Sad.

This is sad:

U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD:  3595
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation:  11
Total  3606
DoD Confirmation List

You may disagree with Cindy's methods, you may feel (as I do) that's she's done some things we wish she hadn't, but on rereading this diary (I slept on this before deciding to post it) its sneering, derisive tone along with the picture obviously selected to be unflattering and discrediting, does the diarist a disservice approximately equal to that which this piece does Cindy.
Have you marched for peace, Chris? Have you taken a stand - not behind the keyboard but out in the reals?
Have you protested outside the White House or in Upper Senate Park?
I have.
You say that Cindy "guarantees that impeachment will not happen" with her actions. I don't think she has that much power.
Do you?
I do think, howver, that hit pieces like this are why she has basically left the peace movement.
Chris makes this statement:

Of course that hasn't stopped her from posting on DailyKos which, like Raising Kaine, is a pro-Democratic Party blog, not a liberal or anti-war blog.

Obviously, Cris is overlooking the work of dKos diarists such as noweasels and the IGTNT crew, OPOL, and many others.
And I'd venture to say I spend a good deal more time there than he does.
This could almost be a Redstate piece with a little tweaking.

Given that he's a strong Democratic Party loyalist, something tells me he's not too pleased with Cindy Sheehan right about now.

...the lates DKos diary on Cindy Sheehan, and the comments range from scathing to pitying to worried (about her having gone off the deep end), to admiration for her Camp Casey activities, to predictions that she'll lose to Pelosi, to dismay at the "Sheehan bashing" at Daily Kos, to a few supporters. 

Big (orange and white) tent.

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" comes to mind.

I think that's probably a safe bet.

it was added by one of the sites administrators.

As for being a Republican hit piece... How about Cindy going on DK and proclaiming that the Democratic party is the party of slavery? Did she work for the Michael Steele campaign?

I didn't mean to suggest it WAS Aa Republican hit piece, only that it kind of put that vibe out.
Like I said, there's a number of things I wish she hadn't done, but there are still things that I'm glad she has, and I still have empathy for her.

I agree that Cindy Sheehan is only in it for herself.  But you hurt your argument by equating Sheehan with Michael Moore.  If being a Democrat means you can never criticize Democrats, I'd like a refund, please.

like Hannity or O'Reilly would have you believe that people as liberal as Sheehan and Moore are representative of the Democratic Party as a whole.

Besides, Sicko takes shots at the opponents of HRC's health plan, who are portrayed as obsessed with socialism. It's not about HRC.

LC Johnson posted this:

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are not speaking.  The majority of Americans believe Dick Cheney and George Bush should be impeached.  Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, says no.  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, I am told by someone familiar with the inner workings of the House, favors proceeding with impeaching Cheney.  But Nancy says no.  Pelosi is being described by some as Tom Delay in a skirt, in terms of her refusal to pay attention to what the majority of Americans want.

Larry offers no sourcing, but if this is true, I do not know that I can continue to support Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

That is disappointing if true, but I think Chris is right that Sheehan's interference makes it less likely, not more, that Pelosi will make any move toward impeachment.

anything Cindy does will influence Pelosi one way or the other

I'd greatly prefer it if Sheehan were endorsing sending Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. That way she'd be making impeachment look like the moderate position rather than the "far left" position that no one "sensible" can even talk about.

Having Sheehan as the face of those calling for impeachment is nearly as bad as having the LaRouche loonies out there with their impeachment signs. I'm very glad that they've recently moved on to trying to convince people that global warming is a hoax.

THAT makes sense.

I can't think of a better way to bolster Pelosi's moderate credentials than by having a loony-tune like Sheehan run against her. 

As with Ralph Nader, it seems that Sheehan's ego has started to become more important to her than her impact in the real world.

has lost her credibility for sure BUT Pelosi, by taking impeachment "off the table" has infuriated the democratic base. I think the Congressional democrats are below Bush in approval ratings. Hoyer needs to go. Pelosi needs to put on her big girl panties and go for it. I'm sick of her pandering to George Bush by saying impeachment "isn't worth it". While he will never be impeached as we all know, it is up to the democrats to stand up to his highness. If he knows impeachment is "on the table" maybe he won't try to inflict so much damage in his last 560 days.
I know I live in a fantasy world. He can do a whole LOT of damage in the next year. It will take generations to fix evrything he has done to this country. But Pelosi et al can't just lay down and keep having hearings with no consequences.
It's ridiculous.

