Cindy Sheehan intend to run for U.S president

[Crux]

Socialists prepare for the fightback

Sunday 07 November 2010
by Peter Knight
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/design/news/images/printer.gif Printable (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/97373)
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/design/news/images/envelope.gif Email (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/tipafriend/97373)

Socialist packed into Friends Meeting House in London this weekend to hear union leaders and activists at the forefront in the battle against capitalism.

US anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in the Iraq war, declared her intention to run for US president. And she drew loud applause when she argued for the need to build an alternative to the rotten parties of capitalism.

Fire Brigades Union general secretary Matt Wrack received cheers of solidarity for his members in dispute with London Fire Authority.
He told the crowd that firefighters will decide through their union's democratic structures the best tactics to win this fight.
RMT president Alex Gordon highlighted Tube workers' current battle to defend their jobs and passenger safety on the underground.
In the face of the Con-Dems' ideologically motivated cuts, Mr Gordon urged people to embrace socialist ideas and economic solutions to replace the current system that only benefits the rich.

Socialist Party leader Peter Taaffe called for a TUC-led public sector general strike against the cuts, while Greece's CWI general secretary Andros Paiatsos linked up the struggles across Europe and elsewhere as part of a growing united force that has the potential to replace the dead corpse of capitalism with socialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, what do you think, comrades? I think such a campaign could have very good potential, particularly as she'll be standing as an open socialist candidate. I hope the U.S left can get behind her.

[cb9's_unity]

I just quickly browsed her wiki page. For most of it she comes off as a well meaning and surprisingly radical liberal, but a liberal none-the-less. However there are parts were she said she would rather live under Chavez than Bush. And near the end of the article its clear that she's actually got in touch with socialist party's and even gave a compliment to Marx.

Her still recent history of being a liberal makes it hard to support her now, but if she continues to move to the left and really embraces the revolutionary socialism she's flirting with now, she could be a candidate the left could consider moving behind. Again, she would really have to drop a lot of her liberalism, but she could get some national media attention.

The more I think of it, the more this could be an opportunity to shake up the left a bit in this country.

[Crux]

I just quickly browsed her wiki page. For most of it she comes off as a well meaning and surprisingly radical liberal, but a liberal none-the-less. However there are parts were she said she would rather live under Chavez than Bush. And near the end of the article its clear that she's actually got in touch with socialist party's and even gave a compliment to Marx.

Her still recent history of being a liberal makes it hard to support her now, but if she continues to move to the left and really embraces the revolutionary socialism she's flirting with now, she could be a candidate the left could consider moving behind. Again, she would really have to drop a lot of her liberalism, but she could get some national media attention.

The more I think of it, the more this could be an opportunity to shake up the left a bit in this country.
Liberal is in past tense for a reason. She has radicalized considerable just in the last year or so, she sees herself as a socialist and a marxist. She even wrote a book on capitalism, which I am sadly yet to read, Myth America: 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution (http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/). And I have spoken to her online and read her recent articles and interviews, she has my full support. She's a member of the Peace & Freedom Party currently. More importantly she is very aware that building a new party is more than just running in elections, this could well be a great launching pad.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's early yet to know what her campaign might look like and what forces would be involved. Also any indication if would she be running as a Peace and Freedom, Green, or just indie?

As for her liberalism... I think any liberal who calls out the 2 parties as being part of the same rotten system is a liberal the left should support. Liberals ditching the Democrats would be a pretty strong indication of political consciousness rising in the US.

There is definitely a vacuum in politics and a progressive 3rd party candidate that could rally left-populist anger would be a step in the right direction.

On a non-political note, personally I don't think she's the most inspiring of public speakers. I can't imagine her rallying progressive populism the same way the demagogues on the right are able to rally right-populism. Then again, I also think Nader tends to be a bore when he gives speeches and he was still able to help rally people who were sick of the Democrats back in 2000. Michael Moore is probably the only high-profile liberal/progressive who could really provide a counter-point to the right-populists - he has a real populist appeal, he's a good speaker, and can be on-point politically when he tries hard:lol:. But he still hasn't re-broken with the Democrats (I think he will soon) and I don't think he'd want to put himself out there like that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oops, you might have just answered my question - so she'd probably be running as P&F?

[Cirno(9)]

I enjoy how her very being troubles the right-wing.

