MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Pushing Pelosi

News: By running for congress in California's 8th district, Cindy Sheehan hopes to nudge the Speaker out of Iraq—now.

January 31, 2008


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

One morning last August in San Francisco, six women in pink sweaters marched up a hilly boulevard towing pink roller bags full of shoes. They unzipped the bags in front of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's house, dumped the shoes on her lawn, and went on to arrange loafers, pumps, and pink glittery sandals like hawkers at a yard sale. Anchoring their display was a pair of combat boots, placed on Pelosi's doorstep. The boots, like the other shoes, had been pulled from a dead body in Iraq—the body of Casey Sheehan, in fact, whose mother, Cindy, is running as an Independent against Pelosi for Congress.

These women believe Cindy Sheehan could succeed where their anti-war group, Code Pink, has failed. Pelosi has refused to meet Code Pink's demand that she end the war in Iraq by procedural fiat: As Speaker, Pelosi has the power to prevent votes on war funding bills, and could demand that any legislation contain a timetable for withdrawing the troops. "Pelosi crosses us out; she won't even meet with us," Code Pink cofounder Medea Benjamin said as she hunched on the House Speaker's curb. "So it takes somebody like Cindy to counteract the pressure from other [less emphatically antiwar] Democrats" by challenging her at the polls.

More mainstream progressives within the Party would prefer to oppose the war on their own terms, which is to say, carefully. The lefty bloggers who first publicized Sheehan's anti-war sit-in outside Bush's ranch in 2005 now overwhelmingly oppose her independent race as a distraction from their goal of forging a coalition to retake the White House. "I feel that working within the Democratic Party is really the only way progressives can operate without sort of turning into just reverse Joe Liebermans," Democratic blogger Chris Bowers told me. The race has hastened a clash between Netizens like Bowers, who prefer to wait patiently for the other shoe to drop in November, and the traditionally impatient anti-war movement, which has flirted with outsiders such as the People's Party and Green Party ever since the war in Vietnam.

The schism over Sheehan has sent cracks high into the ivory towers of liberal consensus. While some contributors to The Nation have supported her candidacy, for example, the magazine's columnist Katha Pollitt wrote a scathing blog post last August in which she predicted it would diminish Sheehan's cachet as an activist (even though by last spring Sheehan already had renounced her role as the face of the American anti-war movement). The New Guard is joined by politicos of the Old Left who've come to believe that the Democratic Party can't be herded by nipping at its shoelaces from the sidelines. John Burton, U.S. Congressman and president pro-tempore of the California Senate, said he's learned a lot about races such as Sheehan's since the '60s. "It's gonna be horseshit," he said, "and it's gonna be negligible."

That Sheehan has the support of a cadre of proudly negligible political operatives may only seal her fate in the eyes of detractors. Ralph Nader—who this week launched an exploratory website for yet another presidential bid—told me that running against Pelosi is "a very important thing for Cindy Sheehan to do." Moreover, Nader's acolytes in the Sheehan campaign have done little to dispel their image as actors who wandered out of the movie Hairspray. At an anti-war vigil in San Francisco's business district last July, Sheehan supporter Renay Davis wore pink costume earrings, donned a pink crown, and waved a pink wand. Unlike Pelosi, Sheehan is "not a rich, establishment type of person," she was saying, but was cut short when a Code Pink comrade stepped in to offer a customized "Impeach mint."

The unbridled goofiness of Sheehan's supporters plays well, however, in a city that is poorly understood by the campaign's detractors. San Francisco Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez won 47 percent of the vote in a 2003 mayoral runoff against a charismatic Democrat. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted overwhelmingly in 2006 to impeach the president. And last year's mayoral bid of performance artist Chicken John was front page news. Here politics is theater, and ballot returns are only slightly more important than the strength of applause. Just because San Franciscans probably won't boot the Speaker of the House doesn't mean they won't relish Sheehan's narrative. "Pelosi has to be careful in how she responds to this," says veteran San Francisco political consultant Richard DeLeon. "She has to address her own constituency and deal with these kinds of issues in a way that at least tells them that she is listening, that she cares, that she can understand how this kind of challenge might come about."

Understanding Sheehan's run requires understanding Code Pink, which was founded in 2002 in San Francisco and whose members have worked closely with the peace mom since her first days in Crawford, Texas. In 2000, Code Pink's Benjamin ran for U.S. Senate as a Green against Democratic incumbent Dianne Feinstein, earning 3 percent of the vote statewide, but 25 percent in San Francisco's liberal Mission District. She leveraged her progressive cred into the anti-war group and in 2003 earned a meeting with Hillary Clinton. When the senator refused to pledge opposition to the Iraq war, Code Pink activists outraged Clinton by shoving at her a rumpled pink slip. "People in Washington called me and said I'll never eat lunch in this town again," recalls Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans. So instead Code Pink has noshed on politicians. When Benjamin herself considered running against Pelosi two years ago, for example, the congresswoman fired off a strongly worded press release against the war, Benjamin says. The perceived victory helped inspire Code Pink to pitch "Camp Pelosi" outside the Speaker's mansion. If Pelosi caved once, the thinking went, she'd do it again.

Since then, however, Sheehan has achieved little more than a tense stand-off with the Speaker, who has come under increasing fire from critics on the left. In December the Washington Post reported that Pelosi and three other members of Congress were briefed in 2002 on the CIA's overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques such as waterboarding but didn't object at the time (Democrats later would condemn waterboarding as torture). Sheehan responded to the news report by calling for Pelosi to be stripped of her leadership post. "I was appalled and really saddened," Sheehan told me. "We can't be represented by a person like this."

Sheehan's increasingly harsh tone toward Pelosi might end up doing her campaign and movement more harm than good, some political experts say. "To the degree that people like Cindy Sheehan make the argument about the split among people against the war, they are hurting the cause," says Georgetown professor Michael Kazin, an expert on the history of the Left. "If the media is spending a lot of time reporting on how people against the war disagree with each other about tactics, that's a diversion from making arguments about how terrible the war is. You want to unite as much as possible around common goals and a common offensive position against your opponent."

And yet Sheehan sees little option but to attack Pelosi head-on. "I'm not running a negative campaign," she says, "I'm just pointing out what Nancy Pelosi does. We have to run on her record, and it's not a good record." In a city that has always helped set the Democratic agenda, Sheehan hopes her campaign will create a stronger sense of urgency about ending the war immediately. San Francisco could become a launching pad for forwarding that position should Democrats take the White House or a larger share of Congress.

In early August, Sheehan held her first campaign meeting in a San Francisco restaurant. Speaking to a crowd that included Daniel Ellsberg, who helped end the Vietnam War by releasing the Pentagon Papers; assorted activists pimpled in campaign buttons; and a man who pioneered using bodies to spell the word "Impeach" on California beaches, she marveled at the offers of money and volunteers that she'd never received in her days as an activist. "I think that's great," she said, as if the crowd needed to be told, "because this isn't going to be a normal political campaign."

And so far, it hasn't been. Sheehan has reached out to black leaders in the gentrifying Bayview neighborhood, an area she calls "traditionally practically ignored in elections" while also pressing her cause on the global stage, visiting Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria last summer and planning a trip to Egypt this month to attend a terrorism trial with human rights implications. It's all relevant to her race in San Francisco, she insists. "I think that's what our campaign is trying to do—just connect all these dots."

Josh Harkinson is Mother Jones' San Francisco reporter.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

I would vote for any candidate who could answer "why are we in Iraq?", given that no WMDs were found nor any connection between Iraq and Al-Quaida
Posted by:nc91February 1, 2008 1:55:31 AMRespond ^
I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. Her sons death has obviously taken an extremely hard toll on her, and she's pretty much (for lack of a better word) lost it. I also have this feeling that Sheehan, if she beat the astronomical odds against her in 2008, were to win the seat, that she would become Speaker and be able to shut down the war. This is obviously not the case, since the Speaker position is by internal election. It's just too bad that this woman, who has lost one of the most important people in her life, is now making a mockery of the anti-war campaign.
Posted by:AdamFebruary 1, 2008 2:00:19 AMRespond ^
Ohh thanks for your compassion. Except its not, its a play. Cindy isnt trying to become Speaker -she is trying to put pressure on the Democtats. Pressure to do what the American expected them to do, when they threw out the Republicans LAST YEAR. This is called politics. Pelosi is not playing a respectable part in the struggle to end the war, SFer's want our reps to be on the front lines fighting to bring them home, fighting for us.
Posted by:NotAdamFebruary 1, 2008 5:58:10 AMRespond ^
I feel sorry for people who have forgot 9/11, the terrorist attacks in Europe and SE Asia, and that terrorism is alive and well in the world. We should remember the USA is just about the only country with the ability to slow its activities. We should appreciate that GWB kept our nation free of terrorist attacks since 9/11 and with any change in the defense of our country in the future it could be a sharp reminder of what a good job the president has accomplished over the past seven years.
Posted by:William McIntireFebruary 1, 2008 7:23:00 AMRespond ^
LOL
Posted by:cyaFebruary 1, 2008 7:41:03 AMRespond ^
Was that a joke?
Posted by:LukeFebruary 1, 2008 7:49:01 AMRespond ^
Rep. Cindy Sheehan will forward the cause of not only peace, but justice, by sending a message to the rest of congress and this nation that corrupt, complicit representatives who continue to be accomplices to Bush/Cheney crimes WILL BE REPLACED.. by THE PEOPLE. Bush is not above the law. Cheney is not above the law, nor is anyone in their administration who has been complicit in a long list of High Crimes by the Bush administration, including MASS MURDER FOR PROFIT. And Pelosi, is violating her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and uphold the laws of this nation, is not above the law. Protecting Bush and Cheney, when their crimes have been proven, documented and, in the case of illegal surveillance, was ADMITTED and continues, is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. As we saw with the conviction of Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice, Nancy Pelosi should be prosecuted for the same crime. At the very least, she should be removed/recalled/impeached. And if that can't be accomplished, we should all flood the Cindy Sheehan campaign with every spare dollar we can, in order to replace Pelosi. I have pleaded with Pelosi through her staff for her to resign. If she has been threatened, her family threatened, has engaged in personal corruption in congress, is complicit in approving and encouraging torture, then she should immediately resign and leave congress. She should go home and get out of the way so that more courageous and competent representatives can try to stop the mass murders, the looting of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United States Treasury, and fight to restore this democracy. In any case, Bush and Cheney MUST be impeached, removed and prosecuted IMMEDIATELY... and Nancy Pelosi is sorely unqualified and incompetent to assume the presidency, in that case, for any amount of time.
Posted by:AlwaysAskWHYFebruary 1, 2008 11:34:50 AMRespond ^
Go for it. Democrats whose passion for appropriate appearance outweigh their sense of immediacy have earned the loss of support. Until they are as afraid of losing votes from the "out now" set as they are afraid of the same from the "support the troops" crowd, the "out now" set will be hostage to their inaction.
Posted by:Monte AsburyFebruary 1, 2008 1:28:26 PMRespond ^
The democratic party seems have lost it's courage since Clinton left office. I don't think you can find a pair of cohones in the entire congress. Cindy may just be the person to re-introduce the missing "balls". Congress has degenerated into one big brothel where lobyists go to buy "favors" And they pass laws aginst hookers!! IRONY
Posted by:SidFebruary 1, 2008 2:23:59 PMRespond ^
God love the ladies of Code Pink, and God love Cindy Sheehan for standing up to the "money" wing of the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi has heard the rumble on the left, and she has chosen to turn a deaf ear. On every opportuntiy to stand up for the American people, she has caved in to George W. Bush. With friends like her, we don't need an enemy. Pelosi and her oil-hungry husband need to be shown the door--and fast, before the Democratic Party becomes a complicit wing of the Repugnicans.
Posted by:Len CarrierFebruary 1, 2008 2:28:27 PMRespond ^
Cindy has not "lost it" nor is she making a mockery of anything. Her courage and antiwar stance is steadfast, unlike the arm-chair liberals who have grown tired of the fight.
Posted by:berniewentboomFebruary 1, 2008 2:28:51 PMRespond ^
Nancy Pelosi has been a huge disappointment. I am voting with my checkbook for the woman who is calling her out.
Posted by:Ray HarrisFebruary 1, 2008 2:42:50 PMRespond ^
traditionally impatient anti-war movement, which has flirted with outsiders such as the People's Party and Green Party ever since the war in Vietnam. Waiting since Vietnam is not impatience. Waiting since Vietnam
Posted by:memmoFebruary 1, 2008 3:03:19 PMRespond ^
That quote from John Burton is priceless
Posted by:nicFebruary 1, 2008 3:10:35 PMRespond ^
Go Cindy. Truth will out.
Posted by:Linda PattersonFebruary 1, 2008 3:23:32 PMRespond ^
Hello. Congratulations, Mr. McIntire for being part of the 30% of brain-dead Americans who still support GWB. That's just a little above the 25% who supported King George III during the American Revolution.
Posted by:Len CarrierFebruary 1, 2008 3:24:23 PMRespond ^
...'terrorism' is a global 'false-flag op', and the 'war on terrorism' it's mirror...and smoke...and delusion ad nauseum... ...wake up America! You have been stoned too long!
Posted by:John HawkFebruary 1, 2008 3:30:39 PMRespond ^
