (if not to leave their presence uncounted ...). Just because it's been, years? Mask the first to post. Mask in the first paragraph of the first post, tangential, if not off-point, contrary, ancillary? Just because this is the exception does not mean that there is no rule. Or perhaps even less so, that it goes un-noticed. One trick pony contrarian-ness, razors edge to nihilist, but the last with plausible deniability, of course.

    Of late, conjurer of a vision of a blind man, wet finger in the air judging not how the wind blows, but tragically believing it will blow such a way because it has blown such a way in the past. Passive, totally divorced from all outcome in the flow of history of our time; forgivable, and even understandable ... in a time traveler. But sad, in one who puts on the hours of a day one pant leg at a time like the rest of us.

    "But it's not going to happen--the numbers in Congress and Senate aren't there , and I don't care how many people sign petitions and call their congressperson, that is not going to change." Remember, you heard it hear, if not first, with no ambiguity. Can you believe the dysfunctional audacity, or sublime, twisted, psychology, of one who would, who could, say this to us? You've been told, and by the nature of the medium, the American people have been told, to their faces, that they no longer matter. No matter your numbers, how many you are, you don't matter ... The Anti-Mask, a revolution is in order. Cindy must win, A gauntlet has been thrown, to all who are but slaves.

    It's fascinating who agrees with the, what I am sure will in time will be seen as the crack in the plantations control mechanism, of and for the left ... Mask. Two posts on subject, aforementioned finger in the air, agreeing. It makes sense after a fashion. Sexist, Mask, as end result..Let someone murder your child and see how you take to being handled. Cindy's finger isn't in the air. Cindy has passed to the other side. She has earned her passage the hard way ...

    Katha, soul killer, who knew? She speaks to those thought, no, more truthful,( though giving too much credit I think) hoped, sufficiently soul dead, to let such offense go un-challenged. One gets a sense of the psychology being used in congress. Feels the same doesn't it, win ... no matter what dies, caring, heartfelt, sugar coated blade, being twisted in the soul? A revolution is in order, this one relatively easy, harder work being started over two hundred years ago.

    The rulers are scared of Cindy, that much is at least obvious. Because Cindy will win, watch ... It's happening is doubtless beyond you, for now. Pelosi has already overstayed her relevance, her reasons for not upholding, enforcing ... the mandates of our constitution lack reason, let alone character. Cindy must win because she is right; it's already too late.

    "But to insist that they work themselves into a lather for what is essentially a symbolic gesture with no chance of success? I don't see the point of that." The law is for all ... bread stealer, welfare mother and those who send others to die with lies. Pelosi must go, she must be impeached in, 08, out of our self respect ... Her and all those like her, or so ruled, and who have over stayed in kind.

    Posted by V at 08/12/2007 @ 08:57am

16. Posted by V 08/12/2007 @ 08:57am

    Sorry if a dose of cold water called "reality" disturbs you.

    What truly cripples the Left and their movement is this "Trekkie" mentality where by you think "warp drive is only 50 years away and it'll unite all mankind"...or in this case, that Cindy Sheehan has a shot at Pelosi's seat or that after people like John Conyers and Russ Feingold poo-poo the idea (and were formally the biggest backers when they were in the minority)...that impeachment is going to happen.

    Work on the small things...not the grandiose plans...and you may get somewhere.

    Build a cheap rocket....and leave the starships for TV.

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2007 @ 09:30am

17. Having just watched "An Unreasonable Man" (the movie about Ralph Nader), I supposed I'm influenced by its message at this point. But the purpose of politics is for everyone to run who wants to.

    That, plus Nancy Pelosi really is a mess. There, I said it. I don't want her to lead the Congress, and I can barely tolerate her IN Congress. She really does need replacing. I hope Sheehan pulls off her miracle and we get a real person in Pelosi's place, not that 100 percent political animal.

    Posted by barnesgene at 08/12/2007 @ 09:38am

18. Hmm, very interesting here. I wasn't down at the ranch. Were you? Cindy was. I wasn't in the media spotlight for months. Were you? Cindy was. My child wasn't killed in Mr Bush's War. Was yours? Cindy's was. In the summer of our discontent (2?% approval), Cindy is doing what is on the mind's of many citizens, I suspect. She has decided that the only way to make change is to be that change. Yes, she has changed her arena, gone to the next level; it just shows how desparate things have gotten and remain despite the mid-term election. So, what's a poor boy supposed to do? Cindy decided. So should I (we)!

    Posted by Moderatus at 08/12/2007 @ 11:05am

19. Can the Sheehan supporters tell me what she believes in?Impeachment won't be an issue in 2008 and her anti war stance will have little meaning in terms of votes in congress.What are her views on health care,infrastructure,immigration,etc?What are her plans for those issues?If elected how long do you think it would be before she sold out to the powers that be?Ten minutes?Maybe fifteen?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/12/2007 @ 1:04pm

20. WHAT IS GOING ON? Anybody can run for anything - given she's got the signatures and meets the qualifications as laid out in the Constitution, speaking of which why did the framers even bring up impeachment (six times) in that document if they didn't think we might need to use it. Does it say somewhere in that document that it should only be resorted to when the votes to make it happen are assured? (Do we only put someone on trial when we're assured that the jury will vote to convict?)

    So the floor of Congress turns into a messy, screaming, knock-down, drag-out brawl. I certainly hope so. An impeachment hearing just might turn out to be the catalyst, the necessary shot of reality that will finally get those walking-dead legislators at least moving. As it is now, DC has become nothing more than a giant stagnant pond - no fresh water going in and no fetid water going out.

    Posted by felicity at 08/12/2007 @ 3:00pm

21. What about the Democrats' continuing support for the war in Iraq? According to Pollitt's column, you would imagine the main reason Cindy Sheehan is running is because of the Democrats' refusal to impeach Bush. While that's a major reason, the underlying motive is their ongoing complicity in continuing the war in Iraq (just look at the headline of the New York Times today - "Democrats say leaving Iraq may take years", for the most recent example). Pollitt's argument that Sheehan and the anti-war movement have forced the Democrats to the make noises about ending the war is true - but in Sheehan's statement from May resigning from the anti-war movement, she made clear that she felt that the movement had hit a brick wall - the two-party system. Movements can't ignore politics or remain apolitical, despite what the Democratic Party and its pundits like Katha Pollitt believe. Rather, what the political establishment most fears is a threat to its stranglehold over power in this country. Cindy Sheehan should be saluted for challenging Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. What we really need is the strongest possible independent left-wing challenge in the presidential elections as well, to expose the system for what it is and help build the anti-war and other movements, one that will tell the truth and not pretend like the Democrats will not continue the war, etc. (as many liberals like Katha Pollitt did in 2004 when they pushed the Anybody But Bush virus in the pages of the Nation).

    Posted by dandamage at 08/12/2007 @ 4:58pm

22. "Thus, instead of showing the Democrats how strong is the threat from the left, it will show them how weak it is."

    As compared, of course, to the Pollitt/Vanden Heuvel strategy:

    C'mon, Democrats, be mpre progressive. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please...

    Posted by green2006 at 08/12/2007 @ 5:07pm

23. Oh, and Tasini was not a third party candidate last year. He ran in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton.

    Posted by green2006 at 08/12/2007 @ 5:19pm

24. Cindy Sheehan did good work, but I do not respect her decision to run against Nancy Pelosi. She ought to run against some blue-dog Democrat, or a Republican, instead.

    I didn't care for how she "quit activism", over a rude remark someone made to her on an internet message board. Cindy Sheehan then stooped to deception, implying but not stating outright that Democratic Party officials had made the rude remark, calling her a nasty name on an internet message board.

    Further, I do not respect anyone who "quits" something important to them, just because of a rude remark on a message board. Especially then she comes back, styling herself as a Senator. Why would we trust a former "Republican who voted for Bush", who it took the death of her son at the hands of Bush, to get you to wake up and finally reject the hateful and stupid ideology of Republican Conservatism.

    Posted by conshame at 08/12/2007 @ 5:25pm

25. "Should impeachment really be a litmus test?" There's a good case for making it precisely that. To rule out even starting impeachment proceedings is to betray the constitution. (As a Congressman with more spine than Pelosi said about Iran-Contra, "I didn't swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States until I got bored.") But if you don't want the big litmus test to be impeachment, how about defunding the Iraq War? By that measure, Pelosi is still richly deserving of a challenge from the left.

    Posted by FrlessFreep at 08/12/2007 @ 6:13pm

26. Posted by MASK 08/11/2007 @ 10:58pm

    The ultimate "ulterior motive" being, of course, what I suggested. To wit, not money but neocon moleishness.

    I know this sounds paranoid -- maybe it IS paranoid -- but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the opposition "infiltrates" campaigns or other organizations (like Sheehan's) and deliberately promulgates bad advice simply for the sake of screwing up their political activities. I suspect this may have happened in the case of Obama's "bomb Pakistan" remarks, and, especially, in the case of Sheehan withdrawing from leadership of the Peace Movement and undertaking what is almost surely a quixotic political campaign.

    Why do I suspect this? Well, a Huffpost blogger pointed out a while back that Sheehan had garnered some 200+ references in "National Review," with the next closest contender being Ralph Nader with less than half her number. I think that says something about the size of the perceived threat that CS is (or was) to the conservative movement and certainly sufficient motivation for a few "dirty tricks."

    That's my theory, anyway.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/12/2007 @ 7:30pm

27. "Ulterior motives? Well, there's the obvious...money. Fund-raising from across the country from leftists who either think Sheehan can win or just want to hurt or teach Pelosi a lesson for not impeaching. Campaign coffers are notoriously porous, and a good deal of "Cindy's Friends" could fatten their purses." Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 10:58pm | ignore this person

    This is typical Mask, and you being what, a prophet? You project with no intelligence, pun's where found intended, the motives of people you do not know. No intelligence, more like guile's attempted masquerade for same.

    "Sorry if a dose of cold water called "reality" disturbs you." Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 09:30am | ignore this person

    Disturbed? Hardly, you were only incidental to the main point, were provided solely for emphasis. A cautionary tale, of what happens when you invest self in almost nothing. And cold water? As pointed out your only temperature only goes between the extremes of lukewarm.

    "What truly cripples the Left and their movement is this "Trekkie" mentality where by you think "warp drive is only 50 years away and it'll unite all mankind"...or in this case, that Cindy Sheehan has a shot at Pelosi's seat or that after people like John Conyers and Russ Feingold poo-poo the idea (and were formally the biggest backers when they were in the minority)...that impeachment is going to happen.

    Work on the small things...not the grandiose plans...and you may get somewhere.

    Build a cheap rocket....and leave the starships for TV."

    Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 09:30am | ignore this person

    Spoken by someone with an obviously intrinsic, working belief, in their own and by projection everyone else's powerlessness. Surely not from a position of strength ... Mask, you're what cripples the "left." As an aside, I in point of fact am an aerospace engineer, so parsing the possible from the improbable is part and parcel of what I do on pretty much a daily basis. Also I, unlike you, write from the position of at least speaking to people in and around Pelosi's district. Ergo the abstraction from an unreal medium, are not my words, but you and yours.

    Posted by V at 08/12/2007 @ 7:41pm

28. Posted by V 08/12/2007 @ 7:41pm

    you know, in the two years I've been blogging here, I've never heard a liberal say that "warp drive is only 50 years away and it'll unite all mankind"

    but then it won;t take much blogging here for you to discover that mask likes to makes shit up

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 7:46pm

29. right cumbucket?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 7:47pm

30. The fringe left always go ballistic when one of their own actually points out the facts and tries to "spoil" their dreams.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/12/2007 @ 7:46pm

    you know, I've heard the commie chinese will do that. But your association with them probably gives you a better vantage point then we Americans have luvvy.

    so we'll take your word for it

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 7:49pm

31. Katha, I agree with you about one thing -- Cindy Sheehan has no business running for Congress. What WILL work, however, is a change in tactics. This will involve the creation of our own US-based insurgency, composed not of Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, but of ordinary Amercians, from middle America to the coasts. This insurgency should take a page from the playbook of the Iraqi-Al Qaeda insurgency, complete with roadside attacks, kidnappings, and other similar activities, as needed, in order to take back the country from the fascists who have invaded from planet Bush-Co.

    Posted by catsaface62 at 08/12/2007 @ 8:03pm

32. "Maybe Sheehan got tired of being a symbol, a catalyst. I didn't really understand the somewhat murky blog post she wrote in May, announcing her resignation from the antiwar movement"

    Murky? Hmmm,perhaps this will help clarify things a bit ...

    Cindy Sheehan: Me for Congress! Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 08/10/2007 - 2:55pm. Guest Contribution A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION by Cindy Sheehan

    My statement to the press when I announced my candidacy at the Presidio on August 9.

    Two years ago this week, I started my first vigil in Crawford, TX, at what became Camp Casey I near George's vacation ranch. I never thought my path would lead me here today. Nothing before Casey was killed in the illegal and immoral war in Iraq prepared me for this new direction, but looking back on my life since April 4, 2004, I believe this is the next natural step to bringing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to a swifter conclusion and those responsible accountable for the mess in our world.

    An electorate disgusted with the policies of the Bush regime put the Democrats in the majority in Congress in November '06. We voted for change; however, Congress, under the speakership of Ms. Pelosi has done nothing but protect the status quo of the corporate elite and, in fact, since she has been the Speaker, the situation in the Middle East has grown far worse, with Congress' help, and recently more of our esssential freedoms were given to BushCo by Congress. That is not what we elected them to do!

    A great majority of citizens in California's 8th Congressional district want the Bush regime impeached and want our troops home from the Middle East. I believe Ms. Pelosi has lost touch with the people of this district and America, and it's time for our reps that aren't doing their jobs by upholding their sworn oaths to the Constitution to receive a wakeup call!

    I agree that with over 45 million American uninsured, we need universal health care. I agree that with many of our young people joining the military to receive college credit (which very few take full advantage of), it's time to make college affordable. I agree that the people in the administrative branch are corrupt, as are many members of Congress, and ethics need to be reformed. None of these worthy goals can be accomplished while we're spending 12 million of our tax dollars an hour in Iraq and while the foxes run the henhouse. In this once great nation of ours, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is rapidly disappearing along with the "American dream" of home ownership. The time is now to bring our tax dollars home from the Middle East to help the people of California's 8th and to make our communities safer and more prosperous.

    Incredibly, even before the November elections, Ms. Pelosi took part of the Constitution off the table and it's time to put it back on! Ms. Pelosi colluded with BushCo to take away our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Congress needs to make that body relevant again as a co-equal branch of government that has a responsibility to put checks and balances on the executive branch, and not be conspirators in its crimes and murder.

    The PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act need to be repealed and habeas corpus needs to be restored. These things can only happen with fearless leadership, not fearful capitulation to a lying President.

    I am running unaffiliated with any political party because I believe the corporately controlled "two" party system is responsible for keeping our country in a state of cold and hot wars for decades and it's time to rein in the military industrial war complex that President Eisenhower warned us of almost 50 years ago.

    My candidacy and service will put people before profits and people before political expediency. This country is ripe for a change and it is going to start right here and right now!

    I dedicate my candidacy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by BushCo with the complicity of Congress, Inc.

    I dedicate my candidacy to my children and unborn grandchildren. All the children of the world deserve long lives lived in peace, prosperity, and environmental sustainability.

    Last of all, I dedicate my candidacy to my hero, Casey, who always stood up for what he believed in, even if it wasn't popular. He is my role model and I always strive to make him proud.

    Thank you.

    Posted by V at 08/12/2007 @ 8:05pm

33. Posted by V 08/12/2007 @ 8:05pm

    Was clear enough to me. Go Cindy.

    Why are folks afraid of a well spoken advocate for their views and so enamored with bullshit polotitians who have proven their incompetence? Becase Cindy might suck at the job? The incumbent does already.

    NANCY PELOSI: HOW DARE YOU SUBVERT YOUR OATH AND IGNORE OUR CONSTITUTION! DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AND IMPEACH!

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/12/2007 @ 8:29pm

34. How much money do you think Ms Sheehan will get from "anonymous donors"....with ties to the Republican Party?

    "Who cares? Let them do it!", etc., etc. non-strategic thinkers will put out.

    Fine...Pelosi loses her seat (fantasizing now) and it proves such an embarassment to the Dems that it costs them votes in swing states and districts and lets the GOP gain seats, maybe the majority back, and possibly even the White House....

    and "Rep. Sheehan of the 8th California (Independent)" can be a back-bencher in the MINORITY party and just be ADORED by the Democratic Party and of course ignored by the majority Republicans.

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2007 @ 9:58pm

35. Well reasoned and articulated piece Katha. Yet even better blogsponses.

    Impeach, please, first Gonzo, then Cheney, then G.W.B..

    And seriously, can Cindy's running against Pelosi do any actual damage to Democrats whose "big tent" rhetoric is so banal and neoliberal PC as to lull even the least apolitical/apathetic citizen to disappointment and further, if possible, disengagement.

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/12/2007 @ 10:02pm

36. "Fine...Pelosi loses her seat (fantasizing now) and it proves such an embarassment to the Dems that it costs them votes in swing states and districts and lets the GOP gain seats, maybe the majority back, and possibly even the White House...."

    Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 9:58pm

    What a specious load of horseshit. Sheehans election would turn dems and independeants into reps???

    If Pelosi cannot embarrass the dems into a defeat now, how would the allegdly ineffectual Sheehan do so.

    I don't know what kind of representative Sheehan would actually make. But I do know what Pelosi is all about. Why is it so hard to imagine any average citizen, doing a better job than alot of our current office holders, at representing their fellow citizens?

    Pelosi announced her refusal to do her job and live up to her oaths, as soon as she was sworn in. How could anyone possibly be more ineffectual than that?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/12/2007 @ 10:29pm

37. I don't know what kind of representative Sheehan would actually make. ----Posted by MALCONTENT 08/12/2007 @ 10:29pm

    I DO, Eric. An ISOLATED one. She'll be an "Independent" liberal trying to caucus with a party that she just royally embarassed by getting their Speaker kicked out of the House. You think they're just going to "forgive and forget"? You think they're going to put the woman who made them look like fools on important Committees or let ONE bill that she authors come to the floor?

    Have ya gotten that naive?

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2007 @ 10:34pm

38. Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 10:34pm

    MASK, MASK, you generally have a pretty good nose but on Ms. Sheehan, you are both right--she'll attract national funding, perhaps even a few of our fellow bloggers here--and wrong in not giving her anything more than `fantasy' chances to win.

    You know political history better than anyone, so tell us, has there ever been a US Rep. race that was really NATIONAL in scope? The (lost) Tom DeLay seat here in the Houston area last year had some hint of it but only because he dropped out too late for the GOP to have a real shot at retaining his seat.

    But Ms. Sheehan has real potential IF the vaunted Netroots rally around her...just maybe not the already-compromised Kossacks. Now, if she can gain such support, those supporters can pressure their own Reps to work with her in Congress and help position her for bigger and better things.....OK, this is somewhat of a stretch but `fantasy'? I don't think so!

    Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 11:05pm

39. "Maybe Sheehan got tired of being a symbol, a catalyst. I didn't really understand the somewhat murky blog post she wrote in May, announcing her resignation from the antiwar movement , but her frustration and impatience were clear enough. "

    Sheehan didn't get tired, America got tired of Sheehan and the fraud game she played...

    I for one, will contribute heavily to her campaign just for laughs.

    She is a loon and bannana pie, her family has disowned but the lunatic frige claims her as one of their own... and I can only support her with glee!!!

    RUN Cindy RUN...and I encourage you to beg ALGORE to enter the fray too!!!

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!

    Posted by john maasch at 08/12/2007 @ 11:12pm

40. Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 11:05pm

    She will get funding from Hollywood...as is AL FRANKEN...he is running for the Senate in Minnesota and with the help of the National uber left, he may get it, but it won't be from the coffers of the average Minnesotan..

    Perhaps Cindy can do the same..I pray!!!

    Posted by john maasch at 08/12/2007 @ 11:15pm

41. She will get funding from Hollywood...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/12/2007 @ 11:15pm

    I'm not sure in any big way......Hollywood IS in California and the Dem's big $hot$ & pols are too much a part of the Dem machine!

    Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 11:43pm

42. Run, Cindy, Run!!!!!!!!

    See Cockburn's article for why the Dems, led by Pelosi, have already failed.

    Posted by Weacguy at 08/12/2007 @ 11:48pm

43. Have ya gotten that naive?

    Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 10:34pm

    This implies any of the current crop of dems are effectual. Their jobs are not that hard. Many of them refuse to even bother to vote and most don't even bother to read the bills they are voting on.

    If Ms. Sheehan can manage to both read and vote on all pending legislation, she will by definition, be the best representative on the hill. The simple fact is most of the looneys commenting here, could be more effective legislators, that the useles pieces of shit who represent their corporate masters now.

    In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is not only desirable, but necessary to the continued exsistance of the America that you and I grew up in.

    I doubt you have figured this out, as evidenced by your continued insistance that impeachment requires the votes to convict, not just its own exsistance. Or that how impeachment reflects on the dems, is at all relevant to the people.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/13/2007 @ 12:12am

44. The above was poorly worded, but i think you get my drift.

    Either way, it is doubtful that your response will bear any relevance to what I wrote.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/13/2007 @ 12:14am

45. We do not need Senators who resign the first time someone on a message board makes a rude comment. We do not need people running for Senator who we do not want to actually be a Senator. What is the point. What are Cindy Sheehan's views on other issues? She was a "Republican who voted for Bush", right up until Bush killed her son. What do we know about her? She is willing to deceive - she didn't go out of her way to make it clear, that the people calling her names on message boards were not officials. That is deception. So you have a "Republican who voted for Bush", supposedly has an epiphany and suddenly becomes more Liberal than Jesus, supposedly, and she is willing to practice deception to get what she wants.

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 03:57am

46. So much for right and wrong. The Dems played politics when they gave Jr the go ahead for this asinine war, and now they're gonna allow this WH to get away with thumbing its nose at the Constitution because they are concerned with how it will play with the electorate. "Look at what happened to the Repubs when they attempted to impeach Clinton," they all bleat. Apples and oranges. The problem with the Dems is that they lack backbone. What's more, they are not much different, from the Repubs. The "rule of law"? It's always been a joke and this failure to hold the people responsible for a disastrous, unnecessary war is only one more blaring example of just how fatuous it is.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 09:25am

47. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/13/2007 @ 12:12am

    Eric, you didn't address what I said.

    How do you think the Democrats (in the minority or the majority in 2009) will treat the person who got their Speaker ousted from her seat and embarassed them (possibly to the loss of Congress or the White House)?

    Think they're going to welcome Cindy with open arms and "No problem, we'll get over it...in 3-4 electin cycles)." Think they're going to push Cindy's agenda...or even listen to it? How will the people of the 8th California feel when the Appropriations Committees start cutting funding for Federal projects in their area?

    This is REAL WORLD politics, friend...not "Government Camp" where all the kids learn about the Constitution and pretend to be Senators and Representatives and everybody is happy, happy and there are no hard feelings.

    If they don't destroy her as a candidate (burying her in DNC money)...they'll destroy her after she's elected (again a monumental fantasy...sorry, HAPP).

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 09:34am

48. Basically this piece says all is pointless--all is futile, all is useless. The author, obviously of the class that could give a shit since it ain't her kid whose life is on the line. There weren't the votes for Nixon either--it is the process that matters and through the process the case is made that drums up the votes. The last thing they worried about were the votes when they went after Clinton. This author speaks from a certain class and looks down her nose at grass roots activism and participation of genuine citizens, constantly setting up roadblocks, can't do messages and other obstacles and disapproval, while giving fellow class member a pass on complicity as caution. Perhaps there is no point to the author's purpose other than to fundamentally defend her class and let others know they are not welcome.

    Posted by Lil at 08/13/2007 @ 09:48am

49. Gee Lil, you sound pretty "classy" to me, advocating for broader "grassroots" empowerment.

    I suspect Katha's not "fronting" for any unseen oligarchic interests. She's just trying to articulate the chasm between what is, war/exploitation, and what should be, peace/healthcare/security/fairness/etc,etc. She's stuck in "realpolitik," and like most of us, cannot envision a durable span/bridge to corruption's cessation.

    Still, I agree with you about "process" being more important than results at this stage. What's up with Kucinich's call for impeachment which upwards of ten of his fellow reps have added their names to?

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 10:03am

50. Have you ever noticed that those who challenge the ruling class are scorned for their egos? The underlying message is that they should know their place and not think to step out of it. So, the Pelosi girl is always given a pass time and time again, betrayal after failure--just like Bush was always given a pass. Basically Bush and Pelosi are less of a threat to each other than the fear of a populist uprising that might upset their corporate applecart--and what does the author propose? That Sheehan know her place? I am not even sure the author is aware that she has interanalized the dictates of class-appropriate roles.

    Posted by Lil at 08/13/2007 @ 10:17am

51. Posted by LIL 08/13/2007 @ 09:48am

    Posted by LIL 08/13/2007 @ 10:17am

    Oh boy....another "revolutionary who's working to overthrow the ruling class"....from her keyboard.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 10:36am

52. Oh look another ad hom from the libertarian chorus. hows about the fed pumping all the "liquidity" to bail out da lassiz faire free market? So much for da invisible hand. What a crock. Nevertheless, we foot the bill for your corporate Kings.Thanks for the freedom.

    Posted by Lil at 08/13/2007 @ 10:43am

53. Posted by LIL

    Did you see George Will's condescending ass with Stephanopulous yesterday. He placed all the blame for the meltdown on the men and women that took out the loans. It's nobobys fault but theirs, according to the pedantic Will. Conspicuously absent from his explanation was the people that wrote the loans--that profited off writing loans to people that were not in a position to pay them off. The men and women writing these loans were "slinging" them, making as much money as possible off of them. There were, in other words, incentives to write the loans regardless of what the reality was; and the higher the loan, the higher the pay-off for those writing them.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 10:52am

54. Yeah Lil, I recall the "Savings and Loan" bailout of the "have mores" back in, when? "Too big to fail" was a rationale. It's the "power of myth," specifically the Horatio Alger myth which is basically Calvinism, that keeps us harnessed to the treadmill of bourgeois "productivity." Still, mostly "in spite of ourselves," we plod/blog on. Oh, well, carpe diem, sister!

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 10:58am

55. Run Cindy Run! What's symbolic about the high crimes and misdemeanors this administration has committed? To allow Bush and Cheney to just walk away from what they have done to this country,and not hold them accountable would be a crime against democracy. Impeachment is the only hope we have of getting to the truth. What a defeatist column Ms. Pollitt you really blew it.

    Posted by peter miller at 08/13/2007 @ 11:16am

56. Posted by LIL 08/13/2007 @ 10:43am

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/13/2007 @ 10:52am

    Hot damn, we got our own little "John Reed" and "Louise Bryant" of the Blogosphere set. Can I play the "Eugene O'Neil" part?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 12:03pm

57. BTW, guess we've figured out why Karl Rove left the White House....

    he's going to try to get Ms Sheehan elected in 2008! (Probably wondering why HE didn't come up with the idea himself back in 2006!)

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 12:05pm

58. I'm really appreciating the contributions here.

    A far cry from some months ago when I gave up on this site as it seemed to be overrun with Freeper trolls; a few of them remain, but they're easily filtered out.

    Finally, we are having the kind of conversation which Nation readers should have been having for years.

    Along these lines, I thought some of you might get a kick out of the following piece about Cindy's impending victory.

    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/how-a-green-won-part-ii/

    Remember: you read it there first!

    Posted by john.halle at 08/13/2007 @ 12:05pm

59. Posted by MARY

    Eugene O'Neil? Yeah, right. I think of you more as a Truman Capote.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 12:06pm

60. Truman Capote sans any literary talent, that is.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 12:11pm

61. Katha,and editor, for the record, Jonathan Tasini ran for Senate, not Governor of New York. emily jane goodman

    Posted by emily goodman at 08/13/2007 @ 12:26pm

62. Still, the place for symbolic protest is in protest movements. Elections are about something else and are played by different rules.

    Elections are about winning.

    Sheenan can win if she gets serious about building a grassroots organization or tapping into the existing grassroots anti-war movement and mobilizing volunteers to man phone banks and canvass the streets of San Francisco on her behalf.

    Simply sitting back and hoping the media will carry her to victory is not a viable election strategy.

    Pelosi is vulnerable because she has taken positions on important issues that are at odds with the positions favored by the San Francisco voter. Pelosi doesn't have the votes for impeachment or stopping the war, in part, because of her lack of leadership skills. She also is paying the price for her inability to reign in AIPAC Democrats like Rahm Emanuel, who wanted this war in Iraq and now wants us to invade Iran.

    As chairman of the DCCC, Rahm was allowed free-reign in recruiting pro-war Democratic congressional candidates in '06, even in congressional areas where the voter was anti-war. Pelosi must put Rahm in check, or risk losing her seat and her leadership position.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2007 @ 1:10pm

63. This is exactly why our so called democracy doesn't work. Why shouldn't Cindy run? Why couldn't she win, because she doesn't have enough money, because she doesn't have the support of big business? Nancy Pelosi has betrayed the people who voted for the democrats the last time around. Not just on the impeachment thing, but at every turn. For too long the dems have asked for and gotten the votes of black folk, gays and lesbians, workers and the marginalized. And what have we gotten in return? This is just like the Ralph Nader thing. Al Gore didn't lose because of Ralph Nader, he lost because he and his handlers refused to speak truth to power and the people. In a real democracy candidates should have to earn our votes by speaking to our needs and acting in our interest.

    Posted by javalina at 08/13/2007 @ 1:15pm

64. If nothing else, Sheehan winning (or giving Pelosi a tough run) would be a plus for the Dems. Pelosi is not exactly popular with either side of the aisle. Dumping her would hearten those on the left that are without a party to vote for, and it would act to diffuse some of the negative perceptions of those that could be persuaded to vote Dem by ridding the party of Pelosi's face. (The corporate sponsored types would retain their control, marginalize Sheehan.)

    All Sheehan has to do it set-up a web site for donations. She could channel the anti-war, anti establishment Dems sentiment from all the fifty states into her campaign. All of us sick and tired of the corporate sponsored Dems such as Pelosi will donate money (as could Repubs wishing to push the Dems farther to the left). And such an effort could force the rest of the corporate Dems to do a little more than give us lip service and a bunch of smoke (next time it could be their seat that's up for grabs).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 2:01pm

65. The whole impeachment thing should have no political consideration. Congressmen should not be asking themselves "is it do-able?", but "do I believe the President/Vice President committed high crimes?". When they ask the former, they are putting their own interests above the law. When they ask the latter, and the answer is "Yes", then no matter what they owe it to the victims of those crimes (potentially millions, in this case) to see that the criminals are charged. Hence I think impeachment really could be a litmus test to gauge the integrity of a member of congress. If their only reason for not defending the victims of this administration is that they don't think it would be a popular (or even successful) action, then you really can't blame Sheehan or anyone for going up against them.

    Posted by mdetrano at 08/13/2007 @ 2:12pm

66. If Cindy Sheehan runs as an independent or third party candidate, her campaign will only have symbolic importance, and Pelosi won't be seriously threatened.

    A much greater threat to Pelosi would be Sheehan running in the Democratic primary against Pelosi. Voters in the Democratic primary are more liberal than the general public, and in this district are overwhelmingly antiwar. That might pose a serious threat to Pelosi.

    It's even harder to unseat an imcumbent Senator than an incumbent Congressional Rep, but Ned Lamont was able to beat Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Lieberman lost the primary but survived in the general election - unlikely in Pelosi's very anti-war district, where the Democratic primary is the real election.

    The real alternatives facing Sheehan are: "run to lose" (as a third-party candidate) or "run to win" (as an antiwar Democrat)?

    -Nevada Ned

    Posted by NevadaNed at 08/13/2007 @ 2:36pm

67. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/13/2007 @ 12:11pm

    Capote?....really? What about me reminds you of Mr. Capote?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

68. Posted by NEVADANED 08/13/2007 @ 2:36pm

    You made an excellent point but Cindy put herself in the corner by blasting the Dem party when she `quit'....most likely at that time, she hadn't thought of, or thought through thoroughly, running at all! Perhaps someone she really trusts, ought to tell her to go back into the Dem fold and challenge it from within!

