What do you think our tight-lipped Dem leaders think of Cindy's crusade?

[mtnsnake]

Few of them mention her name, so one can only speculate what goes on in their minds.

They sure as hell don't outwardly support her, so.....

Do they secretly admire her?

Are they rooting for her?

Do they think she's silly or wasting her time?

Or deep inside, are they a little envious of all the attention she's getting? Attention they could've gotten if only they had the courage she did to go against the grain and speak the truth?

She sure has beaten any of them to the punch, hasn't she, doing what they should've been doing all along.

They don't say much about it, so I just wonder what might be going through their minds on all of this.

One thing's for certain...Our Democratic leaders are letting Cindy do their dirty work for them.

[Catchawave]

1. Elizabeth Edwards' supporting her:

You can sign Elizabeth's petition here:

http://ga3.org/campaign/speakout


You can read Elizabeth's beautiful tribute to Cindy here:

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/speakout /

[mtnsnake]

4. That's nice, but I'd like to know what's in John's mind. After all, he did

run for vice president and is certainly one of the considerations to run for president in the future.

BTW, thank you for posting Elizabeth's showing of support for Cindy.

[Catchawave]

9. John supports Elizabeth

as observed in this article from the Trib:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20050822/ts_chicagotrib/edwardssignalsshiftagainstwar

[mtnsnake]

15. Sorry but there is nothing in that article that lends us to believe that

John Edwards himself has said or done anything in support of Cindy that's gotten the attention of anyone.

There are no quotes from John in that article. It's all Elizabeth. Even the email that was qoted was hers, not John's.

It's the women doing all the dirty work. Kudos to Elizabeth anyway.

[renie408]

34. Could it be

that they think it strikes a better note to have another mother offering the support? Personally, I would find it very refreshing for Edwards to stand up in support of Cindy Sheehan and it definitely couldn't hurt him.

[mtnsnake]

38. It could be, but we can only speculate what they're thinking because

as usual they sure as hell haven't been clear about what their position is on this.

Maybe they figure that being so vague in the last election worked so well for us that they're going to continue being vague. Politics at its worst perhaps?

[1932]

39. Check out all the web sites of likely democratic contenders.

I suspect Edwards's site is the only one actively soliticiting support for Sheehan.

I suspect the other sites aren't doing anything, whether it's under the spouse's name or otherwise.

Well, Maybe Kucinich's or Feingold's site have something.

As I said, I think the problem is that most other Democrats are arguing for higher US troops level in Iraq, which is incompatible with Sheehan's position (whereas Edwards has said that the US needs to turn this into a UN effort, taking the US face off of it).

[Catchawave]

44. Elizabeth's letter is on the front page of his website

http://oneamericacommittee.com/

Heck, Elizabeth speaks for me, maybe she speaks for John too ? :shrug:

[mtnsnake]

50. I'd rather see John himself saying something on national TV

where he says 'Cindy is right about Bush being a liar.'

Now THAT would get me pumped, and it wouldn't interfere with what Cindy's trying to accomplish, which is holding the president accountable for his blatant lies.

But he's not about to do that because, like everyone else, he's playing it safe.

[Catchawave]

55. What's on the "other" candidate wannabe websites?

The Trib article I already posted was the cause of a major flip-flop debate here on DU, but from the usual suspects who slam JRE anyhow.

I don't really think he needs to usurp Cindy's message, or Elizabeth's empathy by making this about him? By virtue he includes Elizabeth's message on his website is good enough for me. Sorry he disappoints you by not swinging from the political chandelier !

[mtnsnake]

61. They all disappoint me, not just Edwards

Each and every one of them should've done what Cindy did...called Bush a liar and demanded the return of our troops....but they didn't. They should've been doing this long before Cindy even had a reason to do so. Had they done so early enough, Cindy's son might still be alive. It irks me to no end that none of them will step up and call a spade a spade, as the killing and dying continue daily.

[1932]

37. I remeber Edwards saying that the US needed to replace the US force

with a UN force ("we need to take the American face off this operation" was his primary campaign mantra).

I think the thing that is making some Democrats keep their distance is that, unlike Cindy, many are arguing for more US troops in Iraq. However, Edwards's position -- it could be argued -- not entirely incompatible with what Sheehan is asking.

