It got 71% of the vote in the May 15 primary election, despite little or no fundraising being conducted on its behalf. That's a higher percentage of the vote than all four losing mayoral candidates combined, or alternatively, a higher percentage of the vote than the top two candidates plus Dwight Evans combined.

The Inquirer and Daily News urged its defeat. No other newspaper that I am aware of endorsed it. I have not seen or read of a single sample ballot that endorsed it. If anyone blogged in support of it at young philly politics, I missed it.

I blogged in support of it at phillyblog, and a number of people responded by indicating strong opposition to it.

I am increasingly wondering what is going on. Why is something considered so important by so many people being so ignored or even opposed by so many who consider themselves progressive political leaders?

I refer of course to the War in Iraq. City Council put a referendum on the War on the Iraq on the ballot in the guise of an amendment to the City Charter expressing opposition to the War, and it was at or near the bottom of the ballot.

To repeat, it got 71% of the vote with virtually no money or organization support behind it. Sometimes, to find an issue to organize around, all you have to do is open your eyes.

Some opponents of it worried that this referendum question was defying the sacredness of the City Charter. I have read the City Charter since I was a college student. For political buffs, it is an interesting document. Until this year, however, I never knew that anyone considered it a sacred document.

In my mind, as I weight the deaths of five American soldiers every two days since March, 2003 with the alleged sacredness of the city charter, I have to conclude that voicing opposition to this continuing parade of blood--magnified many times by the blood of Iraqis in a tragically growing civil war that threatens to go on for many years to come--is more important than charter purity.

So far, 3,422 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and tens of thousands have been wounded there, some with scars and wounds whose effect will be felt for a lifetime. All of us will be paying billions of dollars a year for the rest of our lives to help these soldiers, and we will be paying billions more on the interest to the national debt that this $200 billion a year war costs annually.

Opposition to the War in Iraq was a key motivating force behind support of Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004. It was a key factor in Democratic gains in the 2006 elections, and may well drive the Republicans out of the White House and many more Congressional seats in 2008.

The Philadelphia area--both the city and the region--have played key roles in mobilizing votes against Bush and the Republican control of Congress.

It's time--way past time--to recognize that the war in Iraq is of vital importance compared to many city, state, and federal issues. It's time to speak out strongly against it when opportunities present themselves, and to try to create more public space to maximize mobilization against it.

Traditionally, opposition to American foreign policy has been the citadel of American radicals, whose views are out of touch with many realities. This should not lead to silence from mainstream people, but should lead instead to a determination to find and articulate reasonable solutions to the quagmire our country and our soldiers and the Iraqi people find themselves in.