Hi Genie,

Fun discussion. I must agree to disagree.

" She's rather like the chihuahua who fearlessly goes for the throat of the great Dane. Very gutsy and single-minded. Seldom terribly effective."

I think that Cindy is terribly effective. She may not get votes but she will influence the politics. This, in the same way that Martin Luther King did, or woman suffragettes, or the abolitionists. If it weren't for Cindy, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eugene Debs, Robert Ingersoll,
Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Thomas Paine, and so many who operated under principle rather than political expedience, the two-party system would remain useless because no important political idea would be introduced through societal pressure. Politicians are known to follow the lines of least resistance.


"I think there IS a real danger that people like Cindy -- i.e., liberals who form a circular firing squad around the Dems and progressive-minded politicians instead of aiming at the neocons -- will help create Karl Rove's dream of a "permanent Republican majority."

Again, I must disagree. Many Dems are their own firing squad and have shot themselves in the foot by taking reactionary stands rather than innovative and truthful ones. They are too beholden to K Street to have the temerity to stand up to a Karl Rove. Witness the DLC as a case in point. The DLC must share culpability in the support of a Rove by failing to counter and oppose these criminals who run our country.

Cindy and Dennis offer the courage to take on the DLC and the K Street "whores". It looks like Edwards will also close in on the facist corporations.


"I especially bemoan the fact that the Democratic-controlled House seems reluctant to impeach a criminal administration for trashing the constitution.   (Some principles are more important than political expediency. Not to mention that, with Republicans filibustering and Bush's veto pen ever poised, it's unlikely Congress will get anything through, this term, that Bush doesn't approve of.)"

Here I agree with you wholeheartedly.

"MAYBE "they" SHOULD support Cindy, but "they" are unlikely to do so as a unified group."

I recall that Lyndon Johnson was dragged kicking and screaming to the support of Civil Rights. The Kennedys even bugged King's telephone. Eventually they had to answer to the will of the people.

"Pelosi now has enough support from the overlapping groups -- Democrats, progressives, independents, anti-war groups -- to pretty much ensure her retaining her seat in the House.   If Sheehan runs against her as an Independent, it's quite possible the effect will be to split the vote of the aforementioned groups and give the seat to a Republican, who will probably be less acceptable to the liberal/anti-war "idealists" than Pelosi is."

This has been the old bromide from the very inception of the two-party system. That may or may not be true depending on whether these Pelosi Dems can see the light and not give Bush his Surge Money. If they decide to do this and not stand up to the replacement of Gonzo with Chertoff, then they are really no different from the Rethugs. Pelosi has not shown in any demonstrable way that she is an "anti-war idealist". In fact, they have given Bush pretty much everything he wants.


"IRV, in non-trivial ways, is as important to democracy as"what Cindy is doing now. It allows voters' true preferences to be registered, without fear of throwing away a vote by voting for someone who's not likely to place first or second in the race this time around."

IRV is important. The only thing it doesn't do is bring to the fore the princlples that many Democrats of the past have embraced. It is not clear what the Democratic Party stands for any more because they are reluctant to articulate principles in the same way the Rethugs have.

"   Hmm. Perhaps. But let's not forget that there are equally zealous moms and dads on the other side of the fence who have also lost beloved sons or daughters in Iraq.   Being passionately devoted to a cause does not automatically make your ideas workable, much less put them into effect in a practical way."

True but without these idealists and passion, all practical manners of working are useless.
Until the Democratic Party can say with assurance what it stands for, it will remain dormant. Cindy is articulating these principles through her efforts and this is practical because people know where she stands and can respond in whatever way they want.


Frank Hamilton