well good for her. People tend to forget that politics is originally about truth telling and representing the people of a state, and she is telling the truth here, one, and bringing mischief and laughter, very powerful truth uncoverers, where the people playing power games would largely prefer that thewy be taken s e r i o us l y instead of being held responsable for the serious things they are engendering.. The elections in the US seem rigged in any case since Reagan, so not useful as an argument against her telling her truths; What is desperately needed is a new voting system, one person, one vote,,and it is just the kind of politician-who-own -their - thoughts-words-and-actions like her that are needed to create and bring this about.
Posted by:gabrielleFebruary 1, 2008 4:04:20 PMRespond ^
Cindy Sheehan is showing the world what one dedicated ordinary person can do. If it offends those that talk the talk but are afraid to walk their talk to darn bad, give em hell Cindy. To William McIntire, I'm sure Hitler had his well wishers also and the 9/11 evidence flags it as a false flag operation and may those in power who planned it and executed it burn in Hell.
Posted by:Awakened citizenFebruary 1, 2008 4:22:53 PMRespond ^
The present administration is responsible for more than one million Iraqi deaths since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups. Thank you Cindy for wanting justice for the deaths of our soldiers and the deaths of so many innocent Iraqis. This administration should be brought up on charges. We need Cindy and more like her to stop the war profiteering and pillaging of Iraq.
Posted by:RebeccaSFebruary 1, 2008 4:36:15 PMRespond ^
pelosi is a loser
Posted by:ruben chandlerFebruary 1, 2008 4:36:20 PMRespond ^
Pelosi is a traitor to this country. She along with almost ALL of our Congress and Senate have long ago forgotten their oaths to defend and protect our Constitution. They have turned into Enablers of the Unelected Chief War Criminal that sits in the White House as installed by the crooked Supreme Court. The man has single-handedly destroyed all semblance of the Rule of Law. And YET people question why Enabler Nancy Pelosi should get out of the way? As a long-time Democrat, I will support anyone who runs against Ms. "Impeachment is off the Table." And when that person is a well-known principled activist who daily fights for the lives of our service-men, how much sweeter is that? Cindy has my FULL support.
Posted by:Pat GFebruary 1, 2008 4:50:04 PMRespond ^
you people are a cancer to my american way of life
Posted by:MitchellFebruary 1, 2008 6:42:19 PMRespond ^
GPFrank Losing a son or daughter before his or her time is a terrible grief, especially if such a death is totally useless. But there are those who lost in 9/11 as well. We will need their votes, too. Undoubtedly 9/11 furnished the great opportunity to put the neo-cons and Cheney's ideas into practice. But we want to be sure that these "meshuggahs" are all pushed into the trash can of history. Such words should be spoken to Cindy's grief and to all those who lost theirs as well.
Posted by:Frank LornitzoFebruary 1, 2008 7:52:50 PMRespond ^
I think we need MORE independents that will think outside of the box. The Democratic (and GOP) leadership does not represent the average middle class American. Since the Democrats took office 943 (3943)more American lives have been wasted in Iraq. 8,000 more American soldiers have been wounded and only God knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. I for one would vote for Cindy if I lived in the distric.
Posted by:Gregg HFebruary 1, 2008 9:51:00 PMRespond ^
What rock have you been living under? 911 was not about Iraq. There are hundreds of documents that explain that in great detail. Some of GWB's friends in Saudi funded the operations of 911. The terrorist trained in Afganhistan. The Iraq invasion was a stupid diversion from Afgan which we are now losing and will revert back to a training ground of Terrorist funded by the poppy crop which supplies the drug attack on our citizens that are addicted. Then there is the lack of secure boarders that GWB has ignored.
Posted by:Gregg HFebruary 1, 2008 9:56:56 PMRespond ^
What I find most fascinating about this borderline (at best) piece of "journalism" is the Mother Jones' tag-line - "Smart, Fearless Journalism." Can someone please explain to me how bashing a person because they choose to stand up for their convictions is "smart, fearless journalism?" I don't quite get it, particularly not from a purported "progressive" magazine. Josh Harkinson should be ashamed of himself for marginalizing anyone who chooses to push for the truth and act with integrity in an era where it's not "popular" to be honest or exhibit morality. What exactly is wrong with questioning a supposed leader who won't follow through on any of the rhetoric she uttered in order to get elected? We're STILL at war, there's STILL no end in sight, the Democrats are STILL (despite their promises to the American people) doing nothing about it, and thousands of innocent Iraqis are STILL murdered each month for a war that exists solely to further line the pockets of the war profiteers. This is madness, and good for Cindy Sheehan for having the nerve to speak out against it. Josh Harkinson, you should be ashamed of yourself. Put your tail between your legs, let out a few more meek whimpers, and curl up in the corner. Let those who choose to stand up for truth and justice lead, and save your criticism for the war criminals who truly deserve it.
Posted by:Patrick LewisFebruary 1, 2008 9:59:46 PMRespond ^
Note to Cindy: You only need to stick up ONE finger....
Posted by:BertFebruary 2, 2008 1:36:32 AMRespond ^
i have not forgotten 9/11. i have not forgotten that the US (Exxon/Mobile) cannot keep it's greedy nose out of other nations natural resources either.
Posted by:spetesFebruary 2, 2008 2:49:27 AMRespond ^
and I feel sorry for peple like you who absolutely refuse to see the TRUTH
Posted by:AlanFebruary 2, 2008 4:16:54 AMRespond ^
Nancy Pelosi. a democrat? supports democratic principles? enacts laws for the people against corporate interests? Really??? I think not...
Posted by:JamesFebruary 2, 2008 6:21:30 AMRespond ^
It seems every time one of us "little folk" make inroads at shaking the foundations of power, they're dismissed by the media machine that preserves the status quo as "harmful to the cause," "going negative," and all the rest. As Harry Truman quipped, Cindy isn't giving Pelosi hell: she's tells the truth and Pelosi and her embedded media operatives think it's hell.
Posted by:trippinFebruary 2, 2008 6:24:11 AMRespond ^
Why is Pelosi still in Congress? Don't the people in her District know the method called RECALL? Just another example of who truly controls all levels of the Democratic Party, corporate Amerika. Why hasn't there been petitions calling for her Recall ever since she uttered the words, "impeachment is off the table". That was her battle cry for her true allegiance to George Bush and the fascist cabal ruining this nation. November is too late. Get rid of her now before she does any more damage to The Constitution and this Democratic Republic. As for the Bushie neocons, your time is coming, very soon, with or without Pelosi.
