As I’ve said a few times, this year just isn’t a good year for protests. It’s difficult for me get decent pictures anymore of Code Pink trolls on rolling beds or flocks of SEIU purple-clad socialists being herded by their handlers on the subway.<\/p>\n
All this time I thought the anti-war peace movement was petering out because of their intellectually invalid message. But from Don Surber<\/a>, I learn that Tom Hayden<\/a> is blaming Obama in The Nation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A new network, it was believed, would take the linked messages of the Iraq War and economic recession to millions of voters beyond the previous reach of the peace movement. A total of $12 million already had been expended on independent campaigns in Republican districts in late summer 2007, and much more greater cumulative funding was expected, from groups ranging from MoveOn, SEIU, members of the Democracy Alliance and wealthy Democratic donors who already had maxed out in candidate contributions.<\/p>\n It was downhill from that point, for reasons that may never be explained. For one thing, there was resentment that the $12 million might have been wasted in top-down campaigns that failed to break the Republican support for Bush’s war. Then in early September 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and coalition coordinator Tom Matzzie were meeting with Democratic donors in New York City when a new setback occurred. The MoveOn ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus caused a severe Republican backlash, making already-nervous Democrats even more nervous at the association.<\/p>\n […]<\/p>\n Ironically, the biggest single factor in the collapse of the massively funded peace project might have been the rising and unexpected primary campaign of Barack Obama, himself an antiwar candidate. Not only did unprecedented contributions flow online to Obama but the Senator also strongly disavowed the use of 527 committees (which are named after a section of the federal tax code covering independent contributions). In practical terms, this meant that big donors would not feel as “rewarded” for independent expenditures as they would for direct contributions to the presidential campaign and other party committees.<\/p>\n Furthermore, according to a usually reliable Washington insider, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid lost some enthusiasm for highlighting the Iraq issue because it exposed the Democratic Congress’s failure to defund and end the war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I guess it couldn’t be the message could it? It has to be because the donors are greedy and they want recognition for their donations. Whatever happened to the good old days when a couple of thousand filthy hippies could just wander into town and make a nuisance of themselves without having to depend on donors? Doesn’t that just water down the whole message?<\/p>\n Added:<\/strong> I apologize if using the word “water” offends any of the hippies who happen to read this. I should have used the word “dilute”.\u00a0 At least I didn’t write “soap” in the same line.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"