http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-02-09T194058Z_01_N09355253_RTRUKOC_0_US-CALIFORNIA-SHEEHAN.xml
That one is awesome. Obviously, running against Feinstein on the Demo ticket is a lot like using an uninflated balloon for a helmet and riding a motorcycle into a brick wall. You really don't accomplish much but its good for a laugh for the spectators. However, if she HAD run, she could have taken just enough fringe support from Feinstein to give the Repub an outside shot at an upset. It has happened before.And I did not choose lightly the word fringe. While Sheehan has some supporters in the more centrist portions of the anti-war crowd she is a one trick pony whose other political beliefs and leanings have been obscured in an avalanche on repeating statements.And meeting with Chavez...I have no problem with foreign leaders disagreeing with the U.S. Smurf, I disgree with lots of things about the U.S. However, it is important to distinguish who, why, and how they are disagreeing. Just as, in my opinion, the actions of Hanoi Jane in the Vietnam era crossed the bounds from honorable dissent to outright treason, dealing with Chavez is pretty far across the line. While I believe he has every right to run his country as he sees fit...as does, I might add, Castro, regardless of how I might feel about many of his actions...the person who gets so blinded about one issue, right or wrong, that they treat with someone actively seeking war with the U.S. as more of a friend than our own people...well, the political backlash should someone like that run for office could conceivably devastae not only her campaign but also the blowback could affect other members of the party.So while my response to Sheehans announcement she is not running is, and I quote, "Yawn. Hmm, NBC sure gave up a lot to get Michaels as a broadcaster.", the Democrats should be cheering loudly and the Republicans should be crying giant crocodile tears.