http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cindy_Sheehan_announces_shell_run_against_0723.html

I have respect for Sheehan, but I still believe that emotional stress and outside influences are manipulating her and basically causing her to make a fool of herself.  Does she honestly believe that she will improve the state of our government or help out her constituency.  It is people like her that just look on the surface and don't acknowledge the political chess strategy beneath everything.

But then again, Arnold in California, Ventura in Minnesota, now Fraken, and Bush of Texas did the same thing.  I guess asking for smart, normal, well-qualified people to run our government is too much too ask.

I don't understand your point.  How is she not well-adjusted?  Where is it all about emotion? Why can't some strategy involve emotion?

Is it because she is female that you feel this way? 

I'm sure you are going to explain your way out of it, but your post sounds, at best, sexist.

> I guess asking for smart, normal, well-qualified people to run our government is too much too ask.

Where normal == male and normal == white bread and normal == hyper rational.

No, sop.  Because clearly nancy pelosi represents that.

When I mean normal.  I mean someone like Obama who was a lawyer made it up the ranks of government, wasn't involved in too many scandals.  Gets votes and gains popularity through presenting his message.  I could care less about his race, gender, sexual preferences.

With that being said; Bush, Cheney, Biden, Hillary, Romney all have impresses backgrounds when you look specifically at that but are they great leaders.  Obama graduated Harvard Law School.  Cheney, Bush were Yale grads, former representatives of Government, on and on.  Even at a minimum some of these guys have some pretty impressive from Ivy Leaque schools with political appointments dating back to Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Carter.

As far as I know from Sheehan, I can't tell if she has any political background besides protesting against the war.

Maybe not having a political background is a PLUS these days.

Once they learn to play the game by Washington's rules, they're useless to us.

Isn't that the truth.

I'd venture this country has not seen a statesman in my lifetime. Politicians... sure.

"Obama graduated Harvard Law, Alberto Gonzalez graduated from Harvard, Cheney/Bush graduated from Yale", etc, etc.

Oh yea, clearly the response will be; going to a Ivy league school and/or being governor or holding office in the Senate does not guarantee that you will be a good representative of the people.  It does not, but I KNOW that having a couple of years of limited exposure to politics will certainly guarantee that you will suck at it.

The whole problem is that government has become a political game instead of actually representing the people and simply doing things that are necessary.

Their only purpose seems to be to grab power.  Therefore nothing good will come down to the little people except as a side effect, if at all.

"I KNOW that having a couple of years of limited exposure to politics will certainly guarantee that you will suck at it."

Name some examples of inexperienced politicians who "sucked at it".

It was really more of a 'gut' thing for him.

The Terhminatah hasn't exactly shone... but I would really rather have more 'common people' in charge of things, regardless of the consequences.

Name some examples of inexperienced politicians who "sucked at it".

George Bush

I'm pretty sure Perot would have sucked... but that's just conjecture.

Bad example.  George Bush has sucked at everything he's ever tried.  And he only won because he's a Bush.

Name one inexperienced politician without family connections who sucked.  I'm just curious.

I would vote for Sheenan if I lived in her district. Pelosi said she would impeach Bush, then backed down as soon as she actually had the power to do so. now she and Bush are the Bobsy Twins. Sheenan's right to call bullshit on this and take Pelosi out.

"Pelosi said she would impeach Bush"

Did she?

Back in spring of 2006, before the election, Pelosi said that if the democrats gain a house majority and she becomes the speaker of the house, her main priority would be to investigate Bush's crimes and do whatever was necessary as a result. When asked if that meant impeachment she smiled and nodded, saying "You never know where it leads to." Then, shortly after the election, she had a long meeting with Bush, came out with a new understanding of things, and said "Impeachment is off the table". She is refusing to impeach and now that Bush is refusing to comply with all congressional supoenas, Pelosi is just throwing her hands up saying oh well I tried, nothing I can do, Bush is just too powerful. This is bullshit and she knows it. She is collaborating with Bush and all this shit is just a big fucking farce they are doing for their amusement as they consolidate power and conspire to enslave us.

Death to Bush for treason.
Death to Pelosi for treason.

Unless you have a reference for those quotes, I call BS.

"Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night."

May 12, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

I remember it like Mongo says.  She said that her eye will be toward improving the future, not avenging the past, is how she put it.

From the above article:

> She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

"In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to.""

Well, find the original interview!

a) There is no job that prepares you for Congress
b) There is no educational background that prepares you for Congress
c) Our current Congressional leadership have set the standard for the knowledge and behavior expected of our elected leaders
d) Which means there's no minimum

Fuck - the current elected "leadership" don't even understand when a bill is freaking blatantly unconstitutional, or that they have an obligation to at least READ a bill before voting on it.

Sheehan is more than qualified than most candidates - she's running on a single platform that she holds dear.

I also thank Cindy Sheehan for unmasking Daily Kos as to their true mindless partisan identity.

There you have it, folks.  A Republican speaks.

</sarcasm>

What's the KOS story Bot? I pick up from the comments that Cindy Sheenan herself has been personally banned from posting at DailyKos because she is calling for the impeachment of Bush? WTF? I thought DailyKos was left leaning, but now they are for Bush?

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6828459

Yeaaaa, this is who I want representing me in government.

(sarcasm, sarcasm)

Yeah I agree, Conyers needs to be put out.

Heh. Sheehan basically outed Kos.

Sheehan has one issue - get the US out of Iraq (and impeach the President if that's what it takes). When Pelosi refused to start impeachment proceedings, then Sheehan said "if you won't impeach the President and can't get our troops out of Iraq, then I'll run against you in '08 on that issue"

Sheehan had been using Daily Kos as a podium for her anti-Iraq posts. When she annouced she would run as an Independent against a registered Democrat, the truth about Kos came out - they're not a liberal blog, they're a Democratic blog. The stated purpose of the founder and those running the place is "To help get Democrats elected." As a result, Kos banned Cindy Sheehan from his site (because she is challenging a Democrat)

This came as a surprise to a lot of folks who read Daily Kos (including me), and a real shock to many of the long-time contributors that party allegiance trumped the issues. There's been quite a bit of a scuffle going on since it happened.

"the current elected "leadership""

This is technically wrong. I was referring to the Republicans, not the Democrats. Sorry about that.

Thanks Philo, that's very informative.

It was that 'elected' word that most likely threw us.