As for the last part of the selection you made from the interview, there ARE leaders, though they want to claim there are no leaders to their movement.
They really aren't any different from the old marxists of bygone eras that I can tell. Some groups still have individuals from the old school embedded in them. Then, it was Communist International to whom they were beholden, but even though they hailed the same central political power, they were divided into individual cells that changed, split or rarely (if ever) merged. The cells changed with the whims of those people within who had personalities suitable for taking initiative or egos too big to permit accomodation with others. The numerous cells (or these days, web groupipes) are pretty useful since they are small enough to be focused on one or just a few issues, small enough to control like a clique to avoid infiltration, but big enough to provide emotional support to keep the cell energized enough to go out and protest.
Each cell is like a mini fan club formed around one or two people with dominant personalities and largely single-issued and therefore tightly focused and motivated.
But they do have 'leaders'- more broad-minded cells which to govern lesser cells by giving direction and by organizing similar cells together for specific events, in turn dominated by other cells formed around slightly more flexible personalities. This is the case with the two organizations that seem to dominate this DC protest; they organize and lead their little cell- republics by arranging marches and providing permits and such for the diverse cells which under other circumstances wouldn't get along that well because of diverging interests.
And everybody just keeps telling the little cells that there are no leaders.