Congress as a whole has approval ratings around those for the president, but Congress is almost always a lot lower than the president. And it's not congressional Democrats, as you say -- the Republicans are the ones people really don't like. See analysis here.

No more Democrats in Name Only!

According to Project Vote Smart, Nancy Pelosi's interest group ratings are:

*Planned Parenthood 100%
*NARAL 100%
*ACLU 100%
*NAACP 100%
*National Education Association 100%
*Campaign for America's Future 100%
*American Wilderness Coalition 100%
*Defenders of Wildlife 100%
*Children's Defense Fund 100%
*Citizens for Global Solutions A+
*American Association of University Women 100%
*US PIRG 100%
*American Publich Health Association 100%
*Service Employees International Union 100%
*Americans for Democratic Action 95%
*National Journal Composite Liberal Score 90%

If that's a "DINO," I'd be fascinated to see what your version of a "real Democrat" is.

Pelosi is at 92.3. Only 18 of the 435 members of the House have a more liberal voting record than her. Less liberal members include Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Cynthia McKinney.

Voting on issues like raising the minimum wage is easy: I want to see her make some waves.

Paul Wellstone would likely find her to be rather conservative and regressive.

See today's Post for how Pelosi faced down one of the toughest, meanest, orneriest guys in Congress, John Dingell, on CAFE standards.  The bottom line is that I VERY much admire Nancy Pelosi and think she's doing a great job.

says it all:

http://www.commondre...

This is a far more reasoned, thoughtful and fairer piece by a Kossack who, like me, does not agree with every move Cindy has ever made. He writes:

As a veteran of service in a combat zone myself, I cannot help but to be filled with empathy for Ms. Sheehan, and for the thousands of other mothers of men and women who were killed in action in this war.  And I do not have to agree with Ms. Sheehan?s views, or her actions, to feel that this mother whose grief and loss is why we listen to her ought to be given the respect that the sacrifice of hers and of Casey?s has earned.

...there's an article in today's Washington Post about how Nancy Pelosi has become the "undisputed leader of the House's fractious Democratic majority."  The article further notes that Pelosi has managed to pass 48 bills in her first 92 days, compared to 37 bills for Newt Gingrich in his first 90 days.  Among these bills are ones expanding funding for stem-cell research, repealing subsidies for oil companies, increasing the minimum wage, and much more. 

On the Iraq War, obviously Pelosi wants us out of there, but she doesn't control the US Senate or the White House.  As I've believed for a long time, what's going to end this war is when Republicans like Dick Lugar, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and others join with Senate Democrats to reach the 60 votes needed in order to cut off a fillibuster.  We're not quite there yet, but it's getting very close.  That's where we should be focusing our energies - on wavering Republican Senators in "swing states," NOT on Nancy Pelosi, who is doing a fantastic job in my opinion.

You centrist dems really hate anyone with enough passion to not play nice. go join the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. Thomas Jefferson would be saddened by the Democrats' appeasement of the administration...maybe the party he founded ought go the way of the Whigs. I don't want to be in a party with bastards like you who tear down our Peace Mom. You are as big an ass as the chickenhawks are...no, worse, you are like a wolf in sheep's skin. Your disdain for passion in politics really hurts our cause.
People die so long as Bush feels safe from impeachment. the founders came up with impeachment for this very case. quit worrying about manners and appearances. if you keep marginalizing people who are going nuts over this government's actions, then you are only helping the government get away with its actions. do you think we'll be better off to never make the administration pay for its treason? what more could a president do, in your eyes, to warrant impeachment? Care to imagine how bad it could be if President Giuliani thought he had impunity? If that doesn't scare you, then you may really be a Republican. I hear they could use some help over there lately. 

Some of us "centrists" who are daring to criticize Cindy Sheehan are very much in favor of impeachment (though I do seriously worry that a failed impeachment attempt may be a worse outcome than no impeachment attempt at all). That's precisely why I don't want Sheehan pulling this stunt -- because it makes impeachment appear less mainstream. Let her instead call for war crimes trials at the Hague, so then we can "compromise" by settling for impeachment.

