It will affect the integrity of the peace movement if a major peace march and rally in Chicago is used as a political tool. This needed to be said. Thanks for you comments Rachel.

Whatever blathering Carl gives out as excuses, the reality is that he and a handful of other key Chicago Oct. 27 organizers are Obama supporters and/or allied with Daley. They drive the rightward-looking strategy of Oct. 27, against the anti-war funding wishes of the movement, and then scream "unity unity unity" and expect us to take this crap.

It's really sad when people's passionate anti-war beliefs are crassly manipulated into supporting a partisan political agenda.

I'm not a Kucinich supporter (he, like the rest of them will use tough language to draw people into the Party, and then deliver up their support to whatever retrograd corporate shill who inevitably will be crowned the nominee), but Rachel's question is apropos -- is Ohio in the Midwest?

Why should a candidate who pledges to keep troops in Iraq through 2013 be honored with a speaking invitation, except that he's an ally of the organizers?

After protesting torture thousands of miles away at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, can any peace AND justice organization stomach an event which offers a speaker slot to a mayor who has been leading the cover-up of decades of torture of African Americans right here in Chicago?

So how many other O27 endorsers are listed without the benefit of actually being formally asked and agreeing to do so, like Chicago Area CodePINK?

Chicago sds is among the list that never agreed to endorse.

Truth indeed...

You better take it up with Nick Kreitman, of Chicago SDS, who attended our first 'Ground Floor' meeting of endorsers at City Hall, as an SDS rep.

If he spoke without authorization, let me and him know, but SDS Milwaukee also endorsed, with an email message, is bring several buses, and is working with Nick on the student contingent, the notice for which was also posted here on Indymedia. I spoke to Nick last night, and he indicated nothing of the sort. Other student groups are mobilizing around the Midwest as well.

So check into these things a little more throughly before making accusations. In fact, if anyone has any doubts, just call us or send an email first, before spreading rumors or half-truths.

As I said before, I want no group on that list that doesn't want to be there. It doesn't serve my interests one bit, since those things always turn against you. And at this point, we're getting so many new endorsers, it's hard to list them all.

Nick is only a member of chicago sds and he does not speak for the majority of us. He often does things unilaterally, which he did here. He'll get a piece of my mind, that is for sure.

I feel really bad for folks organizing in nearby states for this. Do they understand they're spending time and money to travel to the most right-wing 10/27 march in the country? Will the local 10/27 organizers give local groups the courtesy of a response?

In addition to Rachel Herbener's reasons given above, Durbin only yesterday voted for even more war spending in Iraq, his pious words against Bush's war policies not withstanding. Also, along with Richard Daley, Durbin is a major backer to militarization of Chicago public schools. Specifically, Durbin secured $3 million funding for the naval academy currently encounced within Senn High School.

I took Code Pink's endorsement from their administrator's vote on our event from the ILCPJ website, and from others in our meetings indentifying as Code Pink.

If that was misinformation, or I interpreted in incorrectly, let us know and we'll remove you immediately with our apologies. I've either had an email, a letter, a check, or a phone confirmation of every endorsement.

Our program committee is making these decisions and reporting them to the general planning committee, and every endorser is welcome to attend and vote.

I've made our case over and over on this site. We're building a left-center coalition against the war, and challenging the center in the process, not simply a left opposition. Read any number of the times I've explained it, or, if you 're an endorser or want to endorse, come and talk to me, or our planning committee in person.

The left can't end this war alone. And we said from the beginning, we're doing things differently, and it's having a great success so far.

And none of the pols you're worried about have even confirmed, or are even likely to do so. Sometimes you put invitations forward for your allies who are working with you, if it's a real left-center coalition, even if you don't expect a result.

This is going to be very historic and a breakthrough. And everyone is welcome to get on board who wants to stop this damnable war. We have no purity tests if you want to identify with our message of the day, 'Out Now!'

Carl you said your doing things differently and having great success. what in the hell are you taking about? You havn't done anything yet! The democrats were voted into office on a "end the war campaign" yet only one didn't vote fore the defense bill. Some of your great speakers are some who are for those bills. wake up, you can keep compromising until you turn blue, but by the time your done the "anti war movement" will be so watered down it won't mean a thing.
furthermore, the "left" in the u.s especially the center left is truthfully right. It's like listening to fox news, you have a left and a right commentator.
and Daley, can you make this protest any more uncomfortable for people of color. You think that the war is the only issue, theres a war going on all over the city everyday, and groups like chicago's cop watch, and oct 22nd coalition are doing an excellent job.
Yet low income people and people of color are being moved out of the city (In 2005 cook county ranked 3rd for most people leaving the county, behind two counties that were blasted by katrina. Yet the white liberal yuppies that are running working class people out are who you want to organize? Followers of Daley, O bomb A, and durbin? The anti war movement continues to be wrapped in white liberal and classes politics.
furthermore chicago is:
flips between 1 and 2nd segregated city.
1st in police shootings
3rd in worst recycling programs
is the world leading agricultural neo liberal center
has no limits on party donations
you can still elect family to office.

that's fantastic, bring out daley, who runs on a "democrat" ticket, why? maybe because most of chicago id's as democrates and if he's going to win the election he has to identify as such.

Historic my ass, lame, shallow, waist of resources that could go towards victims of police brutality, and hey, many some far right wingers will be willing to speak against the war.

This is a VERY HISTORIC PROTEST: boring, dead, politics. I can see the dinosaurs coming out!!!!

Davidson writes: "We're building a left-center coalition against the war, and challenging the center in the process, not simply a left opposition..."

Saying this over and over again doesn't make it so. -- particuarly when the primary focus for the Chicago 029 rally seems to be showcasing those politicians who continue to support the war if not by word, by deed.

The abysmal vote last week by the entire Illinois congressional delegation - including those on the Oct. 27 guest list - in favor of 9 billion in additional war funding included in the stop gap appropriation bill and Durbin's inexcusable Senate vote in favor of $150 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are merely the latest examples. You pay for it, you own it.

Meanwhile the latest polls show that a sizeable majority of the American people want funding for the war in Iraq cut [ www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0135362720071002 ] And just 29 percent approve of the job Congress is doing -- a 14-point drop since Democrats took control in January. So who's out of touch with the mainstream here? But rather than taking the opportunity to publically challenge elected officials (like Ritchie Daley) to do the right thing on Oct. 27, the Chicago organizers seem intent on repackaging them as "allies" in the faint hope that down the road ( say like 2013) they might get around to doing somethng to help end the war. And this is what passes as a "breakthrough"? The only thing missing from this nuanced strategy is the chapstick.

I suspect if the proposed speakers list had actually been included in the ICPJ action proposal for a fall campaign and October 27 rally , this event would garnered less support than it now enjoys. You can read the proposal here. [ www.ilcpj.org/actions/details/ ]

Finally, folks should take a look at other how Oct 27 regional actions are shaping up around the country. The contrast in program content between cities like Boston and Chicago is pretty telling. [ www.oct27.org/sites/oct27.org/files/oct27/October_27.html ]

Dear Carl,
Thanks for your speedy response. It would be helpful if you would answer all of my questions. I, and many other concerned activists, have not been following the conversations on this site about these issues. That is why I decided that listing the questions and requesting simple, direct answers would be the best way to clarify the situation. My questions are valid, important, and shared by many in the community.
Please be respectful of your fellow activists and clearly answer these questions.

