Cindy Sheehan – No Friend of the Democratic Party

Based on a few profanity-filled comments I received yesterday concerning my last post on Cindy Sheehan, I thought I would do the proper thing and add fuel to the fire. You really didn’t think I was going to apologize did you? LOL! Onward…!

I was over at Democratic Underground yesterday where the “Sheehan has hit the fan,” so to speak. Many there applaud her for interrupting the Democratic press conference. Others feel as I do. But there has been an interesting question raised there that I will answer here and there: Did Sheehan hijack that press event because it was Democrats holding it or because it was the far leftwing’s most reviled congressman Rahm Emanuel who was conducting it? My answer is both… and more. She did it because it was a United States Congressman from an American political party representing the United States of America. I don’t believe, as some on DU assert, she picked out Emanuel’s press conference because he initially backed the Iraq war. If that were the case, she’s going to be a very busy girl protesting Democrats and heckling them at other events. At times, she may be required to be in two or more places at one time if her goal is to protests Dems who supported the Iraq war. But I don’t think that is the case.

After a very noble and worthwhile beginning, her world has become a place where America is the enemy and it really doesn’t matter to her who is running the show here – Republicans or Democrats. Her goal has grown way beyond ending the Iraq war. It has now become altering the very structure of the United States government. Of course, she isn’t the mastermind here. She isn’t that smart. But she has become the willing pawn of a much larger movement.

Now before you accuse me of falling off the rightwing deep end and using that Republican “Cindy hates America” cliche, humor me for a few minutes. World Can’t Wait, a fringe left communist revolutionary organization (FACT), has been whispering in her ear for some time now (FACT). Last October, they published a top 10 list of Why people shouldn’t put their hopes and money into the Democrats, effectively admonishing World Can’t Wait supporters (and that includes Sheehan) not to support the Democratic party. It didn’t name specific Democrats, but it was specific in who not to support – The Democrats! There is a partial answer to the question – Sheehan was targeting the Democratic party and in doing so, she was targeting America. How so? Read on…

World Can’t Wait is truly a snake in the grass organization and it is a shame Sheehan has involved herself with it. One of the group’s leaders, C. Clark Kissinger, is involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist vanguard party, and was the national secretary of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which, in 1969, became the Weather Underground, an organization whose purpose was to “carry out a series of militant actions that would achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the Government of the United States (and of capitalism as a whole).” He was a strong supporter of Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979 and supported Bob Avakian’s work to build a real communist party in the U.S.

In August 2005, Kissinger wrote an article titled Getting Real About The Democrats in which he blasted the Democratic party, naming in particular John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid as Democrats not worthy of the left’s support. He accused the liberal Reverend Jim Wallace of being the Democrat’s “Secretary of Religion” and implied Wallis was being used by Democrats for some ultimate theocratic goal.

Remember – Kissinger works with World Can’t Wait. And so does Sheehan.

But if you’re a logical person, you’re probably thinking this is only guilt by association. What has Cindy personally done that proves she is no friend of the Democratic party and should not be treated as such? For starters, Sheehan threatened to run against Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in California but instead opted to support the Green Party candidate Todd Chretien in that election. Chretien, a leading member of the International Socialist Organization and frequent contributor to CounterPunch wrote an article in July of 2004 praising those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and declaring that “progressives” shouldn’t squander what they started in 2000 by voting for John Kerry in 2004:

Medea Benjamin… and many other liberal and progressive leaders tell us that a Kerry regime “would be less dangerous” than Bush. This may or may not be true… But, even IF Kerry is “less dangerous,” he will be MORE capable of wreaking havoc on Iraq, Palestine, Venezuela, abortion, gay rights, civil rights and unions IF we sacrifice our political movement to getting behind him…. Tragically, rather than building on the great start we made in 2000… many of the very same people who helped that effort are trying to wreck it this time around (by) condoning, if not actually leading, a campaign to vilify (Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo) as “Republican dupes”…

I could go on about her, delving into some particulary unsavory alegations about her personal character, but I won’t. Frankly, one’s personal conduct, as long as it is legal, has never been an issue with me. Sheehan has enough political baggage to warrant writing her off.

UPDATE:   See Democratic Underground come unhinged over this piece.  Denials, justifications, and personal attacks.


7 Responses to Cindy Sheehan – No Friend of the Democratic Party

  1. Gary says:

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees Sheehan for what she is. I’m sorry that she lost her son in Iraq, and nothing could ever bring him back, but I believe that she is tied in with the wrong people who want to further their own agenda and may not fully support what she wants to do. If Sheehan wants to bring the troops home, I’m all for it, but I hope for her sake that she thinks carefully about how she does it.

