So goes the leading anti-war icon, so goes the movement?

Joshua Frank’s article in Counterpunch (or on his blog) caught my eye, particularly because it helps to begin answering the question I implicitly asked when I wrote about Cindy Sheehan before—what will she do when it comes time to make an electoral decision? Frank gives her credit for restarting the moribund anti-war movement which took some time off to champion pro-war Sen. John Kerry during his run for US President. Frank also links to another worthwhile article in Counterpunch from John Walsh. The PDA, or Progressive Democrats of America, are based on the idea that they can rebuild the Democrats from within; offering the Democrats support will somehow transform the Democrats into making better votes (not that their website offers challenge to Democrats voting records). Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan serve on the PDA Advisory Board.

From the article:

I’m not sure how working to elect “progressive” Democrats to office, which [Medea] Benjamin and Sheehan are now attempting to do with the PDA, will ever help build an alternative to the two pro-war parties. Nor am I convinced that electing Democrats to office will ever end the war in Iraq — as John Walsh recently explained in Counterpunch, even if the Democrats pick up the necessary 15 seats to reclaim the House, their overall position on the war will not be changing, as no new Democratic House contenders actually oppose the war.

Perhaps Cindy Sheehan has fallen into the vicious trap of non-profit activism, where she cannot truly speak her mind without being fearful that her liberal supporters will pull their funding from the groups she aligns with. Or maybe Sheehan just doesn’t get it. Maybe she doesn’t understand that elections are a great place to go after the war enablers for all of their awful habits and evil deeds.