Posted by:Dick1February 2, 2008 9:06:06 AMRespond ^
It is rather amazing to me this Mother Jones article sounds more like something that Fauz News would write and support. Pelosi is a disgrace to anyone that that calls themselves progressive. I wish I could vote for her. I will vote against ANY incumbent that supported Shrubs war or policies in ANY way, and that includes John Murtha. How could Cindy do any worse than Pelosi? Pelosi is a joke and it is time we made a statement that we are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore...anything less is (forgive me)cut and run, and a vote for the status quo...or worse a vote for what this country never stood for...which is everthing the Shrub administration always stood for...
Posted by:ronFebruary 2, 2008 9:39:29 AMRespond ^
Sheehan was a brave woman asking the right questions...but she is now neither brave nor reasonable. Just what does she or her followers think she can do? The House passed bills to get out of Iraq, they passed bills to set a time limit...then there was the Senate. You want out of Iraq, you want Democratic ideals? then see that there are Dems voted in for Senate and House, and work for the Democratic candidate you want in. Walk your talk! Do any of you know what Pelosi has done Or are you just on the smear bandwagon? Why is it Democrates are our own worse enemies...we don't need Rethugains...we would rather do it ourselves. Does the district that Pelosi is in want to go back to a jr. member of the house? Do they want to lose their senority? I doubt it...but then Dems would rather wave their emotion around, then use reason. I am an old fashioned liberal Democrate, that remembers Jack Kennedy and Bobby, that worked for civil rights and voters rights as well as woman's rights..and I am not willing to see those things die out because of unthinking firebrands.
Posted by:terraFebruary 2, 2008 10:13:11 AMRespond ^
...they are dying as you write about your feelings and voting for Pelosi will only exacerbate the issue. She is a disgrace as a leader and is a Republican in Democratic clothing...very much like Liberman. It is time for a revolution. Shrub must go to bed resting well every night to know that he has NO opposition to any of his policies, and he must sleep extra well knowing that the "leader" of the Democraps is a weak willed spokesperson, a poor representative of progressive ideals, known as Pelosi. I can't speak for California, but I know Pelosi is a JOKE to any true progressive outside of Califonia. Vote her in again, and you will have more of the same BS and pandering to the Shrub.
Posted by:ronFebruary 2, 2008 10:33:20 AMRespond ^
I support Cindy. I believe pelozi is nothing more than a bush in drag. A crass hipocritical dishonest supporter of murder, torture, genocide and the rape of the environment for nothing more than greed and lust for power and dominance. She is the poster child for everything that is wrong with this country. A cancer and worse.
Posted by:joab kuninFebruary 2, 2008 12:33:23 PMRespond ^
Pelosi is afraid to do anything that might make her look like she isn't support the military in combat. She is afraid for her reelection. She is a disgrace to the Democratic party and the people who elected her need to get rid of her. All she has done is bow to the demands of Bush and Cheney. Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4404
Posted by:TedFebruary 2, 2008 3:18:20 PMRespond ^
While I won't be able to vote for Cindy, I'm sure sending money into her campaign. Check out the interview with Michael Ratner over at The Real News (dot com). At the end he lays it all out about Pelosi. We should all be running for some office as independents/Greens/whatever!
Posted by:Stuart BedassoFebruary 2, 2008 4:05:44 PMRespond ^
ALOHA, I TOTALLY SUPPORT SHEEHAN AGAINST PELOSI WHOM I DESPISE AS A BUSH LIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER TRIED AS A WAR CRIMINAL.PELOSI THAT IS.. EDWIN DOHERTY
Posted by:EDWIN DOHERTYFebruary 3, 2008 1:52:16 AMRespond ^
for those who care, please tap into Alexander Lowi, Prof.@ CORNELL UNIVERSITY, THE MUCH NEEDED Thos.Paine for our times .... IMPEACHMENT is CONSTITUTIONAL, and any governemnt employee swears an oath to protect and defend ..... form threats foreign and domestic ... now granted, what seemed 'foreign' (signing statements ie) is now overlooked be the 'Stained streamed media' and this should not be grounds for us w/voices, $$$$, opinion and some who will walk into the campaign quarters of the candidates and ask, "where does your candidate stand, sit, lie on the issue of impeaching the most corrupt administration this world has ever known ?????" These are things we can do, the questions WE need to ask, statements WE must make .... peace to all
Posted by:jonnpaullFebruary 3, 2008 8:10:46 AMRespond ^
We have not forgotton 9/11. But what did Iraq have to do with it? Go after the people responsible.
Posted by:johnnytee46February 3, 2008 8:53:50 AMRespond ^
To go after those responsible for 9/11 you need only look as far as the White House. Check out the YouTube documentary.
Posted by:GiniFebruary 3, 2008 9:35:25 AMRespond ^
All who are heartily sick of life in the anglo-US "national security state" should vote for people like Cindy. The alternative to the rule of law, which Cindy stands, for is unlimited state power, where we're sold a bogus prospectus of "security" in exchange for basic freedoms. All we'd get is rule, by and for the benefit of, a corrupt ruling elite.
Posted by:Nigel (Portsmouth UK)February 3, 2008 11:08:30 AMRespond ^
The 'war on terror' is delusional. The entire thing reminds me of a graphic novel - a comic book. It amazes me how easily deceived the mass of society is.
Posted by:dogsterFebruary 3, 2008 11:13:03 AMRespond ^
Cindy Sheehan, like anybody who care to, has the right, sometimes the responsibility, to challenge those in power. Many Americans were proud to have a Democrat as the first ever "Woman Speaker." Just as many Americans are disappointed at what she has done with, and to, the office. I don't think much can be accomplished by working within the Democratic Party for change. As long as "Blue Dog Democrats" (Bush-lites) determine the outcome of legislation in the House of Representatives, there may be nothing else to do but "clean house." Good on Cindy Sheehan for continuing to fight the good fight.
Posted by:ERWFebruary 3, 2008 1:56:01 PMRespond ^
Sheehan wouldn't HAVE to run a negative campaign. pelosi's lousy record speaks for itself and show she IS a member of the establishment and she has NO intention of either doing her job or listening to her bosses.
Posted by:annieFebruary 3, 2008 4:12:35 PMRespond ^