  2. Progressive says:

    I don’t think you should attack Cindy. It doesn’t address the issue of a very costly war and the need to end it as soon as possible. Most view this as the number one issue in November when people went to the polls. But on the other hand, I am very concerned about these kind of groups now around her.

  3. donkeydigest says:


    By a wide margin, Americans who voted Tuesday in the midterm election say they disapprove of the war in Iraq.

    But when asked which issue was extremely important to their vote, more voters said corruption and ethics in government than any other issue, including the war, according to national exit polls.

    Cindy Sheehan disrupted a press conference where the Democrats were announcing plans to tackle voters’ #1 concern. The were doing the people’s work but it wasn’t good enough for Cindy.

  4. Sharon says:

    RE: The Democratic Underground link

    Never in my life have I seen such a bunch of losers gathered in one place. Amazing how they won’t even challenge the gist of the article but want to whine about “red baiting” and such.

    IMO. Sheehan is a losing proposition for the anti-war movement. She has become a liability.

  5. SaveElmer says:

    What is funny about the reactions on the DemocraticUnderground thread is the absolute lack of acknowledgement on the irony displayed by those blasting the thread as a smear. As I have been told on numerous occasions over there, usually when defending centrist Democrats against innacurate left-wing attacks…the truth is not a smear.

    It’s a standard they rarely apply when the truth about one of their golden idols sees the light of day…

  6. Greg says:

    Hi there. You do realize that attacking an important figure in the peace movement is attacking a part of the Democrats’ coalition that you could not have won the previous election without.

    DonkeyDigest: I am but a blogger with maybe 10 readers (ok, maybe a little more!) However, Cindy Sheehan attacked THE Democratic party or which I am a member of. Cindy can attack us, we can’t reciprocate? In regards to not being able to have won without the “anti-war movement” (that may or may not be true – the percentage of swing voters who swung our way surpased that of the “netroots”), there are many many groups within the party who realize they will never get 100% of what they want. It is only the “anti-war movement” who are disrupting our elected Democrats addressing voters’ #1 concern – ethics and corruption.

    I’m disinclined against the Democrats enough – I don’t want to see the legitimate figures in the peace movement maligned by the party.

    Perhaps, if you truly wish to seek an end to the Iraq conflict, you would turn your powers of rhetoric into an articulation of why the Congressional leadership should use the power of the purse and the withdrawal of the use of force authorization, to end the war within six months, and to investigate the administration’s war profiteering policies.

    DonkeyDigest: Why would I allow someone like you or even the “anti-war movement” as a whole decide how I should use my “powers of rhetoric?”

    Starting a circular firing squad isn’t going to end this conflict, and will only make the new Congressional majority a train wreck.

    DonkeyDigest: A circular firing squad the far left started.

    Like Cindy Sheehan or not, she is a hugely important person in the peace movement.

    DonkeyDigest: WAS an important person…

    When she spoke at a large mainline protestant church in Evanston, she filled the cathedral – 500 people, mostly middle class and upper middle class couples, middle aged – the standing ovation went on and on and on. I’d wager 485 of those people showed up to vote for a Democrat for Congress.

    DonkeyDigest: Did she speak at a church in Albany, GA or Huntsville, AL?

  7. Greg says:

    Oh good god, you’re from Huntsville? By all means, pine away – you people down there are nice, but in my opinion, the Democrats should take cues from their populace northern base rather than scarcely populated military cities in the isolated, backward part of the country.

    DonkeyDigest: And there is a fine example of the “progressive” mindset – believing one section of the country should have more of a say in electoral matters than another. But to anwer your question, I just named two small southern cities at random and baited you into showing your bias.

    The margin of antiwar northern voters far exceeds the national margin of victory – Cook County, Illinois, can bring out a half million people to protest and then count 900,000 more votes for the Democrats than Republicans. Do the math with the country’s large metro areas from Boston to New York to Philadelphia to Chicago to Los Angeles to San Francisco and these five cities alone are home to people who considered themselves antiwar voters who vote for the Democrats in numbers greater than the margin of victory, and half of the Democrats pickups come from these areas.

    DonkeyDigest: First, I’d expect to see expect to see evidence of, 1: Northern voters are “anti-war,” 2: Those calling themselves “anti-war” didn’t actually sit out the election or vote third party out of some misguided “protest,” and, 3: That all the exit polling and analysis was wrong, disgruntled swing voters weren’t the deciding factor in 2006 and Iraq (not ethics and corruption) was the voter’s chief concern on election day.

    That’s an understatement of the influence of these antiwar, antiBush, left-inclined metro areas – better the Democrats govern to the approval of these voters than people in Huntsville or Albany, no offense to the kindness of southern hospitality.

    DonkeyDigest: It’s actually an exaggeration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: