But one presses on: Pessimism of the intellect-optimism of the will, as Gramsci, I think it was, put it.

The essential criticism contained in most of these is that to write clearly and intelligently is to capitulate to the values of “the coordinator class.” Note the assumptions on which this claim is based. Among them: “the unwashed masses,” as one respondent tritely puts it, a) have no appreciation for written language and b) don’t deserve representation from an official who is capable of producing coherent statements of her positions or c) don’t care.

Aside from being shockingly condescending and offensive, those endorsing this position are simply clueless as to the demographics of San Francisco which is-earth to DV readers- among the most affluent and/or educated in the nation. Even if it were true, completely contrary to fact, that typos, spelling mistakes, and other literary forms of “keeping it real” would attract “truck drivers, factory workers and janitors” to the Sheehan campaign, there is no way that a campaign in San Francisco can succeed without the support of white collar workers at most levels of the income spectrum. To write these voters off would be senseless, though that I am perhaps giving these respondents too much credit in presuming that they actually care about mounting a serious opposition to Pelosi. More likely, it is simply a game for them, one which they don’t really care if they lose in the most humiliating circumstances.

Equally clueless is the respondent who seem to think that Bush’s speaking style is relevant to this discussion given that it concerns written not spoken English. On this point, I challenge him or her to find a single grammatical, spelling or punctuation mistake of any consequence in documents emanating from the Bush campaign or the White House. That it is even necessary to make this observation is indicative of a level of political naivete that is indistinguishable from pathology.

Turning to Mr. Zeese, whose work I admire, he finds it odd that I’m making these criticisms in the form of an open letter and then ends with the seeming non-sequitur: “Do readers think Rep. Pelosi represents the views of the people of San Francisco? I don’t.”

Of course they don’t. Nor did the Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, Carter or Reagan administrations. That, in a nutshell, is the whole problem. Why is it that those assuming positions of power and authority invariably represent and answer to elites while those, like Sheehan representing the views of the great majority, are incapable of operating viable and competitive campaigns.

While leftists might not find it attractive to look in the mirror, a good part of the answer to this question is contained in the responses above, which make for a virtual parade of leftist pathology. To quote George Orwell “is it any wonder why everyone hates us so?”

Finally, an open response to Ms. Sheehan who wrote to me privately, based on the assumption that I am some kind of “friend” of hers. I am no friend; I, and I hope many others, am something much more valuable-namely, I am an ally. Once she begins to recognize that there is a distinction to be made between these categories, that will be an important indication that her campaign is becoming serious, though I should mention that the most recent piece posted on DV today indicates some, albeit mixed, progress along these lines.

This seems more appropriate as a letter to the Sheehan campaign offereing to volunteer!

Cindy takes “We the people” seriously — she really wants someone who represents the people of Nancy Pelosi’s district.

Do readers think Rep. Pelosi represents the views of the people of San Francisco? I don’t.

I suppose Cindy doesn’t have much time to respond to every bit of advice she must be getting, so doing an open letter which reaches enough whisperers who like it, begs she must spend time with it?

I’d love to see more snide…in fact, were she to get in I’d love to see her tell a reporter or another representative to fuck off and call them a murderer. Sounds terrible or counterproductive? You should have seen Brown call Howard a hater. The liberal party in Australia tried to make him retract it and it only gave him more time to say it…some brutal honesty would tear through the veneer

THAT IS (you know, i.e.?), should we be organizing the coordinator class … or the working class?

Why do you think Karl Rove coached Bush to speak grammatically incorrectly? If the left isn’t interested in trying to appeal to the unwashed masses, the right will be only too happy to pay whatever lip service is necessary to do so.

Sheehan won’t survive … but maybe if she is elected a signal of sorts will have been sent.

G

Having attended Cindy Sheehan volunteer sessions I can attest that Cindy, her staff, and volunteers are very concerned about making a good impression– and they all know good grammar helps!

I love the idea of Joshua Frank and Sunil K. Sharma helping out– but I wonder how they would feel about it? They are true independents who I respect for their radical non-partisanship. Maybe the fact that they published this letter is in the spirit of productive investigation.

As to Cindy’s image:

She is notorious for dressing as she likes. She is not about to be “imaged”. She is about the truth, and the greater part of the truth is to be oneself.

I know that doesn’t always sit well with many of us. I will never forget how Matt Gonzalez broadened his constituency after the former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos gave him a suit to wear. But I suspect he wore it not to win votes, but out of kindness and respect.

I expect Cindy to change as her political campaign evolves: but it will likely be on her own terms in ways that will not dilute her integrity. I love Cindy’s missives because they are clear and to the point. In them, even with their trivial errors and occasional awkwardness, one gets a clear picture of the real Cindy. She’s not perfect– but she is us! She has a heart, and a will, and a real anger against the Destroyers that are running our country.

I still get mail from Nancy Pelosi, and I can’t tell the difference whether her correspondence was written by a human or a fax machine. But I can guarantee without searching that they are all probably 100% glitch free. Slick. And so much trivia, half-truths, and out-and-out lies!

Cindy Sheehan does indeed need to break out of being pigeonholed as a “fringe” candidate. But rather than blame her, I blame the establishment media and Democratic Party operatives who are upset that she discovered their complicity with the Washington Consensus — including publications like Mother Jones which purport to tell the truth with “attitude”.

Read this, and you should see what I mean. (MJ censored my comment.) http://tinyurl.com/yq8hta

(Incidentally while the prose and grammar in the Mother Jones article is scintillating– I call it an evil hit piece. So much smoke: talk of a “New Guard” and an “Old Left”…”reverse Joe Liebermans”… ending a war “by procedural fiat”… advice from a Howard Zinn detractor… the inserted gem that it was an antiwar missive from Nancy Pelosi herself that was the source of Medea Benjamin’s inspiration to sick Code Pink on her… a description that Cindy is a poor girl infatuated with attention… echoes of Rush Limbaugh… caricatures of San Francisco’s loony left including a gratuitous mention of the nobody Chicken John, the guy, possibly a set-up to dilute votes, who pretended to run against Nancy Pelosi’s cousin, Gavin the Groomed…. And the article includes only a shadowy skeleton explanation of what Cindy is fighting for: like bringing our troops home now, like impeachment, and integrity in government where people come first! Instead the article begins by saying that Cindy wants to “nudge Pelosi out of Iraq”– why not the U.S. out of Iraq? Further, Cindy has many supporters from all walks of life– especially retired elders, small business owners, military veterans, working folks, and church-goers: all taboo. Bring on the Raging Grannies!)

Cindy Sheehan’s campaign staff, to their credit, has put the link to the Mother Jones article on its campaign website press page. They know they are starved for news in the mainstream and almost anything is better than nothing. They know that people looking for the truth will find it– in spite of the world of lies that are spun around her and her courageous independent and boot-strap campaign.

And if you think Free Press will come to her defense because of the intentional media blackout… think again. I am convinced that it, like many other NGOs have strict protocols to insure that their bread stays buttered. Why else its feeble support for Pelosi (and Kerry, the token) who promise to challenge the telecommunications industry– after the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (Obama and Clinton not voting).

Such bull!

This nation is blind and an insistence on dotting every eye… oops!… “i”… and crossing every “t” is as ridiculous to me as those unfathomable pink Burger King crowns that the CodePink ladies (who I adore) insist on wearing.

If we are not smart enough to get the message that is written on the wall, God help us!

If possible please get in touch with him and get his help. I truly want your success, because that would make a huge difference to the politics of this country, and in turn the World.