pelosi and reid have had their political careers squeezed by the bush administration during briefings before the iraq war.they knew that the war was based on lies and that is why impeachment is off the table ,because it will implicate them because they agreed to it beforehand.they have not carried out the will of the people after the 2006 election,and they will not end the war or impeach.pelosi talks a good game, but will not follow through because it is not in her political interests...do any dems have the will to do the right thing??? i think not....WHAT MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED ????
Posted by:zombewoofFebruary 3, 2008 9:42:16 PMRespond ^
exxon/mobil..40 BILLION PROFIT IN 2007 NEED I SAY MORE ????
Posted by:ZOMBEWOOFFebruary 3, 2008 9:45:19 PMRespond ^
There is a nasty tone to Josh Harkinson's article, Isn't there? I'm always saddened when it looks like an alternative source, like Mother Jones, is sliding rightward (so I hope MJ isn't). I've learned a lot from alternative journals like MJ, The Nation and many others over the years. And here and there, I've been disappointed beyond my ability to express (Noam Chomsky [Z Magazine] and Naomi Klein trying to sell us that uber rich Republicrat, John Kerry, for example). I don't seek perfection from imperfect humans nor do I expect to find journals where every author and article is exactly the same. Still... Maybe (mainstream) leftwing journals and their writers have the same disease that capitalists have (where their efforts do the opposite of the civilization-improvement that they claim they are meant to do). Capitalists like to project the image of rugged individualism, of brave souls who won't hesitate to make great sacrifices for great gain, and who, by their efforts, have made their country (insert name here) greater. Without doubting that they do go to great lengths to achieve their goals (lengths which include much criminal activity, but let's not mention that), Let's not fail to notice that they are in fact terrified of the unknown, even when the unknown is known to harbor no trouble. And so we have oil industries and sane alternatives struggle too hard to replace them. It should have been done long ago. And publicly funded military industries that 'produce' pricey products that do nothing but destroy and get destroyed, while 'leaders' whine that we can't have social spending when we have these big deficits [and oil wealth extracted by publicly funded weaponry and those who wield it won't go to the public - anywhere]. Now it's too late for the environment. And here we go with a revved up arms race as our 'leaders' connive with Poland's 'leaders' to take provocative missiles to protect the U.S. from Iran. And instead of actually launching a war on poverty, rather than talking about it for votes, capitalist politicians join forces with those who, in the establishment (Pelosis not Sheehans), seek to preserve the status quo. Obama and Clinton don't talk about the poor, but only the poor middle class, for example. Edwards talked about the poor, I believe, but not in public, as one commentator noted, because no one would ask him, or anyone, about their plans for poverty. He is said to have a lot of great ideas about that. I find it hard to believe he was never asked about his plans for poverty. I have tried to follow this campaign by tuning in on my radio and reading my papers and online, but without television, Who knows what I've missed? But no one could have missed Edwards stating, in plain English, that Big Pharma, and other big corporations, were a part of the problem that we should turn to when looking for solutions. That may have been obvious and simple, but it's also my idea of wisdom. So capitalists don't attempt to pull together with the rest of us in order to start again and build a system that works for everyone, for the reason that they have done okay and, if they can't guarantee an outcome which sees them holding onto their gains, then they don't want to go there. And journalists, who have lived - literally - with a two-faction one party state for so long and can't imagine (by some measures) anything else, might not like it when developments, and the thinking of the people, go in a direction away from acceptance of the status quo. I say too bad. And I say that while I still enjoy, and learn from, establishment journals like The Nation and Mother Jones, and will continue to (most likely), Let's not bend an inch so as to compromise with fear masquerading as enlightenment and wisdom. By the way, There are some alternative sources that are better than others. I haven't been following MJ, which I quite like still, closely for a while. But I love the clear anticapitalist stance of International Socialist Review and Canadian Dimension for example. And organizations like Public Citizen, Tax Justice Network and Tax Research UK are indispensable. My reading in MJ, years ago (Ken Silverstein on tax havens) led me to become interested in tax havens. John Christensen, of Tax Justice Network, kindly put me onto a book which he and other researchers, like Lucy Komisar, wrote recently as a companion to John Perkins's CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN. Check out A GAME AS OLD AS EMPIRE, edited by Steven Hiatt. Later...
Posted by:ArbyFebruary 4, 2008 12:40:21 AMRespond ^
My bad. "But no one could have missed Edwards stating, in plain English, that Big Pharma, and other big corporations, were a part of the problem that we should turn to when looking for solutions," should have been "a part of the problem that we should not turn to..." And why are we forced to submit such butt ugly comments? I'm talking about the lack of paragraphs.
Posted by:ArbyFebruary 4, 2008 12:47:04 AMRespond ^
This deluded peacecreep heifer just won't go back home to Berkeley and leave us alone, will she? Hey, Cindy, why not go chain yourself to a Hamas rocket as a human shield, you turd? Or maybe marry Hugo Chavez and make creepy, ugly babies with him? Why is it that the womyn on the left are so fugly?
Posted by:Disabled VeteranFebruary 4, 2008 1:14:12 AMRespond ^
Please help Cindy unseat Nancy Pelosi this year and work to impeach Bu[deleted]ler and the Dick! https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/ 1590/t/2705/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1901
Posted by:Godess MoonstoneFebruary 4, 2008 1:18:00 AMRespond ^
Google Ron Paul! Google Ron Paul! Hope for America! http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Posted by:Liberty BelleFebruary 4, 2008 1:20:28 AMRespond ^
Cindy Sheehan is on a short list of my heroes. She has tremendous courage and faith. Courage to do what she feels she needs to do. Not for power, position or wealth but because of her desire to change a sick system of death and indifference. Faith in America for what our Constitution says America should be. Not what the wealthy America aristocracy makes it. I thank God for people like Cindy, the women(and men) of CodePink, the ANSWER coalition, et all. They are willing to walk the walk. Peace, justice and equality aren't just words, rhetoric of politician or lies of powerful elite to them, she/they risk it all to make it reality.
