One of the problems with these big marches -- impressive as they may be as shows of strength -- is that they have little lasting value. The broad anti-globalization/anti-war movement has tended to disdain actual electoral politics, believing it to be corrupt beyond repair (which is, in its way, the ultimate kind of cynicism). But in the long run, the way you win in a democracy is by winning elections, and you win elections by organizing for candidates and helping them raise money. No doubt, these candidates will be more mainstream, and more credible, than, say, the guys who run A.N.S.W.E.R. And that's the beauty of it. When you have a march, you pretty much have to let everyone have their say. The cranks who think Bush is "the real war criminal" get as much face time as the Jimmy Carters. Electoral politics imposes a discipline on activism, weeding out the cranks, building consensus and providing a kind of centrifugal force that keeps it all together. If the people who spend their time organizing and marching would spend even a fraction of that energy and time involving themselves in real electoral politics -- not futile, Naderite third-party runs, another form of political narcissism -- they could actually punish Bush for what he's done.

UPDATE: There're some excellent comments and debate over these issues over at Matt Yglesias's site.

TAPPED weighs in on some of the silly "Direct Action" going on.  Its over folks, war has started.  You aren't convincing anyone at this point. It will have no effect on the war, and only serves to paint the left as loony and out of touch.  Time is much better spent preparing to drum Bush out of office in 2004.  Pick a candidate (I have a suggestion) and do some real work.