    I followed the Lamont/Lieberman Primary fairly closely and yes, Cindy probably should have gone the same route as Lamont! Now, she will need some GOP voters to help out at the General....which Joe did receive! It would be great fun, to see staidly Blue San Fran take on some `color'!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 4:08pm

69. I agree with Katha's post, and while she is expressing an opinion (not stating a fact as I would've thought was obvious, Flei), the safe bet is that Sheehan would not win and might well undermine the democrats, which has been the problem for quite some time. In other words, Yes, Sheehan could technically win. So could a chicken that plays tic-tac-toe for cash in the park. Let's stick with obvious likelihood. IMO, the reason that Republicans are such a force to be reckoned with is that they march in lock-step. Left leaning folks tend to do a little more thinking in their spare time and so it stands to reason that we have a harder time doing that. But there has to come a time (and will, I think, one way or the other) that we have to start focusing on what we can do versus what we'd like to do. Like him or not, one of the reasons that Clinton was such a political powerhouse was that he understood that successful incremental changes were better than unsuccessful massive initiatives. I think the whole impeachment issue operates exactly along these lines...we probably don't have the votes, if we did it it would still take too long to accomplish, and it would likely take attention away from all the issues at hand. Besides, the Republicans are doing an excellent job of hanging themselves as it is. If we initiate impeachment proceedings we run the risk of alienating moderates just like the Republicans did with their impeachment fiasco, while invigorating the ultra-conservative base. After we accomplish that 'shot to the foot' then we can all pat ourselves on the back for our courageous stand, and leave the issues (and any chance of actually addressing them) for another time. As far as I'm concerned the Republicans are doing an excellent job hanging themselves as it is...and the voice they will hear most loudly will not be the impeachment of a lame-duck president with a popularity rating approaching that of cannibalism. It will be the thundering of millions of hands pulling the lever marked Democrat in 2008.

    Posted by Rednaxela at 08/13/2007 @ 4:16pm

70. Go Cindy Go!

    If we can't impeach, or even TRY to impeach a president for the crimes this one has commited, then the Republic is dead. In which case WHO GIVES A %&@% what happens. The good bit in all of this is that there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

    Posted by nondescript at 08/13/2007 @ 4:37pm

71. Well, one thing I know you're going to need for the Cindy Sheehan campaign against Nancy Pelosi....a lot of MOPS!

    To mop up the saliva from Republicans and right-wingers DROOLING over a chance to knock Pelosi off, embarass the hell out of the Dems, get them to spend money where they don't need to in 2008, and get a nice, but naive lady Pelosi's seat and then replay every time she gets in the House and says something nice about Hugo Chavez or calls the insurgency "freedom fighters"....

    as well as for the frothing-at-the-mouth Fringe of the Left, who can't think beyond their anger and fantasies.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 4:43pm

72. All she needs to do is set-up a web site for donations. From all other the country the money will come flowing in--more than enough to compete. It would send a clear message to the coporate, right of center Dems like Pelosi that it's time to start giving the electorate a clear choice rather than the usual lesser of two evils.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 4:49pm

73. Ms. Pollit, what is wrong with a "symbolic gesture"? It is very important to the health of the nation that we announce to the world that we repudiate all of the lawless actions and outrages that have been taken in our name. You speak eloquently of Ms. Sheehan's symbolic value as a "Midwestern face". It is in making the parsed calculations and hedging one's bets that often the battle is lost.

    Posted by mwoldin at 08/13/2007 @ 4:57pm

74. Posted by LIL 08/13/2007 @ 10:43am | ignore this person.

    My respect grows every time you post.

    "And such an effort could force the rest of the corporate Dems to do a little more than give us lip service and a bunch of smoke (next time it could be their seat that's up for grabs)."

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/13/2007 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person

    Good post. That needs to change from could be, past must be, to will be.

    Posted by REDNAXELA 08/13/2007 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person

    How specious, to render this as mere politics as usual, positioning, (the real as in cognitive, increments being in 19 year olds returned home dead and disfigured ) while our troops and Iraqi innocents die. This kind of political "logic" needs to be rendered obsolete.

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

    A continuing dilettante, passive, powerless, farcical abstraction from an unreal medium.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/13/2007 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person

    I agree.

    We need to correct a mistake that happened some time ago, when we the people, allowed our power to be usurped ... by allowing another statement in time past, along with it's concomitant moral, intellectual, psychological, environment and ecology, to go un-challenged; the famous "The buck stops here," statement made by Truman. It did not then and it does not now, the buck actually stops, in our time, at the ends of our collective fingers, wether they click mouse or press keyboard.

    The respect lost by the twice selection (though there is sufficient data-information, to consider it a theft) of the current regime, cannot be returned from on high, it can only truly be returned by us, the people. This return to let us say, so as to truly honor the dead of 911, to the America of the freedoms that they died in (if not I fear the terrorists with the help of the current administration, having succeeded, we must needs all be included in that toll), will not happen from the right.

    This return cannot, will not, be accomplished by the right. Indeed the shrinkage and collapse of our industrial and manufacturing infrastructure, is in fact the re-establishment of the agrarian confederacy. As defined in the last election as those states wherein the republican status quo was maintained. The only difference being that instead of importing slaves, we now merely import their labor. And the itinerant underclass instead of being shooed from plantation to plantation (all the while being relegated to the same doors as the slaves) is now kept in place, so as to suicidally vote their own demise.

    To do so, to accomplish this feat, the true shock and awe which this republic of ours is immanently and solely capable of, is relatively easy. All we need do is to pledge that come 08, we will vote democrat (as it needs to be taken back, not abandoned), but not ... for those who share complicity with the corrupt, egregious debacle that now attempts passing as our elected "representatives." Only "we the people" can do this, we cannot be found as others have in a great time to be "a little people." If we do this, this act will restore our country to it's place in the world, if not history. And it will do something else as well, past mere propaganda, it will lawfully make our place, rightful ...

    Posted by V at 08/13/2007 @ 6:17pm

75. V,

    If my post led you to believe that the death of thousands of innocent people is a mere political calculation, then I wasn't being clear. The point I'm making is that the people that engineered this disaster depend on political missteps by the opposing party to perpetrate these crimes. Beating our chests and falling on our faces won't save one innocent person from being killed in our name. The point I was making is that if we don't have the power to make political change happen then all our indignation might as well get slapped over last years bumper stickers. If you think that political actions which are both unlikely to succeed and possibly damaging to the party that does want to put an end to this will help those people then by all means scream impeachment.

    Posted by Rednaxela at 08/13/2007 @ 7:20pm

76. Posted by V 08/13/2007 @ 6:17pm

    "A continuing dilettante, passive, powerless, farcical abstraction from an unreal medium."

    Like a blogger who thinks he's some kind of revolutionary?

    Yeah, I'm familiar with the type!

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 10:33pm

77. he's some kind of revolutionary?

    Yeah, I'm familiar with the type!

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 10:33pm

    "familiar" but have no fear! Sheehan's situation is unique and isolated! No chance of it being repeated on a national basis where revolutionaries can boot out corporate/DLC Dems with `brand v' Dems/Greens/xyz! :)

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 10:53pm

78. Posted by REDNAXELA 08/13/2007 @ 7:20pm (in quotes)

    "If we initiate impeachment proceedings we run the risk of alienating moderates just like the Republicans did with their impeachment fiasco, while invigorating the ultra-conservative base."

    If it is not your words (which alone, do a good job of it) that lead one to believe, that in regards to end result they are mere political calculation, then following the logic of them to their conclusion will do so just as readily. What you council in a round about way, is to do nothing ... leaving all as is, which is de facto, political calculation, and unacceptable.

    "The point I was making is that if we don't have the power"

    We? I've never acceded such power as not to have it, and I have faith that I am not the only one. You speak for yourself then, as to what, you ... do not have.

    "If you think that political actions which are both unlikely to succeed, and possibly damaging to the party that does want to put an end to this will help those people then by all means scream impeachment."

    How so? Whence does it come this belief? What basis do you have for such a "stance?" Surely not the majority of our fellow citizens who favor impeachment, as such it cannot be from us can it. And if not there, as the again, majority (in the nation as in Pelosi's district), favor impeachment, where then? The choices fade to but two. Either you are paid to say such (shrug) or it comes from your own psychology, and attendant world view.

    You have an interesting take on anything that smacks of a lack of the obsequious. Indeed where do you see screams, beating of chests, and such like (speaking of stretches ...) in my words? Your post is defeatist submission to the status quo. And I repeat, this kind of political "logic" needs to be rendered obsolete.

    Posted by V at 08/13/2007 @ 11:24pm

79. Why do you presume to tell voters in San Francisco who they can choose to vote for? Because they might dump Pelosi?

    Posted by paul a. at 08/13/2007 @ 11:28pm

80. Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 10:33pm | ignore this person

    I apologize, all have been doing a good job of ignoring you,leaving you with your wingnut soulmates, relieving you of the one power you truly had, to distract. So again I apologize.

    Posted by HAPPY 08/13/2007 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person

    The fact that you see it as isolated, is cause for nothing but good cheer. Make yourself useful go kick start the yen carry trade.

    Posted by V at 08/13/2007 @ 11:37pm

81. The basic fact is - a fact that some right wing blogs are chuckling over - is that she rightly so is fed up with the new congress already.

    During the GOP's "Contract with America" they would literally achieve budgetary gridlock with President Clinton, by not passing a budget. Instead, the Dems tossed aside their mandate to bring the troops home by signing a supplementary funding bill after their paltry deadline attempt failed. The Dems had an opportunity to defund the war, and they didn't.

    Cindy Sheehan got trotted out and used and no one had the moral and political courage to just say no more Iraq. Even if they (the Iraqis) kill themselves, we don't care, just get our boys home.

    Posted by cammycam at 08/14/2007 @ 12:03am

82. "Thus, instead of showing the Democrats how strong is the threat from the left, [Sheehan's campaign against Pelosi] will show them how weak it is." Actually it's Katha Pollitt who's showing how weak the left is.

    Posted by FrlessFreep at 08/14/2007 @ 01:13am

83. I can barely believe that Katha has become a deluded "realist," but then I barely stop in at the Nation anymore (Huffington is where it's at, people. More than the same six people commenting all the time, even).

    Look, what is realistic, politically, about publicly asking people not to run for office? Why is it realistic to explain to everyone that politicians should never try to accomplish anything unless they can be sure that they have all the votes lined up beforehand (um...how would anything, ever, have been accomplished, in history, with this attitude, anyway??? Answer that one oh mighty wise ones).

    I loved the "Ralph Don't Run" column by whatshername in 2004, like why not hire a skywriter to tell everybody that Kerry could be knocked over by a steady breeze? How does that make you LOOK (since looks are everything to you genius realists --- if this were football your win-loss record would have gotten you all fired years ago, but never mind, I guess)?

    "The best lack all conviction," except you people aren't the best. And you sure aren't convicting anybody either.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 08/14/2007 @ 01:59am

84. When was the last time the Democrats made a major concession either to the liberal wing of the party or to their liberal-left constituents?

    The problem is that party leaders know there's no electoral penalty to be incurred from ignoring the likes of Cindy Sheehan, of Nation magazine editorialists, of groups like CodePink.

    And unless they feel that the price of dissing their left constituents is losing an election, they'll continue on in their corporatist, pro-war ways.

    This is what Ralph Nader understands. He knows that the only way to get Democrats to listen is to threaten them with job loss.

    Cindy Sheehan SHOULD run, but not in the Democratic primary; she should run in the general election as an Independent. The idea, as absurd as it may sound, is to split the Democratic vote and maybe push Pelosi's Republican opponent to victory.

    Sounds crazy, but if Pelosi knows she can get away with dissing her liberal constituents, in effect behaving like a Republican, where does that leave the country? On the other hand, if Democrats like her know that the price is job loss, maybe they'll (finally) begin to listen to those to the left of them.

    What other solution is there? Is such a strategy any worse than the status quo?

    Posted by Adscititious at 08/14/2007 @ 03:46am

85. Dear Cindy: Please Run and trounce Pelosi!"

    Posted by regnet at 08/14/2007 @ 03:52am

86. I'm new here, finding the diversity of viewpoints fascinating, finding my place. Thank you V. Obviously she spoke from the gut and heart of a person who has 'seen the light'. Shame on others for demeaning her, questioning motives, and all the other nastiness. I'm not putting myself out there. Are you? Cindy is!!!! Blogging is symbolic. MySpacing is symbolic. YouTubing is symbolic. Of What? Sure, her candidacy may be symbolic, but it is a candidacy in real space, real time and it may be catalytic. The one thing she is is sincere, which counts the most. I'm finding my space with Daniel Flei, Frosty Zoom, and Malcontent. Keep blogging. And let's all remember Pundits is what Pundits does.

    Posted by Moderatus at 08/14/2007 @ 07:12am

87. Dump the democrats!

    Posted by johnson542 at 08/14/2007 @ 08:48am

88. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 08/14/2007 @ 03:46am

    Exactly!!!! If I could I would put your words all over America.

    What does sadden me is how fast most liberals/progressives retreat to the "defeating Republicans is the only thing that matters" position. And how ironic that enabling Democrats to stand for nothing does not, in fact, strengthen them politically.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 08/14/2007 @ 09:10am

89. Whence does it come this belief? ----Posted by V 08/13/2007 @ 11:24pm

    What is this guy, from a Renaissance Festival or something?!??!?!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 09:16am

90. Here's the way the GOP can win in 2008 (with many strikes against them)---

    1. We've got hard-core fundamentalists here (LVLIBERTY) who have said that even if it's Giuliani (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, thrice-married, etc.) they are going to vote for Rudy because "in a post-9/11 world, it's just to important to let a Democrat win!"

    That's your Religious Right base...willing to accept a guy from the NEW YORK liberal Republican side of the aisle, over even just staying at home and saying "Let Hillary win, it'll be better for us come 2012."

    2. Meanwhile ON THE OTHER SIDE of the political spectrum, you have "pure progressives" looking to oust Pelosi for not suicidally pushing impeachment and talking about "voting 3rd party or Green" if Hillary gets the nomination, in order to maintain their "principles" to the exclusion of letting a "corporatist Dem win or even if that means 4-8 more years of Repubs in the White House".

    Two ideological bases. One willing to accept a "lesser evil" of their own Party and win the election. The other holding fast to their ideological purity and let the Other Guys win.

    One idea will win elections, push an agenda, and get to pack the US Supreme Court (and other courts) with folks favorable to their view.

    The other idea is doomed to failure and increasing isolation and minority status of their Party.

    And THAT is the 35-40% shot that the Republicans might win on in 2008!

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 09:22am

91. V,

    First, the only thing I'm paid to do is program computers. And I think my boss would be more likely to pay me not to speak to you, than vice versa. Second, when I speak metaphorically of chest beating, screaming, etc., I am not speaking specifically about you, I am making reference to the idea of righteous (and understandable) anger without the benefit of reason, however this isn't purple prose 101 so I'll be happy to stay a bit more concrete in future if you prefer. Third, I'm submitting to nothing and no one except possibly (what I see as) reality. If you think strategic, reasoned approaches to very serious problems are outmoded and should be ‘rendered obsolete' I'd say we're in big trouble. Ok, back to the matter at hand:

    I would say that being against impeachment is not advocating that we (forgive my use of the term, but continuously trying to define a very large group with varying views and interest gets tiresome) do nothing. It is, in fact, advocating that what we do has practical value. I agree that the majority of the country favors impeachment, but what people want doesn't inherently mean that something can be accomplished. For example, there are many people (maybe a majority I haven't looked into it) who favor deporting every illegal immigrant in the US. That's fantastic that they favor things, but they have no notion of the scope of such an endeavor, or of the disastrous consequences if they actually got their wish. I fully admit that I may be mistaken, but I believe that many advocates of impeachment would become impatient and angry when they realized that impeachment would necessarily drag on beyond Bush's final term. The moderates and left leaning (currently or generally) independents would lead that charge. Meanwhile, the Republicans would have an opportunity to engender sympathy and excite their base as the left begins to splinter and engage in in-fighting. If you believe that impeachment would have positive consequences what are they? A civics lesson for future presidents? A symbolic statement of the disgust of the citizens? A rallying point? You seem to connect impeachment to the soldiers and civilians suffering under our failed wars. Explain, if you would, how impeachment will benefit them.

    I would argue that had left-leaning voters decided to think tactically and rationally we might have avoided both terms of this dreadful president in the first place. I remember a lot of progressives chanting There's no difference between Bush and Gore not so long ago. Do you think they've noticed a difference now? There's nothing defeatist about thinking through the ramifications of principled action. Doing so in the 2000 election might have saved a lot of money, liberty, and lives.

    Posted by Rednaxela at 08/14/2007 @ 09:25am

92. I am not sure the author really understands the term "symbolic."

    Removing from office a president who has lied us into war, spied on American citizens, tortured those suspected of ties to terrorist organizations, etc. etc. would be merely a "symbolic gesture"??? No, it would be justice. Not "symbolic" of justice. Justice itself, plain and simple.

    Sheehan's protests against the war are "symbolic" only? What on earth is the author talking about?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/14/2007 @ 10:31am

93. I remember a lot of progressives chanting There's no difference between Bush and Gore not so long ago. Do you think they've noticed a difference now? There's nothing defeatist about thinking through the ramifications of principled action. Doing so in the 2000 election might have saved a lot of money, liberty, and lives.

    Posted by REDNAXELA 08/14/2007 @ 09:25am

    Here's the amazing thing, RED....some of them DON'T see a difference. I've honest-to-Gosh seen progressives on another blog state that "Things wouldn't have been THAT much better under Gore".

    It's pure-T insanity.

    Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 10:34am

94. Gladdened to read the "no statute of limitations on war crimes" statement. We might even have the opportunity to uphold decisions at the Hague rather than, like Ray-gun, disabuse them.

    And Vic Perry, what are we to do that has some smidgeon of a chance of being practicable? I'm simply "educating myself for the coming struggles" as Mary "Mother Jones" Harris advised decades ago, and I find this website a great place to do it, thank you.

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/14/2007 @ 10:50am

95. Bluespark, she means that it would be symbolic because it can't be accomplished (certainly in time, and possibly at all). In other words, 'we can't impeach you and everyone knows it, but we're going to initiate proceedings because you should be impeached'.

    Just to be clear (from some of my earlier posts), I think it would be the epitome of justice if we could do it, but if we can't let's try to keep pressure on the Republicans to get out of the war, on the Senate to keep investigating malfeasance, and the democratic presidential candidates for clear statements on their position regarding the war, universal health care/education, repealing tax cuts, trust busting, reinstating habeus corpus, pitching the Patriot Act, etc. etc. etc.

    We have a chance for the first time in a long time to see a democratic majority in the house and senate with a democrat in the presidency and the only obstacle we face is our own worst enemy.

    Posted by Rednaxela at 08/14/2007 @ 10:55am

96. I noticed that the Cindy Sheehan supporters have been unable to say where she stands on the other relevant issues of our day and avoided discussing Cindy Sheehan as a person.Instead,we got generalized and meaningless statements about corporations and politics in general,but no one can show that Sheehan would be different than any other politician who likes the limelight nor has anyone been able to show that she is a progressive.Cindy Sheehan already "retired" once because she had a difficult time handling frustration and insults,but now wants to be a politician.Many on the left have negative views about her and if Sheehan loses it won't be because she isn't owned by some corporate power structure.It will be because of who Cindy Sheehan is as a person.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/14/2007 @ 11:28am

97. A couple of points:

    First, while those who aren't from the Bay Area might not be aware of this, a serious, as opposed to merely "symbolic" challenge to Pelosi is eminently possible. As mentioned previously, this is what the Gonzalez Green Party mayoral campaign demonstrated by getting 48.5% of the vote against Pelosi's handpicked candidate Newsom. What Sheehan will need to do is to tap into the Greens existing organization and electoral database. While there is plenty of dysfunctionality and flakiness in the Green organization on a national level, in San Francisco, it has consistently demonstrated that it is serious, organized and responsible. She should be talking with them now. I don't understand what is precluding this-perhaps others do.

    On the other hand, what the Greens should do, in exchange for a commitment by Sheehan to run with them, in my opinion, is to make the Pelosi-Sheehan race their main national focus in 2008, seeing this as the equivalent to a presidential run. If the resources which would have gone into a 50 state presidential race are diverted to Sheehan's campaign, this, combined with the support of anti-war organizations like UFPJ-could provide the bodies on the ground necessary for Sheehan to compete.

    That said, even with all forces aligned in her favor a Sheehan victory remains a long shot. However, a strong showing is very much in the cards and would surely make Pelosi and other corporate Dems, but more importantly, the broader peace movement, recognize that we have moved beyond getting mad to thinking seriously about what is required to getting our act together to challenge the Dems good cop role in the system.

    A final thought: a reasonable comparison of the Sheehan campaign is to the parliamentary challenge to Tony Blair by Reg Keys, whose son was, like Cindy's, killed in Iraq. While Keys didn't win, his strong showing was widely seen as humiliating to the sitting Prime Minister and the "New Labor" agenda and may have paved the way for Blair's resignation.

    This is the minimum of what a Sheehan campaign can be expected to accomplish.

    Posted by john.halle at 08/14/2007 @ 11:40am

98. Thanks, Vic. I can only repeat what Gore Vidal used to like to say: "The world would be a much better place if it would simply listen to me!"

    If Cindy Sheehan runs in the Democratic primary and loses, then what does she do? But if she runs as an Independent, you can believe Nancy Pelosi will be very concerned, for the same reason George HW Bush was concerned when Perot got into the race in 1992. The existential threat of vote-splitting becomes very serious.

    This is the only recourse that remains. What the left/liberal-left has to say to people like Pelosi is, "We'll put your Republican opponent in office in the name of smiting you."

    It could just be that someone like Pelosi in turn says, "Go ahead. Vote me out. I've got millions. I don't care."

    Such is the evil of the "lesser of two evils" logic.

    But still, the left should seek to purge the Democratic Party of right-wing corporatist types. It may well take a generation to see the slightest progress, but it is surely preferable to leaving things as they are.

    Posted by Adscititious at 08/14/2007 @ 11:45am

99. Posted by LEWWELGE 08/14/2007 @ 10:50am

    Yes, I admit this website isn't terrible, and I do notice a wider variety of people posting here than a year or two ago.

    Now, to those liberals like Katha Pollitt who invariably counsel caution and calculation:

    I think the time for a Democratic Party-aimed voter pressure group has indeed passed -

    - 2000 was it - and about a third to half of prospective Nader voters blinked and switched to Gore at the last minute. From then on the Democrats knew in their bones that they didn't really need to worry about a major defection from the left, knew that they didn't even need to address the concerns of these people and could get away with simply villainizing them, a strategy that continues to this day. So that when 9-11 came along the Democrats in what was left of their power could do what they do best: shrug and surrender to Republican ways. Yeah, 2000 was a disaster all right, but not the way you guys usually put it -

    - The time for a liberal pressure group, a group that would pledge only to vote in exchange for quite specific political positions, will come again. Of course it can start now, that'd be swell, but it will have it's best chance of getting somewhere if the Democrats actually regain power first.

    Mask's possible scenario for 2008 (Republican victory through massive Progressive defection) is not credible, there just aren't the numbers, no matter how little the Democrats in Congress do, no matter what kind of bogus tough guy talk comes from front-running Democratic candidates. Democrats are basically correct in their assumption that they can sit tight and still win big in 2008, including the presidency. The Bush administration has been that big of a screw up.

    The trick will be to hold Democrats to doing anything, having telegraphed to them early on that they have your unconditional support, so long as they are not Republicans. They know it, too.

    How do you imagine power works? Do you think that politicians who know that they will get your vote every time give a damn what you think?

    For a relatively small, liberal group of voters in San Francisco to actually have an opportunity to turn up the heat on an overcalculating but powerful politician is a rare opportunity. Naturally you'll be counselling them to piss it away.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 08/14/2007 @ 12:13pm

100. ADSCITITIOUS,

     Good points. What I genuinely wonder is whether Democrats act like 'right-wing corporatist types' because that's their nature, drug company donations, etc. or whether the terror they feel at being labeled liberal and the ass tanning the Democrats have been getting since God-knows-when makes them think that they need to project a right leaning persona. In the same sense, I wonder if trying to purge and ending up handing the Republicans elections (which is also up for debate) entreats people to support the base more or reinforces the need to move right. Very generally, it seems the more power republicans accrue the farther right they move. If we had a very solid majority that wasn't quaking in its boots about losing seats I wonder if we wouldn't see more liberal initiatives. Maybe we wouldn't...but I'm not sure the purge tactic has worked very well so far.

     Posted by Rednaxela at 08/14/2007 @ 1:14pm

101. How 'bout some numbers, if logic doesn't work for you?--

     Let's be VERY generous and say that Ms Sheehan gets THREE TIMES the number of votes that Krissy Keefer of the "Greens" got against Pelosi in 2006....

     2006 Nancy Pelosi 110,989 80%

     Mike DeNunzio 14,596 11%

     Krissy Keefer Green 10,422 8%

     Philip Berg Libertarian 2,054 1%

     24%...and she draws all the Greens and the remaining 16% ALL from Pelosi....

     Pelosi still wins by 64% to Sheehan's 24%. Which in electoral terms (even in San Fran) is a stomping.

     So...can all but the truly delusional say what the reaction is? Does Pelosi "git skeered" and "move Left" in 2009? Maybe, but that's about it. Bush will be gone, so impeachment is gone as well. Pelosi has a SOLID liberal voting record, can she move "more Left"?

     What does it accomplish? "Tells them that if they don't stick to progressive ideals, we'll run a challenger from the Left (in districts where that can actually be done) and ...uh....they'll only win by 40% instead of 60%!!!!"

     Uh...okaaaaaaaaay.

     Or maybe the message is "Well, the NEXT time somebody like Bush is President...they better impeach him!"....okay, no problem. Using a Nixonian analogy....that'll be sometime in 2036-2040 AD.

     Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 1:21pm

102. If as your banner suggests, you are not Fox News then this article requires a counter point article and thread. I have had it with the talking heads in the media telling us what issues are important and what two opinions (Left or Right)we are supposed to have about them. If Sheehan wants to run then so be it. There are only two ways to run for office. Either you are rich or famous enough to raise huge amounts of money and publicity. I can not imagine anyone rich and plugged in to the system that will ever do more that throw bones to the poor and middle class so when someone like Sheehan gets the chance to run I am all for it. Some times all it takes is one small lever in the right place to bring the whole mountain down. I would rather live my life amidst the rubble and new growth than continue to live on the mountain in slavery.

     Posted by superdog123 at 08/14/2007 @ 1:59pm

103. If Pelosi won't do what she was elected to do, throw her out on her ass!

     Posted by Catfishjim at 08/14/2007 @ 3:39pm

104. For those that don't get it and are without any imagination, Sheehan could focus much of the nation's anti-war sentiment into this one extremely high profile election. She could serve as the watershed for all the frustration the millions against this war have; the exasperation, heartache, anger of all those fed up with the failure of the Dems to stand up and do the right thing would flow into the fund for this one campaign. (I would be happy to donate $20 a week to the effort.) Pelosi deserves as much; she had her chance to be bold, aggressive, and instead she chose to play it safe. The message would be clear, unmistakale. Flush the turd, and then ask who wants to be next.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 3:41pm

105. Until recently, I was of the common sense "don't waste the time" crowd. Like Ms Pollitt, and in concert with no lesser lights than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders, I could not see impeachment proceeedings, given the pressing issues of the time.

     Gradually, however, I began to re-assess. Finally, I saw (twice) Bill Moyers excellent Journal program on PBS, featuring the Nation's own John Nichols and the (usually anathema) American Heritage Institute's Bruce Fein.

     Both laid out the impeachment argument in crystal-clear constitutional terms. I wrote Ms Pelosi and House Judiciary Chair John Conyers that night. We cannot turn over such dictatorial presidential powers to another person, even a "liberal" democrat.

     Cindy is right. Nancy is ignoring her constitutional duty. Whether that means Cindy should run to unseat her is another matter. But the country has had all it can take of the Bush presidency. It will take a stake in its heart to regain the power that we, the people--and our representatives, Democrat and Republican--have all too cravenly handed over.

     Nancy--are you listening?

     Posted by dotcomnsense at 08/14/2007 @ 3:43pm

106. The Dem leadership is a bunch of pansies. - Are they up against a tough band of Repumpkins and only have a tiny majority? Boo-hoo-hoo! - Could they be accused of partisan politics if they really go after W. & Co.? Goodness gwacious! - Are there problems that Bush has screwed up so bad, anybody who touches them will end up in trouble? Could dern well be!

     But the real question is this: Is it in the interest of the United States for the Dems to leave W. to his devices for even one more minute? I DON'T THINK SO!!! Unfortunately, it appears Democrats may not be suited for the job. If Pelosi thinks it's best to sit on her hands till next November, maybe it's because she and all her buddies up there are only interested in the pork, the perks and the revolving door their GOP colleagues are enjoying right now. Cindy Sheehan has already done more than her part, and the Dems left her out in the cold. Maybe it's time for voters to send Nancy, Bary and Hilly back to spend more time with their families.

     Posted by Catfishjim at 08/14/2007 @ 4:16pm

107. Katha - good piece. Thank you.

     A couple of quick points:

     1. Don't count out Ms. Sheehan in a general election just yet. San Francisco may just be radical enough to actually vote Cindy into office. As you are aware, there have been grumblings about the Democratic capitulation on issues like FISA that Ms. Pelosi shouldn't have even let come to a vote. Why our leaders would cave in to a lame-duck Executive and his run-amok AG, I will never know. It makes no sense to expand the powers of an obviously incompetent AG, and it makes me sick. If I lived in Pelosi's district, I would have to think long and hard about who to support in '08. The balance of strength in seniority versus supporting a true-blue liberal would give me pause before I made up my mind. I have a feeling that many San Franciscans will also be weighing their electoral options carefully before casting a vote for Ms. Pelosi.

     2. I agree that, at this point, impeachment would be counter productive. It would be senseless to go through the time and money to have an impeachment trial only to see the President be acquitted. Not only that, but should the unbelieveable happen - the President is convicted - that only leaves us with Dick Cheney as the Chief Executive. Would there be anything worse than that?

     Posted by BAMinDenver at 08/14/2007 @ 4:23pm

108. "The author, obviously of the class that could give a shit since it ain't her kid whose life is on the line...... Perhaps there is no point to the author's purpose other than to fundamentally defend her class and let others know they are not welcome."----Posted by LIL 08/13/2007 @ 09:48am

     There are a lot of different definitions of "a nut" around here. HSUB with his obsessive ignorance of anything contradictory....WILL with his obsession with male anal rape "jokes"...Empty SPENCE with his subjective morality whereby right-wingers are homophobes, but HE gets to use homophobic slurs...RIO BRAVO screaming "Demoncrats" and thinking he's William F. Buckley....LVLIBERTY advocating "Christian nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Ruskies and Chinee" during the Korean War...

     NONE of them can be topped by LIL declaring Katha Pollitt of "The Nation" "doesn't give a shit about the war" or is a "defender of the bourgeoisie"!

     ROFLMAO! Congrats, LIL. You've just turned "The Nation" into "The Weekly Standard"!

     Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 4:27pm

109. First things first I spose ...

     I would argue that had left-leaning voters decided to think tactically and rationally we might have avoided both terms of this dreadful president in the first place. I remember a lot of progressives chanting There's no difference between Bush and Gore not so long ago. Do you think they've noticed a difference now? Posted by REDNAXELA 08/14/2007 @ 09:25am | ignore this person

     Not being one of them it would just be a guess on my part. This is the problem with categorizing sentient living organisms it lacks specificity. You were in fact speaking of the "Greens," we have one here, why don't you ask ADSCITITIOUS? But, based on his comments I would have to say, no ...

     Not to go line by line ad nauseam, I will just say that you and some here have abstracted yourselves out of a process that a revolution was fought to put you into the center of. You see yourselves "here," and the "power" over "there." That's my point. And that you do so not on current in depth analysis, but on purely subjective assessment, or, by what has gone before, not the facts and their dynamics on the ground. Ergo you make statements on a subject of great import with no real, therefore true basis, or foundation.

     Now, as to ADSCITITIOUS;

     "This is what Ralph Nader understands." What Nader understands how to get, and give Bush two terms as president.

     "He knows that the only way to get Democrats to listen is to threaten them with job loss."

     I could swear that's what the subject of this thread, both pro and con, is about. But more on this later ...

     "Cindy Sheehan SHOULD run, but not in the Democratic primary; she should run in the general election as an Independent. The idea, as absurd as it may sound, is to split the Democratic vote and maybe push Pelosi's Republican opponent to victory."

     Let me get this right ... after six years of Bush for which, sorry, the smart money (and they were correct in this assessment) says Nader was indispensable in helping to bring about, you want Cindy to do the same thing? Hold that thought ...

     "Sounds crazy, but if Pelosi knows she can get away with dissing her liberal constituents, in effect behaving like a Republican, where does that leave the country?"

     Where does one get the idea that Cindy is about letting Pelosi get away with another term in office let alone a mere "dissing?" Absolutely nowhere, that's where.

     "On the other hand, if Democrats like her know that the price is job loss, maybe they'll (finally) begin to listen to those to the left of them."

     Again, I could swear, that this is exactly what this thread is speaking to, how astute of you to notice ...

     What other solution is there? Is such a strategy any worse than the status quo?

     How about the one that is the subject of this thread, or, I suppose the Greens will come to the rescue (read, campaign jacking) yes?

