Cindy Sheehan: "Challenge the Status Quo"

Fresh from being arrested on Capitol Hill, along with 45 other activists demanding that Congress get about the business of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, Cindy Sheehan has determined that she can no longer count on others to stop the war in Iraq or hold a lawless administration to account.

So she has announced that she will, indeed, challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bid for reelection next year.

It is a bold gesture, rooted in the deep frustration of the nation's most prominent anti-war activist with Pelosi's hyper-cautious approach to her duties as both the leader of the congressional opposition to an unpopular president and as a sworn defender of the Constitution.

This is the context in which Sheehan proposes to challenge Pelosi. "At the end of this day, Speaker Pelosi has not supported impeachment and has not upheld her oath of office to 'protect and defend' the Constitution," says the challenger.

Sheehan's bid, presumably on an independent line, will be uphill all the way. Pelosi has all the advantages of incumbency -- and more. Closely tied for decades to the Democratic political establishment of San Francisco, Pelosi and her campaign team know just about everything there is to know about winning elections there. And, as the Speaker of the House, she has the ability to deliver both on the practical and egotistical needs of the city by the bay. Additionally, she has the ability to raise and spend more money than any opponent.

With all of this said, however, Sheehan has standing.

It is not just that she enjoys her own prominence, and a measure of sympathy and respect, as the mother of slain soldier Casey Sheehan who turned her personal grief into a powerful call for accountability from President Bush and those who were responsible for the illegal and immoral war that claimed Casey's life.

What makes Sheehan a potentially credible challenger is the fact that, by any reasonable measure, she is more in touch with the true passions of San Francisco's voters than Pelosi. Pelosi is a war critic, but she has never gone to the mat on the issue. San Franciscans, on the other hand, have voted overwhelmingly for immediate withdrawal. Similarly, Pelosi says that impeachment is "off the table," despite the fact that San Franciscans voted by a 3-2 margin last fall in favor of holding the president and vice president to account.

For Sheehan, it is Pelosi's determination to protect Bush and Cheney from demands for accountability that tipped the balance in favor of making the race against the Speaker.

And it is Sheehan's faith that Bush and Cheney must be held to account -- not just to constrain them but to constrain the excesses of future presidents and vice presidents -- that will define her challenge to Pelosi. There is no question that the war in Iraq is an issue, but the deeper concern is with the political compromises that made possible that war and that have allowed for its continuation.

"If anybody would dare think that I am not serious, I would hope that they would look back at the last three years of my life and everything that I have sacrificed to restore our nation to one that obeys the rule of law and can be looked up to with respect once again in the international community and not as the hated laughingstock on the block," says Sheehan. "I am committed to challenging a two party system that has kept us in a state of constant warfare for the last 60 years and has become more and more beholden to special interests and has forgotten the faces of the people whom it represents."

Sheehan continues, "I am committed to using our strength as a country to wage peace and to elevate the status of every citizen in our country by converting the enduring war economy to a prosperous one with lasting peace."

If that sounds like a campaign speech, it is. And as someone who has appeared on dozens of platforms with Sheehan over the past few years, I can confirm that she is able to deliver a stemwinder in the best old populist sense.

Good speeches do not always translate to electoral success, however, as the Rev. Jesse Jackson,

Nothing about challenging Nancy Pelosi will be easy. Victory is unlikely. But, as George Bush will confirm, Cindy Sheehan has shaken the political establishment before. And she is determined to do so again -- not just as one "Peace Mom" running for Congress but as part of a political upheaval that she dares to dream might involve a lot more than a spirited contest in San Francisco.

"Someone needs to step up to the plate to do this and I challenge other Americans to do the same," says Sheehan. "Challenge the status quo, because the status quo is no good. We need to become plugged into our government once again as active participants not just passive voters."

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

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (14)

1. Hurray for Sheenan!!

   She should have as her campaing theme, "Nancy was listening to AIPAC when she should have been listening to the voters of San Francisco!"

   I love it - let the fun begin!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 3:58pm

2. Mr Nichols choice of topic concerning Ms Sheehan's trip to Washington is interesting.

   Mostly a light-hearted fantasy that she has ANY shot at even disturbing Nancy Pelosi's re-election bid in 16 months. He ladles on the caveats and "Sure, it's unlikely but..."s, to provide himself cover, but you know, he knows, and Pelosi knows it's no "threat".

   But the interesting part is what he DOESN'T mention...that being Cindy's meeting with John Conyers in which he said, of impeachment, "Elections are our ONLY recourse". Thus throwing out his previous promise (to a progressive group meeting) that "if I get 3 more co-sponsors, I'll push through an impeachment bill".

   So, did Conyers count the votes and determine he couldn't get "the three" and told Sheehan that "elections are NOW our only recourse"?.....or was he just "keeping hope alive" for a bit amongst the Impeachment Crowd, but when push-came-to-shove with Cindy yesterday morning....he had to tell her the Truth (which he knew all along)?

   Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 4:15pm

3. Mette-If Pelosi is controlled by AIPAC then why don't they want her to impeach Bush/Cheney and become president?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 4:16pm

4. I dont think even Cindy Sheehan can attack the Bush regime with enough vigor to satisfy intelligent Americans. Bush has earned the justified hatred of the world, his supporters are not innocent, only by locking up these criminals who call themselves Conservative Republicans, send them to the Hague, put them behind bars for the rest of their lives for what they have done. Slaughtering Americans for no good reason whatsoever, based on lies. Send Bush and cronies to the Hague to be tried as war criminals, convicted, and sentenced to hard labor for the rest of their lives, and may all Bush supporters understand what they have done and live out their lives in shame.

   Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 4:24pm

5. Mette-If Pelosi is controlled by AIPAC then why don't they want her to impeach Bush/Cheney and become president?

   Because they told the same lies to Bush and one of their operatives was probably the 'mysterious' unnamed person who started the Niger forgeries that were passed to the Italians and the British as 'evidence' that Iraq and Iran were trying to buy uranium from Niger.

   This will all come out in an impeachment trial, an AIPAC stands just as much as Bush and Chendy to lose from such exposure.

   But don't take my word for it, ask Rahm Emmanuel why he is telling his AIPAC supporters in Congress to not support impeachment of Cheney?

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 4:24pm

6. As I watch in relative helplessness while virtually nothing important gets properly addressed let alone done in DC, I am intrigued by the possibility of a long shot candidacy by Ms. Sheehan to topple a top dog Democrat.

   This has the potential to be a much bigger and better version of Lamont vs. Lieberman, with grass roots support and vast quantities of small denomination contributions pouring in from every corner of the country.

   A potential reason for hope.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/24/2007 @ 4:29pm

7. Cindy Sheehan as Speaker of the House ??? Ha,

   Ha, Ha HEHEHEH

   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/24/2007 @ 4:34pm

8. Mette-So,Pelosi is willing to give up the chance of becoming president because of the fear that a mysterious unknown person might be exposed as being an AIPAC agent.Who,outside of a psychiatric facility,is supposed to believe that one?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 4:34pm

9. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/24/2007 @ 4:34pm

   If Sheehan were to defeat Pelosi, she doesn't become the Speaker of the House, dumb ass.

   Back to your cage now.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/24/2007 @ 4:42pm

10. I have my doubts that Cindy Sheehan can satisfy those back-biters of the left - her constituency - nobody can satisfy them. Might as well try and be satisfied with Ron Paul. I don't support what Cindy Sheehan is talking about. When she was upset with rude people on message boards, she announced her retirement, she said she couldn't put up with rude people on message boards anymore.

    Cindy Sheehan has said that: she was a Republican and voted for Bush. What is your excuse??? WHY??? Did you think it was funny? It wasnt funny after your son was killed was it. You voted for Bush, that means you voted for the war. Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does. Liberals tried to warn you about Bush, about PNAC, we told you he was hell bent to invade Iraq. Yes we did. You voted for the damn war. You voted for Bush. You voted for Republicans. You were a Republican. You identified as a Republican. Face it. Face the facts. Al Gore was against the war from the very beginning, he tried to warn us. Some of us wouldnt listen. Now you expect Democrats to clean up for what you voted for. Cindy Sheehan you got to face these facts. Your son would be alive if not for the man you voted for, the party you identified with, the ideology of the party you identified with. Your son would be alive. George Bush killed your son, and you voted for him. Face facts.

    Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 4:49pm

11. Cindy Sheehan has said that: she was a Republican and voted for Bush.

    Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 4:49pm

12. She's going to satisfy you? Right.

    Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 4:50pm

13. So,Pelosi is willing to give up the chance of becoming president because of the fear that a mysterious unknown person might be exposed as being an AIPAC agent.Who,outside of a psychiatric facility,is supposed to believe that one?

    You don't get it. Pelosi has no choice because she doesn't have the votes!

    She doesn't have the votes because the person doling out the cash to Democrats in Congress is Rahm Emmanuel, who IS AIPAC in Congress.

    Again, ask Rahm Emmanuel why he is telling the members of Congress that have pledged unconditional support of AIPAC in exchange for campaign contributions to not support impeachment of Cheney? He is the obstacle, not I, so you are asking the wrong guy about risks of AIPAC exposure.

    If I were Rahm, and I knew AIPAC operatives were behind the phony intelligence that would be featured in an impeachment trial, I would tell my folks to back off. But you really should be asking him.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 4:51pm

14. Mette-If the Democrats had anything concrete on Bush/Cheney then they would impeach,but they have nothing concrete.Don't tell Cheney that Emmanuel is really in charge.Cheney thinks he's really in charge.Get into reality.All you have is wild speculation that is based on nothing,but paranoia and your obvious dislike of the Jewish people.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 5:06pm