[renie408]

43. I remember that too!!

Cause it also fell around the time that the GOP was neutering the UN in the press. I remember attempting to have a discussion with my BIL about this same thing and his contempt for the UN, which was based solely on the fact that he is a lock step GOP'er.

[welshTerrier2]

2. i'm glad you asked this ...

of course, i have no idea what they really think ...

but i have to believe that given the rapidly rising tide against the war and all the support Cindy has won, the "we're stuck there" Democrats have to be getting a wee bit uncomfortable with their current positions ...

i think they must be torn about whether to jettison the "macho meme" preached by the DLC and choose a new direction ... all the energy has already left the station and they're still standing there on the platform not sure whether to "follow the people" down the right track ...

i imagine there is great disarray among the elites ... their current position is both politically untenable and bad policy ... a change in course will be much more than a change in position on Iraq; it will be a major change in political strategy and how the Party presents itself to the American people ... this is a really big deal but i'm convinced it is the right thing to do ...

to specifically answer your question, I would speculate that Sheehan has given them the motivation to alter course that they have been unable to find in themselves ... let's hope this motivation leads to action ...

[mtnsnake]

3. I think that's a geat analysis you've come up with on what might be

going through their minds.

One can only wonder if they're weighing the consequences between continuing to ride with the political flow by saying nothing & playing it safe, or by getting brave and doing what's right.

[welshTerrier2]

6. Kerry is rumored to be planning a trip to Iraq soon ...

some who support him "hinted" that he may be "re-assessing" ...

i hope he does ...

[TayTay]

16. I would not be surprised by this

Kerry said, over and over, that the President had only a limited time in which to get it right. I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry thought the time had now passed. It would make sense.

Personally, I think that Hagel's comments would make a big impact on Kerry. (More so than Sen. Feingold's comments.) Both Kerry and Hagel are combat vets and they both know what a military screw-up looks like from seeing one up close and personally.

No one (and certainly not me, not by any stretch of the imagination) but Kerry knows what his thinking on this is. But I wouldn't be surprised if he went back to Iraq and then announced a re-assessment of his thinking. It would make sense.

[blm]

33. The real problem is that you're not going to get the truth from a Pentagon

operating to fulfill Bush's errant policy.

And Bush has purged those agents and military officials who he suspected of working with Kerry.

Kerry can only get the truth from his own probe, while remaining in constant contact with his allies at the UN and other world leaders who share his concerns.

[myrna minx]

5. What's really sad is that we don't have any leadership.

The moment Dean speaks up, Vichy Biden et. al. can't wait to run onto MTP to "distance" himself from Dean. Our "leader's" fingers are still in the air, seeing which way the wind is blowing. I wish our "leadership" would support the mother of a fallen troop, but sigh, they don't know how it will "poll" yet. :-( :cry:

[blm]

7. Kennedy, Kerry and Boxer have all spoken in support of Cindy from when she

first went to Crawford, along with Conyers' group of about 60 congressional Dems. Even Chuck Hagel said Bush should meet with her.

Media doesn't discuss their support....but, they WILL discuss a perceived silence from the Dems, while they conveniently ignore and HIDE the words of those who did speak up.

[myrna minx]

11. Thank you. I didn't realize that

Kerry had said that he supported her. Wow.

[blm]

12. Kennedy and Kerry spoke up the first week. Boxer close behind. Then Hagel.

NONE of the media discussed their support or that of the congressional Dems.

[CWebster]

13. Kerry threw his usual bone?

Some folks will crawl on their knees across glass just to get him to mention anything - and then they throw up their arms and praise heaven, though, he will never mention it again.

[mtnsnake]

18. Spoke up, or whispered? Funny how Kerry never mentions Cindy's name

in all those emails he sends me. Then again I haven't bothered reading the last few, so maybe I've missed it.

Just the same, I wouldn't mind seeing a link showing what Kennedy and Kerry think of Cindy's crusade. I sure haven't seen anything about it, but it wouldn't be the first time I've missed something either.

[blm]

23. Doesn't the media control how loudly their statements are perceived?

They barely covered SIXTY Congressional Dems, let alone THREE Senators.

Having puter trouble with copying today, but here's a snip from Boston Herald....The Herald is a RW rag...most MSM didn't even bother to cover their support.

August 12, 2005

Pressure continued to mount for President Bush to meet with the distraught mom of a soldier killed in Iraq as both Bay State senators backed the woman and scores of families joined her outside Bush's Texas home, including two from Massachusetts.

     Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday each threw their support behind Cindy Sheehan, who has been camped outside Bush's Crawford, Texas, home since Saturday, vowing not to leave until the president meets with her about the war. Sheehan's 24-year-old Marine son, Casey, was killed five days after he arrived in Iraq.
>>>>>

[CWebster]

26. But, they don't seem to be discontent with their PR people though

and how convenient is that? Their absence can be so easily excused away.

[blm]

27. The DNC does need to train better spokespeople and call out the GOPcontrol

over most of the broadcast media.

[mtnsnake]

29. For sure the media's partly to blame, but I'm sorry, our leaders have not

spoken up in a manner that gets media attention. If John Kerry or anyone stood up and said "Cindy is right. Bush is a liar", THEN the media would cover it and it would be all over every major news network. Trust me on that. No one has really stood up and made a statement with any sting to it.

[bemildred]

8. They don't like grass-roots movements much.

Such things threaten their control of the party, and control of the government with all its power comes from the party. So the answer would be they fear her and what she represents.

Of course, they are a diverse group, Dean is trying to build the grass roots with the intent of seizing control of the party. You have to take each one on his merits.

[mtnsnake]

19. Very interesting theory!

and another good analysis of what might be going on in their minds. Thanks!

[CWebster]

10. Who does the present party really represent anymore?

The problem is, and I stress this continually, is that the party identity is still defined by Clinton--and the Clintons will not bow out to allow the party to move on and become relevant in a changing political climate.

Here is the problem, and I apologize if it offends anyone--the Democratic party became the Yuppie party and the Yuppie day has come and gone.

They need to get with the program.

[Al-CIAda]

14. Much like Galloway, she exposes their IMPOTENCE. nt

[leetrisck]

17. No, no, no - Democratic leaders should

stay out of it - it's not about them and it will become about them if they all go traipsing down to Crawford spouting off. My feelings about this are entirely different - Cindy did this and many other Americans have joined her and this is fantastic. The minute some Democratic leader shows up there spouting off, it will take legitimacy away from her and the others.

[CWebster]

20. What the HELL ARE THEY ABOUT THEN?

Are they relevant to anything anymore? All this playing it safe has rendered them USELESS! MEANINGLESS! IRRELEVANT!

People are so conditioned to it, they ASSUME the Democrats must play it safe--because everything has become unsafe for them?

Okay, they might not be as horrible as the Bush junta, but WHAT GOOD ARE THEY then if they are so neutered they can't oppose it?

[welshTerrier2]

24. "so neutered"

interesting, isn't it, that at a time when the Party hides its left-wing away like a crazy uncle in the attic and preaches "macho, macho, macho" that the Party has never seemed more timid ...

what is needed is not a bunch of hawkish rantings from the DLC right-wingers and the "liberal hawks (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean); what is needed are BOLD ideas backed up with PASSIONATE rhetoric that demonstrates the COURAGE of our convictions to FIGHT like hell for what we believe in ...

nuanced positions, sloganeering, and macho posturing will only yield more of the same ...

[TayTay]

28. Didn't Cindy Sheehan ask that this remain a focused event

and not some sort of circus that showcases every lefty cause in existence. I thought this was about one American Mom who wanted an answer to her question: What noble cause, Mr. President, did my son die for?

She has been joined by others who want an answer to that question. This is a people's movement. I want Pols to do their job in DC and I want them to stay out of Crawford and out of Cindy's camp. It will dilute the power of her message.

I do not want wimpiness or silence. But I don't want so many people in Crawford that the message gets lost. Again, this is a people's movement, a movement of people who actually served in Iraq and Afghanistan and a emotionally resonant movement of Moms and Dads who want their President to talk to them. Why do they need every damn Dem in existence to go down there and interfere. Why can't they do their jobs in DC?

[CWebster]

31. Why can't they do their jobs in DC?

you said it--but why can't they have any input on the magor issues of the hour?

Are they really so removed from the rest of us?

[welshTerrier2]

32. you've apparently misunderstood my post

read my posts in this thread ...

i want to be VERY CLEAR that i have not mentioned anything about having Democrats participate in Crawford ... i'm from the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it school" ... i couldn't agree more with the idea that Sheehan's simple but powerful message should not be compromised by ANY OTHER AGENDAS ...

that does not mean, however, that Democrats should not hear and internalize her message ... it does not mean that Democrats should bury their heads in the sand and not re-evaluate their lame policies in Iraq as a result of inspiration they might receive from Sheehan's actions ... it does not mean that they shouldn't understand that Sheehan and the millions who support her are showing them "the will of the people" and that, if Democrats can't lead, they should at least follow ...

i don't at all support Democrats diluting Sheehan's "protest of the people" ... no one, Democrats included, should try to co-opt her message ... but I do support Democrats "getting it" and calling for immediate or near-term withdrawal from the insanity in Iraq ...

[mtnsnake]

21. You may have hit the nail on the head.

I was wondering something similar a while back, only you just stated it more clearly than I could have. There has got to be a reason they're so universally silent on this, and I hope that you're correct for all our sakes. Just the same, couldn't they at least show some support from afar?

Thanks for your input, BTW.

[cosmik debris]

22. Those who supported this war will never live it down.

They haven't come to grips with that yet. When they do, they will realize that their political career has been has been promoted to the level of incompetence. The Peter Principle applies.

To quote Grace Slick: "Pay your dues and get out of the way, 'cause we're not the way you used to be when you were very young"

[mtnsnake]

25. Very true. They might be worried about the "flip-flop" syndrome.

If that's the case, then they should be even more ashamed. They should be ashamed for falling for Bush's lies and "supporting the war" back then, and they should be ashamed now for not calling Bush a liar like Cindy did.

Oh, and they should also be ashamed for worrying about having to live it down that they supported the war in the first place. Admit their mistake like adults and speak the truth. SHAME SHAME SHAME.

[cosmik debris]

35. There you go.

Only those who are willing to take the hit as a flip flopper will have any future. The rest of them are stuck where they are and will never have a chance to move up. Yes, this applies to Hillary too. She sunk her own battleship when she failed to oppose this war on WMD.

The biggest hammer we have to hit the repukes with is the disastrous illegal war. Those who supported the war can't use this hammer, and thus become impotent candidates.

[renie408]

30. Why can't they outwardly support her??

I hate politics.

[blm]

36. No politician changed the course of the Vietnam War. It took a movement

from veterans themselves.

Same thing here. Its military and their families that will alter the course.

Politicians during Vietnam were vilified and dismissed, just as they are today....an especially easy task today now that the warmongers have almost complete control over the broadcast media.

It's much more difficult to demonize military families as political opportunists and enemies.

Besides, the lawmakers become the story instead of Cindy's questions for Bush.

[mtnsnake]

51. It shouldn't have to take a movement if only the politicians did ther jobs

We should've learned from Vietnam, but apparently we didn't.

Once again the politicians stand by helplessly, watching more and more soldiers die needlessly day after day, while people are out there attempting to accomplish what they should have been doing all along. If it's not their job to do what's right, then what do we pay them for?

[blm]

52. Bush/GOP has the numbers and the most media to get their way

and maintain an atmosphere where the opposition is barely heard.

Notice that Zell and Lieberman got all the airtime Bush wanted them to havce while Dems opposing Bush were marginalized, had their words twisted, or ignored.

[mtnsnake]

54. Yeah, that is a problem

Still, all it would take would be for one of them to stand up and say the L word in reference to Bush and the media would be all over it like flies on poop.

Why should the media waste its time on the types of generic unpleasantries that our people express towards Bush? Our leaders are WAY too easy on Bushco when it comes to verbalizing their dissatisfaction towards this liar. If the tables were turned and this were Clinton in office, Repukes would be hammering the hell outta him calling him every name in the book from liar to traitor. Our Democratic people are soft.

[Dr Fate]

40. I think some of them wish she(we) would go away.

A lot of the DEMs at the top dont want to say "yay" or "nay"- but want to remain ambiguous or "nuanced" about the war.

I think a lot of DEMs at the top wish we would shut up and let them focus on the soft, fuzzy, focus tested issues.

It's a mindset that the strategists who lost the last 3 elections think impresses swing-voters.

[mtnsnake]

42. I think your theory is as good as any.

It's a lot easier to talk about Bush's poor performance on the economy, the environment, etc...which are all things that no one can argue against, but speaking out on behalf of someone against the war is like walking on burning cinders. Shame on them if that's the case.

[Cha]

41. Sheila Jackson Lee was down

there in Crawford with CAmp Casey.

But, I think this is about the People vs bush..the politicians can stay the hell away as far as I'm concerned.

