Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail.

I do understand.

I am indulging my own sentimentality, if that's what it is, by contributing to Sheehan's campaign. From each according to his ability, as it were. I see her as a throwback, in a way; an ingenuous (in the original sense) "citizen politician"-- a far cry from the present devolved, elite professional political class of middle managers running wholly owned subsidiaries in a para-corporate business. An Eloi invading a Morlock stronghold-- what's not to root for?

My screed was motivated by a cumulative outrage that the more we learn about our political elite and their machinations, the more we find that the partisan corruption is extended and woven in innumerable directions and levels.

Ironically, even though that's one of my standing assumptions, I still become outraged instead of gratified when reality meets, even exceeds, my infinitesimally low expectations.

It also occurs to me that I do become defensive about supporting (and admiring) Sheehan-- who has paid her dues and taken way more crap than she deserves-- and perceive slights that aren't there. If your present endeavors don't permit you the luxury of doing good for the Sheehans et al, at least you're not doing them harm.

Or, as we Sixties cats still occasionally say: putting her down.

You've enriched my understanding. Thanks again.

FWIW, my appreciation for Cindy took a quantum leap when Common Dreams started publishing her articles on occasion. Her writing is lucid, and resonates with exactly the qualities you describe. It's gratifying to know that there's indeed a lot of there there.

I liked her from the get-go, but her writing really pulled me in.

That's why I got/get so pissed off at boneheads who revile or dismiss her as a flailing buffoon and/or obstruction on the road to progress.

People are bloody ignorant apes.

I was prepared to be horrified that Cintra had belatedly become Altogether Serious, and decided that her portfolio would be enhanced by a by-the-numbers critique, arch or blasé, bashing and trashing Code Pink with the usual tendentious fault-finding: they're foolish, misguided, self-indulgent, capricious, irresponsible, repugnant, (self) destructive, pernicious... just read the comments and add whatever modifiers I've left out.

Code Pink is a surd. I am objectively pro-surd. Is that any better than absurd? You be the judge.

I hoped otherwise, because I have higher expectations for Cintra. So I was pleased to find that her wit and humor abide, and the article was lucid and insightful.

As a proud child of the Age of Aquarius, I appreciate, and identify with, Code Pink's protean, flamboyant style. It occurs to me that a schism has developed in the activist community, and I think it arises from individual temperament and experience. Put very broadly, one group rejects the "classic" protest style employed by Code Pink, and expresses hostility ranging from knee-jerk contempt and derision to thoughtful analyses of why they're All Wrong. I call this group "Roundheads". (It finally flashed on me that Obama is the quintessential Roundhead.)

Code Pink, on the other hand, is a Cavalier organization. I'm a Cavalier; that's why I root for them. People like Medea Benjamin are simply not built to operate in the grim, humorless, ascetic, ultra-pragmatic, quasi-masochistic mode preferred by Roundheads. My guess is that they believe that human propensities for joy, romance, humor, mischief, and even folly ought to be integrated into political life, not renounced and denigrated in favor of a warrior's life of comfortless battle.

I don't begrudge the Roundheads doing it their way; after all, we Cavaliers believe in personal authenticity and freedom of expression. So by all means organize yourselves into something a lot less like Code Pink and a lot more like those Mormon "elders" one often sees wandering around, even in places like Philadelphia (PA) and its suburbs.

I presume every US resident has seen them. They usually travel in pairs: ironically, these "elders" are typically teenagers, or tweenagers. The males have short, conservative hair styles; they wear black suits and ties with white shirts; they are polite and quiet, at least while walking on the street or taking public transportation. The females, though rarer, are also uniformly well-scrubbed and demure; they don't wear prairie dresses or anything, but they have a nun-like quality.

I have no objection to Roundheads being appropriately Serious, Sober, and Businesslike, and going out there to woo the Silent Majority one Archie and Edith at a time, or respectfully and earnestly kow-towing to Persons of Influence to find common cause. "Working within the system," they used to call it.

If it's such an obviously improved way to go about it, I don't see that the carryings-on of idiots like Code Pink would be able to inflict much harm.

PS: I (again) agree wholeheartedly with LT Bohica's comment(s).

Just because you consider social issues "entirely secondary," [...]

____________________________________________

In case Glenn is in the restroom or otherwise momentarily indisposed, allow me to recommend that you re-read the phrase you quoted in context.

Glenn isn't declaring, affirming, or advocating that these issue are, or ought to be "entirely secondary" in general.

As I read it, the phrase is descriptive, in the context of describing a political shift. You may dispute the description, but I believe it's a misunderstanding to conclude that Glenn himself broadly considers social issues entirely secondary, whatever that may mean, or is presuming to dictate anyone's political priorities-- except insofar as his reporting, analysis, and argument necessarily includes Glenn's ideas on propitious stances, attitudes, and action to achieve desirable ends.