1) What is your endorsement process?
“I took Code Pink's endorsement from their administrator's vote on our event from the ILCPJ website, and from others in our meetings indentifying as Code Pink.
If that was misinformation, or I interpreted in incorrectly, let us know and we'll remove you immediately with our apologies. I've either had an email, a letter, a check, or a phone confirmation of every endorsement.”
ILCPJ website: Co-Sponsors can be listed on promotional materials as an endorser.
“Participants” and “Supporters” do not fall into this category.
Chicago Area CodePINK is listed as a “Participant”. Military Families Speak Out is a “Participant”. Vietnam Vets Against the War and Voices for Creative Non-violence are listed as “Support”. These groups are listed on YOUR website and on flyers as endorsers.
Check it out yourself – go to ILCPJ website, go to actions, go to pg. 4, Oct. 27 for complete list of co-sponsors (endorsers.) There are 16 co-sponsors.

2) Why are you inviting Mayor Daley, Senator Durbin and Senator Obama to speak?
Is this your answer to my question?
“I've made our case over and over on this site. We're building a left-center coalition against the war, and challenging the center in the process, not simply a left opposition. Read any number of the times I've explained it, or, if you 're an endorser or want to endorse, come and talk to me, or our planning committee in person.
And none of the pols you're worried about have even confirmed, or are even likely to do so. Sometimes you put invitations forward for your allies who are working with you, if it's a real left-center coalition, even if you don't expect a result.”

3) Who selects the speakers? Were “endorsers” involved in the selection process? (We were not contacted)
”Our program committee is making these decisions and reporting them to the general planning committee, and every endorser is welcome to attend and vote.”
How were endorsers informed of this process?

4) Who else has been invited to speak?

5) Are all Senators and Representatives within the Midwest invited? The stated rationale for inviting Senator Obama to speak is that he is our Senator. We’re mobilizing the Midwest, right? I see that Senator Feingold of Wisconsin is on the list of potential speakers. Is Ohio in the Midwest? Representative Kucinich is not listed as a potential speaker.

5) Are you inviting all Presidential candidates? And how can the rally be “non-partisan” but give a platform to one Presidential candidate? It is irresponsible and unacceptable not to address the implication of inviting just one Presidential candidate to speak under the cover of “he’s our Senator.” I believe that the general public will assume that the invitation is our endorsement of Obama as the “anti-war candidate”. Have all Presidential candidates – of all parties – been invited?

Thank-you.
Rachel Herbener

Dear Carl:
Please answer this question too.

5) What is your deadline for inviting speakers and when will we know who is confirmed?

Thank-you
Rachel Herbener

To get the answers to your questions, all you have to do is read the reports, which are posted on our web site and elsewhere, and/or attend the meetings. You can also read the debates here if you like.

My mistake for assuming 'participate' meant more than 'support', and if any of you want your group's name taken off, let me know immediately.

But we are building a coalition of the left and the center, with speakers from the entire range, under the banner of 'Out Now'. If you consider that a 'sham,' so be it, but it says more about you than us. We are sick of being a self-isolating left bloc when the much larger task of doing everything possible to end this slaughter is in front of us, and we are not going to turn it around for fear of having a few nasty ultraleft labels thrown our way.

If any of you want to do an 'alternative' action and isolate yourselves from this, fine. We'd appreciate knowing your plans ahead of time to avoid any unnecessary hassles. But do something against the war that day.

All the regional coordinators in other states are well aware of our efforts and are informed every week.

As I've said before, it's going to take tactical alliances with people far worse than Daley (and he hasn't even responded yet, probably having only receive the invite to support the rally today) to stop this horrible war. If some of you aren't up for the job, it's unfortunately understandable, but we're trying to mobilize an antiwar majority that DOESN'T agree with us on most other things.

Dear Carl:
These questions are shared by many. Unfortunately most of us are very busy, working people. We do not have the time to wade through all the reports or attend Thursday 8:30 AM meetings searching for POSSIBLE answers to these questions. That is why I have clearly stated our concerns so that you can clearly address them. Or is fifteen minutes of your time more valuable than the many hours each
of us would have to devote to ferreting out just a handful of these answers?

Rachel Herbener

Carl, your answers are stunningly arrogant and dismissive. If you want to put yourself at the head of such organizing, you must answer questions like these when they arise. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

Reply to Rachel and Code Pink:

Questions and Concerns from
an Oct. 27 Endorser about
Speaker Selection Process

Dear Organizers of the October 27 Rally:

I am a Chicago Area CodePINK co-coordinator and a member of Chicago Progressive Alliance. I have a some questions and concerns about the Oct. 27 Rally.

1) What is your endorsement process? I ask this
because Chicago Area CodePINK is listed on your website as an endorser of the Oct. 27 Rally. We were not asked to endorse, indeed you have our name posted incorrectly as: Code Pink - Chicago. We noticed the mystery endorsement a couple of weeks ago, but decided that it was a non-issue because we agree with the stated goals of the rally so would have endorsed if asked.

[Our endorsement process, after our initial meeting, was to send emails and make phone calls to every group in the Midwest, working through state or city coalitions where we could, individually where we couldn't. Here, we also used the ilcpj.org website, posted the calls and made phone calls to everyone we thought would vote for us to get to 55% so we could use the email function of that site. When Code Pink - Chicago came up as voting to participate, I took it as an OK. When members of Code Pink came to meetings, and described themselves as Code Pink, among their affiliations, I didn't think it was a problem. If I'm mistaken, I apologize and I'll take you off immediately. I have no interest in listing anyone who doesn't want to be listed. Any mistakes of this sort only work against us. As for the Chicago Progressive Alliance, I received an email from a member that they had endorsed, and to please list them.]

+++++++

However - it has come to our attention that you have invited Mayor Daley, Senator Durbin and Senator Obama to speak. Rather a shock, considering the stated UFPJ objective: Troops Home Now! I do not understand how inviting them to speak promotes this. I think the general perception will be that inviting these politicians is giving them a stamp of approval.

[We agreed, the planning committee, to invite all the elected politicians and campaigns to support the march, under the banner of 'Stop the War Now, Bring ALL the Troops Home.' In the case of the mayor and the State's two senators, we said if they also wanted to make brief remarks for the city and state's antiwar majority, welcoming them here, we would arrange it.

For the presidential campaigns, we only asked them to support and take part in the mobilization if they wanted, but not to speak. We agreed to invite all representatives of all the 'Cities for Peace' city councils in the midwest to take part in a contingent and appear on the stage, if they liked, but only two would speak. We agreed to consider a few elected officials, hopefully an antiwar Republican, from outside the state as well.

I'm not holding my breath for too many acceptances, but even if they did, how do you think it would be received in the White House? That's part of the answer to your question of how it promotes our goals. It should also be noted the much of this was at the suggestions of a number of important trade union and community allies, including a group of South Side church leaders, who are bringing a substantial numbers of busloads to the rallies. So that's another part of the answer to your questions as to how it helps us. Everyone has complained for years about the relative absence of these forces, and we are not going to dismiss their concerns or requests, if at at possible. This gets back to my point about our 'old way' of doing things, where these people either left the room or never showed up to begin with. Well, we've turned that around, so that's also how it helps attain our goal.]

+++++++

I went to the website for an explanation: "Acknowledging that two city council resolutions and the antiwar ballot referendum in the last election put both this City and State solidly in the 'Out Now' camp, and they will be asked to speak to and represent the views of the antiwar majority."

The explanation makes no sense to me. Daley opposed the City Council Resolution. Senators Durbin and Obama do not represent the views of the antiwar majority: the antiwar majority wants the troops home NOW. Both senators have funded the occupation and are not initiating policies or strategies to bring the troops home now.
Yes, this spring Senator Obama finally voted against the supplemental - AFTER passage was ensured. So how will they "speak to and represent the views of the antiwar majority"?

[First, Daley didn't vote for or against the City Council Resolutions, whatever his remarks afterwards. If he had wanted to stop them, he could have made it much more difficult, or even defeated them, but he didn't, for a number of reasons. Our invitation should be seen as a further challenge to him, putting the ball in his court. He'll speak to it, or he won't, and if he does, so much the better for us. We're not asking people to vote for him or support and of his programs. He appeared at the immigrant rights rally, and didn't hurt them a bit, and good some wide support for THEIR, while, secondarily, gaining a little for himself. You don't have to agree with this, but it's no big mystery or capitulation behind it. We're hanging firm on our political theme of the day, 'Out Now,' and going to need forces the the right of him, both at the top and the base, to bring this war to and end. The same goes for Obama and Durbin.]

++++++++++

Another concern for me - as an activist and member of CodePINK I think it's hypocritical for me to support and participate in a rally that gives a platform for Daley, Durbin and Obama. I have spoken to activists in many groups who are also conflicted. Here's why I am:

Mayor Daley: The short list: Chief architect of militarization of of Chicago Public Schools.
Implicated in police torture.Suppressor of peaceful anti-war demonstrations.

Per Daley: Chicago Area CodePINK is actively involved in counter-recruitment, works to further social justice and civil liberties.

Senator Durbin: The short-list: Has always voted
to fund the occupation. Voted for Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

Per Durbin: Chicago Area CodePINK members have lobbied Durbin's office here and in D.C., have occupied his Chicago office, have been arrested for civil disobedience at his Chicago office.

Senator Obama: The short-list: Has voted to fund
the occupation. Not present for vote on Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

Another concern: Inviting Obama may appear to be an endorsement of him as the "anti-war" candidate.

Per Obama: Chicago Area CodePINK members have lobbied Obama's office here and in D.C., and have occupied his Chicago office. CodePINK is nonpartisan and does not endorse political candidates.

[We're not asking you to endorse anyone, nor are we. We're also non-partisan, but also we're not anti-partisan. We invited all parties opposing the war to support the mobilization. All your actions and critique of these people are fine, and you should keep them up. But there's more than one form of struggle with middle, vacillating forces, both carrot and stick, and we can work one several levels at once. Just keep in mind who our main adversary is.]

++++++++

2) Why are you inviting Mayor Daley, Senator Durbin and Senator Obama to speak?

[That is answered above]

++++++++++

3) Who selects the speakers? Were "endorsers" involved in the selection process? (We were not contacted.)

[Our program committee, to be approved by the planning committee. Save for the first meeting, the others have been posted and emails have been sent to endorsers. Some member of Code Pink were contacted, but if it's not the right ones, or you want to pull out, let me know, either way]

+++++++++

4) Who else has been invited to speak?

[Some of these were posted of the web site, and as they are firmed up, we will post that as well. For now, an Iraqi journalist, a Chicago Imam, a midwest leader of MFSO, IVAW, several trade union leaders, local and national, immigrants rights leaders, Rev Leon Finney, Rev Jesse Jackson, George Martin, who is a national co-chair of UFPJ and a Wisconsin Green, Kathy Kelly, an Arab community leader, a Jewish peace activist. and leader of a women's rights organization, an environmental leader, a health care leader, a student and youth leader, and so on. Naturally, we are trying to get gender balance, and all sorts of other balances, and as we have confirmations, they be posted. The only elected officials who have agreed to speak so far are Aldermen Moore and Munoz.]

+++++++++

5) What is your deadline for inviting speakers and when will we know who is confirmed?

[We don't have a deadline, except the sooner, the better, since there are only many slots. As they are confirmed, we'll quickly post them, simply because it builds interest and support to do so.]

+++++++++

6) Are all Senators and Representatives within the Midwest invited? The stated rationale for inviting Senator Obama to speak is that he is our Senator. We're mobilizing the Midwest, right? I see that Senator Feingold of Wisconsin is on the list of potential speakers. Is Ohio in the Midwest? Representative Kucinich is not listed as a potential speaker despite his stellar anti-war position. Presidential politics here?

[They are all invited to participate, but obviously, not all can speak. The campaigns are welcome to bring contingents and set up tables.]

+++++++++

7) Are you inviting all Presidential candidates? And how can the rally be "non-partisan" but give a platform to one Presidential candidate?

[All the campaigns are invited, but not to speak as such.]

+++++++++

It is irresponsible and unacceptable not to address the implication of inviting just one Presidential candidate to speak under the cover of "he's our Senator."

[He is our senator, as is Durbin, for better or worse, and that's why they are both being invited. But he's also running a terrible campaign, which is why I strongly doubt that he'll accept or show. Durbin just might, however, and if he does, let him hear from you.]

+++++++++

I believe that the general public will assume that the invitation is our endorsement of Obama as the "anti-war candidate". Have all Presidential candidates - of all parties - been invited?

[On the outside chance he did show up, that would depend on whether he was warmly welcomed or loudly booed, wouldn't it? The 'general public' can make all sorts of assumptions, and I'd say most likely they won't, to a large degree. It's mainly the radical left that makes such unwarranted assumptions.]

+++++++++

Please address these concerns as soon as possible. Thank-you.

Rachel Herbener
Chicago Area CodePINK

[Finally, once again, if Code Pink wants to pull out, that's OK. Let me know ASAP. We understand not everyone agrees, but the main thing we are trying to do that's different is to build a real left-center coalition, grounded in mass organizations that have not participated fully before, with the range of political views being represented, including the liberal and the center, not just those of the left-- all around 'Out Now.' All the issues above are implied by that, and if you have a better way to mobilize those who have never been mobilized, we're all ears. But for now, this is working even better than we had expected.]

Carl Davidson

And just why again should peace AND justice organizations protest torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but give a pass to Daley's cover-up of torturing of African Americans here in Chicago? I'm mystified. Please explain, Carl, oh great explicator.

And are you SURE that the speaker invitations have nothing to do with the fact that you and other paid O27 staffers are Daley / Obama supporters (as opposed to supporting other 2008 Dem candidates, etc)?

Nobody's giving Daley a pass on anything, least of all Burge's torture ring and his complicity. I'm sure it will be put forth of the stage, connecting the war and home and the war abroad. I've proposed Ra Chaka to do it.

Did the immigrant right people become complicit in torture when Daley addressed their issue? Not one bit.

So this is getting tiresome. If you want only the left on your speaker's platform and in your antiwar movement, then make your case on how this will end the war sooner rather than later.

Otherwise, we're going to need alliances with people, at the top and at the base, who like Daley and worse, to stop this horrible war.

