I understand you apprehension about my surprise theory. I am not even certain that was it. I just cannot figure out if it is not that, what it could be.

I am with you on Murphy’s description of Kifaya. It is more “mostly socialist” rather than “mostly liberal” which al-Ghad and al-Wafd say they are. Alaa mentions in his blog post (linked above in the protest entry) says he left yesterday’s protest with some “big al-Ghad” characters. So who knows what all that is about.

I believe Kifaya would also be happier being labeled as mostly socialist rather than liberal.

After all - as we all know - when opposing a regime, how a group labels itself in relation to competing opposition trends is often more important than developing unified opposition -

Sorry for the sarcasm, it was not directed at you. I am just having trouble puzzling the Egyptian opposition scene out.

Not sure about your surprise theory — is it that big of a deal that it was shot in a war room? Or just political opportunism to show Hosni the valiant warrior?

Dan Murphy describes Kefaya as “mostly liberal.” I would say it’s “mostly socialist.” After all, the official liberal parties of Egypt — Al Wafd (joke, i know) and Al Ghad — are not participating in Kefaya as far as I can tell, and most of Kefaya’s leadership comes from a socialist — even Trotskyist — background, with a few Islamists mixed in.