Is it OK for outside groups to tie themselves to Sheehan's cause?

[ecstatic]

Poll question: Is it OK for outside groups to tie themselves to Sheehan's cause?

From my understanding, this movement started out very simple and basic: A grieving mother decided that she could no longer tolerate *'s BS regarding the war, and she wanted some answers about why her son, and others had to die. What was this noble cause * was referring to?

But lately, I'm starting to notice that the media is now labeling Mrs. Sheehan as the "antiwar" mother. It has become less about her son and more about a so called anti-war movement. This has made it easier for Bush to brush her off without much outrage from the media/public.

[IndianaGreen]

1. The same MSM that is putting labels on Cindy

is the same MSM that told us there were WMD in Iraq and that referred to Bush as our warrior king.

Who cares what they think?

[nookiemonster]

2. This transcends far beyond politics.

It should stay that way. Cindy's kicking ass all by herself.

:patriot:

[xchrom]

3. i'm all for cindy -- but there was a HUGE antiwar movement

before -- made up of disparate groups.

but one thing they had in common was that the war was unjustified.

plus there were those who simply kept crying that the evidence presented as justification for the war was wrong.

for me cindy is an extension of all that came before -- yes her voice is singular in one sense -- but in another it's all tied together. and that's good.

[uppityperson]

7. Agree with xchrom

For me, why did her son die for Mr.bush's lies goes along with the Iraq war is wrong and something needs to be done. What makes this special is that she is speaking for herself, not organizing a big anti-war protest, but asking for herself. What she is doing has changed into a larger thing, but the focus wtf are we doing in Iraq killing our kids is the same.

As far as co-opting the protest into a generalized PETA, Greenpeace, LaRouche, ACLU protest(to pick a few totally different groups out of the air), no way.

[tk2kewl]

4. I think it is OK to state support for HER cause, but not co-opt it

[mopinko]

5. your yes is poorly worded

if it was just cindy out there on that road, it would not be news. it is the outpouring of support from those in the anti-war movement that have put her on the front page. including the bloggers that have put her story out there.
but it always has been the bellweather of the righteousness of a war- will mothers send their sons? cindy is taking a stance as old as war. she is pushing a very, very ancient button. that should be the story.

[Silverhair]

6. NO. For the reason you stated.

However, I think it is already too late.

I think she would have been more effective standing by herself, than with the group of people (Non relatives) who are there now. By showing up to show support, the supporters have turned it into just another anti-war protest.

Drawing media attention to her was good, but standing on the roadside with her didn't help.

[Adelante]

8. I agree with you

The lone mother in the road..

That's the power.

I always came back to her security, though. Without others with her, she might have been murdered by now. Supporters should at least leave their agendas home and just be there at her side.

[frictionlessO]

9. I am going out there, but my agenda is just to support and learn.

As a matter of fact I plan on being nearly silent the whole time I am out there. Observe and support is all I have on my mind.

[Adelante]

11. A vast silence

That would be so strong if adopted by the supporters who attend her.

Have a safe trip. :patriot:

[frictionlessO]

13. I will and thank you...

maybe I'll suggest silence to others as well, real quiet like though.

I'm learning right now as well, reading all the Cindy threads.

[Skidmore]

10. This is just a suggestion

that I posted on GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4354707

[welshTerrier2]

12. effectiveness and "co-opted" messages ...

on DU, we have an expression about "hijacking" a thread ... the BP starts off on one theme and someone with another agenda redirects the discussion ... this is not always done for negative reasons ... with most posts, there are sub-topics such that "hijacking" is sometimes a natural evolution of the starting point ... but they do, regardless of intent, sometimes distract and dilute the central message of the BP ...

in Sheehan's case, she has garnered an increasing share of media attention ... bush is not watering his bushes; he's sweating on them ... Sheehan is a public relations nightmare for the WH ...

the soul and power of Sheehan's protest is the pain all Americans can empathize with (or should be able to): the loss of a child in combat ... the message goes right to the heart ... it is simple and human; not political ... bush loves to wrap himself in the flag and in the suffering of veterans and military families and Sheehan's simple plea for a meeting highlights for all to see that bush's "we love vets" is little more than a right-wing propaganda charade ...

someone once said "brevity is the soul of wit" ... well, in this case the power of the message is in its brief simplicity ... a mother grieves ... that's it ... no ulterior motives ...

but when the message expands, the target grows wider and easier to hit ... when other groups, regardless of the importance or rightness of their cause, jump on the Sheehan bandwagon, the weight grows too great for the mules pulling the wagon and progress stops ... Sheehan is more than entitled to say, do, or believe anything she chooses, but her comments about the geo-politics (e.g. Israel) of the "war" MAY have weakened the essential core of her own case: "a mother grieves" ... that case has MAXIMUM POWER ... all other themes, right or wrong, dilute the case ...

and other groups, by joining in, however well intended they may be, are killing the golden goose ... they should only go to Crawford to support a grieving mom ... and Sheehan herself should not stray into broader policy arenas ... short, sweet, emotional and human beats policy wonky every time ...

[DinahMoeHum]

14. No. ". . .too many cooks. . ." and all that jazz.

n/t