Let's get on with it.

Jeezus, Carl. Answer Rachel's questions directly.

Dear Carl:

Thank-you for answering the questions. Chicago Area CodePINK and Chicago Progressive Alliance will post our decisions about the level of our involvement on the Indymedia site.

A few final notes:
Your response to Daley and the City Resolution:
"First, Daley didn't vote for or against the City Council Resolutions, whatever his remarks afterwards. If he had wanted to stop them, he could have made it much more difficult, or even defeated them, but he didn't, for a number of reasons."
From an article in Peoples World Weekly by John Bachtell: www.pww.org/article/articleview/7765/1/287
The resolution passed despite intense pressure from Mayor Richard M. Daley and some aldermen who opposed the resolution on the grounds it would demoralize the troops.

So I guess Daley opposed the resolution, but not enough to pull out all the stops and defeat it.
(which was within his power)

Endorsements:
My mistake: Voices for Creative Nonviolence is not listed as a co-sponsor on the ILCPJ website, but they did verbally endorse.
FYI: I never stated that Chicago Progressive Alliance was mistakenly listed as an endorser.
We did endorse, but it was before the speakers were announced. We are now re-considering.

Rachel Herbener
Chicago Area CodePINK
Chicago Progressive Alliance

VCN just changed their level up to co-sponsor, despite disagreement with potential speakers.

As for 'puleeeze,' I don't know how much more direct I can be, taking her points paragraph by paragraph, line by line.

The problem, I'd guess, is not my answers, which are as straightforward as I can make them. The problem is that a number of you here reject the argument, the analysis and the political perspective behind them. Fine, we don't all have to agree. There are many others enormously supportive, and some in between. But we do have to work, to the best of our ability and judgment, on how to unite the many, defeat the few and put and end to this horrible war, sooner rather than later.

I've yet to see a better strategy and tactics put forward by anyone else. If someone can, I'll be the first to make the most of it.

We'll see how it all works out soon enough, who stood where, and whether we're stronger or weaker in our ongoing ability to do what needs to be done.

Just say a prayer for a pleasant Fall afternoon, rather than rain or snow, in which case, we'll have a much harder time summing things up.

Voices for Creative Nonviolence is an endorsing organization of the October 27th mobilization to end the Iraq war. VCNV has been an endorser of the mobilization since it was first conceived at the national assembly of United for Peace & Justice in June of this year.

I'm providing this clarification at this time since one of the postings in this thread asserted that Voices had merely indicated "support" rather than indicated being a "co-sponsor" of the October 27th mobilization on the website of the Illinois Coalition for Peace and Justice. Any misunderstanding of the status of Voices as an endorsing organization of October 27th was due to our mistaken belief that an indication of "support" on the ICPJ website was to be taken as an organization being an endorsing organization.

As a personal note, and not reflecting an official VCNV position, I feel compelled to say that building coalitions is some of the most difficult, arduous and personally draining work that there is in the struggle for social justice. A tip of my hat to all those on the October 27th organizing committee who are doing the tough work of building this coalition. Now is definitely not the time for the antiwar movement to fracture yet again. Now is the time to intensify our work to utilize all nonviolent means at our disposal to bring about an end to the Iraq - Afghanistan war. I hope all will continue to communicate DIRECTLY with the October 27th organizing committee about concerns that may arise. I also hope that all will do everything possible to turn out the largest number of people for the October 27th mobilization.

In Solidarity,

Jeff Leys
Co-Coordinator
Voices for Creative Nonviolence

So, will Voices activists lay down in the stairway leading to the stage as Durbin, Obama, or any of the others in the Chicago Congressional delegation who have voted for war funding (i.e., every single one of them) make their way to the podium?

Just what was the point of the Occupation Project then if they won't similarly commit civil disobedience when these pro-war speakers are finally out in the open, unprotected by a bevy of office flunkies?

Sort of makes a mockery of the notion of "resistance."

I find it hard to believe that all Voices members are comfortable with the decision to endorse a rally which gives explicit endorsement to political actors who are, by Voices' own definition over the past few months, pro-war. Unity at all costs just sounds too much like people who "just followed orders" despite what their consciences told them.

Jeff. The antiwar movement IS fractured - and those fractures will deepen as the Democrats persist in taking no meaningful action to bring this atrocious war to an end. As you well know, disenchanment with Congress is growing daily and even self-proclaimed "antiwar" representatives have come under increased fire for their unwillingness to take any political risks whatsoever to end the war.

Co-signing the Oct. 27 appearance of those Illinois politicians who continue to put political expediency above the wishes of their constituents in voting for the latest war appropriations simply accelerates this split and makes a mockery of VCNV's strategy of demanding meaningful accountibility from our elected officials. How sad.

"Just say a prayer for a pleasant Fall afternoon, rather than rain or snow, in which case, we'll have a much harder time summing things up."

Umm. Given the original projections of a historic, precedent setting tens of thousands converging for a UFPJ Midwest regional action, the organizers here have raised the bar considerably in defining a breakthrough success for this demonstration -- whether they like it not. Any spin about the composition of the crowd (ie: new folks turning out) will be just that - spin, if the numbers don't actually exceed previous efforts - late October weather and all. And you can bet that the corporate press, if they show up, will take notice of that.

I'd really like to see the members of this coalition endorse and carry out massive amounts of civil disobedience and direct action:

to shut down military recruiting

to shut down war profiteers

to shut down the entire economy

Monks and civilians are putting their bodies on the line for freedom in Burma right now, and they will win, because they are a genuine threat to the powers that be. What do liberals in America do? Oh, let's have yet another nice non-threatening rally and march on a weekend, let's not actually disrupt normal life too much (gosh, THAT would be terrible, wouldn't it?), and then let's sit back and hope that as angelic as we can make ourselves, our "leaders" will help us... this time.

Nonviolence doesn't mean shit unless you're willing to put your own bodies on the line.

Are you?

Dear Anne and the nameless,

I invite you to come and volunteer your time and energy here at Voices. Help us organize and carry out our ongoing campaigns of nonviolent civil disobedience/direct action against US military and economic warfare.

For readers new here, or uncertain of who we are, you can find out more at: vcnv.org

Best,

Joel Gulledge
co-coordinator
Voices for Creative Nonviolence
joel(at)vcnv(dot)org
773 878 3815

Thanks for the invite, Joel. But I've already been arrested twice for protests at my congressman's office and number among the 800 Chicagoans arrested on Michigan Ave. at the start of the war. And probably will be again. IMHO, we need to practice what we preach - and if we demand that our elected officials be held accountable for what they do - like voting for war funding - and not just for what they say, then we need to keep faith with that committment. Ironically, I also remember when the good folks at the Occupation Project led the charge to insist that any politicians invited to speak at last year's March 20 annivesary march sign a written pledge to support an immediate end to the war by defunding it. So uncritically supporting an event that would give a podium to the same politicians who continue to betray the trust of their antiwar constituents by continuing to fund end the war right now is a bit beyond my hypocrisy threshold.

Hello all –
This entire episode has been very educational. In addition to getting answers to valid questions, I have learned that it is important to phone first. This is in reference to rally endorsements. I am standing corrected!
As I stated yesterday, and Jeff confirmed/clarified, VCN is an endorser.
Last night I corresponded with Marge (MFSO) and she assured me that MFSO is an endorser.
VCN and MFSO were not listed as such on the ILCPJ site, thus my mistake.
In an earlier email I also noted that VVAW was also not listed on ILCPJ site as
co-sponsor/endorser, but I have not talked to Ray so don’t know what the group’s position is.
I hope all the loose ends have been tied up and we can all move forward.
There’s lots of work to be done ….
Rachel Herbener

regardless of the groups that go forward with endorsing this, even if it contradicts their own stance (some of which groups i may/not be apart of myself), a million people could come out and i'll still be thinking of other ways to show my disgust with the war than lay down my soul for carl, dems and the likes to walk on it for gaining a better position. i will not participate in such an action, regardless of who else does. this is not about follow the leader, it's the fact that certain people ALWAYS find it necessary to invite politicians who contradict themselves thus a lot of folks involved in social justice activism as well. this action and the way it's unfolded does not surprise me one bit. the fact the intial meeting(s) were invite only and who extended the invitations does not surprise me. someone, no assumption of who, wants credit for organizing a (hopeful) massive action, just like this someone wants to control and/or run the show in other types of circumstances involved in anti war work.

the toe nail fungus seems to have spread.

Hi Rachel.

Just in case you missed it, here's the latest editorial from CAWI - the convening organization for the UFPJ initiated Oct. 27 march and rally.

Given Davidson's repeated assertion that Sen. Obama has only being invited in only in his capacity as US Senator from Illinois, and that this event would be 'non-partisan', you might find this latest from CAWI Co-Chair Marilyn Katz illuminating.

CAWI’s Start, Oct 27 and Obama’s Future
By Marilyn Katz
[ www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/ ]

October 2, 2002 - perhaps best known now as the day that presidential candidate Barack Obama came out at a rally in Chicago in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq. Came out against the impending war at a moment when it was virtually unheard of for any political leader to come out against any policy of the then popular president. Came out against the war, calling it unfounded, rash and dumb’ at a time when virtually all politicians, including Senators Clinton and Edwards, all media outlets, including the venerable New York Times, were marching lock-step with Bush towards the abyss of war.

Barack’s words were, in fact prescient and memorable,

” I don’t oppose all wars What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. …….You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East….., stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.”

And his presence as the most senior elected official at the first popular rally against the war made him a hero to what was to become a massive anti-war movement and propelled him, in great part, to his senate victory and his presidential run. For in his words and presence, people saw a leader willing to speak truth to power, to speak from his convictions not political convenience. A leader whose words they believed.

But October 2nd 2002 is also - in fact perhaps more fundamentally about , something else — the power of ordinary American citizens. The rally in Chicago on October 2nd, 2002 was not organized by a politician or a recognized political force. Quite the contrary. It was organized by a loose group of friends - veterans of the women’s movement, the student movement, the civil rights movement, who alarmed by the prospect of what they considered an unwise and unfounded march to war and aware, yet seeing no on - from politicians to pundits to the press daring to speak out against a seemingly all-powerful republican juggernaut, - and fearing that if they did not speak out the war, the very room for disagreement with the White House on any issue would vanish, took it upon themselves to reclaim the public space for dissent.

Meeting in a living room in Chicago just ten days earlier, we chose to act agreeing that on October 2nd, 2002, we would assemble in Chicago’s Federal Plaza to stand against the war. With a gut feeling that other Americans also thought the invasion of Iraq was foolhardy, if not immoral and absurd, but with no assurance than anyone would come to a demonstration we agreed that ” If we were five, we would be five. ” “If we were without any elected officials, we would be an involved citizenry. But we would take a stand. ”

But we were not alone. In fact nearly 3,000 people assembled in Federal Plaza on that day responding to the flurry of emails (a new organizing technology for us) that seemingly liberated people from their sense of isolation and offered them the opportunity of collective action - of community. Black, Latino, White, veterans of the peace and women’s movements, the 60s, high school and college youth, community activist - a mosaic of the City. Long time leaders like Jesse Jackson , Juan Andrade and Julie Hamos and a new voice …..not yet known to the crowd, to the media or to the nation…….the voice of State Senator Barack Obama.

October 2nd didn’t stop the war it is true. But it did what it was intended to - assert and regain the public space for dissent.— and pave the way for the taking back of our nation by the American people. By January of 2003 hundreds of thousands of Americans felt the freedom to demonstrate against Bush’s war. By march of that year 195 cities representing 23 million Americans had come out in opposition to the war and while popular sentiment did not prevail, and sitting senators, like Clinton and Edwards, continued to support Bush’ folly, the truth put forth on October 2nd by citizen activists and Barack steadily gained credence, propelling Barack into his Senate office in 2004, ousting the republicans from congress in 2006 and paving the way for a Democratic President in 2008 - a president that understands as barack did in 2002 where our nation’s real battles lie.

Yes, for many, particularly in the media, October 2nd 2002 is known as the day that Barack Obama was ‘discovered’ as the voice of the yearnings of the American people, as a hope for a new way of traversing what admittedly is a complex world, fraught with challenges and dangers. But equally important, to Barack, to the future of the nation, it is the day - like many days that constitute the history of this nation - when ordinary citizens asserted their determination and right to speak truth to power - no matter what the cost - and take the actions necessary to return the nation to the course of justice and fairness herein its past and future greatness must lie.

Nothing that we care about - health care, education, investment in our nation’s housing or infrastructure can be accomplished while this war drains lives and dollars. The movement ignited in the Fall of 2002 will not stop until the war does. Join up once again on October 27th to speak truth, to assert our will and demand an end to the war that never should have begun.

[Marilyn Katz is Co-Chair of Chicagoans Against War & Injustice, and a public policy consultant and publicist. She did major media work for Harold Washington, Carole Mosley Braun and other progressive causes, especially as a advocate for affordable housing issues and projects nationwide. She also appears as a guest commentator on Chicago Tonight.]

firstly, thank you to rachel, ann and other posters who have left completely sensible, intelligent remarks. and 'we need civil disobedience' is among those who very correctly calls davidson on his bluff about proposing another and more successful strategy. davidson, your 'strategy' isnt new, its what you were doing just days before the war.

on the issue of <b>daley at the immigrant rights rally</b>. actually, there was plenty of debate and dissension in letting daley speak, and he and a crony alderman were prevented from speaking at a later rally by those of us who have principles. the immigrants rights movement is as diverse politically as the anti-war one, so please dont make us out to be monolithic to suit your rhetorical ends.

as for your claims of non-partisanship and what not. firstly, were clinton and cheney invited? how is inviting pro-war senators and a pro-war mayor (he openly against the anti-war resolution and that is undeniable, and youre wrong in claiming he could have stopped it, as the original bog box/living wage ordinance vote proved) any different? and it is an endorsement. people see them on the stage, hear their lies and buy into it. you give them a place to lie to the people. thats an endorsement.

and are you really trying to organize a big and wider demonstration? will there be a sign language interpreter and a Spanish translater for every speaker? do you have literature in many languages? or is this more of the same 'center-left' tokenism?

have you invited governor blago? how about cook county president stroger?

and how broad can your base be if you are meeting during normal working hours?

as i said in a post in another thread, CAWI is spitting in our faces. let's spit back.

The October 27 CAWI/United For Peace and Justice event sure doesn't sound like the kind of event that people described in www.thenation.com/doc/20070924/howl2 would want to take part in unless they were planning something creative like a "citizens arrest" of the Democratic Party speakers for betraying the trust of the voters.

First of all, 'Pat', Marilyn's piece on Obama was exactly that, Marilyn's piece. Not a 'CAWI Editorial', that's your invention.

I'd guess, judging from reponses as it was being passed around the listserv before it was posted, that maybe a third of CAWI loved it, a third indifferent, and another third critical, liking other candidates--Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, the Greens--or none at all.

My preference would be Richardson, Gravel Kucinich, or the Greens. The labor people in our ranks tend to go for Edwards.

But MK does speak for an important trend within CAWI, which is why I posted it under her by-line. We post things of varying views within our ranks, maybe not the ones you'd like, but that's another matter.

The fact that there are few open supporters of these folks among the ranks of your sector of the antiwar movement reflects both its strength and its weakness. It may be more advanced politically, but it's also more isolated from the broader reaches of the antiwar majority we are trying to reach.

And if you think Obama is the main enemy, how would you respond to a number of South Side mass organizations, thinking of joining your ranks, that you ought, as a matter of form, offer him an invitation, as their Senator, even if he wasn't likely to accept?

You might not think he's sufficiently against the war--I know I don't--but they do. Would you do polemics with them on how they had to become more radical? And put that hurdle in their path, when they've been dubious about dealing with you anyway? I know a few of you might, but I wouldn't. We're trying to build and coalition of the left and the center, not just a coalition of the left. And this is as good of an example as any as to what it means on the ground here in Illinois.

In other words, if you think this is main about butt-kissing of liberal politicians, you've missed the point entirely. It's about building wider mass alliances than we ever have before, which we have to do, if we're serious about ending this war anytime soon.

Sorry,Carl, spin all you like, but CAWI Co-Chair Katz's glowing tribute to Obama on the front page of your website serves to explain why only Barack Obama and no other Presidential candidate, including Midwest US Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio ( who unlike Obama, has consistently voted against funding the war) made the guest list here.

Non-partisan? Gimme a break.

Still, my personal favorite Katz quote here was:

"October 2nd didn’t stop the war it is true. But it did what it was intended to - assert and regain the public space for dissent.. "

Of course, the following March, over 800 people were arrested on Michigan Ave at the beginning of the war during the largest antiwar march mounted in Chicago since the Vietnam war -- at the express direction of Mayor Daley -- another invited O27 guest.

TWO Flyer

Carl, you are invited to Woodlawn to learn about the struggle of those who are determined to remain in the homes they've lived in for decades and are being opposed by Dr. Finney, Jr., The Woodlawn Organization, The University of Chicago and the developers. Be careful who you're allying with.

carl, stop using race ("South Side mass organizations", "immigrant rights rally") in your arguments, it makes you sound like daley on the big box ordinance or the children's museum. Black activists are not monolithic. Latino activists are not monolithic. we don't speak in one voice anymore than the white anti-war activists do (and it is apparent by this thread and countless other examples that there is no homogeneity amongst you all).

and we are also not a rhetorical device for your arguments. it demeans us both when you simplistically, manipulatively, and patronizingly use us as such.

For years, the complaint is near universal in our ranks that we need to get minority communities in on the ground floor in shaping our activities.

Even if these threads, we've had 'white liberals' thrown at us.

Now, we we've done things a little differently, and changed that, and have some results to report, we're now 'using race'.

Pitiful.

Ask yourself, who else would go to these organizations, suggesting that they can't think for themselves, and are being 'used' in the 'white' antiwar movement?

I know there are many trend in these communities as well as anyone. And we're working with a number of them, but the only place I hear this sort of thing from is here.

Again, listen to yourself, listen to the dissing of Finney, whatever his housing role, as an antiwar ally, and you'll see the problem, won't you. Would you turn T.W.O. away or make hurdles for then to jump other than ending the war?

Find another argument, because this one will only hurts your case, not ours. Even better, drop it, get on board, and bring your criticisms on your placards and banners to the march and rallies.

Have yet to hear that the Oct. 27th Mobilization has accquired the endorsements and participation of Dr. Conrad Worrill from the National Black United Front, Rev. Al Sampson of the Fernwood United Methodist Church, Rev. Paul Jakes of Old Saint Paul's Missionary Baptist Church, Akua Njeri, Fred Hampton Jr, and a host of others. No doubt the Mobilization has secured the support of all of these respected civil rights, anti-police brutality and Black liberation figures many who have spoken and mobilized at previous antiwar rallies. Then there's the Reverend Al Sharpton of the National Organizing Network.

So why not list those churches, mosques and additional 'mass organizations 'on the South and West Sides who've signed on board as of today? Three weeks out. I looked for their endorsements on your website, and they appear to be absent.

This is a graphic aid to understanding Carl Davidson's political philosophy.

I'm really reluctant to post on this thread which started out on some reasonable points of inquiry but has turned into a circle jerk. I just have like 5 minutes to burn and I'd really like to add two cents since I'm mentioned personally on here.

Some of the criticisms of 10/27 are valid but some are really overblown and endemic of ridiculous leftist identity politics.

The major legitimate criticism is about the IVAW. They should have been in on the ground floor and should have had an important role in the demo planning. Bringing them in so late after these major decisions and without regard the obligations of these vets was really an unacceptable error of the coalition organizers.

All errors have to be dealt with though, and the IVAW absolutely must be accommodated by the organizers, which is an issue that I don’t have any first hand knowledge of so I’m not going to comment anymore on it. Onto the bogus criticisms of the coalition.

One is the constant harassment of the 10/27 organizers as openly racist, which is totally uncalled for. One isn’t a victim of liberal subjectivity for objecting when people who casually toss around the moniker racist when disagreements arise. (Especially when the coalition isn't just a bunch of white men.) People need to be civil in their criticism.

Another assumption is that mayor daley is actually going to speak. I also disagreed that he should have been invited, but I can understand the logic enough not to really flip out. Obviously Daley won't speak at a rally where he is going to be booed at, so it is in an indirect way a litmus test of politicians. I don't think it is a real effective pr technique and the explanation about it hasn't been forthcoming which has really hurt the coalition.

People are also assuming that the "mass" will be totally obedient to whatever Obama will say. If you are so afraid of having him speak, then you can't be very confident in your own radical message. Obviously the antidote to Obama's liberal bullshit is some tight radical oratory. If radicals can't field someone who can out debate obama then we should be a. ashamed and b. go back to the drawing board and figure out what we really believe in. Do you think Eugene Debs or Malcom X never spoke after a liberal and really exposed the flaws in their reformist ideology?

The main thing I find ridiculous is the suggestion of protesting the protest. Protesting democratic events is really a waste of time, we need to be out-organizing them. Volunteering on a political campaign at one point illuminated to me how much organizing really does get done by the democratic party every year. Millions of phone calls, hundreds of thousands of doors knocked on, thousands of meetings, hundreds of rallies, tens of millions of dollars raised. Obviously radical organizing is nowhere near the level of success of democratic organizing and it has to change.

"Radicals" have already painted themselves into a stereotype alienating to an overwhelming majority of Americans oppressed and privileged: is protesting the protest and furthering that stereotype going to do anything? We need to concentrate on revolutionary organizing and we need to be less concerned with liberal politicking. Block by block shit, dorm by dorm organizing. This coordinated effort hasn’t been done, but we need to convince ourselves to get serious about revolution first before we get the financing needed to do some really powerful work.

We have to stop treating this demonstration as the end all and be all. People are totally waging their ego’s on this demo (both sides, but much more so on those protesting the protest). Clearly putting on the demo is somewhat of a positive. Its better than no demo. The radical tendencies didn’t put it together and really have never put it together. I disagree with some of the politics behind it, but I’m not loosing sleep over it. I am loosing sleep over the ineffectiveness of the radical left to organize however. There’s no reason this demo has to take the place of shutting down recruitment centers, banner drops, and more militant action. Taking out frustration that militant tactics haven’t been organized very effectively on Carl Davidson doesn’t solve the problem.

Every organization should attend this demonstration, and there will be a range of speakers representing different points of view. Radicals need to be there to connect to more liberal audiences. Radicals need to be able to pull together the same kind of financing and numbers out onto the street. Bitching on indymedia won’t fix our own lack of radical leadership. Radical politics can be treated as irrelevant because it is largely irrelevant. Protesting the protest will only confirm it. Participating it will help build a radical movement to some extent, but we need a strategy if we our ever going to stop spinning our wheels. It’s time we really get ourselves together and get shit done.
I

If you are also interested in articulating a radical strategy and building a revolutionary organization get in touch with me at mrsituationist (at) gmail.com or get in touch with Chicago Students for a Democratic Society and try to come out to our SDS meeting at 4pm next Wednesday at the Chicago cultural center. The open student planning meeting has been rescheduled to that weekend with all other details tba very soon.

Peace

Nick k
Chicago SDS

(This is my personal response to this thread and does not represent the views of my organization, though I sure hope I speak for the frustrations of many of its members)

Well, for starters, you could stop acting unilaterally to endorse on behalf of Chicago SDS.

And while you're at it, Nick, you might indulge in a little homework. Theory tested by praxis. Try this - and the accompanying Commondreams thread below that follows for starters. Weigh in if you like. This debate is raging across the antiwar movement.

US Protests Shrink While Anti-War Sentiment Grows
[ www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/03/4295/ ]

And then because you seem willing to examine the local dynamics of antiwar organizing critically ( a good thing BTW ) try this. Read the entire related study, it might challenge some misconceptions about who is actually being mobilized, and on what terms.

Mess o’ Mobilizations
[ www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/09/19/mclemee ]

Of course, all of this may take more than 5 minutes.

Then please, get back to us and explain just why a rally designed to uncritically showcase precisely those elected officials who continue empower the war effort by voting for funding - ironically on Oct. 27, the 5th anniversary of the original vote by Congress to authorize the war on Iraq - will help both expand and unify the local antiwar movement. Keep in mind that this event is not being organized as a 'debate' or a forum or public town hall meeting where differing views will be discussed with the audience. It is a Midwest march and rally against the war with a vetted list of speakers and program, determined in advance. If efforts to bring Daley, Durbin and Obama come up short - because of no shows - it won't be for lack of trying.

Finally, there's the 800 lb gorilla in the room that Oct. 27 organizers have sideslipped in both their outreach and publicity. One that is rapidly moving to center stage as a pivotal issue for both the antiwar movement and the world - the possibility of war with Iran before Bush leaves office.

We have a slogan, 'no wider wars' aimed at matters like Iran, and I'm sure many will speak to it. Want to wager?

Our criticism of the 'center' politicians is our 'Stop the war NOW, bring ALL the troops HOME', and we're not budging on it one bit. If any do show, they'll make the accomodation, not us. And I'll also wager they'll get an earful for others on the platform.

Are you game!

"If any do show, they'll make the accomodation, not us. And I'll also wager they'll get an earful for others on the platform."

AND they'll thank the organisers profusely for the opportunity to speak to such a outpouring of concerned citizens, praise your commitment to peace and social justice, assure you of their devotion to ending the war, (carefully avoiding making any specific promises to stop paying for the carnage or support impeachment ) nod politely and maybe appear a little contrite when other speakers rail against the spinelessness of those politicians who refuse to confront the murderous Bush regime. They'll also remind you that sadly, their hands are tied because they have yet to obtain a veto proof majority. At this point they are working to build bi-partisan support for legislation to have the Pentagon report to Congress on a plan for withdrawal from Iraq, but with no timelines attached. The only viable surefire solution? Vote the party ticket in 08.

Then the following week they'll go back to the Hill to vote more war funding.

Don't buy it this time.

Hah, "and they'll get an earful for [sic] others on the platform."

Yeah, and so let's break this down here. The EMCEES, who are the official representatives of the event on the stage, will introduce their politician speakers as follows:

"And next up is Senator Shithead, who has voted funding for the war over and over again, while claiming he's against the war. So come on everyone, let's welcome Senator Shithead to the podium with a loud chorus of boos!!"

Yeah, fat chance that will happen. More likely, the emcees will bring a stage version of the pathetic, hat-in-hand "lobbying" approach so often rolled out by UFPJ in DC. In other words, as the official rep's of the rally, they'll praise the Senator Shitheads as they introduce them, thus providing them with political cover, and the event will work as a very nice Democratic Party campaign commercial, which is the main point of some of the organizers anyway.

Thanks for the laugh, 'Lev,' But if any Senators, shitheads or otherwise, show up, I'll bet good money someone will make your point from the stage, but maybe not with your flowery touches.

But not the EMCEE, who should strive to be civil and impartial, as best they can, and leave the polemics to the speakers.

The Democrats Who Enable Bush
by Helen Thomas
www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4352/

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.”

Obama dodged, too: “I think it would be irresponsible” to say what he would do as president.

Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: “I cannot make that commitment.”

They have left the voters little choice with those answers.

Some supporters were outraged at the obfuscation by the Democratic front-runners.

On the other hand, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., are more definitive in their calls for quick troop withdrawals.

But Biden wants to break up Iraq into three provinces along religious and ethnic lines. In other words, Balkanize Iraq.

To have major Democratic backing to stay the course in Iraq added up to good news for Bush.

Now comes a surprising Clinton fan.

President Bush told Bill Sammon — Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President” — that Clinton will beat Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination because she is a “formidable candidate” and better known.

Sammon says Bush revealed that he has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.”

The author said Bush contends that whoever inherits the White House will be faced with a potential vacuum in Iraq and “will begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

Bush ought to know about campaign rhetoric. Remember how he ridiculed “nation building” in the 2000 presidential campaign? Now he claims he is trying to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another Democratic leader who has empowered Bush’s war.

Pelosi removed a provision from the most recent war-funding bill that would have required Bush to seek the permission of Congress before launching any attack on Iran. Her spokesman gave the lame excuse that she didn’t like the wording of the provision. More likely, she bowed to political pressure.

Is it any wonder the Democrats are faring lower than the president in a Washington Post ABC approval poll? Bush came in at 33 percent and Congress at 29 percent.

Members of Congress seem to have forgotten their constitutional prerogative to declare war; World War II was the last time Congress formally declared war.

Presidents have found other ways to make end runs around the law, mainly by obtaining congressional authorization “to do whatever is necessary” in a crisis involving use of the military. That’s the way we got into the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle?

