Contrary to DU conventional wisdom,

[cali]

you don't need to be a fan of Cindy Sheehan's or any other "icon" of the left, to oppose the war or hold liberal and progressive opinions.

People seem to have a hard time grasping that very simple fact.

[Richardo]

1. !!

:applause:

[cali]

3. Why thank you.

Seems like simple common sense to me, but I know that it's seen as highly objectionable by others.

[wyldwolf]

2. I haven't seen that conventional wisdom on DU

I oppose the war but I also oppose the tactics Cindy Sheehan and others use.

In fact, I see more sentiment that if you don't support Sheehan and Code Pink, you support the war.

[cali]

4. Read the OP again n/t

[wyldwolf]

6. eh! I haven't had my caffeine this morning. Sorry.

[NewHampster]

17. here you go wolf

[...of J.Temperance]

20. Same here....I oppose Cindy's tactics and I CAN'T STAND Code Pink

I've also opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and I continue to oppose the occupation of Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink DO NOT speak for the Democratic Party, Sheehan and Code Pink are on the political fringe....and the harrassment both are doing of Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace, to be honest Pelosi could have action taken against Code Pink for their harrassment and pretty much stalking of her.

[Clark2008]

29. It's fringe to demand attention when the media ignores

millions protesting?

I mean, I agree that you don't have to like them or support them to be a Democrat, but it's quite another thing to call protesters "fringe."

BTW, how can you be a Democrat and support the DLC?

Just wondering...

[...of J.Temperance]

39. They're a fringe because they exist outside of mainstream society

If Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink were so POPULAR, then they'd have 50 or 60 million people following them....at the best they've got what, 40,000 people or something.

Cindy's tactics and Code Pink's tactics are VERY alienating to the mainstream of both politics and society.

How can I be a Democrat and support the DLC? The D in DLC STANDS for Democratic.

How can YOU be a Democrat and support Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink when ALL they do is TRASH Democrats?

Just wondering...


BTW, that little boy and that baby are both GORGEOUS!


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[cali]

44. I'll answer part of your question

They're fringe because they draw such a small minority of even the anti-war crowd to their side, let alone people who feel ambivalent. Heck, even my favorite street theatre protest group, Bread & Puppet could be classified as fringe, were it not for the world acclaim for their art. The difference between B&P and code pink, is that the former does draw people to their pov, and they have actually had a big impact over the years.

[Major Hogwash]

130. So, you're anti-fringe, huh?

I have no idea what the fringers have done to you in the past, but not all fringers are that bad.
Honest.

[bvar22]

133. Thats a HOOT!... DLC calling Code Pink "fringe!

The DLC, supported solely by large Corporate single sourcedonors, with NO grass roots suppport, existing solely on the ideologically outer right wing fringe of the fringe of the Democratic Party calling a popular grass roots orgainzation "Fringe".

I don't regularly use the smiley icons, but I'm going to make an exception this time because the Irony is sooooo delicious.

:rofl:

[TwilightZone]

5. Agreed. There seems to be way too much binary thinking around here.

Considering how much we all railed against "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists", you'd think that we could put forth the effort to see issues as shades of gray and not just black or white.

[cali]

9. That's how I see it: "you're either with Cindy or

against all that's good and decent" is a prime example of the with us or against us mode of thinking.

[TwilightZone]

14. I see it that way as well. It applies to a wide variety of topics.

You can't be a liberal and support Hillary.

If you support Clinton, Edwards, Obama, etc., you're a corporatist.

Everybody to the right of Gandhi is a Republican shill.

If you don't support total anarchy, you're an authoritarian.

I could go on and on and on....

[cali]

16. so could I.

And oddly enough, or perhaps not so oddly, some of those folks are the ones who claim that if you don't agree with them, you're not applying critical thinking. Ironic.

[TwilightZone]

22. Yes, and the real critical thinkers are labeled automatons who are mindlessly absorbing the MSM.

Blind and unquestioning cultists, eager to continue the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Yeah, right. If we were all a bunch of brain-dead right-wingers, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Most of us, anyway.

Sometimes, it's best to just laugh at what people come up with in order to avoid backing up their assertions.

[...of J.Temperance]

27. I think a lot of the crowd that think that stuff are

Green Party supporters myself....I'm not sure how many ACTUAL Democrats think stupid things like you've articulated in your post.

[Virginia Dare]

35. I think so too..

and most of them have managed to find their way on my ignore list, so I don't see too much of it any more.

[...of J.Temperance]

45. I've

Got nobody on my ignore list....last year I had some people on my ignore list if I remember, but it made reading threads MURDER....I'm sure you know what I mean?

[TwilightZone]

37. Agreed. Various third parties, methinks.

I suspect that some of the people who most vehemently declare that they're Democrats really aren't.

Some are overt, of course. That includes the "what's with the loyalty oath demands?" crowd.

