Here is something interesting:
Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who set up camp near President Bush’s Texas ranch last summer, said Saturday she is considering running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein to protest what she called the California lawmaker’s support for the war in Iraq.
“She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won’t call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops,” Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview while attending the World Social Forum in Venezuela along with thousands of other anti-war and anti-globalization activists.
I’d be very interested to see how Cindy Sheehan would do in a Democratic primary in California. I’d also be interested to see how quickly the blogosphere could fill her coffers. I’d advise her against doing it. It is not easy to put together a senate campaign, and it is a little late to get started. But, who knows? And Cindy has a point.
“If I decided to run, I would have no illusions of winning, but it would bring attention to all the peace candidates in the country,” she said.
We need candidates to rattle the cages of the Dems that are soft on Bush. Nothing rattles a cage like a primary challenge.
.
BooMan you should catch some sleep, and let the rest of the world worry and comment during nocturnal hours.
Democrats need to rattle the Bush Republicans in red territory like Paul Hackett and Tim Dunn. Our money needs to be spent wisely, it would be excellent when the BooMan community could make a difference for one seat in Congress. Any suggestions for such a project?
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
On point to go after Feinstein on is conflict of intrests. Diane Feinstein’s husband is CEO of a company that is owned by the Carlyle Group. No wonder she voted for the war dispite getting over 250,000 calls requesting she vote no. (as opposed to 250 requests she support it) That makes her not much better than Dick Chaney, IMHO.
She speaks very well and has the fire in her belly!
Cindy has wisely learned how to use her celebrity. No need to hire a campaign team – just toss that hat in the ring and wait for the hordes of reporters.
This is exactly what Diane needs, and several other dems as well. Any famous people out there – Or anybody with something to lose in the war? Just pick an opponent who needs to be exposed.
Interesting. Last Wednesday I went to see what Bob Gammage had to say for himself. TX gov race is shaping up to be quite a show. Gov (incompetent, bought by the insurance co’s and telecoms) Goodhair is the R, Kinky “why the hell not” Freidman running I, the other R (Scottie’s mom) is running I, Chris Bell has been running for a while as the D. So why is Gammage vying for the D slot?
Says he’s running not necessarily because he thinks he can win, but to get out there and say what needs to be said with no holds barred. To get people talking about the real issues. To give some hope to the disillusioned Dem’s in this state and thereby mobilize turnout for the downballot races where we actually have a lot of really good candidates. As a former state rep, state senator, US congressman, and TX Supreme Court justice, he has the creds to get heard.
Cindy may be trying for something similar.
As I said, 06 is getting interesting. Can’t wait to see how it plays out.
I can see several positives and negatives for this.
POSITIVE
She has a built-in campaign message: “I went to Washington and got face time with aides who told me their bosses’ minds were made up. If you elect me Senator Chuck Shumer will have to talk to me. It would be pretty hard for George Bush to ignore me if I’m there every day.”
She’d have plenty of money to run with. I’d send her money.
She and The Cause would get an amazing amount of press time. They wouldn’t be able to ignore her either.
A WASH
Pretty much everything negative about Cindy that could be dug up already has been. The divorce? Check. Israel statements? Check. Swiftboating? Been there, done that.
NEGATIVE
Unless this campaign is being run strictly to get Cindy into the news she is going to have to start thinking through positions on a lot of issues, fast. What happens if she wins the Senate seat? She can’t just go to Washington with an agenda of “frog march them out.” She will have to represent Californians on issues as diverse as agriculture, immigration, water policy, technology, copyright holders’ rights vs. consumer rights . . . heck, just go to any senator’s web page and take a look at the issues you can tag emails to them with.
I love Cindy and I love this idea but she can’t just be a one-dimensional candidate. People are going to be asking her what her position is on issues other than ending the war, because FSM willing the war will end . . . and then what? She will still be Senator if elected.
It’s 4:45 in the morning here, I just woke up and saw this article and I had to post before I could get back to sleep. I hope this is coherent.
And having said all that . . . I hope she does it. I too am curious as to what would happen. It would be a hell of a ride.
Which of her positions do you think she would be willing to amend or abandon in order to win an election?
Cindy Sheehan isn’t qualified to be a US Senator. This just furthers the impression that all she cares about is publicity and fame, which I’m sure isn’t the message she wants to send. If she wants to enter politics, she should run for a lower office first and get some experience. If she wants Feinstein out, then she should help find a viable democratic option and support that person’s candidacy.
others and you know for a fact it is their impression ? OR
3. what you think, what you assume, is their impression?
since Dukakis, I mean Mondale … ooops, I mean Mcgovern … I have heard so many people say
“I really like so and so(howard dean), but, you know, s/he will never get elected cuz this country is too moderate | conservative |whatever.”
guess what, most of them were living in Case #3. above, and
ALL of them would tell you they thought this idea up themselves …
although it always sounded just like the top of the hour newscast where a candidate is described as –
“a favorite, someone with ideas, someone with an energized support base … BUT”
“there are those questions about s/he appealling to the middle”
this is THE biggest bullshit arguement on the planet.
rmm.
I have defended Cindy Sheehan repeatedly to republicans who think she is only out for herself. This is the first time she has done something to make me question whether they might be right. Hopefully it will be a momentary glitch, I still believe in her, but I really don’t like the general idea of running hopeless campaigns to make a political point. People should run for office because they actually want the position, not to hurt someone else.
unlike DiFi’s noble intentions?
the more people who run, the better for all of us.
up here in seattle we are having the same arguements about Cant-Do-Shit for U.S. Senate
“the wingnuts are … WINGNUTS!”
yeah, duh. there have been, and will be, evil selfish people from and to the end of time.
is there a strategy for kicking their asses, other than whining about how mean and unethical they are?
“she is better than a wingnut”
so isn’t my sock. it doesn’t mean it would do the job it is hired to do.
“I don’t think that opponent will sell in …”
you’ve tapped their brainwaves “in…”?
you’ve got a spreadsheet that shows that whatever claim you are making “in…” is a fact, like, gravity is a fact?
there are a LOT of reasons to get beaten and lose, and a huge reason is we ain’t fighting.
rmm.
How does fighting Cantwell and Feinstein help? Democratic majority=investigations=an end to lots of major shit. Getting rid of loathsome democrats isn’t a luxury the nation can afford.
No offense, but Ah-nuld is the governor of Collie-for-nya…and he had zip in the experience department, unless you count marrying a Kennedy as experience. Cindy should run and give Feinstein a good hard shove to the left.
He isn’t the best example of how unqualified candidates can succeed. And Feinstein is secure enough in her position that she doesn’t have to move left, so running against her doesn’t accomplish anything other than getting more publicity. Whether for Sheehan personally or the anti-war movement in general is a matter of opinion. I would love to see her run for an office that she can win. What bothers me about this is that she seems to be grabbing notoriety for a few more months without any chance of actually winning responsibility to go with it. Cindy would make a good Representative, if she is willing to put in the work that goes with the job.
I’m sorry, he IS a bad example of governing after you get in, but his positions on the issues sucked going in…I was referring to him more from the standpoint that someone with “celebrity” status can run and win, regardless of their experience.
Need more coffee so I can repsond more clearly next time!
then I don’t object to the campaign. Even if she turned out to be completely unprepared for the job she wouldn’t be anywhere near the bottom of the Senator barrel. My main qualm is with her admission that she is running a hopeless campaign for the publicity.
Reading more closely (and waking up a little more), my suggestion that she find someone more creditable to support was stupid. With only a few months before the primary, Cindy will get more support than anyone else we could find just from name recognition.
I’m really glad you came around to this view, although I wouldn’t object to her running even if she didn’t have any chance of winning.
I don’t interpret what she said as meaning she is seeking publicity for herself, but rather that she is seeking publicity against the war and that she wants to “out” politicians who have supported it. I think that’s a great idea, and San Francisco is a great place to do it, given that Diane depends so much on votes from people who disagree with her about the war.
I haven’t reconsidered anything other than the consequences of someone unqualified winning. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if Sheehan became a Senator, though I would be shocked if she got more than 20% of the promary vote so the issue is probably moot. My other concerns are still the same.
As far as the war, the story I read earlier in the week said Sheehan was considering a run if Feinstein didn’t support the filibuster of Alito, which does give the impression that she is latching onto whichever issue gets her the most publicity.
That was the first thing I thought when I saw this. I thought, this woman started out so well — concerned about other families who would lose children to this war like she did, but she really has turned into a publicity hound. Then I felt bad that I thought that, because it certainly is her perogative to run for office. BUT I do think by doing so she would dilute her message.
At first I thought it was academic to me anyway. I don’t live in California. I intend to expend my efforts in getting a flawed Democrat elected in Missouri to replace a Republican and any extra money in other races where its necessary to bring down a Republican. My goal is a Democratic majority in the Senate. I won’t be spending any of my money trying to challenge other Democrats — except maybe Joe Lieberman who is really a Republican, not just a misguided Democrat.
But then I thought that maybe it wasn’t so academic. Because I’m hoping that people who live in states with a fairly safe Democratic senator will direct some money to Red states like mine so that we can either turn it Blue OR make the republicans spend time and effort defending it. I don’t want the Democrats to spend time and effort defending a state because they get a weak but famous challenger in the primary who somehow manages to take out the incumbent Democrat.
So I’ve now talked myself into thinking this is a terrible idea.
At the moment Sheehan has no chance of winning, and the money/time diverted during a primary won’t have any effect on the general election in a non-Presidential year anyway. This will probably be completely forgotten by July regardless of whether she runs or not. If she does by some miracle beat Feinstein, it will be an indication of a huge shift to the left in California and she would win easily in November anyway.
In a corporate owned world, where it is most often the lesser of two evils when it comes to candidates to choose from, occasionally a candidate decides to run to put forth a personal vision, or challenge the current elite powers running this country.
If her supporters approach this as an opportunity to increase their anti-war visibility, then go for it.
Winning is not the issue. Exposing Feinstein’s corporate connections to this war, and advocating for an immediate pull out of the troops, is the point.
Cindy’s thinking outside of the box. I, for one, would support such a move.
Here in New Olreans a friend of mine, a civil engineer, is considering running for mayor. He wouldn’t have a shot in hell, but the point is to rattle Nagin and challenge his corporate controlled “vision” for rebuilding the city.
Candidates like your friend and Cindy strike me as being the political candidate versions of corporate or governmental whistleblowers. Usually that’s a frightening and thankless job. But it wouldn’t have to be, on the political scene. Just dreaming out loud here. . .it would be nice to have a special political whistleblower’s campaign chest to contribute at least a little money to the hopeless campaigns of people who want to do nothing more than speak the truth out loud.
what about kinky’s run?
I haven’t paid attention. Does it qualify for the Speaking Truth to Power Squad?
Yeah, I guess so. đ
Plus, you gotta figure he has the El Paso vote wrapped up:
We don’t go to porno picture shows
We don’t swap our wives with our neighbors
And we keep our kids away from Mexico.
And I’m proud to be an asshole from El Paso
A place where sweet young virgins are deflowered.
You walk down the street knee-deep in tacos
Ta-ta-ta-tacos
And the wetbacks still get twenty cents an hour.
We don’t wipe our asses on Old Glory,
God and Lone Star beer are things we trust.
We keep our women virgins till they’re married
So hosin’ sheep is good enough for us.
And I’m proud to be an asshole from El Paso
A place where sweet young virgins are deflowered.
You walk down the street knee-deep in tacos
Ta-ta-ta-tacos
And the wetbacks still get twenty cents an hour.
I’m proud to be an asshole from El Paso
A place where sweet young virgins are deflowered.
You walk down that street knee-deep in tacos
Ta-ta-ta-tacos
And the wetbacks still get twenty cents an hour
If you can say shit like that and still get elected Governor, well…I’ll be damned.
Well, alot of you know how much I love Cindy and what she has done to invigorate the Peae movement. Hell, I went to Texas in August to stand with her. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It is important to send the centrists and Dinos of our party a message for sure. I don’t know that Cindy is the answer though. I feel disappointed that imho she hasn’t stayed on message, “For what Noble Cause” and some of the people she has been aligning herself with. I will have to wait and see what she says and does but at this point feel she is not qualified to run for the Senate and comparing her to Arnold makes no sense. Yes, he was unqualified and won but look at the f’ing mess he is making of things in California. He will not win another term. I don’t like alot of what DiFi does but more often than not she votes left. She even changed her mind about the filibuster for crying out loud.
Hey leezy, see my explanation of what I meant above- I shouldn’t comment before I’ve had enough coffee. đ
Yep, “celebrity” can win through name recognition but is that the change we really want to see in our party? Like I said I have very mixed feelings about her running. I feel she can be of better service elsewhere to represent the Peace Movement.
You say;
Exactly. You describe my view more succinctly than I’ve been able to.
Try this Lenin’s Tomb
A short snippet;
The perplexity in the article at the Democrats’ putative spinelessness, purblindness, failure to spot an opportunity when it presents itself, is ubiquitous on the articulate American Left. How do they come to miss every opportunity, the proud blue-staters wonder? Is it really because of Joe Lieberman and the DLC? Is it because of corporate pressure and the right-wing noise machine? Is it because of God and his earthly affiliates? Maybe, some liberal voices venture, gays were too truculent with their demands for gay rights? You really have to be living in denial to miss the fact that this is not political timidity but outright aggression against the Left, the peaceniks, the gays, the blacks, the working class, the disenfranchised etc.
Tell me what you all think.
We have a chance to shift the balance of Congress and not only put a stop to this runaway government but also a slight chance of impeaching Bush and people are talking about spending their time/money on supporting a quixotic run to take out a fellow Democrat by a person whose only qualification is that her son died in Iraq?
Believe me, my heart goes out to the Cindy Sheehans of the country and I am very appreciative of her successful effort to move the dialogue regarding Iraq to where it needs to be, but to most people (rightly or wrongly) this would appear to be nothing more than a cheap stunt and would do little more than provide evidene to support the slanderous accusations that have been made against her.
I hope this idea quickly fades away and people focus more on supporting well qualified candidates that have a real chance to contribute to a shift of power in Congress.
What are the qualifications one needs to run for political office? Isn’t support, money and being a citizen qualifications enough? If I remember correctly most Dems voted FOR the war in Iraq, or am I mistaken.
As you will see in my above post, I agree generally with your conclusion. But I don’t think it really is a matter of qualifications. I don’t think one needs to be anything but an American citizen to be an elected official. Everyone has something they can bring to the office.
However, some candidates will just attract opposition like magnets and cause the Repubs to come out of the woodwork, thereby using up lots of time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. THAT’s why I think this is a terrible idea.
If people are unhappy with a current Democratic senator, unless they are planning to run an independently wealthy candidate against him or her wait until we have a majority in the Senate and THEN start weeding out weak ones.
Hmmm. Am seeing some very interesting (and frankly alarming) ideas expressed in this thread about “what it takes” (in terms of qualifications) to occupy public office in this country.
Have we really become the masters of such low expectations? Seriously, by this standard, Terry Schiavo could have run–and, indeed, by virtue of paralysis, may have been in a position to do a better job than someone like Bush (at least she’d be prevented from doing any more DAMAGE).
Cindy Sheehan, as far as I can tell, was just another suburban soccer mom who was perfectly willing to go along with the “baseball, hot dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet”-model (which included abject political apathy and/or blind faith in the gov on the part of citizens) until the truth about America hit her head-on with the death of her son. The fact that this terrible event moved her to action and that she has since motivated many others like her to finally wake up and smell the criminality and corruption that have been the foundational principles of this country ever since its inception is great, but does that really qualify her to run for public office?
Personally, one of the things I found so alarming about my own little inadvertent run-in w/ Cindy Sheehan was the fact that she was so utterly ill-informed about this country’s history, a shortcoming she shares with probably 80-90% of the population, but the fact that, according to her own statements, she MAJORED in American History and is still so ill-informed does not bode well, imo.
Got to give her credit for one thing: unlike Ahnold, she can at least pronounce the word “Sacramento” and, well, the idea of using a bid like this as a political stunt to goad folks like Feinstein into action is not, imo, a bad one. I don’t think political stunts are a bad thing at this point–the last 5 yrs have been one ongoing political stunt on the part of the Right, and it seems to be “working out fairly well for them.” If stunts is what it takes, so be it.
I do fear that Sheehan’s publicity is going to her head a bit–(one brief stint in English-speaking countries doth not a cosmopolitan citizen of the world make!)–and that there is a risk of taking on more than one is “qualified” to handle. But what the hell, with an utterly uninformed, completely moronic country bumpkin like Bush in the presidency who can’t even handle the basics of third-grade grammar, who’s to complain about the notion of someone who’s at least willing to admit past mistakes, get informed, get involved and “go for it.”
I’d be happy to support her run by sending her a copy of “Lies my Teacher Told Me” in the hope that she might also come to “see the light” on this country’s history in the same way she has since seen the light on the culmination of that history in the current crisis of criminality we face.
At this point, I’m ready to support anyone who is willing to raise the kind of hell Sheehan’s been raising since she was finally forced to wake up to the American Nightmare that has been painfully apparent to some of us all of our lives.
I’m using a purely legalistic definition of qualification. And I admit I should have included the age qualification too. So under that definition Schiavo could have run. I doubt that she would have been elected. My point on qualifications, that I admittedly didn’t make too well, is that people throw around the word “qualifications” as thought we all understand the word the same way and that isn’t true. I don’t think its productive to talk about “qualifications” except in in the purely legal sense. I do think its appropriate to talk about what the person can bring to the job. Some can bring more, some can bring less. Terry Schiavo could legally have run as far as I can tell; one would hope she wouldn’t have been elected because she would have brought so little to the job. Maybe nothing more than the inability to be bought, because the buyers couldn’t communicate with her.
You do bring up an important point, though. For most positions in that same income bracket, there is a job description and an outline for prerequisite qualifications for the job. (And remember, ultimately, public office is a JOB just like any other). And here my own ignorance: do we even have any written qualifications, aside from those pertaining to age, residency, nationality and citizenship, etc. If not, maybe we, the employers of people in public office, ought to think about drafting some!
Imo, the ability to pass a basic 3rd grade grammar test SHOULD be a basic prerequisite to the job of any public office at state or national level. Not because I am a grammar cop, but because the ability to articulate and speak with modest intelligibility seems to me a basic requirement for anyone who hopes to REPRESENT me. And this is also related to educational issues for me: I’ve got 3rd graders QUESTIONING Bush’s grammar in my classes (that’s a good thing), but I also want my representatives at the state and national level to set good examples for the children: I do not want my 3rd graders to have to be ashamed of their representatives’ ability to speak basic English, nor do I much relish having to tell them, “Yes, little third graders, you are right, and the president is wrong, pls don’t take his example–surely you will flunk your future SATs.”
On that score, Sheehan’s not doing badly.
But I also think it is really sad that when talking about the qualifications for the job of public office, we are reduced to this level.
Who’d a ever thunk that the ability to master basic English grammar would ever have become relevant to this discussion?
Maybe it isn’t. But, jeez, we sure as hell are looking like a bunch of idiots to the rest of the world, not only because of our policy decisions, but because we continue to place people in public office who can’t even speak standard English. Again, Schiavo would have been an improvement in that regard: at least she couldn’t have embarrassed us with bad English!
It’s tempting but I suspect that if we started writing in job qualifications it would benefit nobody but rich white men. Because that’s the way the world works.
I also find myself amazed that people will elect persons who are so badly educated even though they may have degrees from higher institutions. I’m not perfect in grammar or spelling — but I could make a speech or answer questions using standard American English. And I agree that people’s understanding of history is abysmal. Hence my comment in the above “Rubicon” thread. I’ve found the use of the term Rubicon in this battle annoying for days now.
Well, you’re probably right about the rich white men.
No one is perfect in grammar or spelling–that’s not the standard I’m suggesting, rather precisely as you state: the ability to answer questions using standard American English.
And about the higher institutions….jeez, you’d think places like Yale would be getting concerned. I sure as hell wouldn’t send one of my kids there based on the level of “intelligence” and “education” I’m seeing in their most well-known graduate.
Ultimately, the grammar issue is indeed trivial: I just think it is so indicative of the depths of standards and expectations we have been reduced to in this country. Pretty sad when, if the basic qualification is “the ability to answer questions using standard American English,” so many of our current elected officials would be disqualified. Even more alarming when you consider the fact that these idiots actually have DEGREES, most of them from “prestigious” schools.
I had lunch with a friend last week, another lawyer, who is looking for a new job. She told me she interviewed at a law school (which will remain nameless) for a job teaching legal writing. One of the questions in the interview was “What would you do if one of your students did not have an adequate knowledge of grammar and spelling?” She said she was shocked they would even feel a need to ask that question. People with inadequate spelling and grammar should not even be IN law school or any other graduate program that relies heavily on the written word. (I hesitate to make a complete generalization — maybe you could get a graduate degree in computer programming without ever having to write a paper.)
Well, you know, and these days, with grammar and spell check functions on computers, you’d think some of this just wouldn’t be an ISSUE. But it is.
A few weeks (months?) ago, when the most recent study on literacy in the US came out, I was tempted to blog about it, but it was just too depressing.
The point again and again: what the hell has happened to our standards?
It is, of course, in the best interest of the current regime to keep everyone at the same dismal level of (il)literacy as they are and to keep lowering the bar, lowering the bar, until some day it really would make no difference whether those who run for office are silenced by a feeding tube or simply inarticulate by virtue of their own illiteracy.
I can imagine that a lot of people outside this country who may have taken the time to follow the Schiavo case probably thought to themselves: yep, she looks about as intelligent, articulate and aware as the average American voter. Must admit, the thought certainly crossed my mind!
you are being nitpicky on the Rubicon thing.
Of course, Caesar faced a difficult decision. And he chose not to give up his army and quite likely his freedom, and perhaps his life, so that Pompey could have his way. If his decision to cross the Rubicon spelled the doom of the Republic, it was also Pompey’s idiotic policies that put JC in such a bind.
Anyway, the Rubicon need not be seen as a metaphor for ending the Republic. It can be seen as a metaphor for any decision from which there is no going back. Like diving off the highboard, or jumping out of a plane.
Not sure how well that fits the decision to filibuster, but considering the ‘nuclear’ threat it seems apt enough.
I absolutely agree that I am being nitpicky on the Rubicon thing.
History is always written by the winners. I sometimes find that annoying.
come to think of it, THAT may be what I actually find annoying about the whole “Rubicon” thing. Because I’m not an ancient history fanatic and I DO know the other meaning of the phrase. I just can’t figure out how if affects this fight. I’m not sure I agree with you on the nuclear option thing, but I’ll give it some thought.
Now wait a freakin’ moment here & think aboout what you are suggesting!
Do you have any idea how may judges & lawyers would have to find other work if our laws were actually written clearly & concisely?
As to Cindy: let’s face it, she won’t win, but she sure as hell can turn the heat on Feinstein. Di Fi will not lose the support of the CA democratic machine that bought her the Senate seat to begin with; besides, her hubby, Richard Blum, is in bed with both behind-the-scenes Democrats & Republicans.
I think Cindy Sheehan running for elected office diminishes her stature in the public sphere and renders the resonance of her message less effective.
I’ve had the chance in my earlier days to be if not a whistleblower, a single issue crusader, later to end up in an elected leadership position.
In my case it was a bad idea. I’m a crow’s nest kinda guy. I’ve got a long track record of spotting trouble before most people, but not the talents and people skills to do the daily work of dealing and leadership.
The job of Senator strikes me as being mostly a job of dealing with organized interests, whether corporate or popular. The interests are simply there–they can’t be wished away even if an elected rep believes they should receive a different priority than another rep gave them.
I don’t see anything in Cindy’s background to suggest that she’d enjoy or be good at spending very many of her days doing what Senators do for much of the time. And I don’t have any sense that she’s ever talked much about ideas for how elected reps should be working or spending their time in some new way.
Let’s think of it this way: would Cindy Sheehan be a wise interim appointment for Senator if it were possible?
What do you consider experience? Cronyism like Katherine Harris and her ilk?
Please we need lots of NEW blood in politics NOW!
.
“She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won’t call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops,” Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview while attending the World Social Forum in Venezuela along with thousands of other anti-war and anti-globalization activists.
“I think our senator needs to be held accountable for her support of George Bush and his war policies.”
Nice Election Poster (for the repugs that is)
Cindy calling from Chavez territory:
Yes, yes I’m running against Senator Feinstein.
Yes, I’m at the World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela …
U.S. anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan hugs a supporter before speaking about the U.S. war in Iraq at the 6th World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. (AP Photo/Leslie Mazoch)Dems’ Template for Success: Follow Jack Murtha …
LEAVE … Iraq to the Iraqis
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
After DiFi voted for the hideous bankruptcy bill, I vowed never to vote for her again. It was the last straw for me. So, I would love to see someone challenge her, though I would prefer someone who is not a one-issue candidate. I can’t say I would support Sheehan, but I would vote for her over DiFi any day. DiFi needs a swift kick in the ass as a reminder that by failing the left, she is jepordizing her seat and that she is not the shoe-in everyone seems to think she is.