Posted by:NakisFebruary 4, 2008 5:08:22 AMRespond ^
Arby, nice post. I've notice the same thing about some articles in 'lefty' magazines. MJ, the Nation, etc.. .
Posted by:NakisFebruary 4, 2008 5:15:14 AMRespond ^
Those of you who claim the Dems have done nothing to stop the war clearly haven't been paying attention to what actually has been going on in Congress. House Dems, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, have passed withdrawal/timeline bills not once, not twice, but three times. These have either met filibusters in the Senate or have been vetoed, at which point Dems did not have the votes to override. If you had bothered to check, you might have found out that the Dems have about a 30 vote majority in the House, meaning that if they lose 15 Dems (remember, there are over 40 conservative Blue Dogs, plus a few dozen freshmen who barely won Republican districts) they lose the vote. Forget about the two-thirds needed for a veto override; this is a TINY majority. We all wish the Dems could have come in and waved a magic wand and made the war go away, but the way Congress actually works is that you have to pass things by majority (or supermajority) vote. There are no magic powers involved, even though you want to hold Pelosi to that standard.
Posted by:progressiverealistFebruary 4, 2008 7:05:06 AMRespond ^
In response to those who say, “well, why don’t they just not fund the war at all?” I urge you to take a serious reality check. Congress has NEVER cut off funds to the troops in the field during any war in American history (when Dems finally cut funds to Vietnam, after having failed to do so for years and years, there weren’t any troops left there anyway) for the very simple reason that you don’t leave your citizens in a war zone without any supplies. Some of you will say “just cut off the funds, then Bush will be forced to pull them out.” Hello? All of you seem to have been following Bush very closely these last seven years. Do you honestly think he will be the one to blink first in a game of chicken over our troops’ lives? The constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, so the ultimate responsibility for supplying the troops lies with Congress. This is not negated by the fact that Bush has ignored the constitution elsewhere.
Posted by:progressiverealistFebruary 4, 2008 7:11:06 AMRespond ^
In this season of Mardi Gras, let's remember that the fools in the funny costumes are sending a message: the world can be turned upside down. It has always been the fool's job to speak truth to power. Only REAL fools don't listen.
Posted by:Magic TurtleFebruary 4, 2008 7:13:18 AMRespond ^
For the people feeling sorry for Sheehan, she is the only woman "man enough" to state the reason why we are there in Iraq. Come on, we all know why we are there (cheap oil). But you have every politician talking about "freedom" or "making progress on the war on terror" in Iraq; steering away of "Why are we there". But come on, the average American and Republican can care less about "freedom" in Iraq. What's it to them. But Sheehan will have a page in history because we all know "well behaved women seldom make history!"
Posted by:roger d lFebruary 4, 2008 10:34:26 AMRespond ^
While Sheehan's message and efforts are admirable. And, there is little argument that the US needs out of an unjust war, AND there is no argument that Congress is corrupt and inefficient. But still, how exactly, is Sheehan qualified for Congress? Even at a revolutionary standpoint? Congress will not be replaced by many Sheehans, Sheehan is interjecting herself into an already corrupt, but well established system. What skills and/or political savvy does Sheehan have that would enable her to do anything, let alone take over Congress. Like all those rich white men haven't come across, and promptly disposed of, a Sheehan before.
Posted by:KMFebruary 4, 2008 11:55:16 AMRespond ^
I support Cindy Sheehan. Nancy Pelosi might as well be a republican. She will go down in history not only as the 1st woman speaker of the house, but as a failure as the 1st woman speaker of the house.
Posted by:EileenFebruary 4, 2008 1:02:38 PMRespond ^
I beg to differ, if not for the very limited number of people like Cindy Sheehan, no one would even know there was an anti-war movement, certainly the media and this administration have totally ignored it. Persecution follows people with the guts to stand up against incredible odds, Jesus Christ comes to mind as does Martin Luther King.
Posted by:dennisFebruary 4, 2008 3:14:57 PMRespond ^
Dennis, are you comparing Cindy or Jesus and MLK? a bit too far, dontyathink?
Posted by:KMFebruary 4, 2008 4:46:41 PMRespond ^
I can't vote for Cindy either, because I'm Canadian, but I am sending my $$ to support her run against Pelosi. I had the great privilege of meeting Cindy when she was up our way on a speaking tour a couple of years ago, and I can tell you, it has been a long, long time since I have been so impressed with somebody (who is now) running for public office. Cindy has taken the unfathomable loss of a child -- what worse loss? what bigger nightmare? Especially for so senseless a cause -- and managed to find in it the strength and inspiration to do what she is doing. She has the incredible gift of being able to galvanize people around the issues of why US is in Iraq at all, and why you need to get out. I am sure Cindy would rather be devoting her energies to something other than running for congress, but what choice does she have? She could not do other than stand against Pelosi, whose broken promises must be like salt in the wounds of the trusting electorate who elected her and sent her to Washington to do something that she probably never intended to do to begin with. Cindy, you go girl! You keep on holding Nancy's feet to the fire! And all you people who CAN vote for her? Do it! I have met the woman and I can tell you: She really is capable of changing the world.
Posted by:ElizabethFebruary 4, 2008 9:46:17 PMRespond ^
Your epitaph for the bush years could use a little brushing up on realty, But then again when your head has been buried in a bush for to long reading the appendix to My pet goat, is a tremendous undertaking. for some 0ne as bright as you seem to be; perhaps a good learners permit to reality and critical thinking is a good prescription for you.
Posted by:nightsliderFebruary 5, 2008 1:56:46 AMRespond ^
At least she is making an effort to do something, thats more than can be said for the vacuous jaw droppings going on here everyday, rectitudes and platitudes never changed anything other than the contours of ones lips uttering the misogynistic on Sheehans back. Go girl do YOUR THANG>
Posted by:nightsliderFebruary 5, 2008 2:05:35 AMRespond ^
