Stalwart Cindy Sheehan still protests, changing location from Crawford to Marta’s Vineyard (which is “a lot nicer”).
“The reason I am here is because … even though the facade has changed in Washington D.C., the policies are still the same,
The one article covering the event goes out of its way to note the absence of the followers:
But Sheehan no longer has the following she once had, when thousands joined her in Crawford and across the country. As CBS News White House producer Robert Hendin reports, there were was only a handful of people in her audience yesterday, in addition to the four speakers. There were more present from the media than there were protesters.
OK, let’s set the recordΒ straight about coverage: How many protesters can you count on this page one? Something tells me there was more media there as well. In the days when anti-war protests were in the millions, the media was reporting “thousands” or maybe “tens of thousands”
That being said, it’s definitely true that most of the anti-war activists went home. Some are still harboring the illusion Obama is anti-war (oops! I almost said “fairy tale for a second. Got to watch for those words!)
Most of them are yet to catch with what Chris Floyd summed up
Obama offered very little that was “progressive.” He was for continuing the War on Terror on Bush’s terms, winding down the war in Iraq more or less on the schedule Bush had negotiated, then expanding the war in Afghanistan and extending it into Pakistan. He threw his support behind Bush’s plan to bail out Wall Street. He took to the bully pulpit to scold black fathers for their failings, and black people in general for blaming the system for their problems. He made campaign appearances with homophobic preachers, while throwing over his own pastor and long-time friend. He surrounded himself with advisers from Wall Street. He pledged to increase the size and reach and power of the War Machine. And so on and so forth. He was, if anything, well to the right of, say, Bill Clinton in 1992 — and Bill Clinton in 1992 was the most right-wing Democratic candidate since Woodrow Wilson.
Obama’s “progressivism” consisted almost entirely of the symbolism of his mixed-race heritage and personal history.
But for thoseΒ who used to follow Cindy but are now staying home, it’s not a war if it’s Obama’s.
Asking for 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan has to be righteous if done by Obama.
June, the bloodiest month in Iraq (and I don’t know about July) – has to be W’s fault
Why protest war? We’re told that once upon a time, Obama made a speech.
7 comments
August 29, 2009 at 11:07 am
SYD
I believe that this was reason one for the Selection of Obama by the powers that be.
They wanted to short circuit mounting opposition to the wars. They knew what was coming….. a full scale revolt on the scale of the Viet Nam protests.
Best way to stifle dissent is to make the dissenters think they have “won.”
SYD
August 29, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Butters
Great Point SYD!
August 29, 2009 at 4:41 pm
edgeoforever
That goes for opposition to many of the Bushco abuses – civil rights, corruption – things reached a critical mass and a faux release was foistered on the ignorant and naive.
The fact that he was a proven netralizer of healthcare reform helped make him the candidate.
August 29, 2009 at 11:26 am
catarina
The “anti-war crowd” is busy astroturfing Obamacare Town Halls with their signs, songs, and talking points provided by Organizing for America.
Obama cleverly gave them something else to keep them occupied.
Poor Cindy is on her own.
August 29, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Butters
Plus they were bored already with just typing in their parents’ basements.
August 29, 2009 at 1:32 pm
PamelaofthePoconos
Cindy remains true to her cause.
Bravo, Cindy!
August 30, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Geeesh. Attending Tea Parties does NOT make you a “racist right-wingnut” « bloghopenchangery
[…] while we’re at it, where are my anti-war friends? Was that all about hating Bush afterall. It’s Obama’s “dumb” war now, […]