They seem to have built up this mythology around dead soldiers where they aren't humans but some quasi-divine heroes and their immideate relatives have some kind of special connection with this quasi-divinity.

So an anti-war mother of a dead soldier kinda throws a wrench into those works.

[Cirno(9)]

Oops, you might have just answered my question - so she'd probably be running as P&F?
Isn't P&F just a California party?

[Crux]

She's no longer a liberal, she's a socialist. If her "progressive cred" can bring out some of the left liberals/progressives this could also prove crucial in drawing more of them towards socialism and a new socialist and worker's party project. Maybe even the GP can grow a pair and look left and endorse her. Or maybe I am being over-optimistic here.

[Crux]

Oops, you might have just answered my question - so she'd probably be running as P&F?
Oh yeah, and apparently the SPUSA has been positive as well. As for Socialist Alternative they have been the ones urging her to stand.

[Queercommie Girl]

It is intrinsically important for genuine socialists to be progressive.

Karl Marx wrote and criticised several types of "reactionary socialism" for a reason in the Communist Manifesto. Sometimes reactionary socialism can be even worse than capitalism.

Just being "anti-capitalist" is not enough. One also needs to be anti-capitalist in a forward direction, not in a backward direction.

[cb9's_unity]

I really ought to look into her more. Though the left always has to be weary of becoming subservient to liberal programs.

Could this instead be an opportunity for liberal progressives to support a revolutionary socialist platform. And could this be an opportunity for liberals to gain more exposure to truly socialist views?

This could be important if only because this must be a terrible time to be a liberal in America. They just had two years where they were totally in power and all they got were a few severely watered down bills and a thrashing in the subsequent election. There must be a chunk of liberals who are looking for an alternative.

[Queercommie Girl]

Though the left always has to be weary of becoming subservient to liberal programs.


I agree, but I think socialists need to be even more wary of reactionary forms of socialism like feudal-socialism. Not all forms of religious socialism are feudal-socialist but many are.

Often the greatest enemy is within the left camp itself.

[Crux]

It is intrinsically important for genuine socialists to be progressive.

Karl Marx wrote and criticised several types of "reactionary socialism" for a reason in the Communist Manifesto. Sometimes reactionary socialism can be even worse than capitalism.

Just being "anti-capitalist" is not enough. One also needs to be anti-capitalist in a forward direction, not in a backward direction.
I am not talking about progressive versus reactionary, I mean "progressive" as in the U.S political label.

cb9's_unity: She is a socialist, and she clearly has the perspective of building a socialist and anti-capitalist party ahead. This, I think is the most important part of her coming campaign. She's not, unlike Nader in some ways, ready to be just a "left-pressure" or "left advisor" to the democrats. This is crucial, and if she manages to rally progressives, people from the anti-war movement and other people in struggle, maybe she can help more people go from just progressive to socialist and to be ready to organize and fight for a real socialist and worker's party, encompassing also other progressive campaigns. Both in the LGBT-movement and the anti-war movement I think there are groups ready to break with dem's if someone gave them the push.


I agree, but I think socialists need to be even more wary of reactionary forms of socialism like feudal-socialism. Not all forms of religious socialism are feudal-socialist but many are.

Often the greatest enemy is within the left camp itself.
It's an interesting viewpoint, but I think you're a bit out of touch here. there is no mass of reactionary socialists waiting for a party, and even if it were her presidential campaign will definitively cover other progressive social issues as well, such as immigration rights and lgbt rights. I think you're painting the devil on the wall, a little bit, so to speak.

Also, going back to the campaign, I think starting up with the campaign early, will also be crucial for an effective post-election campaign, if we, in a dream scenario say, would manage something like Nader's result in 00' we have to be ready to pull those millions into the necessary fight to build a new worker's party even after the elections.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's an interesting viewpoint, but I think you're a bit out of touch here. there is no mass of reactionary socialists waiting for a party, and even if it were her presidential campaign will definitively cover other progressive social issues as well, such as immigration rights and lgbt rights. I think you're painting the devil on the wall, a little bit, so to speak.


I think you have misunderstood what I said. In no sense was I actually criticising Sheehan here.

My point is simply a general one, that certain forms of socialism are reactionary. In fact, both "left liberal socialism" and "religious socialism" are strictly speaking reactionary. Using the terms of the Communist Manifesto, the former is a type of "petit-bourgeois socialism", while the latter is a type of "feudal socialism". But generally speaking "feudal socialism" is relatively more reactionary than "petit-bourgeois socialism".