YOU GO CINDY!!! Pelosi is a traitor to her country. Pelosi is a traitor to the American people. Pelosi is a traitor to the entire planet. By enabling Bush, she has proven to be a warmonger and a war criminal. She belongs in prison. Go Cindy!!!
Posted by:davidFebruary 5, 2008 12:14:49 PMRespond ^
Those who would put security above liberty deserve neither. That's you, William.
Posted by:davidFebruary 5, 2008 12:16:33 PMRespond ^
Disabled? How about deluded?
Posted by:davidFebruary 5, 2008 12:26:12 PMRespond ^
I agree with Cindy. In 2006, there was a clear mandate to end the war.The democrats and Nancy Pelosi have not really pushed this issue.I guess we might move on.
Posted by:joe hammenFebruary 5, 2008 4:37:22 PMRespond ^
This race will establish San Francisco's reputation for generations to come...for good or ill. Shall this once great city be represented in Congress by a Mafia-connected tool of the Roman Anti-Christ's American Fifth Column, condoning Bush's 9-11 treason for false war for heroin, oil, and the Saudis, or, shall it avail itself of this opportunity, by electing Cindy Sheehan, to lead the Nation out of this abomination committed by the same faction which financed Hitler and the Holocaust(Knight of Malta Prescott Bush), and assassinated President Kennedy(GHWBush) and Dr. King to send 58,000 of us to die for Rome's latifundial estate's slavemasters in Indochina after the message of liberation from "monkish religion," penned by America's Founder, Thomas Jefferson, had reached the ears of the Vietnamese and Ho Chi Minh? History awaits their decision.
Posted by:Will JonesFebruary 6, 2008 1:39:30 AMRespond ^
If we are ever going to get Congress and the White House out of the hands of Corporations and back into the hands of the people, we need grassroots activist like Cindy Sheehan to challenge the Pelosi's of politics at all levels of government.
Posted by:John Hill, Jr.February 6, 2008 9:36:25 AMRespond ^
cindy is right and she is courageous. Her so-called leftwing critics are worse than obtuse. Nancy Pelosi must go, along with the rest of the cowards.
Posted by:bladetruthFebruary 6, 2008 11:53:13 AMRespond ^
Go Cindy
Posted by:Marvin BallardFebruary 6, 2008 3:47:43 PMRespond ^
This thread is delusional. Pelosi is routinely re-elected with 85% of the vote. Sheehan is no threat to her. All this blather about "impeachment" is going nowhere, of course, as the votes aren't there to do anything about it. Bush will be gone in 10 months. Just hold your breath and wait for it.
Posted by:Don DavenportFebruary 6, 2008 5:44:20 PMRespond ^
"Delusion" is suggesting impeachment for Treason - committing 9-11 and sending Our Troops to die for lies in false war shedding the blood of innocents, is "blather" AND including one's own family name, as if it were in the present instant attached to a patriotic person of intelligence, and wisdom, and not a moral coward or traitor.
Posted by:Will JonesFebruary 7, 2008 6:01:24 AMRespond ^
Cudos to Cindy Sheehan, even though she is fighting a loosing battle. Aloso cudos to Congress for trying to clean up Liers and drug users in sports in this country. Double cudos to Congress for protecting the Liers and profitteers in the Executive branch. The Democrates say that impeachment is off the table, because they can't be sure of a verdict. The crimnal eliment should be happy to hear this.
Posted by:DavidFebruary 7, 2008 4:13:35 PMRespond ^
Cindy Sheehan ought to keep her eye on the prize, and have a larger vision about the national question than what a single congress person usually does when elected. She needs, if elected to remember to also resist and rotate her resistence every day for the liberation side which is the side that sets the elimination of war as its goal, so that nations can come to the new way forward of negotiation and collective agree as foreign policy between nations. Also, as part of that programme, she ought to carry womans' liberation towards restoring the matriarchy by calling for the equal electing of woman, doubling democracy in the U.S.A. by electing one woman and one man per constituency, 50-50, judicially and politically. This she could do around the entire political spectrum and win that what has been suppressed since the Roman Slaveholders conquest of the British Tribes around 42AD. Matriarchy elects and allows woman to make half the laws and access half the wealth being half the people per country. The green ecological harmony of the species is obtained that way, each and every year. So resides the holy grail and the material laws of harmony and joy of the species. Egalite' pour la femme dans la organic revolution!!!
Posted by:shemish borlandFebruary 8, 2008 9:46:54 PMRespond ^
I will not vote for any candidate that supports or enables this illegal war and the gutting of the republic.
Posted by:DudeFebruary 9, 2008 8:11:37 AMRespond ^
Pat G, you need to disappear quietly back under the rock you emerged from. Do you want a clear example of what constitutes a traitor to ones country? How about someone who exposes a covert agent who'd built ten years worth of contacts in order to ferret out persons trying to aquire WMD's? That would be the Rove/Cheney/Libby axis of evil pal... The fact is Pat G, that virtually everything you bitch about was and is continually perpetrated by members of the Bush administration. Get a life beyond your own myopic little world...
Posted by:SteveFebruary 9, 2008 8:28:14 AMRespond ^
OH god Pat G I'm sorry!!! I thought you wrote Cindy Shehan was the traitor... I'ts late and I'm and idiot for blasting off. Please forgive me...
Posted by:SteveFebruary 9, 2008 8:31:30 AMRespond ^
I hate ot say this,William McIntire, but your presous bush and made thing worse, not better, less secure, not more secure, and generally trashed every thing he touched.
Posted by:DanFebruary 10, 2008 3:23:06 AMRespond ^
Mitchell, you 'American way of life' never really existed.
Posted by:DanFebruary 10, 2008 3:29:22 AMRespond ^
Disabled Veteran, so you can't attack the message so you attack the messanger? the likes of you gave us the situation we ar in right now.
Posted by:DanFebruary 10, 2008 3:35:09 AMRespond ^
Arby, very few will read your rant because it too long.
Posted by:DanFebruary 10, 2008 3:36:35 AMRespond ^
good luck. this what our democratic process is all about
Posted by:majFebruary 17, 2008 5:19:02 AMRespond ^
Go Cindy. If I lived in California you would have one more vote. End Bush's War!!!!!!!
Posted by:STEPHAN ALTSCHULMarch 16, 2008 8:52:55 PMRespond ^
Cindy Sheehan has so much courage and intergrity. Palosi is bought and paid for..when are Democratic voters going to pull their heads out of the sand and smell the coffee?? I pray the good people of SF vote for Cindy Sheehan. God Bless this brave woman and her efforts.
Posted by:mildred filtchJune 15, 2008 11:56:44 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS