The Latest

Chicago 10 & 1968

On Monday Wing and I were lucky enough to see a pre-screening of the new movie Chicago 10 that documents and portrays a part of the story of the 10 activists put on trial for the anti-war protests in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention. The producer and one of the Chicago 10, Tom Haydon were on hand to answer questions. Below is a preview of the movie, which was phenomenal. It opens Friday. But do remember, it's only one person's interpretation and only a small peice to the many stories from those protests and the events leading up to them.

In related news, local activists in Denver announced this week a campaign called Recreate '68. They are calling on anti-war activists to continue the spirit of resistance and ensure the voices of the people are heard at the Democratic National Convention this summer. Click here for their web site.


Vigilante said...

Re-creating '68?

This seems to me to very poorly-advised. In 1968, there was no unity on the left. The most eloquent charismatic leaders of the anti-war left had - Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy - had been ripped from us by assassin's bullets. There was no one left to lead the Democrats - who could unify them. Eugene McCarthy was a nice guy who was in favor of peace and Hubert H. Humphrey was an obsequious and fawning stooge of Lyndon Johnson and as pledged to pursue LBJ's ruinous war as McCain is married to Bush's Iraquagmire. There was no hope to beat the Republicans. Today, there is every hope to beat back the Republicans and dismantle their warfare state.

To demonstrate at the Democratic convention instead of at the Republican convention is to create another RalphNader-esque distraction. As Todd Gitln, who was at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago says,

“In the ’60s, there were competing strains: the desire for results and the desire for self-expression. This seems to belong squarely in the self-expression camp ...

What’s the political calculation that speaks to them of the wisdom of civil disobedience - which means a massive media spectacle - on the brink of a Democratic campaign that could plausibly put a Democrat in the White House who’s committed to withdrawal from Iraq? If the objective is to put a belligerent Republican in the White House, they should keep up the good work."

In other words, these fools are out to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Yet again.

Mark D. Snyder said...

Your points are well taken. The recreate 68 folks do address some of this.

It is important to note that it is being organized by local anti-war activists in Denver.

It's also important to note that the democrats have authorized and funded the Iraq war, nd many other wars, from the very beginning. Democrats are not anti-war, and deserve to be protested and challenged.

Another important thing to note is that after the math came in it was clear Ralf Nader did not ruin the election for Gore. In fact, just the number of votes Pat Buchanan got due to voter error would have given Gore the election - and Buchanan admits it. Not to mentino Kathleen harris's voter cleansing and various other fraudulent activities.

Finally,I'd bet the protests of the Republican Convention/McCain ill be even bigger.

Vigilante said...

Another important thing to note is that after the math came in it was clear Ralf Nader did not ruin the election for Gore?

The math has been done.

Mark D. Snyder said...

The math you're presenting is only going on the assumption that Nader's supporters prefer Gore over Bush, which is true, but doesn't take into account the following:
1. Voter fraud and disenfranchisement 2. Democrats who did not vote, or voted for Bush 3. The Supreme Court decision to give it to Gore 4. Butterfly ballots and Pat Buchanan. 5. Many nader supporters would have stayed home instead of going to vote for Gore who did not win their enthusiasum.

Gore won by just a few hundred votes. Buchanan got over 1000 by accident.

"Pat Buchanan himself has admitted that most of his votes in Palm Beach County were meant for Al Gore, saying he "did not campaign and bought no advertising there" (Nichols, 2001, p. 86). He added, "I would say 95 to 98 percent of [the votes] were for Gore" (id. at p. 89). The day after the election, many people were upset, saying the butterfly ballot was confusing. When the election results were "too close to call," Buchanan worried he would be charged with costing Gore the election. He said he got more media coverage after the election than he did during the campaign (id. at p. 84). The graph to the left showing an abnormally high Buchanan vote in Palm Beach County suggests the butterfly ballot cost Al Gore thousands of votes, more than enough to have won the presidency."

All that said, I think Obama can muster a lot more excitement and enthusiasm than Gore. The Dems are already coming out in record numbers so I doubt Nader will have much effect on the Democrats.

We all need to be concerned about the voting system. Obama got 0 votes in parts of NYC and Bloomberg is claiming fraud - yet its not on the front page news.

Vigilante said...

Nothing you have said changes the fact that Ralph Nader is a bottom feeder. I don't know what that makes people who vote for him.