[Lyev]

She seems fairly "radical", although I would like to hold back from making a final comment on her politics until I know a bit more. I was there when she gave her speech and apart from it being quite funny -- she told us that she watched faulty towers to revise up on English culture and whatnot -- Sheehan used the analogy of a boil; if you simply remove a boil, which is underlied by a deeper more innate cause (a disease), you do not remove the disease and the boil will grow back. However, if you eradicate the disease altogether, the boil will not grow back. She talked about her political development, of how she sided with the Democrats against Bush and the wars in the middle east, but then when the Republicans were elected out of the white house, she realised the Democrats were much the same. She said the two main parties in America are two wings of the same bird, and also said it was the bird of capitalism & war and that the root of all evil is capitalism. She was also very pleased when Peter Taaffe mentioned Eugene Debbs. Apparently she is currently in talks with the CWI in America, Socialist Alternative. To be honest, I'd never actually heard of her before she spoke at the rally on Saturday, but she seems pretty cool.

[Crux]

I think you have misunderstood what I said. In no sense was I actually criticising Sheehan here.

My point is simply a general one, that certain forms of socialism are reactionary. In fact, both "left liberal socialism" and "religious socialism" are strictly speaking reactionary. Using the terms of the Communist Manifesto, the former is a type of "petit-bourgeois socialism", while the latter is a type of "feudal socialism". But generally speaking "feudal socialism" is relatively more reactionary than "petit-bourgeois socialism".
Well, since it's a bit of broader issue I am not sure it's within the scope of this thread. We have the discussion about religious socialism going on in other threads already. My purpose with this thread is to make people aware of Sheehan's bid for presidency and her stand for a new socialist and worker's party to hopefully get people behind her campaign and discuss more immediate issues.


She seems fairly radical. I was there when she gave her speech and apart from it being quite funny -- she told us that she watched faulty towers to revise English culture and whatnot -- Sheehan used the analogy of a boil; if you simply remove a boil, the presence of which is underlied by a deeper more underlying cause, a disease, you do not remove the disease and the boil will grow back. However, if you eradicate the disease altogether, the boil will not grow back. She talked about her political development, of how she sided with the Democrats against Bush and the wars in the middle east, but then when the Republicans were elected out of the white house, she realised the Democrats were much the same. She said the two main parties in America are two wings of the same bird, and also said it was the bird capitalism & war and that the root of all evil is capitalism. Oh yeah, and she was also very pleased when Peter Taaffe mentioned Eugene Debbs. Apparently she is currently in talks with the CWI in America, Socialist Alternative. To be honest, I'd never actually heard of her before she spoke at the rally on Saturday, but she seems pretty cool.
She's got some credibility especially in the anti-war movement. As you probably know she lost her son in Iraq, and she camped outside of Bush's ranch in opposition to the war. She has taken a road I hope many more anti-war activists and progressives will take.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, since it's a bit of broader issue I am not sure it's within the scope of this thread. We have the discussion about religious socialism going on in other threads already. My purpose with this thread is to make people aware of Sheehan's bid for presidency and her stand for a new socialist and worker's party to hopefully get people behind her campaign and discuss more immediate issues.


I support her campaign. But it is too early to draw conclusions in the final sense at the moment.

I think however that Sheehan is probably better than Chavez.

[mikelepore]

So, what do you think, comrades? I think such a campaign could have very good potential, particularly as she'll be standing as an open socialist candidate. I hope the U.S left can get behind her.

It will be helpful as long as this or any other socialist candidate sticks to system-level concepts, such as adopting production for social use instead of private profit, and adopting worker self-management. It will become harmful if she omit the system concepts, and instead recommends surface changes like taxing the corporations. This is what the effectiveness of all socialist education hinges on: whether or not the audience is receiving a lesson about the need for a fundamentally new system.

[maskerade]

It would be great to see the US left being able to unite around a single candidate. And her experience in the American mainstream can only be a good thing.

Is she a well known figure in America, in general? as in not just amongst the anti-war crowd and leftists

[cb9's_unity]

It would be great to see the US left being able to unite around a single candidate. And her experience in the American mainstream can only be a good thing.

Is she a well known figure in America, in general? as in not just amongst the anti-war crowd and leftists

In recent years she hasn't made too much of a splash nationally. But for a few years during the Bush administration she was very much a national figure and a favorite of the anti-war left. Her protest of Bush's ranch was a pretty big deal at the time.

If she could get any decent sized organization behind her the national media might take some attention.

[chegitz guevara]

Comrade Sheehan has radicalized rapidly in the last few months. I've been in contact with her for several years. When I contacted her two years ago regarding my own congressional campaign, she was rather cool to the fact I was socialist. A friended her on FB earlier this year, just cuz, and was shocked to see was was rapidly moving left, quoting Marx and Tortsky on her FB page.

At the National Organizing Conference of the SPUSA in August, Sheehan declared, "We need a revolutionary socialist government in this country." The sad part of that statement is she was easily the leftmost person on the plenary panel, and was only there because I threw a hail may pass and managed to get her to agree to come. Otherwise, the right wing of our party would have packed the whole plenary with Greens, or worse, an actual capitalist.

Seriously, the SP's in trouble.

[maskerade]

In recent years she hasn't made too much of a splash nationally. But for a few years during the Bush administration she was very much a national figure and a favorite of the anti-war left. Her protest of Bush's ranch was a pretty big deal at the time.

If she could get any decent sized organization behind her the national media might take some attention.

I'm too cynical about the states; even if she was supported by the green party, for example, or any other decently sized organization, why would mainstream media highlight the existence of political parties other than the democrats and the republicans?

[Jimmie Higgins]

If she could get any decent sized organization behind her the national media might take some attention.Especially if she explicitly draws the parallel that she had to chase Bush around and now she has to chase Obama down too. I think that comparison would be unavoidable and so that could be interesting.

If she has any softness for liberals that will all change as soon as she becomes more hated than Bush for daring to challenge the Democrats and daring to say that Obama has not done what voters had thought he was supposed to be in office to do.

[Queercommie Girl]

Comrade Sheehan has radicalized rapidly in the last few months.


Which is exactly why it is still too early to draw conclusions.

[Crux]

Which is exactly why it is still too early to draw conclusions.
I think you should put the emphasis on radicalized rapidly, rather than, in the last few months, tbh. But yeah, we'll see.

[Crux]

Especially if she explicitly draws the parallel that she had to chase Bush around and now she has to chase Obama down too. I think that comparison would be unavoidable and so that could be interesting.

If she has any softness for liberals that will all change as soon as she becomes more hated than Bush for daring to challenge the Democrats and daring to say that Obama has not done what voters had thought he was supposed to be in office to do.
The fact that she is someone who has been directly betrayed by the Democrat's I think could prove important as well. I figure there ought be quite a few in the anti-war movement, and the progressive left in general as well that feel the same, not to mention the millions outside of activists circles. It's not just about the next presidential election, comrades. At least not if we do this right.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Our newspaper Justice had an interview with her, where you can see some of her points; she is clearly not a liberal, but one of us.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1407


Justice: We understand you called for public ownership of the banks in your 2008 election campaign. What kind of response did you get from ordinary people when you raised this idea? Do you support public ownership of other industries as well?

Cindy Sheehan: I believe that the wealth and resources of a region/nation belong to the people. I think industry should be in the democratic control of the workers.

And I think ordinary people have a gut feeling that this is the only fair way to operate. Many people have lost their jobs, homes, and any kind of security that they had, and they see that the rich are getting richer, while the poor get poorer. I think the greatest advantage of having a high-profile Socialist presidential campaign is that we can educate people that they aren’t alone and that they are not lazy or the problem. The problem is simply Capitalism—not “crony Capitalism” or “predatory Capitalism,” because Capitalism is inherently crony and predatory. The only goal is profit at any and all costs.

I think her being involved with mainstream politics, meeting with Obama and the others, is only a good thing. It shows that there are people out there coming to socialist thought naturally, that it isn't just some fantasy of idealistic youth, but the only legitimate, practical solution to the vast majority of the world's problems. That she originally had hopes in the Democrats makes her more sympathetic to real people, who have had the same illusion themselves. She is at least a realistic example of how one becomes a socialist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Radical or liberal-Progressive, a high profile campaign tapping into populist anger from the left and arguing that the Democrats are part of the same rotten system as the Republicans will be something that can help break some people and maybe even a few organizations away from the Democrats will be a big step forward right now. If anything it can help comrades in mainstream unions bring up endorsing her which is a way to talk to other rank and file members about the democrats, the union leadership and why they support these politicians that don't offer anything to the unions or workers.

[Rafiq]

It's sad she won't ever be able to make it into office.

The US will only tolerate two political party's (And some Factions) To run: Democrats, Republicans.

The US is a single party state with two Factions.

The Bourgeois won't ever tolerate her winning, even if they have to assassinate her.

[cb9's_unity]

I'm too cynical about the states; even if she was supported by the green party, for example, or any other decently sized organization, why would mainstream media highlight the existence of political parties other than the democrats and the republicans?

It's not totally out of the question for the capitalist media to give at least some attention to her. Even if it is against their class interests, it could be a story just interesting enough for them to cover (and yes, capitalists are known to forget about their long term good for short term profit). The media would love to cover a third party because it would allow them to continue their "anti-incumbent" narrative. And with it increasingly less likely that the right-wing would consider fielding a strong third party, it could be the left that provides the media with their narrative.

There is also a growing rift between ordinary democrat liberals and the group that coming to be known as "progressive" liberals. They are increasingly disillusioned with Obama and the whole democratic party.

If the republicans do something crazy and nominate someone like Sarah Palin they will give the centrist vote to the democrats. At this point it would be totally possible for a lot of progressives to say fuck it and vote closer to their conscious. This is probably the best case scenario and could give a candidate like Sheehan a few points in the polls.

[Crux]

It's sad she won't ever be able to make it into office.

The US will only tolerate two political party's (And some Factions) To run: Democrats, Republicans.

The US is a single party state with two Factions.

The Bourgeois won't ever tolerate her winning, even if they have to assassinate her.
True, but the point with a campign like this is not to get into office, but to mobilize for mass movement and a new party.

Jimmie Higgins: I strongly maintain that she is a socialist and revolutionary even, but yeah I do agree with your point. As I said before, I hope she can draw in progressives as well.

[Rafiq]

True, but the point with a campign like this is not to get into office, but to mobilize for mass movement and a new party.


Well in that case, I wish her the best.

[Salyut]

The sad part of that statement is she was easily the leftmost person on the plenary panel, and was only there because I threw a hail may pass and managed to get her to agree to come. Otherwise, the right wing of our party would have packed the whole plenary with Greens, or worse, an actual capitalist.

Seriously, the SP's in trouble.

Wait seriously? Capitalists in the SPUSA waaaaaaat?

[Broletariat]

I thought the SWP ran a candidate every year. What makes this person special exactly? I'm genuinely asking this question by the way so be gentle with your responses.

[Zeus the Moose]

Wait seriously? Capitalists in the SPUSA waaaaaaat?

Not in the SP-USA, but possibly speaking at our National Organising Conference back in August. That bullet was, fortunately, dodged.

[chegitz guevara]

Wait seriously? Capitalists in the SPUSA waaaaaaat?

Our male Co-Chair, wanted us to invite Yves Smith to speak. She's critical of the bailout and how the government is handling the bailout, but from a left capitalist perspective of saving capitalism.

[Pretty Flaco]

She's certainly interesting, but I think that many of you are overestimating how well she'll do. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't support her.

[chegitz guevara]

Comrade Sheehan just told me she has not announced her run, just that socialist organizations in the States are encouraging her to do so.

[KC]

I'd like to see her develop theoretically a bit further; most of what she posts on FB (and tbh that is really the only way I know her) is incredibly hyperbolic. There needs to be some theory behind the slogans.

But yeah I'm optimistic about her now.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't have much faith in elections, but liberals ditching the democrats is to me a good thing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Our male Co-Chair, wanted us to invite Yves Smith to speak. She's critical of the bailout and how the government is handling the bailout, but from a left capitalist perspective of saving capitalism.

I would have been OK with certain non-socialist guest speakers. However, my impression is that Yves Smith isn't even a Post-Keynesian or neo-Ricardian to start with.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's an interesting viewpoint, but I think you're a bit out of touch here. there is no mass of reactionary socialists waiting for a party, and even if it were her presidential campaign will definitively cover other progressive social issues as well, such as immigration rights and lgbt rights. I think you're painting the devil on the wall, a little bit, so to speak.


Just to further clarify on you misunderstanding my point - I think it is clear that in the US right now there isn't an organised mass of reactionary socialists, say socialists that are explicitly anti-LGBT for instance, waiting for someone like Sheehan, and more specifically Sheehan herself definitely does not have a reactionary position on progressive issues like LGBT rights either.

So yes if that's what I was talking about, then that would indeed be excessive over-reaction - "painting the devil on the wall" - I've never heard of this Western saying before and English is not my native language, but I assume you mean it in the sense of "inventing an enemy that is not really there", but that's not what I'm talking about.

However, it's true that certain sections of religious socialists do tend to have reactionary positions on certain issues like LGBT rights - for instance a few years ago I met with a Christian socialist at one of the CWI events here in England and he is both anti-abortion and anti-LGBT rights. This is not to say such views are limited to religious socialists, after all even secular socialists like the RCP were homophobic until 2001. Rather than a "mass" of reactionary socialists, all you tend to have now in the West are just a few individual reactionary socialists here and there scattered around the place. All I'm saying is that it is important for us to try to convince these people to drop their reactionary views, because LGBT rights etc are important issues, and we shouldn't just let them off just because they are religious or whatever. Being "religious" doesn't give people the right to be homophobic and transphobic.

[graymouser]

Is Sheehan still a devotee of civil disobedience tactics? Back when I heard her speak (which was last year right after she released Myth America) she was still pretty heavily on the side of going out and getting arrested as a form of protest - which I see, outside of a coordinated campaign like in the "Free Speech Fights" or the Civil Rights era, as being stupid and pointless, and driving people who aren't guilty liberals away from the movement.

I could see arguing to Sheehan critically if she had a decent layer of people supporting her - but we have to be realistic, she is a centrist (in the classic Leninist sense, moving between revolutionary socialism and reformism) not a consistent revolutionary at this point. Her trajectory is leftward but I haven't seen evidence that it's really bringing that big of a following along.

[Queercommie Girl]

I could see arguing to Sheehan critically if she had a decent layer of people supporting her - but we have to be realistic, she is a centrist (in the classic Leninist sense, moving between revolutionary socialism and reformism) not a consistent revolutionary at this point. Her trajectory is leftward but I haven't seen evidence that it's really bringing that big of a following along.


Actually I don't think right now it is clear that she is a centrist (in the Marxist sense), because it's too early to be clear about her in a final sense one way or another.

Something interesting: (a bit off-topic) one of the leading Chinese members of CWI China (Chinaworker) once told me that he is semi-Leninist semi-Kautskyist (in other words, a leftist-centrist in Marxist terms). :D I don't know whether he was just joking though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is Sheehan still a devotee of civil disobedience tactics? Back when I heard her speak (which was last year right after she released Myth America) she was still pretty heavily on the side of going out and getting arrested as a form of protest - which I see, outside of a coordinated campaign like in the "Free Speech Fights" or the Civil Rights era, as being stupid and pointless, and driving people who aren't guilty liberals away from the movement.

I could see arguing to Sheehan critically if she had a decent layer of people supporting her - but we have to be realistic, she is a centrist (in the classic Leninist sense, moving between revolutionary socialism and reformism) not a consistent revolutionary at this point. Her trajectory is leftward but I haven't seen evidence that it's really bringing that big of a following along.

I have not heard her speak recently and my past impression of her is that she is an "ally" to radicals and a maybe a "centrist" as you describe above. So it gets to the question, does the left run its own "ideologically pure" candidates and so it is basically a propaganda campaign to promote socialist ideas and maybe as a gauge of how much support radical politics have, or do we support a campaign like a coalition in hopes of rallying a left opposition to the Democratic party?

Since I don't think any of us here see "getting elected" as a viable strategy, I think ideological purity is less important than building a more visible opposition to the two parties - especially considering the level of anger and disillusionment about both parties and how the right has been able to monopolize the "anger at the system" card. So "reformist" "centrist" or "newly minted radical", to me the math stays the same, can a candidate help rally people to the left of the Dems away from the Dems and allow more critical left arguments to be heard. Sheehan has a lot of symbolic power because the idea that Obama is the same as bush among Progressives is a wide-spread secret (even Jon Stewart hinted that when interviewing Obama). But it's only a secret because establishment liberals won't allow that opinion to seep into the mainstream and so Sheehan's presence (and especially if she is made to stand outside the debates like most 3rd party candidates) could potentially be very significant and a reminder that regular people with concrete concerns (children sent to wars, economy) are treated the same by both parties and no matter who is in charge of the empire.