Ms. Sheehan should take a well-deserved rest... This does NOT mean that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership shouldn't be made to reopen the discussion of impeachment. We need a national SERIOUS dialogue about how to defend ourselves not just from the unconstitutional and unconscionable actions of this administration, but from imperial presidencies in the future... And, that is what impeachment is all about. But,Cindy Sheehan is not the one to lead this. We need critical mass and creditable leadership... Rocky Anderson, where are you?

Posted by mfield at 08/16/2007

Mfield,

The question is specifically, "Should Cindy Sheehan be challenging Nancy Pelosi in the '08 race?".

The answer should be clear to everyone, "Absolutely".

Regardless of one's personal opinion of Ms. Sheehan, the real issue that needs to be confronted by all Americans is the case of a government that's gone unhitched from the train of the American body politic and indeed, largely unhitched from reality.

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue per se, but an issue of corruption of the federal government on multiple levels.

Ms. Sheehan has as much a right to run for office as any American, and if her candidacy can generate broad popular support it could serve as one of the great chapters in the richly storied history of this nation --even if she loses in the end.

We should all cheer her on!

Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/16/2007

True to all of the above. Cindy needs a rest. I personally met her in Washington... I don't think she'll be a contender for Pelo$i. unfortunately we do not have anyone who stands up like Cindy Sheehan did/does. We need a big name that we're all willing to back up. Our "elected" "representative" are worth peanuts as far as representing our interest. We are in a state of siege by a political junta. Meanwhile Corporate Hillary and Mr. wannabe Diplomat Obama are raking in the dough. kucininch or Green!

Posted by fgr1111 at 08/16/2007

Ms. Sheehan has been the only audible, consistent, effective critical voice against the Bush administration's dismantling of participatory representative democratic principles. Ms. Pelosi represents the traditional negotiated, nuanced collegial, balanced philosophy which earned her - through seniority and compromise - her 'electability' as Speaker.

In that role, Pelosi has demonstrated she is unable or unwilling to lead a Democrat attack against the imperialist neocon agenda. Instead she presents herself as a negotiator when there is no one with whom to negotiate. Carefully polled political positions do NOT represent leaderhip, they represent adjustment to a perception of the mob's projected feelings.

The propogandists purveying fear from the White House simply cow Congress and the American people into accepting government by outsourced black ops. With the crusader's religeous zeal, the administration gives lip service, progammatic misinformation and ironic names to policies and actions which defy the basic principles of honor and morality which Americans seek.

It is not clear why Ms. Sheehan has been able to attract such effective media attention since her son was killed in the Middle East. For the most part, her coverage has been almost uniquely full and complete. This has allowed people who DO watch and listen to her to empathize with her passion and the articulate nature of her expression and view.

If the Congressional District which Ms. Pelosi represents is more attuned to the Democrat philosophy of Cindy Sheehan, they deserve to have the opportunity to vote accordingly. If Ms. Sheehan wishes to nudge Ms. Pelosi into leadership of those principles - rather than careful political balancing on a national platform - she certainly has that right.

I, for one, wish ALL our elected officials ran for office based on openly admitted and defended positions, beliefs and intent. Obviously such a view is naive and idealistic - but so is the United States.

At present only MONEY determines which lies, misinformation, distortion and division will succeed in outpromoting ITS candidates against opponents. Attack ads, focus group designed fluff and major media conflict reporting are the 'entertainment' vehicles which keep us ignorant of the true issues and facts of our existence.

Cindy Sheehan is a breath of fresh air in this rotting garbage dump of the political landscape. Her determination and clarity deserve our consideration.

Posted by brucegruber at 08/17/2007

Sheehan represents a challenge to Pelosi. Let Pelosi respond to that challenge, if only by meeting with Cindy, articulating her reasons for letting Bush off the hook, and convincing Sheehan and a few million Democrats that Pelosi's way will return our nation to sanity.

Posted by marshphill@ at 08/17/2007

I am sick & tired of people that try & divide the Dem's >> Let Pelosi do her job & if you do not like her when her term in Congress is up , then will be the time to replace her as speaker.. In the meantime SUPPORT HER IN THESE TERRIBLE TIMES...