     Thanks, Vic. I can only repeat what Gore Vidal used to like to say: "The world would be a much better place if it would simply listen to me!"

     Etc.

     Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 08/14/2007 @ 11:45am | ignore this person

     Sounds like something a Nader Green would say, indeed, if only it wasn't so whack. As Cindy doesn't need the Greens as much as they need her. Yes they might have an organized enclave in the Bay area but nationally they'd be a death sentence. Look at the purity of her words-message versus the banal yesterdays news, already failed (twice) political logic being resurrected.

     To that end, this bears repeating;

     For those that don't get it and are without any imagination, Sheehan could focus much of the nation's anti-war sentiment into this one extremely high profile election. She could serve as the watershed for all the frustration the millions against this war have; the exasperation, heartache, anger of all those fed up with the failure of the Dems to stand up and do the right thing would flow into the fund for this one campaign. (I would be happy to donate $20 a week to the effort.) Pelosi deserves as much; she had her chance to be bold, aggressive, and instead she chose to play it safe. The message would be clear, unmistakale. Flush the turd, and then ask who wants to be next.

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/14/2007 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person

     Cindy should go after the youth vote ... they were the block really responsible for the gains of the democrats so much so that their influence was suppressed by all and sundry. They are the least likely to vote for Pelosi, and most negative in regards to her lack of leadership.

     Posted by V at 08/14/2007 @ 5:17pm

110. "I'm giving the comments thread another chance"

     Too bad about that; I happen to be giving this thread its first chance. Never know who's getting on-board or off-. In any event, your columns have consistently impressed me with the wise empathy they display. The 'don't run, Cindy' column strikes me as woefully misguided. It may be that intelligence and principle are often in opposition, judgment is all.

     Impeachment is far less of an issue than effective opposition to the war. If an example can be made of Pelosi, so much the better.

     Posted by claude at 08/14/2007 @ 5:30pm

111. V,

     It's really fun that you use terms like ergo, it makes it sound like you know stuff. Congrats!

     Since you, by implication, make judgments that are based on in-depth analysis please enlighten me with exactly how we are to accomplish impeachment in the next 15 months and how that will help those who have died or will die in foreign wars. Or even just how it will aid the country in some way.

     By the way, in case your in-depth analysis missed a niggling detail, the point I was making about left-leaning voters who managed to help propel Bush into office in 2000, was that sometimes taking a principled stand sounds great until you try to imagine (yes, even with no real, therefore true basis, or foundation) what the results are likely to be. Rather than giving us all another lesson in pseudo-intellectual patter, why not explain what you imagine the likely result of impeachment proceedings would be.

     Posted by Rednaxela at 08/14/2007 @ 5:44pm

112. Reality check: if the Bushies can ignore 15 (some counted 30) million marchers before the war, then the putatively Dem Congressmembers whose first priority is to get re-elected will have no difficulty ignoring the impeachment crowd.

     One must also recognize that the handlers also have handlers (as well as their own agendas). This is the only area where America's spycraft actually shines.

     Posted by ericbagai at 08/14/2007 @ 6:19pm

113. I think a Shehan run would be pretty cool to watch. She is so mental and whacked out. It would be thrilling. And since I don't live in California I can breath a sigh of relief.

     Posted by Person at 08/14/2007 @ 6:41pm

114. While I agree that it is Ms. Sheehan's right to run for public office, I have to agree with Katha Pollitt, with an additional reason: what besides her opposition to this occupation in Iraq, qualifies her to govern? There are more issues than Iraq, and I think it is ill-advised to support any candidate who is running on any single issue.

     Posted by pestone at 08/14/2007 @ 7:19pm

115. Posted by REDNAXELA 08/14/2007 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person

     "It's really fun that you use terms like ergo, it makes it sound like you know stuff. Congrats!"

     Thank you, it works for me. How about you saying something, (some would doubtless take anything at this point) that makes you sound like you know stuff? As I said, works for me, you should try it.

     "Since you, by implication, make judgments that are based on in-depth analysis please enlighten me with exactly how we are to accomplish impeachment in the next 15 months and how that will help those who have died or will die in foreign wars. Or even just how it will aid the country in some way."

     First 15 months is relevant to you, not to me. To me it's an artifice, pablum for your cattle like, no matter your rationalization, submission. As what you're saying is "Golly gee yes, thousands of our troops have died, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's have died, and it was all done on the basis of lies but lets not apply the constitutional remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors, because, gee it will take too long ..."

     "By the way, in case your in-depth analysis missed a niggling detail" I didn't if you cannot say what you mean perhaps you should work on that first instead of niggling ostensibly mediocre wannabe insults? If you want me to be psychic that costs money.

     "the point I was making about left-leaning voters who managed to help propel Bush into office in 2000"

     Was what you said and what I answered. This is by definition the clarification of a clarification etc, etc. Learn how to say what you mean, but say it to someone else, as after this I'll probably ignore you.

     "was that sometimes taking a principled stand sounds great until you try to imagine (yes, even with no real, therefore true basis, or foundation) what the results are likely to be."

     So it's not the principle that counts, but the results? If it costs too much, or is judged to inconvenient, principle be damned, fascinating, makes sense based on what you said so far. Perhaps someone should have told Patrick Henry, I doubt he would have listened though, being principled ‘n stuff.

     "Rather than giving us all another lesson in pseudo-intellectual patter, why not explain what you imagine the likely result of impeachment proceedings would be."

     Were it simply patter you would have, if you could have, refuted it, instead of attempting and adding to the aforementioned, and characterized insults.

     But to show I'm actually a good sport, I'll answer the last question. One, the primary result would be justice. In a perfect world those who would defeat same, or wait for it to be convenient, or say it should wait for a better time, or take too long, would quietly go fuck themselves. Though obfuscated by what some would (wishful thinking) like to consider patter, it reflects my true sentiment in any case. And two, it would make war, which is still a wished for reality (this country and our military not sufficiently destroyed by the Iraqi debacle) with Iran less likely.

     Posted by V at 08/14/2007 @ 7:23pm

116. Dear Katha,

     Who are you to tell Cindy what to do? What in God's name have you done to help straighten out the mess this president and Congress have led this great nation into?

     I think Nancy Pelosi should be impeached for not standing up for our Constitution. She has sworn to protect the Constitution, not the damn democratic party, and she has failed to do her sworn duty. Apparently, she has also threatened John Conyers with the loss of his Chairmanship if he pursued an investigation into possible impeachment of the Bush/Cheney war criminal junta. Nancy Pelosi is not standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

     We do not need a wolf in sheep's clothing masquerading as the people's chief representative in Congress.

     Cindy Sheehan feels strongly to bring this hypocrite to account. I for one will support her in every way I can. To suggest that this may be some vanity ploy of Ms. Sheehan is beneath contempt!

     And you, Katha, should know better. The cancer that John Dean spoke of in 1974 is real and growing in this Republic. Extirpation of this cancer [i.e., impeachment] is the only real cure, as our Founders laid out for us in the Constitution. Why don't you check with John Nichols first before you embarrass yourself and The Nation?

     Brian of Boston

     Posted by lilmurt at 08/14/2007 @ 7:32pm

117. There are more issues than Iraq, and I think it is ill-advised to support any candidate who is running on any single issue.

     The war in Iraq is the defining issue that eclipses all other issues.

     How can we even talk about health care reform or any other social program or issue when all of our tax dollars are being spent on Iraq?

     $500,000,000,000 and counting, is a lot of money to waste on war, and therefore making these funds available for other programs of interest to Americans should be our top priority!

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/14/2007 @ 8:11pm

118. Sheehan not only has every right to run against Nancy Pelosi, she should win by a large margin. Pelosi has been a complete and utter failure as Speaker of the House. She has removed impeachment, the only Constitutional remedy, to the crisis created by the Bush White House; failed to prevent new funding for the occupation of Iraq; and not only failed to stop the domestic spying bill from passing but failed to stop it from even being brought up for debate. Pelosi is a coward, a backstabber and an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. Cindy Sheehan should run to unseat her.

     Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 08/14/2007 @ 8:24pm

119. REDNAXELA wrote:

     "Good points. What I genuinely wonder is whether Democrats act like 'right-wing corporatist types' because that's their nature, drug company donations, etc. or whether the terror they feel at being labeled liberal and the ass tanning the Democrats have been getting since God-knows-when makes them think that they need to project a right leaning persona."

     Rex, I suspect it's already in their nature, and that they prefer acquiring power to ascertaining truth.

     "In the same sense, I wonder if trying to purge and ending up handing the Republicans elections (which is also up for debate) entreats people to support the base more or reinforces the need to move right. Very generally, it seems the more power republicans accrue the farther right they move. If we had a very solid majority that wasn't quaking in its boots about losing seats I wonder if we wouldn't see more liberal initiatives."

     You make an excellent point here. I must admit I had my moments in 2004 when I seriously thought about pulling the lever for John Kerry. Bush/Cheney are so awful, so fascistic, so arrogant, that anybody would be preferable to them.

     But then I went back over Kerry's record and remembered the following:

     1. He voted for the Iraq War. If I, standing in my living room, could look at George Bush delivering the State of the Union in 2002 and yell out, "You're so full of ----," then don't tell me John Kerry, twice my age, a Vietnam vet, didn't also know the whole thing was a lie. But he voted for the war for one reason: he feared it might end as swiftly & successfully as the first Gulf War, and he was going to be damned if there were a ticker tape parade in Manhattan and George Bush were proclaimed the equal of Alexander the Great.

     2. In April of 2004 on "Meet the Press," John Kerry said Ariel Sharon could build a wall across the West Bank and it would be okay by him. Sorry, but I find such ultra-Zionism to be quite ugly.

     3. He voted for NAFTA and GATT.

     4. He supports mandatory drug testing in workplaces.

     5. He never reached out to Ralph Nader or really to anyone to the left of him, as though they were worthy colleagues who should be listened to. Indeed, his Democratic colleagues across the states pursued a dirty litigation campaign intended to keep Nader off the ballot. I find such arrogance distasteful.

     Accept the terms of the system, and you get the system, on its terms.

     Posted by Adscititious at 08/14/2007 @ 9:04pm

120. Thanks for the discussion. A few points: I'm not "telling Cindy Sheehan" what to do. Obviously, she will do what she chooses, but of course people will have different opinions about whether it's a good idea. Nor did I accuse her of vanity -- that was various commenters, not me.

     I could be totally wrong about how the race will play out, but you have to admit the track record of outsider-left-independent electoral candidates is not encouraging. If the best example commenters can cite is gonzalez-newsome, that tells you something, because gonzalez lost! I guess I just wonder if this is a good use of resources. I don't think that makes me a tool of the oligarchy.

     Posted by Katha Pollitt at 08/14/2007 @ 9:06pm

121. POLLITT: I'm not "telling Cindy Sheehan" what to do.

     I get it! When I tell my son, "Please Don't Cuss!", I guess I must NOT have been telling him what to do......rather, I am telling him what NOT to do! Whoopee, this is now all cleared up!

     Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 9:17pm

122. If Pollitt is looking for Green Party victories in San Francisco, I refer her to Ross Mirkirimi, on the SF Board of Supervisors (who replaced Gonzalez who was president of the Board), two Greens on the Board of Education, Mark Sanchez and Jane Kim, a Green on the College Board, John Rizzo, a Green Planning Commissioner, Christina Olague and a Green Ethics Commissioner, Joe Lynn.

     So no, we don't have to "admit the track record of outsider-left-independent electoral candidates is not encouraging" in San Francisco.

     Quite the opposite in fact.

     That Pollitt hasn't bothered to familiarize herself with these facts does not, in itself, make her "a tool of the oligarchy". For that we would need to review a long and depressing track record.

     I don't have the stomach to do so here. Maybe others do.

     Posted by john.halle at 08/14/2007 @ 9:30pm

123. Posted by KATHA POLLITT 08/14/2007 @ 9:06pm

     Thanks for responding to the posters on your blog. It is always appreciated.

     While I disagree with your point of view on this topic, I find those who question your motives to be annoying.

     Your column provoked an interesting debate. The exact same debate, you would have sparked, had you post in support of Sheehan.

     Please ignore the trolls ('cept me, of course)!

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/14/2007 @ 10:20pm

124. I don't think that makes me a tool of the oligarchy.

     Posted by KATHA POLLITT 08/14/2007 @ 9:06pm |

     Ms Pollitt, first as with Eric, a response by the authors is always appreciated.

     Second, the fact that some accused you of that...should be an indicator to you that "Lunatic Fringe" is not the sole province of the Right's side of the spectrum.

     Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 10:29pm

125. Eric: "The exact same debate, you would have sparked, had you post in support of Sheehan."

     Interesting comment! The Nation and its writers, boiled down, are part of the status quo. No knock on that. To support Cindy Sheehan now is a path, with downside only, that's just inconceivable.

     Posted by is is IS at 08/14/2007 @ 10:36pm

126. HAPPY, when you say "Don't" to your son you are telling him what to do because you are in a position of authority over him. I have no authority over Cindy Sheehan. Saying "please don't run" is really just a headline-writer's way of saying 'I don't think this is a good idea." In any case, I give many reasons why I think her run is not the best use of her talents and position. I am hardly laying down the law in some authoritarian way. I would not expect my writing on a blog to have the slightest effect on her. That said, Cindy Sheehan is not some immortal saint whose acts are beyond question. Her run will use lots of resources -- money, volunteers, attention -- that could otherwise go to something else, so what is so terrible about discussing whether it's a good idea? It's not as though the left has done so brilliantly in the electoral arena. Many posters write as if it's just obvious that Sheehan will win or come close enough to frighten the Democrats. I think that's less likely than that her campaign will attract some media but few votes.

     Posted by Katha Pollitt at 08/14/2007 @ 11:21pm

127. Ms. Pollitt,

     As with MASK and as "first as with Eric", I, too appreciate your response even though clearly, my "Don't" comment was drenched in sarcasm and was aimed directly at your headline!

     Your candor on choosing such headline is refreshing! It succeeded by drawing in several new visitors. For the Liberal regulars here, perhaps "Dear Cindy: Think Carefully on Running" would have been preferred.....but then, we may not had as lively a thread!

     For all of us, we thank you for your responses!

     Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 11:52pm

128. Oh, forgot to add....

     If I was a mainstream Dem, I would agree w/your "Don't Run" stance.....:)

     Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 11:55pm

129. SO, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH VOTES IN THE CONGRESS, WE ARE TO ALLOW THE BUSH REGIME, THE WORST TRAITORS IN OUR HISTORY TO GET AWAY WITH MASS MURDER AND TORTURE. THE PAIN THEY CONTINUE TO CAUSE IS UNFORGIVABLE. THEY MUST BE INDICTED AND IMPRISONED FOR LIFE! WHILE THEY ABUSE EVERY RULE IN THE BOOK, WE ALLOW THESE MONSTERS TO GO ON IN THEIR EVIL WAYS. THAT IS THE WRONG ANSWER

     Posted by SALLY EVANS at 08/15/2007 @ 12:21am

130. Katha Pollitt at the blogs. Rove resigning. Is it Christmas?

     Go Cindy, I guess. But since when does she live in San Francisco? I thought she was from a small town. Maybe Pelosi can challenge her residency. That'll give the Naderites something to whine about.

     Posted by RLawrence at 08/15/2007 @ 12:47am

131. As a member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth http://ae911truth.org I have to say that in spite of the mountain of improbability facing her chances for unseating Pelosi, Sheehan has taken a courageous step with the Jersey widows by calling for a new independent investigation of the events around Sept 11, 2001 Wanna really change the course of America? Investigate 911

     Posted by parulis at 08/15/2007 @ 01:42am

132. That said, Cindy Sheehan is not some immortal saint whose acts are beyond question. Her run will use lots of resources -- money, volunteers, attention -- that could otherwise go to something else, so what is so terrible about discussing whether it's a good idea?

     Posted by KATHA POLLITT 08/14/2007 @ 11:21pm | ignore this person

     Giving you the respect of my honesty, you could perhaps admit you went a tad more beyond discussing wither or no it was a good idea. But you showing, you, being here does give nuance, and does add insight. Sufficiently so that on balance it should perhaps be done more often. Reminding us that you are a flesh and blood human being, not simply a name above a byline, doesn't hurt the cause at all. In any case you do have my respect ... the more so as last time I checked courage was a virtue.

     Posted by V at 08/15/2007 @ 03:13am

133. The Democrats have to be challenged -- they are not an opposition party. Nancy Pelosi in particular has been a pathetic more-of-the-same type of politician. She seems to be more concerned about the wishes of her zionist backers than the public at large; the only thing that she seems to do is jump through the hoops to support Israel even more. Pelosi shouldn't be supported, and Pollitt is dead wrong in suggesting that Sheehan shouldn't run against her. Pollitt also pushes the "more of the same" mush liberal politics -- The Nation's specialty.

     Posted by Paul de Rooij at 08/15/2007 @ 06:53am

134. If the article were merely asking the question as to whether involvement in Sheehan's candidacy is the most effective use of our limited resources, it would not have elicited the outraged responses above. Most of those who responded above have correctly assessed it as something quite different: a particularly condescending, uninformed and possibly dishonest reassertion of the longstanding Nation fatwa against electoral organizing outside of the Democratic Party.

     Sheehan's challenge to Pelosi is an explicit repudiation of these arrangements, and, by extension, the DP's role as an enabler of the numerous crimes of the Bush administration. It is for this reason why it has generated much excitement among those who are serious about building a minimally sane politics.

     Whether the Sheehan candidacy has the potential to achieve its maximum or even minimum objectives along these lines is, of course, a reasonable question. But it is also eminently reasonable to consider the track record of the sources from which these questions arise. Specifically, to inquire whether those asking them are genuinely interested in the answer or are merely serving their normal institutional function of, in Chomsky's words, "policing the boundaries of acceptable discourse."

     Posted by john.halle at 08/15/2007 @ 07:52am

135. Pelosi could have issued a statement in May, too, saying she was sick and tired and disappointed in the Supplemental Without Timetables, and that was the last straw and she was going home -- and, oh, by the way, she's short on funds, too, so does anyone want to buy some land in Texas? Not my idea of statesmanship, but maybe some voters are looking for that kind of thing in a legislator.

     Posted by RLawrence at 08/15/2007 @ 09:02am

136. "Many posters write as if it's just obvious that Sheehan will win or come close enough to frighten the Democrats. I think that's less likely than that her campaign will attract some media but few votes."

     Posted by KATHA POLLITT 08/14/2007 @ 11:21pm

     I agree that whether Cindy Sheehan runs as an Independent or a Democrat, she can't win. But she should run nevertheless.

     If there is a popular, moderate Republican in the Bay Area who will contest Pelosi's seat, and Sheehan runs as an Independent, then Pelosi would face a vote-splitting threat, and it could turn out very badly for her.

     The aim of a Sheehan run would be strictly punitive. She and her supporters would in effect be saying, "We hold you in the same contempt with which you hold us." And such a run would be worth every last penny.

     There are those enlightened wits who would lament the prospect of a Republican victory. "Great, you got rid of Pelosi; now we're stuck with a Republican!"

     But what difference does it make whether it's a Democrat or a Republican who votes for more war funding, or approves a budget in which military spending climbs past the $600,000,000,000 per annum mark, or sends Israel its lavish annual stipend, or votes (as Hillary Clinton did) for bankruptcy "reform," or finds yet another reason for opposing single-payer healthcare?

     The only recourse left in the electoral arena is to threaten politicians like Pelosi with job loss.

     Posted by Adscititious at 08/15/2007 @ 10:14am

137. If there is a popular, moderate Republican in the Bay Area who will contest Pelosi's seat, and Sheehan runs as an Independent, then Pelosi would face a vote-splitting threat, and it could turn out very badly for her. ----Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 08/15/2007 @ 10:14am

     Perhaps you missed Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 1:21pm and the 2006 electoral data. Mike DeNunzio was no fire-breathing Religious Rightie, conservative and supporter of the war, but nothing extraordinarily Hard Right. He got 11% of the vote.

     Krissy Keefer got 8% as the Green.

     Pelosi got 80%.

     That's hardly "vote-splitting" and at THAT time, Pelosi had already indicated that "impeachment was off the table" As I noted in that post, if Cindy Sheehan got THREE TIMES the votes of Krissy Keefer, 24% (drawing the Green 8% plust 16% from Pelosi)....Pelosi still wins by 64% to 24%.

     If every Repub in San Fran colluded to vote for Sheehan (to embarass Pelosi)...that adds another 11% making it a 64-35% race. Better, but still a Pelosi landslide, and by 2010, Bush is gone and impeachment is no longer a factor and Pelosi knows it, and can "ride out" one bad election cycle....returning to her 75-80% victories in the next election.

     She has no reason to "fear" Sheehan and no reason to worry that it means anything "long term" since most of the outrage and impetus for a Sheehan run is on impeaching Bush...and by 2010, that's over. Additionally by 2010, the war in Iraq (one way or the other) will be the NEXT President's baby.

     So...what's the ultimate "message"?

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 10:36am

138. Well, Mask, "The Nation" can be predictably counted on to capitulate and there is no question that their standard of living is directly linked to having a reason for being. Wouldn't want to piss all over that gravy train because they are a fairly mainline publication especially every four years. The latest Right-wing tactic is to brand anyone who threatens to rock the boat--and who does not conform to the manufactured consensus as "crazy" for being a truthteller. In this case, Sheehan. Otherwise the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over anticipating a different result--the Democrats and their enabling partisans, in this case, Pollitt and the Nation who always drink the party koolaide, are classic examples of that. They talk a good game on their cruises, but when it comes down to the wire, they can always be counted on to support the status quo and view interlopers from outside the main with disdain.

     Posted by Lil at 08/15/2007 @ 10:59am

139. Perhaps you missed Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 1:21pm and the 2006 electoral data.

     Right, 2006 data, back when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Democrats could whine about how they had their hands tied.

     Are you telling me that 80% of Pelosi's constituents still want the Iraq war to continue apace -- that they want her and her colleagues to capitulate to George Bush on just about every major domestic and foreign policy issue?

     Posted by Adscititious at 08/15/2007 @ 11:06am

140. "They talk a good game on their cruises, but when it comes down to the wire, they can always be counted on to support the status quo and view interlopers from outside the main with disdain."

     Indeed! I wonder if the Nation's editors regret their decision in 2004 to implore Ralph Nader NOT to run.

     If not, I would ask them this: "What line would the Democrats have to cross in order for you to say you're through with them? How much more spousal abuse is endurable before you file for divorce?"

     (I suspect there are career factors that figure into the decision-making. You can't endorse Ralph Nader and expect to be invited back on cable chat shows.)

     Posted by Adscititious at 08/15/2007 @ 11:17am

141. Posted by LIL 08/15/2007 @ 10:59am

     LIL, when you put yourself to the Left of "The Nation", and count its writers en massse (not just Katha Pollitt now, I see) as "status quo'ers"....you've put yourself in a fringe so small that single-digits in the polling would be generous.

     They've written glowing reports on Dennis Kucinich....part of their underhanded "pose" as "supposed progressives"?

     John Nichols spends every 3rd article pushing impeachment...but he's "secretly against it"?

     Katrina vanden Heuvel just wrote an article discussing a "New New Deal" with TRILLIONS in new domestic spending....a "beard" for her clandestine support for "trickle-down economics"?

     You're a nut. End of story.

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 11:17am

142. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 08/15/2007 @ 11:06am

     No, I'm telling you that BEING GENEROUS and giving Cindy Sheehan 3X the "pure progressive" vote that Krissy Keefer got....Pelosi still wins in a landslide of Nixon/McGovern proportions. (There, I just compared Nancy to Tricky Dick...should garner me a few brownie points).

     Pelosi wins in 2008...period. And when 2010 rolls around, and Iraq is "President Hillary's" problem and a Bush impeachment scenario is gone....Pelosi comes back and wins back the 10-15% she may lose in 2008 to defeat the Repubs and Greens and Libertarians in San Fran again by 75-80%.

     So, who'll care what "message" was sent in 2008?

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 11:22am

143. BTW, if you want a REAL example of that....look at Nader.

     Look at his vote in 2000, versus his vote in 2004.

     THAT is what a Sheehan run against Pelosi will do. In 2010, if Ms Sheehan runs again, she'll get maybe 1/3 the vote she gets next year!

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 11:23am

144. She has no reason to "fear" Sheehan and no reason to worry....

     Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 10:36am

     Your buying "Please Don't Run" has clouded your thought process. Very often in life, being embarrassed or even just annoyed, is far worse that some tiny amount of "fear" that barely registers!

     Pelosi need not "fear" Cindy as you say BUT, she'll have PLENTY of reasons to "worry"!

     Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 11:28am

145. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 08/15/2007 @ 10:14am | ignore this person

     I had held off further comment, left some things unsaid. But you just having proved the worst of them, makes what went unsaid worth saying. A half measure would be to consider you either a moonie or a fool, since your are obviously both. You have so self blinded, and sublimed your critical faculties, if you've ever had them, that I doubt if any of what you've said here is in the same universe as an original thought. They not being something associated with synthetic personalities.

     The true Nader policy of the last presidential cycle, stands revealed. You attempt the same cynical, corrupt, simple minded lie, (which after the last six years brings a fragrance of psychosis, so let me add insane) as you did during the Bush vs Kerry election campaigns. I.E. that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. No one in their right mind (which by definition excludes you) believes or doesn't know better now. Hence forth, anytime some cognitively challenged dupe makes to defend the pathological "sleeper," egomaniacal tool of the oligarchy, I'll use your words as confirmation, of the above ascribed, perverse, tenants.

     Cindy should, in my humble opinion go after the youth vote. Theirs is a calculus unaccounted for in the considerations tendered so far. They were the real (and suppressed) reason the democrats won as much as they did.

     "But what difference does it make whether it's a Democrat or a Republican who votes for more war funding, or approves a budget in which military spending climbs past the $600,000,000,000 per annum mark, or sends Israel its lavish annual stipend, or votes (as Hillary Clinton did) for bankruptcy "reform," or finds yet another reason for opposing single-payer healthcare?"

     The difference? A Republican would still be, on balance, far fucking worse, and you and Nader both know, and knew it.

     Posted by V at 08/15/2007 @ 11:33am

146. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 11:28am

     HAPP, unlike some of the "pure progressives" here who also think Dennis Kucinich can become President....I know the OTHER type of "Run, Cindy, Run" folk that will emerge.

     As I said, I would be very surprised if some "527" group isn't started to fund her campaign....and the money comes from REPUBLICANS! To which the cotton candy-heads will say "So? Bring it on! We'll show them!",

     which translates as "Sure we'll be stooges for the GOP and help their long-term strategy because we're a bunch of 21st Century blogo-hippies who are no smarter than the ones from the 1960s when it comes to real politics!"

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 1:21pm

147. Cindy should, in my humble opinion go after the youth vote. Theirs is a calculus unaccounted for in the considerations tendered so far. They were the real (and suppressed) reason the democrats won as much as they did. ----Posted by V 08/15/2007 @ 11:33am

     Yes, because that's what Senator McGovern did...and you saw how well that worked out for him!

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 1:23pm

148. ....and the money comes from REPUBLICANS!...

     Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 1:21pm

     I see you've `adapted' to not just "leftists" for funding her campaign! Hehehe...

     There maybe SOME GOP money but I don't think in an organized way.....too great a risk of `leaks' and backfiring! Even if no leaks, I still don't see many core GOP operatives or heavy hitter$ having the stomach to divert funds to her! No, Cindy's sources of GOP money is going to come from free-thinking & fun-loving Repubs like me! Doing the unusual and enjoying LIFE!

     Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 1:41pm

149. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 1:41pm

     Well, it won't be Mike Duncan handing Ms Sheehan a check....more like some guys from the American Petroleum Institute are called, then they get the "Americans for New Energy Coalition" (one of their front groups) to send the check in ...make it look like just another enviro-group giving to Cindy.

     Then Fox News gets a whisper of "Sheehan campaign posted record funding boost"....the other MSMs follow suit and the ball gets rolling.

     Meanwhile the "real" Cindy supporters think "the people are behind us on this"....oblivious to the truth.

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 3:51pm

150. With national support and a well crafted campaign Sheehan could easily pull this off. With the internet raising cash would be no problem. I'm confident there are plenty of people out there much like me, sick and tired of this sham, and more than willing to donate $10 to $20 a week to the effort. Her campaign has to be nothing more than a referendum on the choices--or rather, no choice--the American voter has when casting a ballot. A novice, an anti-war protestor, a woman that lost her son to a war that both parties endorsed and neither are willing to end, going against one of the most powerful politicians in the country--the buzz created would be immense. "Ms. Sheehan Goes to Washington"!

     And for all those pooh-poohing the idea: So what if Pelosi is flushed? She is ineffectual, and her face, her "Bay area persona" only serves to alienate the more moderate "swing" voter types out there the Dems are so desperate to attract. The Dems would not be losing a seat. And having an outsider oust the Speaker of the House might just put a little fear into these charlatans and provide some sort of push to create an incremental change.

     It will not change the world, but it certainly would not hurt to have Sheehan take Pelosi's seat in the House of Representatives. And it could renew the hope of all the disaffected out there; it could get more of us involved in the process. All efforts must have a beginning. And if nothing else, those that recognize this system as the Three Card Monte game it is could have the pleasure of putting one of the nation's most prominent pols out on the street on her sorry ass.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 4:45pm

151. Put Pelosi's sorry ass out by the curb like the weekend's garbage for all the other pols to see.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 6:09pm

152. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/15/2007 @ 6:09pm

     You know what that would require, Empty? People VOTING..."legitimizng the process"...now...

     you don't want THAT, do you???

     Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 7:19pm

153. Well, it won't be Mike Duncan handing Ms Sheehan a check....more like some guys from the American Petroleum Institute are called, then they get the "Americans for New Energy Coalition" (one of their front groups) to send the check in ...make it look like just another enviro-group giving to Cindy.

     Then Fox News gets a whisper of "Sheehan campaign posted record funding boost"....the other MSMs follow suit and the ball gets rolling.

     Meanwhile the "real" Cindy supporters think "the people are behind us on this"....oblivious to the truth.

     Mask,

     You are way off base on this one.

     Cindy doesn't need corporate funding to run a successful campaign in San Francisco, she needs a grassroots movement of mobilized and energized volunteers to man phone banks and walk the precincts of San Francisco, canvassing on her behalf.

     She already has a natural base of volunteers she can tap into with the anti-war movement, which has much of its roots in the Bay Area. Big money campaigns are for the suburbs and TV watching folk because these campaigns need a lot of money to pay for expensive TV advertising.

     San Francisco is very densely populated, and has no real suburbs within the city limits. The voters there are highly educated and skeptical of what they see on TV when they do watch it, and thus a grassroots campaign is tailor made for San Francisco.

     Besides, other than embarrassing the Democrats, what 'political' millage would Republicans get from knocking off Pelosi with another Democrat? Do you really think Sheenan, who blames Republicans for killing here son in Iraq is going to vote with them, or even accept their money? Or do you really think Sten Hoyer or Chris Van Hollen is going to be any nicer to the Republicans than Nancy if they are elected as the next Speaker?

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/15/2007 @ 7:40pm

154. Cindy must run the Democrats are a disgrace. And the Nation should stop publishing this liberal trash. Shame on Katha Pollitt.

     Edward Chung Ho

     Posted by edwardchungho at 08/15/2007 @ 11:22pm

155. Yes, because that's what Senator McGovern did...and you saw how well that worked out for him!

     Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person

     Everyone who has attempted (all but Happy, which should have been your first clue) to engage you in dialog eventually say the same thing. Paraphrasing; you create a hall of mirrors fiction, totally unrelated to the argument(s) put forth, then debate reflections of your own creation. It must be part of your dysfunction that you that you are blind to what is so transparent to (ostensibly all ... ) others.

     It's been said those to whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Over time I've noticed the early onset of this malady takes the form of an inability to modify ones patently dysfunctional behavior, no matter how many times it is exposed, by being so told. And in your case being ignored for pretty much the lion share of this thread seems to have accelerated it greatly.

     Anyhow;

     The case made was that in this, millennium ... the cognitive dynamics of the last ... election, were such that the youth vote was the decisive factor. A factor that was to all intents and purposes, suppressed. So take a deep breath, stop yourself from insectoid reactionary anecdotes. And speak to the issue at hand.

     Think of it as therapy.

     Posted by V at 08/16/2007 @ 12:49am

156. (all but Happy, which should have been your first clue)

     Posted by V 08/16/2007 @ 12:49am

     ??????Wordy One, care to spare a few more??????

     Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 01:02am

157. Posted by V 08/16/2007 @ 12:49am

     Aside from the flowery rhetoric...did you actually dispute the proposition that "the youth vote" is irrelevant and has been for 35 years?

     Despite claims every few years that "this election cycle, the kids will come out in droves and sweep XYZ progressive into office"....it never happens. Didn't happen with Eugene McCarthy, didn't happen with McGovern, didn't happen in the 80s (the "New 60s"), etc., etc., etc.

     Yet we continue to hear that the 18-25 year old are "just on the verge" of becoming a "powerful voice in our politics"....

     and they never do. Their voting patterns don't rise significantly, they often split along the same ideological lines as their parents and grandparents, and campus activism though up slightly isn't 1/10th that of the Vietnam Era.

     Think of it as reality.

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 08:45am

158. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

     George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"

     You come from a long tradition, Cindy. Thomas Paine, "citizen of the world" was also despised in his own time.

     Posted by Lil at 08/16/2007 @ 08:54am

159. Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 08:45am | ignore this person

     Yes lies, or perhaps data one doesn't have the wherewithal to shape into (current, and suppressed ... I even gave you clues) fact, can be reality ... if they are desperately reflected, endlessly, in the hall of mirrors of a one trick pony mind. One last point before you're dismissed, because a lamer that can't even use Google correctly, is really boring.

     Your last "post" was sufficiently disingenuous to be tantamount to a lie, as, if you are saying that the youth vote wasn't the factor I said it was you're lying. You give anecdotal archaic facts the authority of gospel. Or perhaps it's mere sophistry? Neurotically, pathetically searched and found (or it could be intellectual laziness and ineptitude) material to substantiate that which was tantamount to a lie. When truth is by definition closer.

     Here's what the truth looks like;

     A "Google" of "nonpartisan post-election studies" will show that the critical margin of victory came as a result of a sudden surge in turnout of young voters in the last few weeks of the national campaigns.

     Carville, at the American Democracy Conference in Washington, D.C.. Just after the last election. "The thing that reaches out and slaps you across the face," he said, "is the 18-30 year olds. I think we we won them about 61 to 39. Way, way better than we did in any other age group. If you're a political party, you'd rather have [that age group] because they tend to be around longer.

     The last election saw the largest turnout in young voters in over twenty years; ten million or more. And, again, is the target demographic that Cindy should reach out to.

     Posted by V at 08/16/2007 @ 10:21am

160. V, I tried what you suggested about Googling (after having to edit down your flowery rhetoric that eats up 75% of your posts, leaving the 25% that really SAYS SOMETHING)...

     and found an article citing the "rise in the youth vote" and who took credit for it.

     It was on a LYNDON LAROUCHE website. So congrats to Lyndon for raising the Lynne Cheney issue amongst the college kids and getting them to turn out!

     Meanwhile, read this article, see if you agree with it-

     By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY

     NEW YORK -- Last year's T-shirt: "Voting Is for Old People." This year's T-shirt: "Vote or Die."

     The youth vote, perhaps the most elusive quarry in U.S. politics, is being Rocked, Smacked Down, Rapped and otherwise goosed by everyone from blinged-out rappers to Harvard professors to the League of Women Voters.

     All sorts of people are trying to get kids to vote: former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, rocker Lenny Kravitz, rap impresario Russell Simmons and the World Wrestling Entertainment roster, including a persuasive man known as The Hurricane.

     It's part of what political scientist William Galston calls "a perfect storm" for high youth turnout in November -- a close election with important issues (including war) and contrasting candidates, and an unprecedented peer-to-peer effort to get out the vote.

     Will it be enough? No one who has tried to get young people to the polls is counting their votes before they're cast."

     -----------------------------------------

     Not the kicker....it's from 2004 and is talking about the Bush-Kerry race...here's the rest-

     "Promises, promises," says Kenneth Stroupe, a University of Virginia political scientist. "This is not the first year young people promised to vote."

     His skepticism is rooted in one of the most persistent and disturbing trends in U.S. politics: the steady decline in youth turnout since the 26th Amendment gave 18- to 20-year-olds the vote in 1971.

     But this year is supposed to be different. When John Kerry's 27-year-old daughter, Vanessa, says, "The youth vote is incredibly important to us," she may speak for both Republicans and Democrats. Both party chairmen have appeared on MTV to answer questions, and both presidential candidates have involved their children in the campaign.

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 10:33am

161. You know what that would require, Empty? People VOTING..."legitimizng the process"...now...

     you don't want THAT, do you???

     Posted by MASK

     Voting for something other than corporate sponsored candidate A or candidate B I support. Can you not read?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 11:49am

162. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/16/2007 @ 11:49am

     Oh, my bad....so you're voting "Green Party" (or Nader or whatever) for President in 2008?

     I got the impression you were just "not voting AT ALL".

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:21pm

163. I got the impression you were just "not voting AT ALL".

     Posted by MARY

     That's because you're a presumption dumbass, mary, that is only interested in appearing intelligent and spreading propaganda.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 1:18pm

164. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/16/2007 @ 1:18pm

     So, you're voting "Green" or Nader?

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 2:44pm

165. So, you're voting "Green" or Nader?

     Posted by MASK

     If there is a third party other than some schmuck "Libertarian" I'll vote.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 5:00pm

166. Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 10:33am | ignore this person

     "The renowned psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim once explained, there are some slaves who, then as now, regarded their chains and rags as ornaments to be worn with pretense of pride."

     I maintain that the youth vote was decisive, and was subsequently suppressed. For proper context, and to see who Mask would disparage as the boogeyman here goes, no moonie like hype from me but I do respect the truth;

     "Go back a few decades, to the time when the concerted personal attacks on me by the circles of the Congress for Cultural Freedom began. These were the same circles associated with the American Family Foundation, the Henry "Scoop" Jackson version of what is presently George P. Shultz's Committee on the Present Danger, and the Mont Pelerin Society.

     The scene was Queens College, New York. The occasion was a late 1971, widely publicized debate between challenger Lyndon H. LaRouche and the putative dean of Keynesian liberal professors in the U.S.A., the specially appointed extraordinary professor at that institution, Abba Lerner. Abba Lerner was otherwise notable at that time as a key associate of Professor Sidney Hook.

     The general subject of the debate was my September 1971 challenge to the putative leading economists of that time, in which I had publicly challenged all of them to defend themselves against my charge that the events of August 1971 had exposed the lot of them as virtually "Quackademics." The premise of my charge against that ration of the academic community, was that they had either denied, or evaded the event which I had forecast, a collapse, probably to occur approximately the close of the 1960s, like that caused by President Nixon's mid-August actions, in collapsing the Bretton Woods monetary system.

     Professor Lerner was chosen by the relevant academic circles to take me on.

     In response to Professor Lerner's counter-challenge, my rebuttal was that Professor Lerner's own policies, as typified by his advice to Brazil, was an echo of the policies of the Hjalmar Schacht who authored the economic policies of the Adolf Hitler regime.

     The debate concluded at the point that Lerner almost whimpered his final attempt at rebuttal of my charge of the occasion: "But, if the German Social-Democracy had accepted Schacht's policy, Hitler would not have been necessary"! It was as if to say, that if the Democratic Party would embrace the policies of Felix Rohatyn, a presently threatened fascist tyranny in the U.S.A. would not be necessary."

     This debate was televised and Professor Lerner was forced to reveal that the economic policies, being foisted onto America, and in place then as now ... were from the Third Reich. He has been the persona non grata boogeyman ever since. And has borne the primary brunt of the "liberal media's" disinformation campaign.

     Anyhow;

     The youth voting data is not unsubstantiated. When push comes to shove you flood your intended victims with mis-construed "facts" in a pathetic resort to sophistry. It's not who said it, it is, is what is said true or not true? You posses almost no (as MTSPENCE05 and almost everyone else has said) intellect, and what little you do have you confuse with guile. In a pathological context you can still be fascinating. What, you hope someone will see a name and turn off their cognitive faculties as you have done, so long ago? Name one thing that EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) published about Iraq or physical economics, or Leo Strauss, that was not on the mark, or was not said there first?

     What a propagandist you are, you've made disinformation and distraction your forte. As I said you're dismissed, it makes no sense to engage a borderline misanthrope, full bore nihilist with so little integrity.

     Posted by V at 08/16/2007 @ 5:52pm

167. Posted by V 08/16/2007 @ 5:52pm

     You take yourself so seriously there isn't a whiff of `fun' in reading your BS which incidentally, is laborious to read! Overly highbrow and NOT OF the PEOPLE....better suited to a ?Dead Poet's Society blog? Not something V-like!

     Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 6:17pm

168. The scene was Queens College, New York. The occasion was a late 1971, widely publicized debate between challenger Lyndon H. LaRouche and the putative dean of Keynesian liberal professors in the U.S.A., the specially appointed extraordinary professor at that institution, Abba Lerner. ----Posted by V 08/16/2007 @ 5:52pm

     Fascinating. I never thought I hit upon the EXACT source of your "youth vote" info when I found that LaRouche site. But there's ANOTHER ref to ol' Lynddie....that plus the over-blown rhetoric....

     V....are you a "LaRouche'ite"?

     Here's the test...

     What do you think of the ...British and the Royal Family?

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 8:15pm

169. Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person

     I don't take myself at all, seriously or otherwise, I think it's all that Zen. But I do refute certain ideas and or people to add balance, if not coherence. The above happened actually, to bad it was before you-tube. My only regret was that I didn't put "a presently threatened fascist tyranny in the U.S.A. would not be necessary" in italics, it being prescient, and all.

     "Overly highbrow" ... I don't understand the concept. But I do consider "the man on the street" the best media creation extent. So perhaps there is hope for me yet.

     And what, are you back yet? If I look and see the yen carry trade is still in the tanks you're going to get spanked.

     Posted by V at 08/16/2007 @ 8:18pm

170. BTW, for those who aren't familiar with that 84 year old nutjob....and his 30 minute long "lectures" that appear on your local cable access channel every 3-5 years...

     wik ipedia has a pretty good run down of his idiocies and various conspiracy theories [en.wikipedia.org]

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 8:18pm

171. What do you think of the ...British and the Royal Family?

     Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 8:15pm | ignore this person

     They suck. Any people who would let someone tell them the "45 minute" lie, and not remove them from power by definition, suck.

     And this; Prince Philip, "In His Own Words: We Need To "Cull" The Surplus Population"

     Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.

     In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

     Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.

     I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.

     Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for Creation'' conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.

     It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.

     Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.

     For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] ... that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.

     Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.

     I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the ``cull'' to the size of the surplus population.

     Lecture to the European Council of International Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.

     The great difficulty about ``life'' is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively.... It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.

     Ok Mask what about what he said did you find so above reproach? Perhaps you can tell us what you've found that makes you preemptively take critical thought "off the table?" Go ahead you have my leave kiss his ass and refute if you can ... I know you're at least up to part of the challenge.

     So, as I said, they suck.

     Refute [members.tripod.com] what you can. And when you can't people will understand why I spoke of you in the context of a cautionary tale, a species of human mannerisms, an abstraction of an unreal medium, to be avoided at all costs. If they want to have any relationship beyond "vox populi" truth. To make up their own minds, and not have choices prepackaged for them, willingly. I'm not trying to change anyones mind. Though if you wish to sleep, I wont be the one handing you a pillow.

     Posted by V at 08/16/2007 @ 8:59pm

172. Posted by V 08/16/2007 @ 8:59pm |

     ROFLMAO!!!!!!.....I knew it. A "LaRouche'ite"...hot damn, haven't seen one of you boys around in a LONG time!

     (Better put up my cat and my print shop owner, huh?)

     Ol' Lyndon still out there denying the Holocaust, calling feminists "witches", wanting to quarentine gays, and ...worse of all....saying the Beatles had no talent....all on Channel 3, the community access channel on every 6th Saturday night at 7:30pm?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 9:20pm

173. If I look and see the yen carry trade is still in the tanks you're going to get spanked.

     Posted by V 08/16/2007 @ 8:18pm

     No investments w/Hedge funds or any private equity but do have one Japan-focused fund....Yen's strengthening actually softens the `spanking' I'm taking from the Nikkei! Ha!

     Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 10:34pm

174. Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 10:34pm

     Ask him about the "Breton Woods" plan....it's a Lyndon thing.

     Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 10:36pm

175. Ask him about the "Breton Woods" plan....it's a Lyndon thing.

     Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 10:36pm

     A man has got to know his limits! I know Breton Woods is about exchange rates and blamed for decoupling dollar from gold....but I had no idea of Lyndon's take or relevance concerning it!

     You poli-Pros can go at it....

     V, consider it asked!

     Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 11:22pm

176. Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person

     A "LaRouche'ite" hardly, I wear my own colors. To call you dysfunctional, pathetic, or a even a whore (you come too cheap) would be a waste of elocution. I am neither for nor against anyone, by name alone, and if you can scare someone away for thinking for themselves, they deserve it. At this point it would even be more pathetic if you weren't, getting paid to propagandize, misinform, and distract.

     Freakish ... quote someone in their own words about wishing to come back as a virus to affect genocide and his hysterical knee-jerk response is "ROFLMAO!!!!!!." He wasn't laughing, everything after he was challenged to refute something I knew that he would not, was and is crafted to distract and detract from the fact ... that he could not, to better the end that he could lie to your face with impunity.

     I will just say that you have moved past sophistry to out and out lying. Mask is too corrupt to be sad. When pushed instead of refuting peoples arguments he will lie. Mask is a lying fraud, on a blog yet ... As easy as it is to disprove a lie he makes a stream of them. As such I will refute his lies, then put him on ignore, other than to draw attention to the morally crippled, infantile and pathetic lying fraud that he is.

     "Ol' Lyndon still out there denying the Holocaust," ... A lie, and like I said to do so in regard to this subject is freakish ...

     "Hitler and The Jews

     The popularized myth, still today, is that the central feature of Hitler's fascism was its persecution of the Jews. The fixation on the sheer horror of what happened to the Jews of Germany and eastern Europe, especially during the closing years of the war, has blinded many to the premises from which that specific part of the Nazi holocaust against peoples lawfully developed. This blindness could not persist but for a second holocaust, a holocaust of silence, including that by leading Zionist organizations, against the memory of those leading and other followers of Moses Mendelssohn who had contributed a part far exceeding their relative numbers, to the enrichment of the political, scientific, and artistic culture of Europe as a whole, especially Germany itself. When large blank slabs of concrete are used to obscure the memory of even many of those German and Yiddish Renaissance Jews who made crucial contributions to all European civilization, especially during the period since the collaboration of Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn, the sensible person is stunned by the sheer horror of the behavior of those who insist upon acres of such blank slabs, instead of the real human beings who were an integral part of the great contributions of European civilization.

     Why did Hitler murder those Jews? It is not difficult to find the relevant evidence in the writings of Conservative Revolution forerunners of the Nazis such as Nietzsche, and among the leading Nazis themselves. Why? How could the search for the answer to that awful question be overlooked. Given all of the great blessings which the circles of Moses Mendelssohn brought to Germany, how could any German or Austrian who loved Germany's greatest Classical works of science, art, and political justice, wish to eliminate Jews?"

     Ask him about the "Breton Woods" plan....it's a Lyndon thing.

     Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 10:36pm | ignore this person

     Another lie, and an ignorant lie at that, to wit;

     "Prepared for the Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy ...

     The Bretton Woods system is commonly understood to refer to the international monetary regime that prevailed from the end of World War II until the early 1970s. Taking its name from the site of the 1944 conference that created the *International Monetary Fund (IMF) and *World Bank, the Bretton Woods system was history's first example of a fully negotiated monetary order intended to govern currency relations among sovereign states. In principle, the regime was designed to combine binding legal obligations with multilateral decision-making conducted through an international organization, the IMF, endowed with limited supranational authority. In practice the initial scheme, as well as its subsequent development and ultimate demise, were directly dependent on the preferences and policies of its most powerful member, the United States."

     Now Larouche on same;

     "First, we must restore the characteristics of the old Bretton Woods system of the immediate post-war decades. That means, a system of fixed-exchange rates, capital controls, currency controls, and financial controls, and global growth fostered by the same methods employed through institutions such as Germany's Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, to promote large-scale development of basic economic infrastructure, and to use the market potential generated by that infrastructural development, as the base for creating a still-larger rate of growth in development of agriculture and industry.

     Second, we must do as President Roosevelt had intended: all sovereign nations must be, on principle, full partners in the new international monetary system. This is the fundamental difference between the old Bretton Woods system, and what must happen now. We cannot have a system which is going to work, which does not treat the majority of the human race as full partners in the system. Otherwise, it won't work."

     As I said I wear my own colors, and as a free thinker, am sufficient to my own causes. Mask is a lying fraud. And hereinafter unless he spouts new lies in need further refutation, ignored.

     Posted by V at 08/16/2007 @ 11:38pm

177. I will vote for Cindy Sheehan over Nancy Pelosi any day of the week.

     Posted by maddox at 08/16/2007 @ 11:56pm

178. Posted by V 08/16/2007 @ 11:38pm

     Notice that? He denies being a LaRoucher...then spend FIVE paragraphs defending Lyndon and his views on the Holocaust and "Bretton Woods" (after also going after the British Royal Family...another Lyndon boogeyman).

     Watch and see if "V" shows up on PETER ROTHBERG's global warming thread (something LaRouche denies)...or the next feminist thread from Katha Pollitt (LaRouche is firmly anti-feminism).

     Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 12:45pm

179. Posted by MASK 08/17/2007 @ 12:45pm

     Oh and hide your cats.....ask Mike Royko about that!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 12:45pm

180. Katha poses a number of significant points, which I see somewhat differently. I agree that based on what we now know, successful impeachment of Bush and/or Chaney is unlikely (Gonzales may be a different case). But I disagree over what follows from that. It is unlikely that Congress--given the Senate rules and closeness of the partisan split there, as well as Bush's veto--will accomplish much in the way of an affirmative legislative agenda. (How much of Pelosi's vaunted first 100 hours shtick will actually find its way into law?). To the extent this Congress can make a contribution, it will come through checks and balances on the prospective Bush agenda (is there one?), and re-establishment of oversight on executive power. That process has begun, and has made some impact. However, the executive branch is doing all it can to frustrate the oversight process and run out the clock. It is yet to be determined how aggressive Congress will be in pursuing its subpoenas and other demands for documents and testimony, and asserting its contempt power. Litigation in the courts will be a slow process at best, and will require complex balancing judgments that may be difficult to predict. In contrast, by launching impeachment inquiries, Congress maximizes its core Constitutional interest in and ability to compel production of documents and witnesses, to investigate the manifest abuses of power in this Administration, and to dramatize, for press and public, this Administration's record of shame.

     What higher purpose, or set of accomplishments, is realistically available to this Congress? What else should it be doing in preference to this? Will an impeachment inquiry set back those efforts, or more likely improve their prospects? If the objective is to end the war, or at least force Bush to move more quickly in that direction, is there a better way than this?

     That is my most important difference with Katha's analysis. On Cindy Sheehan, I'm inclined to agree with Katha that she is more impressive as an activist/public symbol than as a prospective legislator or policymaker (and that it is worth underlining this distinction), and is more likely to leave the electoral arena diminished than enhanced (if, indeed, her time in the spotlight has not already passed). While I am not a special fan of how Nancy Pelosi has conducted her speakership thus far, it seems to me that a nasty dustup primary contest is unlikely to be terribly productive in either electoral or symbolic terms.

     I would like to see the Dems consolidate their position as a governing party before commencing their traditional inclination to eat their own.

     Posted by The Wise Bard at 08/17/2007 @ 3:16pm

181. Ms. Pollitt, I agree with you on a lot of things and love reading your columns and essays, but I disagree on two points:

     1. I find it discouraging that you completely rule out impeachment. Maybe it's not a strategic decisions for progressives to be pushing, but that's quite different from it being useless or impossible. I'm from the school of thought that believes in the power of organizing, and this seems like one potential strategy for raising the profile of impeachment as a viable option (again, the potential effectiveness can be debated separately). I also think that, as John Nichols argues [thenation.com], the symbolism of impeachment is not merely limited to this presidency, but to the future of the executive branch and alleged system of checks and balances.

     2. Third-party or independent candidates can influence electoral politics -- even if they don't have a clear shot at winning -- by changing the terms of debates. In a progressive district like SF (I live in the East Bay), this can not only rally local support, but given Pelosi's prominence as Speaker, it can also shift national debate. Think of Shirley Chisholm [en.wikipedia.org], who knew she wouldn't win a Presidential nomination, but because she wanted "to give a voice to the people the major candidates were ignoring." This past year, activist and artist Krissy Keefer ran against Pelosi on the Green Party ticket and garnered 7.x% of the vote. Granted, it's small, but she didn't have the profile of Sheehan. Additionally, her posters and materials were all over the city, advocating for an end to the war and a call for impeachment. How often does that get put on a congressional race poster?

     I haven't been able to read all of these comments, but I am sympathetic to the concerns questioning what Sheehan's politics are beyond impeachment and the war. That said, I think her candidacy is certainly valid, and perhaps an important symbol regardless of who could/would/does win, or whether impeachment is relevant in 2008.

     Posted by hkornst1 at 08/17/2007 @ 3:25pm

182. I agree with Katha Pollitt.

     I believe that the people who disagree with her are not missing a distinctive point; Ms. Pollitt is not telling Cindy Sheehan not to run, she's advising her not to. There is a world of difference there, one is odious, while the other is simply expressing her opinion.

     Whatever your political persuasion, I believe that many, if not all, of her nay-sayers on this issue would have done the same thing, in retrospect, regarding two relatively recent Presidential campaigns. Democrats wish that someone had talked some sense into Ralph Nader before the 2000 election, while I'm sure that Republicans wish that Ross Perot hadn't run in 1992.

     While I appreciate the accomplishments that Cindy Sheehan has acheived, I'm not at all convinced that she has much political knowledge beyond her expertise: the anti-war movement. Important as that issue is, Shrub has ruined many other aspects of this country, and we need people who understand more than one issue to represent us.

     Posted by don handy at 08/17/2007 @ 3:53pm

183. I think Ms. Pollitt is dead wrong.

     Speaker Pelosi represents one of the most left-leaning districts in the nation. She continually gets pressure from her constituents not only to impeach, but to cut the pentagon's funding. All this time her support has not been as full-throated as it could be, as he constituents do want more out of her, but Pelosi is determined to lead the entire congress, not just her base (you listening, hastert?).

     Pelosi also was a great asset to the rest of the democratic candidates for the House, speaking on behalf of candidates all over the nation. Sheehan already has name recognition, and while she may not win, she will force Pelosi to spend her time and her resources campainging in her own district, and that will be difficult against a symbol such as Sheehan, which means she won't be able to do as much for other democratic candidates, forcing her and the Democrats to actually consider the costs of ignoring their base, a base that is squarely in line with public opinion as a whole. 50% of American favor impeachment of VP Cheney, and 41% President Bush, numbers that are likely to go up if the impeachment hearings continue, and Bush continues stonewalling.

     But there is a broader point here. The Democratic party MUST respond to it's core supporters, rather than turn on their gay and lesbian supporters in search of that elusive homophobic swing voter. There must be consequences for selling out party ideals, and the constitutionally mandated remedy for a presidency gone wild.

     Sheehan would probably not win, I agree. But how long can the Democratic party continue to treat it's base like lepers and expect to win elections? Can they really afford another Ralph Nader?

     (Before I get criticized for invoking the ban who swung the election to Bush, let me preemptively defend myself by saying that had Nader not been a factor, Katherine Harris would have happily suppressed additional votes in Florida)

     Democrats owe it to Sheehan to put impeachment "on the table." They owe it to their grassroots, their netroots. They owe it to all the dead troops and iraqis, to the survivors and victims of Hurricane Katrina. The president must be held accountable for his actions, or else our constitution has no meaning.

     Posted by Dameon at 08/17/2007 @ 4:25pm

184. The attitude that it's not worth impeaching because today, before any evidence is heard, there are not the votes belittles the Constitutional role of Congress to demand truth, integrity and competence from the administration. You also discount the role that the public can play when the information about the malfeasance is more broadly distributed, as would be the case in an impeachment hearing. By ignoring Bush and Cheney's criminal acts, Congress sets a precedent that undermines our democracy.

     Posted by vhammon at 08/17/2007 @ 4:42pm

185. In 1974 the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. warned us of the result if then-President Nixon were not impeached. Schlesinger said, and I am quoting here:

     "If members of Congress really want to restore the historic system of accountability, the means are at hand, [the means being impeachment]. If they decide not to hold Mr. Nixon and his successors accountable except once every four years, they will license the imperial Presidency . . .. Impeachment may have grievous consequences. Refusal to impeach will have consequences even more grievous and far more enduring."

     Indeed. We all know that when President Nixon resigned the license for the imperial presidency remained intact. Cheney, who got his start during the Nixon era, is its embodiment today. How else, besides impeachment, can our citizens make it clear that the imperial presidency is unacceptable?

     We need to have a wider dialogue that includes why the concept Imperial Presidency must be rejected. Cindy Sheehan offers us the opportunity to do just that.

     Schlesinger rejected the accountability by election every four years as the solution and we should too. The evidence is in. IMPEACH! GO CINDY!

     Posted by caoldgirl at 08/17/2007 @ 4:51pm

186. First I saw your headline today "The Worst House Speaker in American History" and I thought for sure you were talking about Nancy. Go Cindy we need a a speaker who recognizes the enormous wrongs that the Bush administration has done and is willing on principle to set Politics aside and go after them. What a shame, what a shame. Would'nt be nice to have Ron Paul as President, what a breath of fresh air compared to the Dems and repubs. The Democrats by not pushing for the will of the American people risk putting this Country into another Civil war. IS that what it will take to end this bullshit?

     Posted by honky at 08/17/2007 @ 6:11pm

187. Impeachment hearings are crucial for any possibly future for this country as a constitutional democracy. Not to impeach means that the Democratic Party will be held responsible, and rightly so, for losing the Constitution! Oaths of Office and the Constitution require impeachment hearings. It's not about counting votes, or the outcome, or the personalities and policies, or partisan strategies, it IS about democracy, rule of law, Habeus Corpus, the Bill of Rights, and whether or not we have a Constitution. If all the ugly precedents of this administration stand as acceptable, unimpeachable, the next President, Democrat or Republican, can unify the Executive still further and fascism will be entrenched. End of USA.

     Posted by cmhkeil at 08/17/2007 @ 6:45pm

188. Question: "First of all, should impeachment really be a litmus test? Answer: YES! What is at stake is our Constitution and what it means to take an oath to protect it. I doubt whether you and others, like most of our Representatives and Senators, have ever read the Constitution much less studied it. Further you seem to assume that you have the ability to foretell the future when you state "…the numbers in Congress and Senate aren't there , and …". Unless you have Bush-like qualities and are able to talk with the Almighty, you do not know whether the numbers are there are not. The House of Representatives will decide if there are grounds upon which Bush could and should be impeached. Their failure to make such a finding is in effect an affirmation of what he has done and is doing. If they act in accordance with the sacred oaths they took to protect the Constitution, they will find that such grounds exist and the articles of impeachment will be forwarded to the Senate. The Senate will determine whether the facts are true and announce their judgment. No one, not even you, can predict what the vote would be. There are too many things that can happen between now and then, but one thing we would determine for sure - which of our Congressmen and Senators are observing their respective oaths to protect the Constitution.

     PS I agree that Sheehan should not run and that what she is doing is counter productive. However I think that Pelosi is "doing a hell of a job" when it comes to fulfilling her oath to protect the Constitution. If she does not believe in the Constitution she should not have sworn, so help her God, to protect it. It is our Constitution. If we don't use it we are going to lose it.

     Posted by outrider4 at 08/17/2007 @ 8:20pm

189. I think democratically we should encourage anyone to run for office. So what if Cindy loses a race against Nancy. What if Cindy got 40% of the vote; what if she pulled some high rollers who supported Nancy in the past - would not send a message to Nancy and Democrats across this nation for failing to deliver on their promises to end the war, cut funding. Cockburn in this week's Nation has it right - the Demos have failed us. I see Cindy's race as a terrific way to protest and I bet when she enters she will be inundated with dollars from all us betrayed by Demos, except the stellar few like Kucinich, Feingold, McDermott and about 60 others in the House and 20 in the Senate. Bill Nerin

     Posted by bnerin at 08/17/2007 @ 8:36pm

190. It's not just about running to win; sometimes it's about running to make the point and get the truth, the information out to the larger public. As a democracy, we should support that minority voices are heard, whether we agree or they prevail. As a democracy, we should demand our representatives DO THE RIGHT THING. Right now, all they care about is winning the next election. We thought a "win" last November would send the message; it clearly didn't. A good showing by a few mavericks from the left should shake things up and let our "leadership" (and I use the term lightly) know that we're out here, we're paying attention, and we vote. That's not naive; it's what our founding fathers intended. The more we push the point, the better chance we have of getting the point across.

     Posted by bluedotrural at 08/17/2007 @ 8:39pm

191. like Kucinich, Feingold, McDermott and about 60 others in the House and 20 in the Senate. Bill Nerin

     Posted by BNERIN 08/17/2007 @ 8:36pm

     BNERIN, you do realize that Russ Feingold, despite his more recent move for censure....came out AGAINST impeachment on Daily Kos just three weeks ago?

     Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 10:45pm

192. Faxed last month to: Nancy Pelosi - Speaker of the House, other members of Congress, and newspapers:

     Ordinary citizens elect representatives to decide on matters affecting the common good, matters beyond what ordinary citizens can effect. When a President criminally violates the common good consistently so that honorable people can no longer disagree that he is committing impeachable offenses, our elected representatives who oppose holding him accountable for his continuing crimes, become his accomplices.

     Your complicity in the unprecedented magnitude of massacres, torture, genocides (genetic damage to millions by DU weapons) inflicted by this administration makes you prosecutable in international courts of justice.

     The Nuremberg trials would not have occurred had the Nazis prevailed. Nor would you be tried if this nation prevails, outcomes that would condemn all humanity to the terrifying rule of unrestrained power.

     Opposing impeachment "because you don't have the votes, but do have the opportunity now to legislate for our long neglected welfare," is realistically and morally flawed. You don't have the votes to override this president's veto, which he is certain to invoke unless it is neutralized by the greater corporate benefits the congressional majority can be counted on to support. Meanwhile, EVERY MOMENT this administration remains in office, the massacres, genocide and tortures continue, oceans of blood, bereavement, homeless, sickness, profiting the war industries and members of Congress who support them.

     Were televised impeachment proceedings to begin, informing the public of this administration's crimes, including the shredding of our Constitution, who in congress would vote against it?

     This appointed, fraudulently elected president represents completely the military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about, which now corrupts and controls this government. As Speaker, you have a precious, rare moment to turn this country around. The whole executive branch - all its appointments - which are fruits of the poisoned tree - must be removed. Our country may not have another chance. Waiting for the next election, if there is one, intensifies the present global catastrophe without changing the corruption that produced it.

     Hoping you have the vision to transcend your privileged (and precarious) position to vote for the unprivileged,

     Louis Korn, PO Box 851, Naalehu HI 96772; 808:929-9938; loukorn@hawaiiantel.net __________________________________________________________________

     Countering the assertion that impeachment would be a failed gesture, weakening the Democrats, consider:

     True, there aren't nearly enough votes to impeach now. But if impeachment hearings were held, they would be nationally televised. Once numerous documented, authenticated grave crimes were revealed to the viewing public, what Congress person would Dare oppose impeachment?!

     The U.S. has more doomsday weapons -nuclear, chemical, biological - than all other nations combined, convincing us we are invincible, a hubris that some desperate, ideological group with little to lose, acquiring one of many that have "disappeared," is sure to use, destroying not merely our hubris but much DNA, predictably precipitating many extinctions, including ours. Widely publicizing this before it happens might change our policies (that create their desperation) to prevent it. Nuremberg held accountable those in a position to stop crimes but didn't. These facts and their logical conclusion properly belong to these hearings.

     Posted by spot at 08/18/2007 @ 12:03am

193. No doubt about it, Cindy Sheehan is a long shot. After all, Nancy Pelosi wins elections by 80%. She's the first woman House speaker. She's got impressive credentials, and she is a substantive liberal. Nevertheless, if I lived in her district, I would vote for Cindy Sheehan. Here's why. Iraq is all that matters now. Impeaching the men whose lies led us into this catastrophe is the only way to force this war to a conclusion or, at least, put its architects under a cloud of paralyzing scrutiny and suspicion that will prevent them from doing more harm like bombing Iran. As a Democrat who worked long and hard for Gore and Kerry, I see no one, except, perhaps, Dennis Kucinich, who speaks truth to power on every subject. And since he has no chance, Cindy Sheehan represents my last hope of telling the Democratic Party for which I have worked all my life that they can no longer count on my support just because they offer the lesser of two evils. If Cindy Sheehan can force Pelosi into the fight of her life, then every Democrat will have to take the Left seriously in a way no one else in American life can presently do. If she were to quit, as you suggest, we would be deprived of the chance to see an underdog score a victory that would give heart to peace activists all over the world. That's symbolism we could all use. Run, Cindy, run.

     Posted by Dafed at 08/18/2007 @ 12:30am