Why Does the Press Love Sheehan? I Have No Idea.

So you're the guy who gave money to Howard Dean even though you live off of student loans, can't help but scream profanity when a friend turns the TV to Fox "News," and could talk for hours about how invading Iraq was simply stupid. Every one who knows you avoids even mentioning the word 'Republican' because you'll start frothing at the mouth, and really who wants to hear you drone on about hypocrisy of preemptive wars again? So you learn to shut up, write DailyKos diaries no one reads, and bide your time to try again in 2008: but then she comes along.

With a simple protest Cindy Sheehan, has managed to revive the national debate on why we went to war more effectively than the entire liberal blogosphere. And while her pull seems to be waning, the American people are beginning to wake up to the reality that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a sham. So how did she come to dominate national news, for a short-while, in the first place?  Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh would love to blame it on the "liberal" media, but that's their justification for anything that doesn't conform to their predetermined world-view: obviously the effectiveness of Sheehan's protests in garnering media attention is much more complicated.

Cindy Sheehan makes good news because she is a sympathetic mother who is raising questions that our President avoids answering. As a mother of a dead soldier she commands our society's respect. Jack Lule, Professor and Chair at the Department of Journalism and Communication at Lehigh University, cites anthropologist James Freeman, writing that "mother worship reflects or is derived in part from the deep biopsychological bond that infants develop with an adult, usually, but not invariably, the mother (Lule, page 105)."  It's difficult for the Right-Wing media to resort to its usual smear tactics (e.g. Michael Moore is fat and rich, therefore everything he says is irrelevant) because mothers nurse, nurture, and nourish (Lule, page 106).

In a Democracy we expect our leaders to listen to its citizens. Cindy Sheehan is just another ordinary American-mother, one of over 2,000 mothers who know what it's like to have lost a child for Bush's pre-emptive war on Iraq (not to mention the 15,000+ injured). I can't imagine what it's like to lose a son in a war that was started under false pretenses, and neither can Yale elitists like Ann Coulter who mock Sheehan. Why does Sheehan really want to meet with the President again? Is it the money? The glam? The threats of college Republicans? I highly doubt it: I think she'd like some closure in her life.

So what are the questions she and many of us want answered by our President? Why does the Bush Administration continually handout no-bid contracts to companies directly tied to Dick Cheney despite substantial corruption charges? And who is going to pay for this war? Why is Bush using his 51% political mandate to pass social-spending cuts and upper-income tax-cuts during a time of war? Especially when our soldiers are being sent into combat unprepared? Why was Bush so determined to go to war with Iraq, even before 9-11?

Now there are many who say that by simply asking these questions, Cindy Sheehan and liberals are aiding the enemy. But according to the American Heritage Dictionary terrorism is defined as:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Now who sounds more intimidated by the terrorists, President Bush:

"They intend to strike the United States to the limits of their power. They seek weapons of mass destruction to kill Americans on an even greater scale."

Or Cindy Sheehan:

"For dKos readers: Trust me. I don't feel lionized by you. I do feel supported and loved. I hope I will still get that support. I counted on it during the Camp Casey August days and you all helped me thru the smears and swiftboating. Please don't feel that you are added additional stress to me by sending me supportive comments. Women don't live by bread alone."

So who is aiding the terrorists? A President who needs to run a campaign of fear and paranoia to win just 51% of the vote, or an ordinary American mother willing to sleep in a ditch in order to ask our President some questions?

•  Tip Jar.

  by therightlies on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 01:18:07 AM PDT

•  The Press What?

  Where is this Sheehan love from the press?

  What the MSM seems to love most is giving air time to Sheehan's opponents and critics. You'll notice that commentators will not describe Sheehan's basic message for viewers, but they will quickly outline critics' arguments, accusations and talking points every chance they get.

  Sheehan has become little more than an excuse to trot out her critics' accusations. Every mention of her in the MSM I've seen lately is mostly negative.

  If anyone can cite a major MSM anchor or commentator who has been primarily pro-Sheehan, I'll be surprised. Maybe Kieth Olbermann, but I haven't seen him cover it.

  Every interview I've seen has focused on her critics' talking points with demands that Sheehan defend herself.
  

  by WaltKelly on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 01:37:02 AM PDT

  •  What I saw

    on cable yesterday was only reportin' on the numbers of people with Cindy in Crawford - no mention of the reason she is there (no context). It was pathetic.

    by dmmteacher on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 02:51:21 AM PDT

  •  by "love"

    I meant attention...which in the political world often amounts to the same thing.

    by therightlies on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 10:17:40 AM PDT

•  Bush is clearly intimidated,

  as are all the right wingers.  They are especially threatened by Cindy for some reason, which is why they feel so compelled to attack and criticize her.  If she was truly no threat they would pay her no attention at all.  They look at her and they have to see the truth.  It is much easier to hide on a ranch and make nonsensical statements about "sacrifice" and "winning the war on terror."

  by margaretc on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 02:42:38 AM PDT

  •  Amen

    and that's the best signature line I've seen in a long time. Damn, I miss Abbie Hoffman!

    by mosesfreeman on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 03:54:38 AM PDT

    •  Me too!

      I often wonder what Abbie would have to say about the state of affairs the world is in today.

      by margaretc on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:49:16 AM PDT

      •  By now

        he'd be saying "don't trust anyone over 70".

         I am sure he would appalled, and would fight like Hell against this criminal regime. He can't make it this time, so we have to fight on his behalf.

        Rest in peace Mr. Freed.

        by mosesfreeman on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:05:06 AM PDT

•  By the way--

  "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

  Isn't this kind of descriptive of what we are doing in Iraq in the first place?  Could it be that we were the original terrorists?

  by margaretc on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 02:45:22 AM PDT

•  The reason Cindy Sheehan attracts

  media attention is because she's got some qualities that are difficult to ignore. She's tall.  Tall people always get more attention because they have to be looked up to.  She writes well and uses the spoken word very effectively.  The camera likes her and, even when she's a physical mess, the pictures of her are attractive. It may have something to do with her facial bone structure.
  Her issue is simple: tell us the truth George.  The answer is not forthcoming because impossible.  If the DoD had been able to tell the American people to begin with that it planned to set up more missiles with nuclear warheads in Iraq, it wouldn't have had to be kept secret and covered up by all kinds of "stories."
  Cindy is good at planning ahead and seems to make pretty good choices in delegating work.  There aren't a whole lot of people at present whose failure to show up in a ditch exactly when expected gets media coverage (the "rapture" is another exception).
  Asking a question is always an effective strategy. Our legal system depends on it.
  In a way, Cindy Sheehan has put George in the dock of public opinion.

  by hannah on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 03:42:26 AM PDT

  •  you're definitely right...

    but I was trying to cover another reason why she attracts attention.

    by therightlies on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 10:19:14 AM PDT

•  she put it all on the line.

  she uprooted whatever consisted of her life after her son's death and took a fucking stand. She forfeited any and all privacy that us private citizens enjoy (no patriot act jokes plz), and her cause is so dramatic that it could not help but attract media attention (the goal anyway).
  someone else said that it is because she is pretty much untouchable. Upright citizen, mother of a fallen soldier, etc. She's squeaky clean and she did what everyone against the war wanted: "I wish someone would take a stand for me to support!"

  by baccaruda on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 03:53:28 AM PDT

  •  just imagine

    imagine asserting yourself in that manner, to stop the world and make it revolve around you. Can you sing? Imagine that you go out and make it your life's purpose to become a rock star. Find some musicians to back you up, record an album, and most importantly, succeed at selling yourself to the world. Cindy succeeded at selling her story to the world because she put that kind of faith in herself and used that power that can result from letting go of whatever holds you back.

    by baccaruda on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 03:58:19 AM PDT

•  The media can never resist David v. Goliath

  One woman, now with a small band of supporters, against the Leader of the Free World.

  The sub-plot is also becoming more evident. Bush could have largely defused this demonstration in the summer or again last week by:
  

  • Inviting the protesters in for a Thanksgiving dinner
    
  • Listening to them
    
  • Thanking them for their sacrifices and commitment to our common country
    
  • Regretfully acknowledging that he will not be able to satisfy their legitimate concerns as quickly as they want
    
  • Asking for their prayers and continued activism.

  The fact that Bush is incapable of a move like this is becoming a story in itself.

  by Elwood Dowd on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 03:54:06 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    I think that is one of the reasons the right wingers are so threatened by her- if they vilify her they don't have to look at the fact that their beloved President was unable to give her 5 minutes of his precious time to a woman whose son made the ultimate sacrifice for his war.  Because then they might have to look at the fact that perhaps Bush does not really believe he is in the right as he professes to, otherwise why would he duck and avoid one woman who simply wants to know why?

    by margaretc on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:56:06 AM PDT

•  i don't think

  the press loves her.

  Every single story I've ever seen about her has included Republican talking points and other misrepresentations, and backhanded or blatant attacks on her character and cause.

  I never thought I'd live to see the day when a Gold Star Mother (and the other Gold Star and Blue Star Families supporting her) would be treated like this by people who claim to be pro-military.

  just this weekend I did not see a single positive story about her Thanksgiving trip to Crawford.    One particularly snippy reporter said "she doesn't have the support of the major anti-war groups and the PR firm coordinating things like last summer" as if the August event had been initiated by outside political consultants.  But somehow they manage to put together uniformly positive or neutral reports on the tiny counterprotest without taking any backhanded swipes at them or challenging them on their "facts" or noting who is bankrolling them.

  I think the press is actually afraid to present Cindy's unvarnished story because it is so compelling.  If the heartland could really see her as she is they might identify with her, and the grassroots groundswell against the war would grow even faster.

  by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 09:19:59 AM PDT