Cindy Sheehan reveals plan for new national party

Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan reveals her plans for a new national party, to be called the First Party, in this interview. She also reflects on her race against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

16 Responses to “Cindy Sheehan reveals plan for new national party”

  1. Jonathan Says:

    Good article to grow the third Party movement.
    Obama and McCain are one and the same:

  2. Richgriffin Says:

    I support the idea of one progressive party. I think it should be called Progressive Party, but I can live with this other name! I wish Cindy could win this year & defeat Nancy Pelosi ): Wishes…

  3. James Tomkinson Says:

    I dont want to critisise her and i would vote for her if i lived in san francisco but if your an independent candidate endorsed by two parties and there presidential candidates. Should you be talking about this in your campaighn? might the peace and freedom and green parties not have endorsed her if they knew she was launching a rival to them? might they feel misled if they thought they were endorsing an independent?Get this campaighn over with before you talk about the future would be my advice.

  4. Impeach Bush Says:

    She is probably implying that parties such as the Green, P&F, and other pro peace parties all unite as one, instead of having 5 or so third parties that have very similar platforms. That makes complete sense to me. Lets defeat the Republicrats!

  5. Derek Says:

    The logical thing would be to have the progressive parties come together and form 1 (by keeping the parties as such but come up with a name like “Progressive Alliance” or something of the like. Us third party supporters need to give the duopoly scare crows on the left, right and the center. Plus, it wouldn’t be a bad idea if the left and right would come together for races like the Governor’s race for example, where you have 2 candidates running, 1 for Governor, the other for LT. Governor and say either one heads the ticket or is the running mate.

  6. Harvey Says:

    If Cindy is an example of the candidates of this new party you can let me and about 99.9 per cent of the country out. Yeah she will find a few moonbats and burned out hippies to join and even vote for her and her leftist wacko comrades…maybe in a close election it might be “deja vu all over again” like in 2000 when the Nader voting numbskulls in Florida alone gave us 8 fucking years of George W. Bush. The fact remains that there just aren’t that many crazy people in America (even in Berkeley) who support this crazy old cow Cindy Sheehan and what she stands for! Peace brother…and sister!

  7. Laine Says:

    Ok, I want a clear reason why the Green Party is so bad that she feels the need to start a party from scratch. I never understood why Nader distanced himself from the Greens(though I support his independent runts) so, I would like hear a reason for starting a whole new party rather than building on an existing one. Perhaps she feels that the Green Party has a bad reputation after 2000 and also the Green Party probably just won’t have much support in some areas of our country.

  8. FirstReconUSMC Says:

    Cindy Sheehan is living in a Utopian dream world. Why develop another third-party when she could just join the Libertarian Party, which is the third largest party in the US, and it’s becoming more viable.

    I’m a disabled Vietnam Veteran, and I sympathize with Cindy for losing her son in Iraq. I, too, know what it is like to lose lives in war. Vietnam certainly was an illegal war and I lost many friends in battle. Even visited some of their families when I returned to the US, and believe me, it was hard to answer the families questions. Cindy is not the only person to has lost a son or daughter in a war.

    I believe that Cindy loves the limelight and is going to waste her time and others time to help her “build a new third party”. It will not happen.

    Cindy should stop using her sons death to promote her political ambitions. Join the existing Libertarian Party (It believes every thing she doe) and make a difference. She could still go after Nancy Pelosi’s seat. Cindy, wake up and smell the coffee. You have no more problems or losses of loved ones that most of Americans

  9. Lois Nigam Says:

    Cindy - God bless her…

    After the Green Party saved her bacon, and helped her collect the signatures to be on the ballot….

    After she didn’t run as Green Party candidate…

    Green Party still put her on the ballot

    Now she shows how grateful she is for the help….???

    Cindy is learning… Now it’s obvious that she doesn’t know how to run a state party….much less a national party…

    The Green Party is Cindy’s natural home….and she’ll learn that eventually too…..

  10. William Says:

    sigh too bad the true anti-war Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul didn’t win the GOP nomination.

    I don’t know what all Sheehan’s political views are—I suspect they may be a little too leftist for me, but nonetheless I don’t wish her any ill will or anything. I used to think she was crazy, but now I understand. I can’t even imagine the pain she must be going through, all because of this illegal war. So for that I sympathize with her and wish her well with her endeavors. I don’t really feel like she’s exploiting her son’s death for her political gain, simply because if someone doesn’t rise up and say enough is enough (and Obama won’t do that, mark my words) then shit like this is going to keep happening and other people’s children will die in wars that have nothing to do with national defense or national security.

  11. Richgriffin Says:

    I agree with Cindy Sheehan that we need ONE progressive party. I support the Green party platform, but agree with Ralph Nader that the party is too disorganized. I’m aware that it is a $$$ problem.

    Most Democrats actually agree with the Green party platform and the progressive agenda; it’s been very difficult for them to give up their party identification. Perhaps once they become disillusioned by President Obama they will finally give up the need for a “D” after a candidate’s name.

  12. Citizen Politician Says:

    Wow, there are just way too many negative people in this country. Why do people have to think in such narrow terms when it comes to politics. Stop putting negativity into the atmosphere, we already have enough! I actually think it is great to have a plural political environment. I do not think one party can fit all. I personally love the idea of having Libertarians, Greens, Socialist, Communist and many more bringing competiting ideas. It fits more with plural content of our society. I support all these parties, and if Cindy starts a new party I will support that one too.

  13. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Sheehan is more suited for the Greens than the LP. She favors “fair trade” agreements, socialized health insurance/care, pro-state-run schools, pro-regulation, anti-defense in the real sense (not the dondero nonsense), public funding and censoring of the media, pro-nationalizing transit and energy.

    The only things she agrees with the LP on is privacy protection, repealing NAFTA/CAFTA/etc., and immigration.

    Hardly a Libertarian, she is.


  14. Clear the Air Says:

    Harvey and his minions who perpetuate the urban myth that those smart enough to vote their conscious gave us eight years of Bush. You must be a D defending Pelosi’s latest theft of our tax dollars. All of us true indies know that 200,000 Dems in Florida alone voted for Bush. But of course your ilk has no ability to accept that responsibility.

  15. Ila Says:

    I’m a registered Green, and would be thrilled to be the VERY FIRST PERSON to register for the new Progressive Party If Independents and Greens joined hands, It would be marvelous.

    I’ve not been ‘sold’ on either presidential candidate when, during the debates between all contenders, they failed to ‘speak up’ for those such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, who were ignored.

    I kept waiting for ONE of them to say, “wait,” there are others vying for nominations, and whether we wish it or not, they need to be heard.

    NATURALLY, I know that the media certainly didn’t want to hear from anyone who might light a fire under our fat lazy arses

    We’ve been watching Cindy Sheehan since she sat alone outside Bush’s pig farm—with a small ‘homemade’ sign, in the hot Crawford, TX sun—-trying to find out WHY her son was killed in a phoney war!

    THIS is truly the real American story—-that someone who sat in the sun in a ditch—virtually ignored by the media, is now a contender who might actually remove the old cow who just gave away our country.

    History will be made, regardless of who votes for whom!

    We just want to know this:

    Will Nancy Pelosi ‘downsize’ from the GIANT jet she demanded when taking office?



  16. Paul Currier Says:

    I worked to help Cindy collect signatures, was present when Cindy filed 13,300 and I helped her get more - eventually over 20,000 - and I worked hard for another eight weeks to give Cindy a ground game, built on voters. I wasted my time. From up close, I do not get that Cindy is serious as a candidate. Getting elected is different than staging publicity theater for attention. Pelosi is beatible this year, but Cindy herself already lost this contest. Sheehan is not serious, and neither the local press nor San Francisco Voters take Cindy seriously. Where is the coverage in the SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, or SF Bay Guardian? Casey died 4 years ago on a mission he volunteered for, in a theater (Bagdhad) he volunteered for, in a War he volunteered for, and as a member of a unit he worked hard to qualify for in a branch of the service he volunteered for. That was four years ago. Sadness and claiming victim are irresponsible. Casey is gone. So are over 4,400 other Americans, as well as 100,000 to 450,000 Iraqi depending on your sources. Loosing loved ones in wars does not qualify anyone for office. Any Political Party requires voter support. Party building requires hard work. Failure to attract voters and San Franciscans as supporters means Cindy looses. How a looser plans to build a New National Political Party when she can’t even organize one community is more than problematic: it’s delusional. If Cindy really believes she can form a new headline grabbing ego booster, great! But I don’t see any union soon of Socialists, Greens, Peace & Freedom, Love Parade and others getting elected in the United States of America. If Cindy can’t organize one community, how can any of us take her seriously when she now - as she moves into loosing position - Cindy claims the political strength to form a First Party. Maybe all these keen ideas are more for cocktails and hubris?

Leave a Reply