Others are less obvious, but tend to give themselves away with catchphrases. Labeling every living Democrat as "spineless", for example.

[...of J.Temperance]

47. Well you know I hear there's a forum for them

You know for the Greens and the Anarchists, the Democrat-hating crowd...it one of those other forums....populated by Anarcho-Greenies and whatnot and they ALL hate Democrats.

Dunno on a forum called Democratic Underground, maybe THAT crowd shouldn't be allowed to be here to trash our party and our people.

[TwilightZone]

51. The problem, of course, is in the interpretation of the word "Democratic"

The interpretation of that word is a source of ongoing debate.

Not to mention amusement.

[...of J.Temperance]

54. Well people like you and I can say

We're Democrats and we'll support the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008 NO MATTER WHO it might be....so I think that's a good defination of the interpretation of the word "Democratic"....yes?

We don't want another Republican in the White House in 2009....WE can say that with NO problem....the other crowd CAN'T, they say:

"There's no difference because Hillary's a neo-Con....if it's a choice between Hillary and the Republican, then what sort of choice is that, they're both the same"

WE recognize the difference....they don't AND they don't care either.

[TwilightZone]

61. My interpretation of "Democrat" is pretty wide.

I think it's more about self-identification than based on issues. I think that anyone who votes for or supports Democrats is inherently a Democrat. Similarly, if you register as a Democrat, you're a Democrat.

Do Democrats have a core set of beliefs? I think so, but adherence to them is not a requirement. There are conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats. I may disagree with moderate and conservative Democrats on many issues, but that doesn't mean that I don't think we need them in the party. (Edit: actually, I disagree with liberal Democrats on some issues, as well!)

And, yes, I agree that Democrats should want to replace a Republican administration with a Democratic one, regardless of the nominee. If people want to think that that's blind party loyalty, so be it.

The "no difference" argument is nothing but self-serving nonsense. Hillary Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry wouldn't have put John Roberts on the Supreme Court or given enormous tax cuts to the rich or cut social programs. Anyone who believes otherwise just hasn't been paying attention to Hillary, John, Al, or Bush. More likely, they're being intentionally obtuse.

[...of J.Temperance]

67. Re.

"Do Democrats have a core set of beliefs? I think so, but adherence to them is not a requirement. There are conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats. I may disagree with moderate and conservative Democrats on many issues, but that doesn't mean that I don't think we need them in the party."

I agree with you 100%. I mean I'm a Centrist Democrat myself....but I respect the views of those Democrats who are more Liberal than I am. Of course I disagree with some of the things they advocate, but I'll just say I disagree with such and such, and give them my alternative to what they're advocating....which of course they'll then disagree with me and that's fine....I certainly recognize them as being members of the same party as me and I certainly think we need them in the party.

My point in my other post, I was meaning more what constitutes a Democrat on DU....and that's someone who does not trash our people and say they WON'T vote for our Presidential nominee IF that happens to be Hillary.


"The "no difference" argument is nothing but self-serving nonsense. Hillary Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry wouldn't have put John Roberts on the Supreme Court or given enormous tax cuts to the rich or cut social programs. Anyone who believes otherwise just hasn't been paying attention to Hillary, John, Al, or Bush."

Spot on, and those who believe that there's no difference, I'm not sure how they can be Democrats....like I said I think they're Green Party supporters, they're the Naderites come back to haunt us.


On Edit: Dammit punctuation error

[TwilightZone]

75. "What constitutes a Democrat on DU"

What I find interesting is how many people insist that *everyone* at DU is a Democrat, and everyone on DU is *their* kind of Democrat. I've seen that claim at least half a dozen times in the past couple weeks. I generally respond that not everyone is a (D), and many third-party posters would probably be offended by the accusation. :)

At the same time, the definition of "Democrat" by many on DU is "exactly what I believe, no exceptions." So, as I jokingly said on another thread, that means that there is only one Democrat on DU: me!

Re: non-DU Democrats - many of them are/were Nader supporters. Many of them aren't, though, and I often have difficulty figuring out what exactly the agenda is supposed to be. I often wonder why the people who profess that all Dems are spineless, sell-out, corporatist whores even bother coming to DU. Maybe they just enjoy conflict.

Hell, never mind them. I don't even know why *I* keep coming back.

[...of J.Temperance]

84. Okay

If those people aren't Democrats though, but they come here, do they have a right to trash our people?

If they're Third Party posters, then WHY are they even interested in posting that slash and burn stuff amidst a forum where I'd say the majority of people do identify as Democrats.

[TwilightZone]

103. It depends on the interpretation of the rules.

Re: do they have the right to trash - technically, no. According to the rules, members are expected to be generally supportive of Democratic candidates for office.

However, in the past, DU has generally allowed dissent about our candidates in the primaries until we have a presumptive nominee. At that point, the rules become a bit more assertive, and the "bashing" is moderated. It's an inexact science, but it does tend to transform this place a bit.

Re: why are they even interested - ya got me. It seems that their objective is to take the party back from the "corporatist whores", so maybe they think posting on DU will accomplish that.

[...of J.Temperance]

123. Oh gosh

Can't the primaries hurry up and be over then *sigh*

Yeah like EVERYONE on DU is now one of those "corporatist whores", I mean it'd be ridiculous, if only this crowd weren't so nasty.

Wouldn't it be nice to have sensible discussions, instead of all of this back-biting, I think it would.

[TwilightZone]

127. Just wait....

Think it's bad now, wait another couple of months. }(

Pretty soon, there will be six million posts about "the purge", which is the time after the primaries when the most vociferous of the anti-nominee crowd tends to get themselves tombstoned. The closer we get to a nominee, the more the supporters of other candidates will ramp up the accusations of censorship, "loyalty oaths", blah, blah. Same as last time, although it seems to be starting earlier this cycle.

I currently have no one on Ignore. I think that in my five or so years here, I haven't used it more than half a dozen times. That may change soon. Either that, or it's time for a break!

[...of J.Temperance]

24. How about a new slogan?

"You're either with the Democratic Party....or you're with Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink!"

I think it's pretty catchy myself, could even see that slogan on car stickers....maybe I'll go into marketing and PR next....

[TwilightZone]

31. Nah, I think it's very possible to be both.

It's the "shades of gray" thing again. I think it's possible to support intent, while not necessarily supporting methods.

[...of J.Temperance]

42. Oh well, I'll give up my idea of going into marketing and PR then

;)

[TwilightZone]

43. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a target market.

There's a niche market for *everything*, it would seem.

[...of J.Temperance]

49. Oh it's back on then....I'll phone my agent....

Hold on....

I can see HUGH billboard campaigns....and I'm SERIES!!!!

[monmouth]

7. Ridding the media of the Code Pink and Sheehan tactics would

be a step in the right direction for getting people to listen. They are a distraction from the message..

[cali]

8. I'm not sure they're really that important

and I certainly support their goals and their right to protest whoevever they wish. I don't think they really do any harm.

[ret5hd]

12. Who, exactly, would they be listening to? I mean, is it common knowledge...

that without the Code Pinks and Cindys of the world that anyone would cover these issues at all? Hell, massive protests that span the globe get 1.25 minutes on the evening news. If they can get another .75 minutes, more power to 'em.

[cali]

15. I don't think you can conclude

much about how they impact media coverage now, but I do think that you have to give Sheehan credit for focusing the media on anti-war sentiment 3 years ago.

[ret5hd]

23. Yet, you avoid the question.

[cali]

25. Yes, of course, I'm avoiding the question.

If the question is who would they be listening to if not Sheehan and Code Pink, I don't know, and I don't think they're listening to them, in any case.

[...of J.Temperance]

30. If Democrats listened to Code Pink and adopted the tactics that Cindy wants

Adopted, well, it really wouldn't do us ANY good in 2008.

Mainstream Democrats have never wanted to have anything to do with Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan, and there's a good reason why....because both HATE the Democrats....I've never heard either Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan say anything NICE about ANY Democrat, ALL they do is trash members of our party and I really resent it to be honest.

[cali]

34. Actually, I think you're wrong

When Sheehan first emerged on the scene, I think she had a lot of mainstream support. She lost it when she lost her focus on the war, and started in on things she knew nothing about. And then she really went off the rails and started penning bizarre screeds.

[...of J.Temperance]

52. Yes Cindy did at the beginning, I agree

Then she hooked up with Medea Benjamin and Code Pink, and then it all went out of the window and she adopted this MASSIVELY Anarcho-Radical agenda and proceeded to start trashing ANY and ALL Democrats when they ignored her oddball rants at them.

Cindy SHOULD have kept away from Code Pink....and remained with her ORIGINAL message, instead of adopting the Code Pink wacky agenda.

[cuke]

10. And if you don't want Iran to get nukes

that doesn't mean you want to invade Iran.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. Iran has a right to defend itself, BUT I don't think it's a good idea to allow

Iran to have a full-on nuclear capability.

That doesn't mean that we support War with Iran, that means that we approach this in a mature and diplomatic way, perhaps similar to how the North Korean situation was handled.

[TwilightZone]

32. To take that a step even further, if you think that Iran should be a political concern,

it doesn't mean that you want to bomb it to the ground.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. The Herd

Its always the herd. And always the herd claims to be comprised of independent thinkers. But instead of that reality they wish for, the real reality is that they do lots of binary thinking.

[cali]

13. I don't know.

I'm not trying to make any broad claims about it, just point out that you can't say someone supports the war because they don't particularly care for Sheehan.

[...of J.Temperance]

18. Heck girl, it's about TIME that was said....merci

This thread needs another vote I reckon ;)

[cali]

19. eh, thanks JT

I gotta admit, I'd love to see this get rec'd a lot. And usually, I could care less whether a post of mine makes the Greatest page.

[...of J.Temperance]

21. D'oh! IF it'd let me multiply vote, then I would

Darn thing will only let you vote once though *sigh*

The OP is good, you've raised a very important point, and it's about time that point was raised....because the crap is happening on a daily basis.

Oh yeah, in keeping with the daily tradition of being a DLCer....my breakfast today consisted of a lightly fried newborn baby, tasted good too....Will Marshall emailed me and told me that he's sending me a fresh supply of newborns to keep me fed for the next week....good thing as well, because I was running out!

I'm sure Wyldwolf is chomping on a newborn baby while drinking his coffee....coffee and newborns go GREAT together!


:sarcasm:

[cali]

28. You know the funny thing is you and I part company

on a lot of issues, and I'm more in synch about those issues with the people who are saying the stuff I object to, but you, I find, think for yourself. In any case, I get classed as a neo-con DLC clone, simply by dint of not agreeing about Cindy and other touchstones.

[...of J.Temperance]

33. Hey

You're on 9 votes now :)

We do part company on a lot of issues, but I think we also know that we can find agreement on some issues to.

I'm glad you think that I think for myself, I've said for ages that I'm nobody's Rubberstamp and that I don't agree with the DLC on 100% of the issues.

Oh well, join the club, aren't we ALL neo-Con's now....Hillary's one, Nancy Pelosi is one....heck EVEN Barney Frank is one now....gosh the planting of the "Invasion of The Body-Snatchers" type Pods has WORKED!!!!

More Pods and more Clones will be appearing by the day! :sarcasm:

[sufrommich]

36. I think there is a point,with some politically oriented people,

when their emotional attachment to the people they admire or a rigid ideology becomes so strong that, like religion,facts exist only to reinforce their beliefs and all facts that don't support it are suspect.There is no use debating,once that point is reached.

[cali]

38. True that, and I'm not

trying to debate here, just make a statement. I do tend to get sucked into debates with folks like that though. (As you know)

[sufrommich]

53. Well, guilty right along with you.

[TwilightZone]

41. That's a very accurate assessment.

There was a point on DU during the '04 primaries where many of the active participants had reached that level, and very little meaningful discussion was occurring re: the candidates. We seem to be rushing headlong to that same point, perhaps a bit earlier than last time.

[Virginia Dare]

46. True, it's cultish in nature sometimes...n/t

[progressoid]

40. Yep...

most of the people I know that oppose the war couldn't care less about Cindy. Some probably don't even know who she is.

[radiclib]

48. Whoever implied you were pro-war?

And why start a thread like this, unless you just can't wait for someone else to mention Cindy?

[cali]

55. Quite a few folks and they didn't

imply, they said it directly. And why not start a thread like this? I though it was needed, so I wrote it. Why does it bother you so much?

[radiclib]

62. Sorry, I forgot how important it is

for unprovoked veiled shots to be taken at Cindy every few hours. Good job.

[...of J.Temperance]

71. What about the unprovoked veiled shots that get taken at Hillary

Every few hours?

Hillary's a Democrat....Cindy Sheehan isn't, we DON'T OWE Cindy ANY loyalty whatsoever....we DO owe Hillary some loyalty, afterall she's one of our own.

[radiclib]

79. Lockstep much?

If I have to pledge loyalty to Hillary over Cindy, they can tombstone me now.

[...of J.Temperance]

81. What about if Hillary becomes the 2008 Presidential nominee

Will you support her and vote for her in the Presidential Election?

[radiclib]

95. Unless she shows me something between now and then

I'll have to hold my nose and vote for her, of course. It goes without saying that the alternative is beyond hideous. But Cindy represents my values, misstatements and all, much more than Hillary with her corporate and neocon tendencies does.

[JenniferJuniper]

80. I owe Hillary nothing.

You're entitled to feel whatever loyalty to do toward her, but I find your preaching about what the rest of us "owe Hillary" pretty disgusting.

You sound like you think this is a team sporting event and you perceive Hillary to be on your team. It isn't. And even if it were, I doubt she'd be on anyone's team.

[cali]

97. I don't owe HIllary anything either- or Sheehan.

and they're both public figures and open to criticism.

[cali]

74. Haha.

you really are funny. There are hardly many threads posted that attack Sheehan. And compared to the sheer volume of threads attacking even progressive dems, it shrinks to practically nothing.

[radiclib]

78. You're right, there aren't many.

Apparently that's why you're here.:hi:

[JenniferJuniper]

50. Media icons generally do suck but

people deal with problems in different ways. Sheehan's approach may not be exactly the one I would take, but as she isn't chucking any bombs or blowing up recruitment centers, I fail to see what harm she is causing anyone. And if she isn't hurting anyone, she has the right to do and say whatever she damn well pleases, whether you approve or not. If you oppose the war and want to protest, go do your own thing.

The problem - as usual - is the corporate media's lack of acknowledgment of any protest save for the few groups and personalities THEY choose to focus on. They ignore or under-report anything else. But of course, the anti-war majority is indeed largely a silent one, and barring a draft or other demand for personal sacrifice, is likely to remain so.

As for the Democratic Party, in large part it absolutely deserves to be bashed - early and often. This isn't a "hey, but that's my team!" situation. It's not a sporting event. Anyone who is opposed to this war and thinks the Democrats are doing even an adequate job dealing with the the Bush crime syndicate is smoking some seriously bad dope IMHO.

I happened to read this old quote this morning. (Largely ignored) protest singer Phil Ochs wrote it around 1964. More early warnings about the military industrial complex. The very same complex today's Democrats remain a part of.

"Leave the old and dying America and use your creative energies to
help form a new America, which would be de-militarized, more
humanistic, where the police are less hostile and closer to the
community, where the wealthy are not given unleashed power for the
exploitation of the people. "And, mostly because it's now a matter of
life and death, reassert an ecological balance with the environment,
which means the people in the oil companies and the car companies
and the space industry and all the other industries will have to be
brought into account, so that there will be a new definition of
government which has to be closer to the people and less close to
special interests which are far more harmful than any revolutionaries."

[cali]

57. My word! How did you read all that into my OP?

I suggest also that you read some of my comments in the thread. I never claimed she was hurting anyone. I had a simple point to make, so I made it.

[JenniferJuniper]

60. Sorry, but

aside from saying you don't like Sheehan's tactics, you really made no point whatsovever.

My focus was on the "how dare she and Code Pink target Democrats" bullshit that appears in the thread.

[cali]

65. Sorry, my point was that certain people

saying that if you don't support Sheehan, you're not REAlLY anti-war, is a crock of shit. Hope that clears it up for you.

[JenniferJuniper]

70. Not really.

Who are these nameless "certain people"? Is it a large group? Particular individuals?

And what specifically do you not like about Sheehan. I've read your posts and I don't understand. What are the "bizaare screeds" you say she has penned? Can you elaborate on what these are and what you find bizarre about them?

Thanks.

[cali]

76. use the search function.

I've specificaly addressed those items in her articles that I find bizarre or over the top, on several occasions.

And sorry, I can't name names. That's against DU rules, as I'm sure you're aware. I will tell you this however; on another site, a group of DUer and ex-DUers have gone so far as to propose having a "Cali watch".

[JenniferJuniper]

83. "I find her bizarre or over the top"

This seems to be all about you. Your findings, your feelings. But nothing to back them up.

Ignore time.

[Yukari Yakumo]

136. Try this asshole

[TwilightZone]

85. You're (in)famous!

Hey, at least they tend to use the same usernames, hmm?

[cali]

88. gossipy

and nasty sums them up neatly.

[...of J.Temperance]

92. Probably they don't use deodorant either....

:beer:

[TwilightZone]

125. Holy cow.

I just spent a few minutes over "there". Your assessment is quite accurate, if understated.

My goodness....

[cali]

139. Yeah, it's a remarkable place.

Nutty conspiracy theories, not so veiled anti-semitism, self-righteousness, narrow viewpoint and ugly gossip, wed to a gigantic case of sour grapes.

[stimbox]

91. Admit it, you love the attention.

Oh the irony.

:rofl:

[cali]

96. I love expressing my ideas

I don't love that kitty litter of a site where a bunch of you fling shit.

[stimbox]

99. I would call your OP, poo flinging.

Seems you like to fling poo and then revel in your victim status because people talk about you on another site.

[cali]

101. I'm sure you would

seeing as you play in the kitty litter. And no sane person could remotely consider the OP remotely defamatory toward anyone. But then what can one expect from someone who hangs out in a place where some posters are convinced that skinner isn't a real person and his picture is photo shopped by the CIA or AIPAC or some other shadowy organization.

Bunch of unpleasant bitter little people congregate there.

[stimbox]

104. It's passive aggressive, like most of your scree.

"Bunch of unpleasant bitter little people congregate there."

Project much?

[cali]

107. nothing passive agressive about that buddy.

it's a flat out slam. And nothing about projection either since you folks have decided to attack and libel me. Seeing as there are 4 or 5 threads lying about me, I feel damned comfortable saying that.

[stimbox]

108. Pity the poor message board martyr. n/t

[JenniferJuniper]

113. LOL!

But now I've got a song called "Message Board Martyr" running in my head. (To the tune of "Beauty School Drop-out" of all things.)

[cali]

120. seeing as all they do over there

is moan about how martyred they are because DU is so mean to them, that's what I call true hypocrisy.

[sufrommich]

122. It's the Cali Watchers!

Watching Cali! How incredibly exciting! Tune in next week ,folks!

[cali]

142. LOL!

It is ridiculous. On the other hand, it does creep me out.

[sufrommich]

143. That's understandable.

Obsession is creepy .

[...of J.Temperance]

89. Admit it....YOU'RE Cindy Sheehan! n/t

.

[Pawel K]

56. Sure, you don't have to do anything. But for somepeople it was easy to exploit people like cindy

when it was beneficial to them. As soon as it stopped being beneficial many of you threw this poor lady under the bus when she has remained consistant on what she believed. So she didn't change, you people did. And you should be ashamed of yourselves the way you are all treating her now after the way you exploited her just a few years back.

[cali]

58. I never exploited her

I never thought of her as key to anything. And whether she changed or not, she started expounding on things she knew nothing about. Your charge that she was thrown under the bus is ludicrous. She marginalized herself quite well.

[Pawel K]

64. What did she know nothing about?

I don't know if you personally exploited her or not, if you didn't great. But there was quite the lovefest here on DU and other liberal spots in regards to her. She was paraded around many media outlets with our help all the way up to the 2006 elections. So now that she is no longer useful to us many around here have absolutely no problems smearing her and doing whatever they can to make her insignificant, totally ignoring the part we all played in giving her national attention.

What has she talked about that she knows nothing about? I'd love to get more details as to what you mean by that.

[cali]

68. In her article that she wrote after Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia

she made several factual errors about the Middle East, particularly about governments in the ME. She claimed that the income tax is unconstitutional. She's made several other highly dubious claims. Any article she writes usually has one or more in the text.

[Pawel K]

82. The article she wrote was mostly about us

I could not see very many references to the middle east and I couldn't spot anything factually wrong with it. What factual errors did you catch there?

We'll start off with that.

[cali]

86. Here:

" I know he was elected in Iran in a knee-jerk and understandable response to the USA's bloody unnecessary invasion of Iraq, as many reactionary governments have been elected in that region and all over the world in response to the spreading U.S. corporate and military empire"

Er, no. That's not why he was elected, and you won't find one expert in Iranian politics who backs up that claim. He was elected chiefly over domestic economic reasons. And what reactionary governments in the region have been elected in the region for the reasons she listed? Hamas? No. Is she referring to policy over the past 7 years or the past 50? Not to mention that a great number of governments in the region aren't really elected.

This is basic stuff. She's running for Congress. She should get it right or not talk about it if she doesn't know.

[Pawel K]

98. She is partly correct

Bush went on TV days before that election and warned them not to vote for Ahmadinejad which Bush must have known was pretty much endorsing Ahmadinejad.

If you honestly believe that our invasion of Iraq has not played a role in electing more radical leaders thoughout the middle east you are not a very logical person. Did this play the only role in the 2005 elections? Of course not, but it did play a significant role.

It's interesting how you are going through everything she does with a fine comb and trying to latch on to anything wrong that she does. The right wing does this with people like Al Gore, as effective as it is it doesn't make it right. Remember, it was people like you that put her in this position, and now people like you are trying to knock her back down with the exact same tactics the right wing uses. Congratulations.

[cali]

106. Name the elections and the countries

bushco's leadership has certainly had an impact on radicalizing populations, but it did not play any significant role in the election of Ahmadinejad, and an even smaller role in the election of Hamas.

You're wrong about bush playing a significant role in those elections. And please name the other elections in that region where you feel he's had a large impact.

Sheehan claimed that Ahmadinejad was elected because of bushco and U.S. policy. She didn't claim it was part of the reason either.

Oh, and facts matter to me.

[Pawel K]

110. So you must think Al Gore is insiginificant

You just admitted that our foreign policy has played a siginificant role in these elections, I'm glad you aren't disputing this because it is common sense. Did Sheehan make a mistake when she said this is why he was elected, ok, I'll give you that. It's a small mistake. People make small mistakes all the time. If you are this critical of her for it why aren't you that critical of Al Gore?

After all, the right wing has been able to get a court to rule on 9 mistakes in his 3 hour presentation. Clearly, this invalidates everything Gore has done to this point and everything he will do in the future by your own standard.

Clinton has been wrong before (dont make me point out where). That means she is insignificant by your own standards.

And let me guess, you have never ever made a mistake? If you have everything you say from now on should be thrown out. Correct?

You spent so much time fighting against the right wing, and now you are using their tactics against the people that fought with you. And not only did they fight with you, they fought harder than you could ever have fought. It's hypocritical, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[cali]

114. What?? stop putting words in my mouth and try

for reading comprehension. And staying away from strawmen and red herrings.

[JenniferJuniper]

115. Are you talking to yourself?

Because if you are, good advice!

[Pawel K]

121. No staw men or red herrings here

just pointing out how hypocritical your tacticts of marginalizing this woman are. Anyone can take a fine comb through what someone wrote or said and find mistakes. You are taking those minor mistakes and using it to say she has no credibility. If that's your standard of credibility I'm curious to know who has credibility in your eyes.

[cali]

126. One more time: there's nothing hypocritical about it.

I could care less if she's a democrat. And I don't see her flawed rhetoric as a minor thing. I don't believe she has much credibility except with a very small group, and that's fine. But polls show that she has no influence or credibility with the vast majority of Americans.

Who has credibility in my eyes? Do you mean as far as people who are anti-war? Or more generally?

[Pawel K]

129. I don't care, name a name

You are free to post a name but this meant to be more of a rhetorical question.

If you post a name I can go through it with a fine comb and find mistakes in what they said/wrote. So will that disqualify what they stand for?

You are pointing out mistakes she made that have absolutely no meaning when talking about what she actually stands for, which is ending this war. Just because she happens to go after the democrats that are now saying we will be there for another 5 years if not longer doesn't mean you should apply these right wing tactics to disqualify her simply because she is also now attacking your team.

[cali]

144. Bwahahaha

I could care less if she attacks democrats. Hell, I vote progressive when I get the chance. And living in VT with a real Progressive party, I get the chance. Sheehan's pov is one I do not share, beyond wanting the war to end. I think she's a limited and black and white thinker. And her rhetoric is lousy. She doesn't move anyone into the anti-war camp.

Want a name? How about my Senator, Bernie Sanders. Go for it.

[Mythsaje]

146. Actually, his "axis of evil" speech

helped the hard-liners in Iran suppress the growing democratic movement among the youth. The attack on Iraq had a LOT to do with giving them the power to bring the moderates over to their side of the argument.

[JenniferJuniper]

87. There is nothing intrinsically "dubious"

about an assertion that an income tax is unconstitutional.

You may not agree with her, but it is hardly a "bizarre" position.

[cali]

93. LOL

Please. Are you going to claim that the 1st amendment isn't constitutional too. If the 1st is than so is the 16th. It's a total nutcase argument.

[JenniferJuniper]

102. Says you!

Of course. And if someone has an alternative position, they are a "total nutcase".

People have been arguing about the constitutionality of the 16th amendment since it's inception. I don't agree with their positions, but there is nothing necessarily "nut casey" about them.

Egocentrics like yourself tend to be prevalent on the right wing; that's why they are so intolerant of other opinions and lifestyles. You set up an straw man statement about how intolerant people out here are about your position and then do absolutely nothing but proceed to demonstrate how intolerant YOU are of other opinions.

[Pawel K]

105. it's funny isn't it?

Cali just made a post that you don't have to follow everything DU believes to be a democrat. Yet in the same discussion she says you have to following everything the democrats believe to be a democrat. This isn't hypocracy at all. :eyes:

[cali]

111. Except of course I didn't say anything remotely like that

And the validity of the 16th amendment has zip to do with being a democrat.

[cali]

109. Answer the question: If the 16th amendment isn't valid, why is

the 1st or any other valid? Go ahead, give it a try. And name one reputable Constsitutional scholar who thinks it's arguable.

[Pawel K]

112. I don't have to answer that

Because I agree with you that it is constitutional.

But you made an OP on how you don't have to tow the liberal line to be a democrat. In that same discussion you are now saying that Cindy must tow the democratic line perfectly to be a significant democrat. Do you not see the hypocracy in that?

[cali]

117. No. Read slowly.

I'm saying it's a nutty idea. She has every right to entertain it. It has nothing to do with whether she's a democrat or anything else.

Why is that hard to grasp. And btw it has zip to do with hypocrisy- you might want to note the spelling of that word, too.

[TwilightZone]

119. Cindy doesn't have to toe the line to be a Democrat.

Running for office as one might help, though. Last I knew, she was running as an independent.

[NavyDavy]

69. whatever you just proved the point of this post.....

[Pawel K]

100. Thank you for your well thought out post and adding value to this discussion

:sarcasm:

[endarkenment]

59. Coincidentally I see pretty much the same people here

voice their opposition to every anti-war organization, every media identified protest leader, every demonstration, and yet they claim to be 'anti-war'. Odd.

[cali]

63. Really?

I heartily support UFPJ and the AFSC as well as Bread & Puppet's efforts. Sorry if those groups don't meet your pre-approved list of who's OK to support.

[endarkenment]

66. It is as valid a generalization as yours.

Which is the point. Your instant attempt to nullify it with your sterling example is merely an exception that proves the rule. Do you deny that everytime there is a demonstration, a media event involving an anti-war leader, or other such occurence, that we have the usual crop of DU hair wrenching and concern-trolling break out? And each time, when questioned, the concern trolls invariably assert that yes of course they oppose the war but 'not this way'.

[NavyDavy]

72. everybody has the right to or not to protest the war in their own way......

[cali]

73. Even so, that hardly lends credence to your

claim that those who don't care for certain personalities or organizations aren't truly anti-war. I'm not making such an absurd claim. Oh, and despite the fact that I don't like ANSWER, I've been to DC to march in protests organized by them 3x. Yes, I know, in your narrow little world, I'm not REALLY anti-war.

[EV_Ares]

94. Yes, that correct and I don't see your world so narrow. Man this is

a flaming post that got started.

[Pawel K]

132. It meant to be a flaming post

Mission Accomplished

[EV_Ares]

90. Yeah, you are 100% correct on that. eom.

[Moochy]

77. Self-Delete

[Hydra]

116. So ignore those posts

I ignore all the Hillary posts on the principle that I don't need to read any more flame wars on issues people are already decided on.

If you don't like Cindy, ignore. If you don't like what Code Pink does or Cindy's run for Pelosi's spot, ignore.

You don't have to like what people are doing to change course in America- I sure don't like how left has become a bad word, even here.

[AuntPatsy]

118. I think your wrong in how your presenting your view on this issue, your doing

what lately you constantly attack others of doing, where is your proof that this is DU conventional wisdom, you constantly ask others not to make assumptions without showing valid proof, and here you havent?

And though I agree with you that one need not be a fan of Cindy's by opposing the war, nor be a so called Liberal or Progressive, I have to wonder why you of all people would attempt to impart such a thread that in itself is falsely laying a claim about DU's conventional Wisdom.

Emotional upset does not always make for a good presentation as you so often state though I can understand where your upset has come from two wrongs don't make it right.

[cali]

124. You're reading too much into it

it's just not that personal for me. Hey, I'm a typical critical Virgo. I analyze and critique- sometimes too much. But you're right about one thing: I should have said "some of the conventional wisdom".

[AuntPatsy]

128. Thank you, I actually like when you come into a thread, nothing wrong with attempting

to use fact when one is able, though I think when it comes to historical perspective being used, nine times out of ten it is nothing more than that, "perspective" from one's point of view which nine times out of ten another focusing on the same subject can differ however slightly from the other.

It is said that the Winner usual becomes the author of a particular historical event. Maybe it's not just the winner who writes such but more often than naught the losers accounts of an event just seem to get lost in the shuffle.

My point being sometimes it's pretty hard to state another one's fact as being actual fact....sometimes we need to leave open the window for speculation, never know, by doing such perhaps the real truth can someday find its way to the forefront by doing so.

what some consider "tin foil thinking" I see as ensuring the truth might one day be revealed in all it's glory. I think such gets a bad name and that limits the debate needed to dig out truth not as we see it just because it makes sense but as it really is which has been proven that quite a lot of the time the truth strange as it may be doesn't always have to make sense.

[Major Hogwash]

131. Hey! Where in the hell have you been lately? Now that's conventional wisdom right there!

I agree with everything you just said.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

134. I'm not the best vessel for this message, but condescension doesn't help

I can be an arrogant prick, not doubt, so I have little room to talk.

But if your intention is to change minds, this approach won't work

[cali]

137. Nah, I'm not interested in trying to change minds

If people want to set her up as some kind of hero, that's fine with me, I just don't wanted to state that you don't have to see her as a hero to be a liberal or against the war.

And what was condescending precisely about the OP?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

140. well, since you ask...

"People seem to have a hard time grasping that very simple fact."

It's a true statement, of course. But, unlike libel, the truth is not a defense against condescension.

I'm with you. I think "attention whore" was coined just for people like Sheehan, and much of the anti-war sentiment on DU is so intellectually stunted and blinkered-ly self-righteous it defies belief.

I just don't see antagonizing folks who have inflexible positions. It just fuels their self-righteousness and leads to more nonsense.

One mans view.

[cali]

141. oops, you're right. I could have phrased that

better. And we part company a little. I think it's good to challenge the self-righteousness and hero worship around here.

[IronLionZion]

135. Common sense has no place here

We march in lock-step here on DU. You're either with us or against us. The moment you disagree with me, the terrorists win. Why do you hate America? REAL Liberals hate the Democratic party.

:sarcasm:

:applause:

[Bucky]

138. I respect and admire Sheehan. I think she goes overboard verbally sometimes, but then again...

She's not a professional politician. It's fundamentally unfair to hold a woman whose entrance on the national stage was under the grief of her son dying in a war that she knew to be unnecessary and fraudulently sold to the public. That is the very definition of a radicalizing event.

Now, sometimes she says stuff that makes me cringe. Sometimes I wish, if just for a second, that she had an image consultant to help her vet her own statements. But then I remember that she's not part of a machine. She doesn't have to be polished and on top of matters. She has to speak her truth, even if it's not always great PR for the Democrats. She doesn't serve us. We, as a party, are supposed to serve her.

Why serve her? Because originally we were supposed to serve her son, but we fucked that up and now he's dead. I may not agree with what she says, but her son literally defended to his death her right to say it. She's in my Chuck Yeager category. I often disagree with her politics, but she's a hero. She deserves our support.

[GeorgeGist]

145. Your sig line fits you well.

BTW it is one of the most cynical philosophical opinions I have ever read.

The Passion and Conviction of Cindy Sheehan make Pelosi, and her ilk, look like bleating sheep.