Power to the Peaceful 2008 photos

I have been told that the Green and Peace and Freedom parties were barred from having booths at the event . The excuse was that the organzers are now incorporated as a 501 C3 Non profit (which bars partisan political activity )
But leaving aside that how a couple of booths among dozens would jeopardize that status (It wouldn't ! ) Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey was invited to speak . She's running for re election and though SF isn't her district the festival draws thousands from all over the Bay area including her area . She is also a strong advocate for Obama .
There is another question just how ''peaceful '' she is , since she doesn't want the troops actually brought home ! She supports Obama 's stance that the war in Afghanstan is a '' Good war '' and untold thousands of troops should be redeployed from from Baghdad to Kabul .
If anyone from the festival can answer these questions please do .

i second those sentiments . Today Obama attacked Bush from the RIGHT ! He said that Bush wasn't sending enough troops to Afghanistan .
Those guerrillas in Afghanistan are fighting occupiers that just killing dozens of kids in a air strike .
Islamists may be their leaders but it's the US and Nato are the recruiters .
Yes, we do need to hear and see real alternatives at the ballot box

Member of Congress Woolsey's speech was a pretty clear indication that the prohibition on partisan political booths was just meant for the real peace forces, the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party. Actually, under the law, this was a real violation of the law on non-profits. A non-profit that allows only certain partisan activities, while banning those of their partisan favorites' opponents, is engaging in partisan activity. Scheduling Woolsey's speech, while denying the table application of the Peace and Freedom Party, showed partisan bias, and could be used to argue that the organization should be denied non-profit status.

The Peace and Freedom Party got around the ban by setting up outside the event (their San Mateo County Chair got there early, and parked her vehicle close to the entrance, covered with Nader-Gonzalez signs). Thousands of leaflets were distributed, and while the lack of an inside table was a problem, it was not insurmountable. The Green Party set up a table under a false name, and put a figleaf (well, a sort of flag) over part of the party name on their banner. But their ability to get around the attempted suppression just means the corporate Democrats are incompetent like the Republicans, something we already knew, not that they are not maliciously determined to suppress Left dissent.

The funny thing about all this is that in California, this attempt to suppress dissent is a complete waste of time. Anyone who is familiar with the US electoral system is aware that if everyone in California who would like to vote for Nader does so, it will not affect the national outcome. The truth is, if the presidential race in California is close enough that Nader votes would equal the margin between Obama and McCain, this would mean that Obama lost the national race by a landslide. If Obama wins nationally, this would mean that the California race would be a blowout for Obama, and a quarter-million to half-million votes for Nader would be no obstacle to Obama winning California. I am certainly no advocate of a "safe-states" strategy, but I think it reasonable to point out that progressive Californians may vote as they please without worrying about the lesser or greater of any two evils. Under the circumstances, a vote for Nader is the most meaningful and important vote you can cast in November.