Cindy Sheehan Clarification

A colleague chastised me for my Cindy Sheehan post below, saying I was "beating up" on the grieving mother, which is mean. That's not what I intended to do, but upon re-reading, I can see how the post could be read that way. And, seeing that I've never publicly commented on Sheehan before, I suppose I should add some clarification, lest others interpret my post the same way.

In saying that Sheehan's brief departure from the public scene was "happy news," I meant only that I was glad that the spectacle she created/attracted seemed to be coming to an end. It's not that I despise Sheehan, or even that I bear any animus toward her. Yes, she has a tendency for outrageous, offensive comments, but if I'd been through what she's been through, I might, too.

Still, her love-fests with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, her claims that Israel drives U.S. foreign policy, and her endorsement of 9-11 conspiracy theories were too incendiary not to rebuke. And whenever they were rebuked, her defenders would blast her critics for beating up on a suffering mother. It made for an awkward tension in the public debate, with someone firing off condemnable comments that decent people were loath to condemn.

Sheehan was lionized by many Democrats, who were all too happy to use her against President Bush, while ignoring the more bizarre parts of her platform. But when she started criticizing Democrats, too, she was quickly dumped by a segment of the left that cares more about the party than principles. (Yes, the right has many such people, too.)

All in all, it was an unseemly mess, which Sheehan herself seemed to realize when she briefly decided to retire. But now she's back, and her target is the top elected official for the very party that used, then dumped, her. I'd just as soon she spared herself from this ugly, exploitative sport altogether, but as long as she's in, it's worth pointing out the irony.