-- Helen Thomas served for fifty-seven years as a correspondent and White House bureau chief for United Press International (UPI). Thomas has covered every president since John F. Kennedy, was the first woman officer of the National Press Club, was the first woman member and president of the White House Correspondents Association, and the first woman member of the Gridiron Club. She has written four books, including her latest, Watchdogs of Democracy?: The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public.

then we'll be back to square one. Soon. Because it won't take the 30 year spread between the US butt kicking in Viet Nam and the US war against Iraq before the US attacks Iran or maybe Venezuela or Cuba.

That's why Carl's vaunted "coalition of the left and the center" is ultimately an invitation to future disasters and disillusionment as the Democrats once again betray everyone except their bosses on Wall Street.

From another SDS and student organizing point of view, i'd like to respond to nick's post. I think the fact that any organization has been shut out of these efforts is my disgreement with the message of Oct. 27, whether it's ivaw, codepink, ccawr, or any other left of democrat organization. stuff like that doesn't help the movement in any sense and it's a bit sickening that adult organizers in the movement are acting like children while we students are formulating an intelligent response to the war and to the democrat pandering of the main program of the march. nick was extremely wrong on one point tho: with big protests like these, planning has most certainly been advertised to everyone interested, but it always turns out that progressive/radical groups end up doing all the work. they've been able to carry us this far, why completely shut them out now?

Once again, save for the 'Ground Floor' meeting at City Hall, there has been an open invitation to all GROUPS who agree with what we are trying to do, to endorse the mobilization and join in the work, with us or independently. If you don't agree with what we're trying to do, and can't accept that condition, then you've excluded your group yourself. That's fine, we realize not everyone can agree with our orientation, and will find other ways to oppose the war. But the fact that large numbers of groups are finding a way to join in and lend a hand should demonstrate that the door is open to those who want to walk through it.

Oh please. By your own admission, you've scheduled organizing meetings to accomodate folks you believe to be key players in building this. Namely the paid staffs of several union locals, local NGO's CAWI activists and allies - rather than during the evening or weekends when working people can attend. It's also pretty apparent that had you NOT done so far fewer of your target audience - the professional staffers - would have attended on their own time to represent their organizations It's a trade off that is certainly inline with your organizing strategy and priorities , but spare us the 'inclusiveness' rap, it's not selling. Way to not broaden your volunteer base, but maybe that's the point.

BTW, the only flyers and posters I've seen posted widely around town including the S. and W. Sides, are those issued by ANSWER-Chicago.

I'm also curious: who's the student/youth leader invited to speak at the event that you mentioned above...

Thinking all, or even most, of the folks involved in this effort are 'professional staffers' is something you made up, not us.

Some are, but I wish more of us were. I'd like to get paid myself. Then we'd have an even more stable core to recruit and organize an even broader number of volunteers.

The worship of amateurishness is no way to bring a movement to scale or give it staying and growing power.

We have a good number of leaflets out, and even more at the printers. If you want a ream to distribute, come by the office, where we has a large map, marking of sections of the cities. We've also done a dozen customized leaflets for various contingents.

I could go on and on, but it's not really the point, is it?

For anyone who really wants to work with this, whatever their occupation or schedule, they find a way, because they agree with it and want to make it successful.

Others who disagree with it, will seize on any obstacle, however petty, to make an excuse to stay on the sidelines.

That's OK. You don't have to support this effort. Just organize people and take some action against the war, on that day or any other.

Carl wrote:

"Thinking all, or even most, of the folks involved in this effort are 'professional staffers' is something you made up, not us. Some are, but I wish more of us were. I'd like to get paid myself."

Fact is, Carl, you ARE being paid, by this event, which is part of the reason why this event has a $50,000 budget (as opposed to the typical $3k - $5k budget of the annual actions on the anniversaries of the war). Problem is, in spite of spending so MUCH more money, you're going to end up with the same sort of attendance, at best, despite projecting 80,000 attendance at the UFPJ conference. Funny how those numbers melt away when you diss the people who have built anti-war actions in the past (and by that, I don't mean those notable anti-war stalwarts such as Mayor Daley, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama).

Actually since this supposed to be a Midwest regional mobilization initiated by UFPJ, and taking a look at the current list of regional endorsers who are actually organizing buses, it really looks like "more" of the same.

Ha!, LOL

Getting paid? Not yet!, but my 'big fee' still keeps me well below the poverty line, if I ever see it.

Yes, this goes beyond the usual budgets, because thing are being done, not just to get a 'left bloc' in the streets. We never had to sent up facilities, such as 1000 chairs, for busloads of South Side churchgoers. Or deal with hundreds of buses from out of town. Or make media buys on Black and Latino media.

In other words, when you seriously want to bring things to scale, it takes more serious finances--and the notion that anyone is even making more than a pittance off this is a sick joke.

My guess is you'll try any argument, however petty, to trash this. But it only makes you look silly, and many more are positively rising to the moment in a way we haven't seen before.

If you want to exclude yourself from it, that's your business.

For everyone else, there's serious work to be done, so lend a hand.

"If you want to exclude yourself from it, that's your business."

That's okay, Carl, you've done quite a good enough job of excluding people from this "uniting" action by yourself.

** First, by making most of the main decisions about the action, including making yourself paid staffer, and only then inviting people in (basically to do the shitwork, since the decisions were already made). Sorry, we're not slaves. We're used to following orders at work, but in our volunteer time we like the courtesy of having some say-so in how our work is utilized.

** Second, by scheduling your meetings at a time when 90% of working people in this city have to, you know, work.

** Thirdly, inviting pro-war speakers, who are anathema to huge chunks of the anti-war movement (the people who do the shitwork to get the publicity out about most actions), was just icing on the cake.

With the event less than 20 days away, we still haven't heard anything about distribution points for big print runs of flyers and posters, let alone systematically covering all of the main neighborhood business districts in the city and burbs (the only people who seem to be doing any of this is ANSWER, with their own flyers and stickers which makes it look like they're the only or main organizers of the event). No wonder you have to rely on expensive, small bang-for-the-buck media buys since there's precious little publicity on the streets. That's what happens when you diss a large part of your potential volunteer base. By the way, on the day of, they'll also really love being talked down to by these politicians, most of whom have done nothing to stop the war.

hate to be a bother, but you didn't answer my question. who's the student/youth speaker?

Student-youth speaker?

None selected or confirmed yet...Send your recommendations to SDS, or any other endorsing group, and they'll forward them to the program committee.

Or just email them to oct27chicago(at)gmail.com

And we can draw on the Midwest, not just Chicago...

Chicago Area CodePINK endorses the Oct. 27 Mobilization.
Peace.

Chicago Area CodePINK Coordinators
Catherine Caporusso
Julia Fields
Rachel Herbener
Pat Hunt
Nina Klooster
Robin Schirmer

This must have been a difficult decision for Chicago Area CodePINK. Still, endorsements are like votes, and as one sign at a recent CodePINK protest in DC pointed out , "You vote for it, you own it."

Peace.

出会い出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無料系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダルトサイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海外。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻SMコレクション風俗告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメエロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチアニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画カーセックスセックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセックス体位東京セックス仕方SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板おっぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳掲示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