Mark Kleiman wonders why I'm not all over the people who disrupted a John Edwards fundraising event. Mostly it's because I didn't know anything about it as I don't spend much time hanging out at indymedia.
As for the general issue, I agree that disrupting the democratic process in such a fashion is problematic. For the same reason I find protesting campaign events and party conventions generally inappropriate. I mean, showing up with a few signs because the cameras are there is no big deal, but there are better times and places for more disruptive demonstrations. There's a line between protest and disruption, and I can't really tell if these people crossed it - though I definitely wouldn't recommend it. One can imagine the result if it became a standard tactic to disrupt fundraising events by all sides. So, yes, I agree that this is generally a bad idea and not one which should be duplicated.
However, Kleiman's snarky comparison of people protesting a candidate's view of the war with the hired Republican goons who were sent on the orders of John Sweeney to "shut it down" - it being the mandated recount in Florida - way out of bounds.
(update: fixed name)