Duffy1 8/17/07

Posted by duffy1 at 08/17/2007

Cindy Sheehan appears to be emotionally drained. The rage that sparked her campaign against the war is taking its toll on her. It is essential that she seek emotional counsel, personally and professionally. Those that are closest to her and not see this are not doing her any favors.

Cindy is most effective by renewing her campaign against the war. Her attempt to remove Pelois would be a calamity for her and the country. Now is the time to stay united and remove the Neo Conservative ideologues from the White House. Our Country, Constitution and Bill of Rights are in peril.

I would hope Cindy returns to the anti-war battlefield. This time she will be wiser, tougher and more committed. She needs to find a media Czar who will blitz and dazzle America with our anti-war opposition.

What better can Cindy do than to shorten the war, save American lives by applying pressure to the political war machine?

Posted by USMC_NamVet at 08/19/2007

I believe Pelosi was the wrong person to be minority leader but as house speaker and she stops John Conyors for starting impeachment proceedings against Bush as well as Cheney & Gonzollas something has to wrong with her way of protecting the American people for this crooked white house.

Posted by ralph300 at 08/19/2007

How ironic it is that in the self-declared 'greatest democracy' people are advocating against the candidacy of a grassroot like Sheehan. The saddest part is that supposedly progressive people, such as Nation contributors, don't even see this contradiction. Without people like Sheehan, the most democratic thing one can do is avoid voting. Let's be frank, we all know that the Democrats are no real alternatives to the Republicans. Apart from second-rate issues, such as abortion, they represent the same corporate and imperialistic interests as the bush people. This is a fake democracy, a two-party system, which is just one bit better than the one-party system we used to have in the Eastern block. However, even this fake democracy needs the veil of legitimacy. You can take this away by not voting. If enough people stayed away from the self-humiliating ritual of voting for lesser evils every 4 years, that would open up some 'creative chaos' here on the home front enabling perhaps progressive change. Until then, Run, Cindy, Run!

Posted by hfakos at 08/20/2007

How ironic it is that in the self-declared 'greatest democracy' people are advocating against the candidacy of a grassroot like Sheehan. The saddest part is that supposedly progressive people, such as Nation contributors, don't even see this contradiction. Without people like Sheehan, the most democratic thing one can do is avoid voting. Let's be frank, we all know that the Democrats are no real alternatives to the Republicans. Apart from second-rate issues, such as abortion, they represent the same corporate and imperialistic interests as the bush people. This is a fake democracy, a two-party system, which is just one bit better than the one-party system we used to have in the Eastern block. However, even this fake democracy needs the veil of legitimacy. You can take this away by not voting. If enough people stayed away from the self-humiliating ritual of voting for lesser evils every 4 years, that would open up some 'creative chaos' here on the home front enabling perhaps progressive change. Until then, Run, Cindy, Run!

Posted by hfakos at 08/20/2007

I frankly think Ms. Sheehan would simply make a better representative of the people than the political animal, Ms. Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi's camera manners are execrable, smiling when she should be frowning and looking bitchy when she should be looking confident. We need a professional in the Speaker's job, and we need a real People's Advocate for her district.

Posted by barnesgene at 08/21/2007

This isn't about "democracy" or who has the "right" to run - of course Sheehan has that right and it is consistent with democracy. What I find - consistently - the most irrelevant about Sheehan, the Greens and 3rd partiests in general, is their eagerness to challenge existing liberal/left/progressive Dems (use you favorite term) and their almost total inabilty to undertake the hard work of mounting a credible challenge to Blue Dog (Bush Dog or whatever) Dems, not to speak of GOPers - come on, if you're really right about where Americans are politically, lets see some hard work and campaigns in AL, GA, SC, MS,WY, ID etc. This statement is based on a hell of a lot of experience on my and my daughter's part going door to door in campaigns and organizing GOTV efforts. In sum, what characterizes most 3rd partiests/purists/greens is: (1) their politics are parasitic - they have not worked to create a progressive, etc (again use your favorite word) constituency but simply try to free ride off one that others created; and (2) their assumptions about the political distribution of US voters, or more accurately voters in the district they contest electorally, is based on wish fulfillment rather than analysis: that there is a pent up`majority of voters to the left of tbe liberal/progressive, etc they are challenging who will rally to the cause when the "true" progressive, etc appears on the ballot.

The fact remains that the most important person evere elected by 3rd parties was Geo Bush in 2000.

As CLR James wrote many years ago, time to face reality.Time to

Posted by strobel at 08/21/2007

Instead of "Absolutely. Someone needs to hold Pelosi accountable for taking impeachment off the table", why not "Absolutely. Someone needs to hold Pelosi and the Democratic Party accountable for reneging on the results of the 2006 election, by funding an escalation of the war rather than bringing about its termination."

Posted by eyerag at 08/23/2007

Snarky.

First Katrina was advocating holding Democratic politicians accountable and with the very next breath she is gushing over Hillary Clinton's boilerplate as noble policy. i recall how she admonished Tucker Carlson for his 'snarky" remarks regarding her being a limo liberal. Well, she is, I am sorry to say. Here at the Nation they do protest, but when it comes down to it they rally around Clinton and snub Sheehan.

Posted by Lil at 08/23/2007

Cyndi has a role and it is not as a smaller version of Ralph Nader, taking votes that in effect deliver for the republicans. Perhaps she is too big for her britches, a bit self-absorbed now. It'll be a shame to force Ms. Pelosi to destroy her and leave her without even the activist torch she now carries.

Posted by runner315 at 08/24/2007

I CHANGED MY MIND...

And voted "absolutely." I was originally partly convinced by Katha Pollitt's very cogent essay against the idea of Sheehan running for Pelosi's seat. But then I decided that I'm just getting sick of watching the Dems in the House cave on various issues, and it's Pelosi's leadership that helping to induce them to cave.

Posted by w_m_bear at 08/25/2007

Posted by EYERAG 08/23/2007 @ 02:14am

ER...

Your Absolutely is much more in accord with my Absolutely than the actual wording of that choice.

Posted by w_m_bear at 08/25/2007

I remember the day Ms. Pelosi was cheered... By Democrats, far and near. "She'll save us! They cried, From this terrible war, Of this fact we have no fear.

But now that's she's doing what she feels is right, The tune has gone very sour. "Kick her out! Shoo, be gone!" Cry the left-wingers loudly, "She doesn't deserve all the power!"

(By the way, some of you need to do some history research before you post. For instance, if you want to see an "Imperial Government", check out Japan's during WWII. You'll find an emperor who had no problem torturing, maiming, raping, and killing his OWN people for political gain. Just a thought: might want to steer away from using that term to describe MY Land of the Free. Thank you.)

Posted by toby107 at 08/25/2007

It's too misleading to speak of "absolutely". Let's focus on "Accountability". You know, Checks and balance kind of stuff! Even Nancy needs a little "Prick" now and then.....eh?

Posted by Jellis1 at 08/25/2007

The fact that 48% of those voting think that Sheehan should run against Pelosi says much more about The Nation and your readership then it does about Pelosi or Sheehan. The far left and the far right continually destroy their best candidates supposedly by playing to their "bases"

Why Republicans think their base is ultra-conservative and Democrats think their base is far left Liberal always amazes me. The base of the Republican party is just right of center and the base of the Democratic party is just left of center. When Republicans nominate a far right conservative, a moderate Democrat will occupy the center and win. When Democrats nominate a far left Liberal, a moderate Republican will win. The very Liberal Dukakis lost because he allowed Bush I to occupy the center. But four years later when Buchanan pushed Bush far to the right in order to gain the Republican nomination, Clinton was able to occupy the center and beat Bush. When you get two relatively moderate candidates on each side you get dead heats like Kennedy vs. Nixon, Gore vs. W. If Hillary runs against Guiliani you've got a virtual dead heat again and anything can happen.

It is ridiculous for Sheehan to run against Pelosi. Pelosi is Speaker of The House with all the advantages and political baggage that entails. Sheehan is a one issue mom who lost a son and wants a president impeached because of that. She should stick to anti-war activism and leave politics to those who know how to screw things up professionally.

Posted by bean22 at 08/27/2007

Cindy Sheehan has every right and, as a citizen of the United States who sees in her elected representative a coward who puts political convenience over the Constitution and the rule of law, a duty to run for office. Pelosi will face a vicious primary campaign next year no matter who runs against her, because she has given fellow Democrats who are opposed to the Iraq war and its architects every reason to mount one. Pelosi has a duty to end this war and begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, but she refuses. She does not have a choice in this matter; she is an employee of her constituents, and if she does not do as she is told to do she will be fired. It's that simple. Enough coddling of cowards and tyrants, the time for compromise and capitulation passed us by a long time ago. I hope voters are so angry with Pelosi that Sheehan sweeps the primary and wins in the general election. Some things are more important than the politics of caution, and those happen to be the Constitution, the rule of law and the lifeblood of our nation.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 08/28/2007

1. Cindy Sheehan has every right to run if she wants to. 2. I still don't understand why impeachment is off the table. Our president and vice president appear to be engaging in crimes of a hideous nature (not to mention Rove and Gonzalez). 3. Nancy Pelosi seems unable to find any way to focus on the crimes of the president in a way which might lead to a more expeditious change of policies of all sorts.

BUT It's not a case of Cindy Sheehan vs. Nancy Pelosi. Cindy Sheehan does not warrant the attention she is getting, specifically the hyper-polite treatment of liberals. Whether she realizes it or not, her speech and actions are those of a demagogue, though she certainly hasn't the power or the charisma of one. She slings loaded words around but is close to inarticulate when she tries to explain herself or her "withdrawal" from the anti-war movement. She contributes nothing to current efforts to sharpen arguments into action. Many of her stunts appear to be what when I was young we called CAGDs -- cheap attention-getting devices. She doesn't deserve our attention at this time.

Posted by buddenbooks at 08/29/2007

For the life of me, I don't understand why Pelosi preemptively positioned the entirely appropriate, constitutionally stipulated impeachment procedure "off the table." Democratic Leadership Council "realpolitik"? Yea or nae, she should be accountable for that gross error of strategic judgment and I support Sheehan's "rocking the boat," not leastwise so as to, perhaps, encourage Nancy to change course while many populist/progressives still afford her the benefit of the doubt (that maybe she's not a corporate shill, like so many limo-liberal dems).

Posted by lewwelge at 08/29/2007

Cindy had her day(s) and failed to garner enough support to even force GWB to acknowledge her presence. It's one thing to camp out in a protest and quite another to compete with the pols who make up the US Senate. Cindy Sheehan doesn't have what it takes to put up with this. However! I'd really like to see somebody pick up Pelosi by her heels and shake her vigorously!!!!

Posted by cqsallie at 09/1/2007

My vote for "absolutely" is last ditch. I wrote to Ms. Pelosi's office, asking her to reconsider the "off the table" status of impeachment; the only reply(s) I could get were variations on the theme of "Ms. Pelosi is not your representative according to your zipcode." In other words, I was resoundingly ignored by her staff. Since then, I have written to my congressional representative and both of my senators to remove Pelosi from the speakership and elect a member who can actually vote against President Cheney and errand-boy-W. I got a canned response thanking me for my kind words and support but promising nothing. So "absolutely" is my only possible answer at this point.

Posted by cpubiz at 09/2/2007

Activists like Sheehan, like Ralph Nader, are purists and do their best as activists advocating what is often an extreme position. That's an important role. Nader belongs at the head of activist movements (sometimes even at the extremes, where as early adopters they influence other groups) and so does Sheehan. Political leaders, especially leaders of a coalition like the House of Representatives of the Senate, must fill a very different role, bringing a disparate group of individuals and interests forward. Sheehan doesn't seem to understand that, but the electorate should. Each has her place and function best where they are.

Posted by peterbraun at 09/2/2007

A Democratic Strategy to End the War in Iraq:

The Strategy:

1. Millions of Democrats should contact their election boards and request to be listed as "Non-Declared", "Independent" or, if necessary, "Republican" before the primary election.

2. On primary day, Democrats should request a "Republican" ballot and vote for Ron Paul.

3. In the general election on November 2nd, 2008, Democrats should vote their conscience knowing that either candidate for President will end the War in Iraq and stop the insanity in the Middle East.

Why This Strategy?:

1. It appears that Hillary Clinton will more than likely be anointed as the Democratic candidate and even if she is not, it is almost irrelevant which Democratic nominee wins the primary as the front runners are almost indistinguishable from one another in their positions on issues and especially the Iraq War. Let's not worry who the Democratic nominee is; let's worry about who the Republican nominee will be!