[AuntPatsy]

45. I agree at this point, leave the political ass kissing to those

get paid to play the game, this time, the people's voice needs to be heard uncensored...bringing the big guns in would obviously only attempt to censor her words.

[bvar22]

46. The "Democratic Leadership" backed themselves into a corner.

Since the "Democratic Leadership" VOTED "FOR" the War, and since the Democratic Party Platform 2004 was "PRO-WAR" and advocated "Winning in Iraq" and "expanding the Military", the Party leadership cannot really support Cindy Sheehan wothout admitting they were "wrong".

I would absolutely LOVE IT if our "Party Leadership" would step up and admit that the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was a "mistake" based on LIES, but I'm not holding my breath.

If you consider the "Party Leadership" to be the spokespersons of the DLC, then they cannot support Cindy and at the same time call for Expanding the War!

[mtnsnake]

48. I wholeheartedly agree. Our leaders DO need to admit they made a mistake

and they should "step up and admit that the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was a "mistake" based on LIES,"...as you so eloquently stated in your post above.

[leetrisck]

47. Each Representative & Senator has their own

troops in their own State that they have stood up for time and time again - very vocally and I'm happy about that. I still think they should keep their noses out of this present situation. It's working much better the way it is.

[mtnsnake]

49. Good point, but at the same token, they'll look like bandwagon jumpers

the longer they wait to join in. This isn't about supporting the troops. It's about once and for all standing up and calling Bush a liar, and that's what Cindy is doing. These Representatives and Senators are all in the positions they're in because Bush lied to them.

[McCamy Taylor]

53. Actually, she is getting plenty of publicity as a nonpartisan. Is cool.

Is actually better for the anti-war movement if it is seen as politically "pure".

[Nikki Stone 1]

56. The Dem leadership SHOULD stay silent.

The less known politicians get involved, the better. As long as Cindy is perceived as a mourning mom, she will garner at least some basic sympathy if not agreement from the American public. If the Democratic party threw its support behind her, the event would quickly become an inter-party squabble (aided and abetted by the M$M) and the war issue itself would get lost in the shuffle.

I am all for the leadership keeping their mouths shut and letting this happen as it is.

[Dr Fate]

57. They could talk about the DSM or the Nigerian documents though.

But they wont for some reason- at least not on TV where I can hear them.

[Nikki Stone 1]

58. But the DSM reveals their own moral bankruptcy in supporting the war

Galloway may have had his arm twisted by Repugs, but the Dems as a group were in supports of it.

[Dr Fate]

59. What about Dean?

???

[mtnsnake]

60. They stay silent about EVERYTHING and that's a serious problem

Bush's lies about Iraq: silence

SBVT lies about Kerry: silence

DSM: mostly silence

Cindy Sheehan: complete & utter silence for the most part.

Their silence isn't out of consideration to Cindy or her cause. No, their silence is born from a fear of telling Bush to his face he lied about the war and that our troops should come home ASAP. They don't have to praise Cindy or even bring up her name. All they have to do is do what she's doing: Tell the damn truth. But they won't, because they're afraid to.

[Q]

62. It's simply a continuation of this 'don't hate Bush' DLC policy...

"We can't allow our party to be hijacked by those who are so blinded by their hatred of George W. Bush that they can't see the path to a Democratic victory."  Al From's pithy remark received a lot of coverage last week, as did the group he founded, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).  That's because the DLC, those self-defined centrists who count Bill Clinton as their most important member and his election as their biggest accomplishment, held its annual National Conversation, aka convention, in Philadelphia. 

At this gathering some key Democrats sounded like party poopers given the warnings they issued to those within their ranks who are too critical of Pres. George W. Bush and too liberal on some issues.  Such behavior and attitudes will presumably ruin the Democrats' chances of recapturing the White House and Congress in 2004.

Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh put it this way.  "Do we want to vent or do we want to govern? The Administration is being run by the far right.  The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left," he opined. 

Who are the "venters" and the "far lefties" who have strayed from the path toward victory and may take the entire Democratic Party with them?  No names were mentioned at the DLC's meeting, but it was clear who the real target was.  It was none other than the Democrat who has been getting the most and best press lately, as well as a bounce in the polls.  That's Howard Dean, of course.


DEAN, THE DLC AND THE DEMOCRATS
By DAVID REBOVICH
http://politicsnj.com/rebovich080303.htm