Sheehan has done some good things, but she's fatally damaged her ability to appeal to people outside her die-hard fan base with bad decisions like embracing Hugo Chavez (the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend). It's unfortunate, but at this point she's jumped the shark. Passion does no good if it's exercised in a way that actually sets back the causes you're trying to help.

And I voted against Lieberman back when he first ran for the Senate -- voting for the true liberal in that race, who happened to be the incumbent Republican (Lowell Weicker, who later left the party). In was clear even then what Lieberman was, and the Democrats made a huge mistake in not strongly supporting Lamont last year.

Because the whole primarying Joe Lieberman thing worked out great for all of us, didn't it?

The funny thing I've noticed about the "big tent" conversations that errupt after posts like this is that both the moderates and the liberals blame one another for destroying the big tent with their "disdain for passion in politics [which] really hurts our cause."  DHG illustrates pretty well what I mean with statements like "I don't want to bein a party with bastards like you who tear down our Peace Mom."  (By the way, it's human nature to want to tear down anyone we're supposed to seriously refer to as Peace Mom, capital P, capital M.  I'm just saying, there are better nicknames out there).

And of course, it's not just the liberals who create this sort of mentality, as evidenced by the "why doesn't Cindy Sheehan take a long walk off a short pier?" undertone to statements from moderate democrats like the one who wrote this diary.  And to be fair, the comment from Lowell about Cindy having "gone off the deep end" when he promoted the diary wasn't helpful.

When the party turns on itself, moderates and liberals alike seem incensed enough at one another, laying the blame one one another for destroying the big tent by being either moderate or liberal purists.  That's ultimately why I disagree with Cindy Sheehan wanting to run against Nancy Pelosi.  Cindy used to be about uniting people who were against the war, but now she's about dividing democrats.  It is unhelpful and it is compounded daily by the sorts of comments we've seen here today.

...you REALLY won't like this. 

Actually, the whole primarying Joe Lieberman did work out well -- not as well as it would have if the national Democrats had actually supported Lamont decently, but we're certainly in a better place than we would be if it hadn't happened. Lamont's success in the primary encouraged a lot of Democratic candidates to take stronger stances against the war, and that helped us take more seats. Plus Lieberman is no longer a Democrat and thus can't appear on political shows representing the Democratic side of the conversation while spouting Republican talking points, nor can Bush point to his agreement with something as evidence that he's being bipartisan.

This blog strongly supported Ned Lamont and can't stand Joe Lieberman.

in this race. Like Joe, she left the party and is challenging the Democratic nominee. And, like Joe, if she won she'd probably caucus with the Democrats and spend all her time criticizing them, not Republicans.

Anyway, how does criticizing someone who isn't even a Democrat supposed to make me a "moderate?" I can call Ralph Nader the egomaniacal bastard that he is with a very clear conscious. :)

I filled out that presidential candidate selector the other day and Kucinich and Obama were my highest matches by far. It's OK though. I learned 4 years ago that if you didn't support Howard Dean, you're a DINO.

is overwhelming over at Daily Kos.  For instance, there's a poll that has received over 3,500 votes indicating that 80% of "Kossacks" believe Sheehan should NOT run against Nancy Pelosi.  Then, there's this comment:

I was sorely, sorely disappointed to see Ms. Sheehan's inflammatory rhetoric on the Rec List this morning.

Sorely disappointed.

That has gotten 361 recommends and ZERO troll ratings.   Wow.

Basically, there's next to no support at DKos for what Cindy Sheehan is threatening to do.  If she can't get support there, it's hard to imagine her getting it anywhere.

I haven't followed her every move or tactic, but I will never have anything but compassion and sympathy for this woman.  Who of us who are parents wouldn't be wacko if someone did to our child what has been done to her son? Now that the cat is out of the bag that the people who sold Congress on this war were selling a big pack of lies, who of us wouldn't be overwhelmed if we had lost a child because of all of these lies?  Now we've created a situation from which it may be very hard to extricate ourselves, and if this war continues, ALL OF US who have children face knowing her pain.  I don't believe for one minute there will not be another draft if the powers that be decide we need to spend the next 20 or 30 years getting this all buttoned up.  She is operating from one of the most sincere and noble motivations---a mother's pure love and excruciating grief for the loss of her son.  I for one could never belittle that or have scorn for her.  I pray that this woman can find some peace in her soul.