2. Given Ron Paul's growing popularity among Republicans and many Democrats, he may be able to win the Republican nomination if the Democrats help him out in force.

3. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the general election will become a choice between two anti-war candidates and no matter who wins, it will be better for the country.

Posted by regnet at 09/2/2007

Cindy should enter a race where she is running against one of the Republicans voting with the President to continue the war. In that way Cindy would be an ally not an adversary. I hate to see her attempting to detract from our leadership. As a freshman (freshwoman?) she would have minimal Committee asignments while taking away a powerful leader if she is successful. While I too am disillusioned by Nancy's acquescence to the power structure in Washington I think it is counterproductive to attempt to remove her. Why do we Democrats always think we have to eat our young? Let's work toward our common goals instead of working against each other.

Posted by larissajo at 09/3/2007

To borrow a line from Aaron Sorkin, Ms. Pelosi is "too busy trying to keep her job, to do her job." Ms. Pelosi's (and, indeed, every elected official's) job is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Apparently, the democratic leadership hasn't read the Constitution in a while or they would not be cowed by accusations of playing politics with these investigations.

The American people know this is a corrupt administration and they put the Dems back in power to do something about it. (I'm a life long republican and I want this administration run out of town on a rail.) If "business as usual" continues on the hill, the '08 elections will be very interesting.

If Cindy Sheehan can get Madam Speaker to take her job seriously by running on platform of obeying the Constitution, then I applaud her effort.

Posted by ammaloney at 09/3/2007

I am a committed progressive. I'm also as outraged as most reasonable Americans about this insane war in Iraq. As a supporter to resistance against this war, I attended a speech by Cindy Sheehan in Indianapolis, Indiana. Although I am sympathetic to Ms. Sheehan's efforts to protest the war and for the loss of her son, I found Ms. Sheehan to be extremely naive about the realities of political history and struggle in the U.S. If Ms. Sheehan had a better understanding of the peace movement in the U.S., especially during the Vietnam War era, she would realize that it took the anti-war movement several years to build and grow itself in the U.S. before it was an effective force to stop the war in Vietnam. I also found Ms. Sheehan to be very strident in her remarks regarding U.S. political leaders (including most Democratic party elected officials). According to Ms. Sheehan, there were few if any elected officials worthy of support by peace activists. I find such ideas to be shortsighted and misplaced. Since it is the American government that is prosecuting this war in Iraq, how can any peace activist honestly hope to bring an end to this insane war without actively supporting elected officals who are working towards ending the war. We progressives do not help efforts to end war by resigning ourselves to idealistically "pure" talk about the horrors of this war. We must "dirty our hands" by supporting and pressuring elected representatives who align with our cause. Finally, does any honest progressive actually believe that Ms. Sheehan has a ghost of chance of defeating Ms. Pelosi. Let's get down to the serious business of supporting and pressuring our elected representatives who will pursue a realistic strategy to end this war and stop idealogically "pure" games that will only lead to electoral failures.

Posted by tvc333 at 09/5/2007

Honestly, I think that Sheehan should run against Pelosi, and I hope she wins. Why? Because if her past actions are any indication, their might actually be someone on capitol hill willing to call foul. And as a conresswoman, I'm sure she could find ways to get media coverage of her actions. Everyone on capitol hill is to damn proffessional, to damn polite. No one is willing to go on national T.V. and speak their minds. It's a shocker to the media when someone outright calls the president a liar. What would happen if Sheehan got elected to the house of rep and THEN waited outside of Bush's ranch and demanded to know why her son died? What would happen if a congresman/woman decided to simply say fuck it, and got on the national stage to openly ridicule the neo cons, I bet a lot of you would cheer, even quite a few of you that are saying Sheehan shouldn't run. The government should represent the people, if enough people wish they could take the national stage and call the neo-cons murderers and be taken seriously, then maybe someone should be elected to congress who might actually do that. Also, what better way to really point out the partisanship of the press then to make sure EVERYONE knew it when the press stopped covering said congressman/woman.

Long story short: Electing anyone with the courage to call the bush regimes bluff is a good idea in my book.

Posted by shadow master at 09/13/2007