You know whichever Dem gets in, I don't think they will put Progressives in Cages when we Protest

[KoKo]

against the War like Bush/Cheney did. I don't think they will throw us out of demonstrations for not having the "proper approved ticket" for admission and set the FBI or Secret Service on us.

I don't think either one of them would throw us in jail because we march with signs protesting for the RIGHTS of Average Americna Workers in front of the White House.

I don't think they would do that. Either of them.

I think that we Progressives for Kucinich and Edwards would have a much easier time getting our voices heard for our causes agains "Media Deregulation" and "Cleaning up Wall Street and getting our US Financial House in order. And, if we want the FCC/FDA/EPA/HUD/ and trade deals made FAIR AND EQUAL for ALL WORKERS....I think they would be forced to listen when our Activist Interest Groups come to call int he White House. Maybe even John Conyers and Henry Waxman and Leahy and Rockefeller would have to burn that midnight oil and get people held accountable...when our activists come knocking on their office doors.

Maybe Reid and Pelosi could be replaced if there was enough anger out there for this "compliant" House and Senate. Maybe we Activists could finally have a chance at doing something because for us NOT to have A VOICE...would shame them too much.

Maybe...that's a possibility. :shrug:

[madrchsod]

1. don`t know....

we had two democratic presidents that lead us into a war in the 60`s.
i had a visit from the fbi one day during those days, so i really do not trust barrack or hillary until they roll back ALL the repressive laws that have passed in the last 8 years. then maybe i`ll trust them not to repress those who speak out in the streets and the town squares

[KoKo]

2. I think it will be easier than with John McCain, though.

What other choices do we have. :shrug:

[madrchsod]

14. slim and none?

[seriousstan]

3. It was at the Dem convention that "free speech zones" were created.

This was before the Rep convention.

[KoKo]

8. Well...we will have to wait and see how Denver Convention sorts out

then...because if the Activist Progressive base doesn't get some recognition...I could see Denver as a repeat of Chicago '68. I don't think our Dem Party wants that...so either it's Obama or Clinton/Obama with a strong Party Platform to end the war and undo the Bush Privatization, clean sweep of Justice Department, FDA, FCC and every other Agency that the Bush/Cheney's and NeoCons and Right Wing Evangelicals have infested. Fumigate the Government. Those are promises that must be extracted. :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Uh - no. First one I saw was the 2000 inhoguration.

Protests were consigned to specific zones - I am not sure if they were actually called free speech zones.

According to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area"<5> so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator against an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."<6> "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions<7>

The same article indicates that the ACLU brought a suit in 2003:

In 2003, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Secret Service, ACORN v. Secret Service, representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). "The federal court in Philadelphia dismissed that case in March <2004> after the Secret Service acknowledged that it could not discriminate against protesters through the use of out-of-sight, out-of-earshot protest zones."<27> Another 2003 lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia, ACORN v. Philadelphia, charged that the Philadelphia Police Department, on orders from the Secret Service, had kept protesters "further away from the site of presidential visits than Administration supporters. A high-ranking official of the Philadelphia police told Presser that he was only following Secret Service orders."<19><28> However, the court found the ACLU lacked standing to bring the case and dismissed it.<29>

[Individualist]

12. Don't forget the 2004 Democratic Convention

and the free speech zones for war protestors. Although the zones were set up by Boston authorities, DNC voiced NO opposition to them. Shameful!

[mdmc]

4. kick

I wish

[pocoloco]

5. You don't remember Chicago??

[KoKo]

6. I do...but that was protesting against Dems who were continuing a war

under a Dem President who wouldn't give up on Vietnam. This time we would be protesting against Dems who were continuing a war started by Repugs. I think they'd have a hard time doing what happened in '68 to us. Different time. Not saying they wouldn't but then if we are truly in a "One Party System" then would it matter if we were protesting agains McCain or Romney? :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

11. That was a free beating zone. nt.

[genie_weenie]

7. Antiwar, antiwarmonger state protestors will still have to

shout "Don't taze me, bro" even if Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama wins the WH.

[KoKo]

9. We have to hope for and EXPECT and DEMAND better, then.

[unkachuck]

13. "Maybe...that's a possibility."

....that's a very big 'maybe'....but I hope you're right....

....or maybe after a few months into the new corporate Dem administration, when nothing positive is happening, we'll start bitchin'....returning us unwashed, ungrateful progressive Dems, to public enemy number one....again