She's out of her depth.

I saw a bumper sticker once that said "If Bill Clinton is the answer, it must be a dumb-ass question." I was reminded of that when I saw a clip in which a reporter asked Cindy Sheehan what she would tell the Iraqi people about why she was pulling our troops out. She is really not a scintillating intellect, and her statements just keep piling up evidence that she doesn't know what she's talking about. The answer that she lost her son in the fighting in Iraq, doesn't wash as an explanation for the absurdities she utters daily.

Why does this one angry woman command more authority that the hundred of other wives and mothers of soldiers who have died and still support they were doing? Of course, whe doesn't except in Mainstream Media Land, where reporters have been getting away with this for years. You see it every all the time; some journalists dismissing blogs because their writers aren't 'professional' journalists, but how hard is it to just report the facts available and keep your own interpretation of them to yourself or your own blog?

To witness the sophistry for yourself, just google her name and read the headlines. What is shocking to me is the number of them that accuse Bush of smearing her. I haven't heard him or anyone in his administration say anything other than that he disagrees with her. I am criticizing her, along with many others on the right, but doesn't "smearing" mean your comments are false, irrelevant or unfair to her? I haven't read or heard anything that wasn't based on her actual statements and criticisms of the president.

This poor woman is being used by the anti-war factions with no apparent concern about the fact that she sounds like one of the people quetioned on Leno's feature, Jaywalking? They continually state flatly that Bush is too stupid to be president, but what does using Sheehan as your spokesperson say about your own intetllect?