Not the only thing mind you.

That is my attitude toward marriage equality. To be honest, before coming here in 2005, I had really not given it much thought.

Now I'm very vocal about my support for marriage equality for everyone.

DU opened my eyes to the struggle.

Change.

That's an important example of how this forum can help people expand their understanding of what is required to bring about social justice.

Thank you!

I want DU back to where bullshit is called out as bullshit whether or not it is promoted by a republican OR a Democrat

Just kidding. It was just too irresistible.

I love being called JUVENILE by that crowd - OMG, the irony

There are those who, if we mention a problem with, say, President Obama, ask, "Would you rather have John McCain or Mitt Romney as president?" Such shortcuts to logic imply that our choices are severely limited. Heck, even President Obama has said several times that he wants people to hold his feet to the fire -- and I assume he didn't mean just the tea party.

I think it's extremely important that individuals of good conscience -- like you -- continue to confront this type of sterile thinking. I believe that there are still plenty of DU members who -- while certainly not McCain/Romney advocates -- understand that it is essential to "call out bullshit."

Thank you for all of your contributions to DU.

you get it

. . . and I tend to resist appeals outside of the party by individuals and groups who don't share my belief in the primacy of the party.

I confess confusion over the definition of 'grassroots' some have used when differentiating between support for establishment Democrats and support offered to candidates who identify their politics outside of the Democratic party.

Sen. Bernie Sanders offered a view of his own interpretation of 'grassroots' support that I thought was interesting:

“I think what we need is a new politics -- a different type of politics than Hillary’s," he said. "A politics that is much more grassroots-oriented, much more having to do with strong coalition-building and grassroots activism than I think Hillary has demonstrated over the years, or supported.”

I'm not certain what the difference is in 'grassroots' expressions of support for whatever Sen. Sanders is advocating, and the 'grassroots' support Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton are receiving. Is there a more defining measure of grassroots support than the people willing to come forward and identify with your cause, and ultimately vote for it?

Is there a more measurable degree of support for ANY potential candidate for office than folks organizing in waves even before that candidate has even declared; years before an election?

I don't know why people who have chosen the Democratic party to coalesce with would be viewed as any less connected with the agenda of the pols they support than those who might support an independent candidacy. There wouldn't seem to be any more purity of motivation behind one base of support, than the other. Yet, some still associate 'grassroots' with maverick candidacies or political bids by outsiders.

Did Obama's grassroots cease to be authentic when he achieved office? I remember when his candidacy was seen as insurgent and outside of the party establishment; at least in comparisons made to other more established Democrats.

The reason I think many here gravitate around a board called 'Democratic' Underground in recognition of the kinship that we find with our progressive ideals within the Democratic party. Indeed, a good majority of votes for any progressive outsider will need to draw from the ranks of our Democratic coalition; from the party's 'grassroots'.

I agree that it's a mistake to dismiss the ideals expressed by those who identify their progressive politics outside of the party; outside of this Democratic-oriented forum. That progressive advocacy is essential to the character and direction of our coalition.

I also think, though, it's a mistake (as some do) to characterize support for our Democratic coalition or candidacies as an anathema to change. I see that support as a recognition of the traditional weakness of independent movements in attracting enough of a coalition of voters to win elections.

Outright rejection of a political establishment that is successful in attracting the necessary support to actually advance initiatives and ideals into action or law is self-defeating and isolating.

On the other hand, progressive politics that intends to inform, more than it's obsessed with 'winning' something or the other, can be a vital and essential exercise of the democratic process. Nothing changes in government without pressure, and politics that's always obsessed with what's popular or winning isn't going to project essential values or principles necessary to effect any insistent, progressive change.

I think we need to advantage our politics of every instigation of democracy to succeed. Understanding that need might help bring understanding and celebration of the myriad of motivations folks bring to this board; rather than catering to the derisiveness and suspicion which often threatens to divide us; even on issues which we mostly agree with each other.

Hillary is a globalist and corporatist and has no problem in the existing system of money running politics. Bernie wants to end all that so it is really "grass roots" (meaning people driven, not money driven).

I don't believe the people supporting Hillary have a real sense of who she is and what she stands for. Bernie has been absolutely consistent in his time in office. He does not sway his message depending on who he is talking to, or who is paying to promote him. He is a staunch supporter of the middle and lower classes. Hillary is a supporter of corporate and global policy. Although I think she tries to not expose that side of her as much as Bill did. Bill really hurt this country with some of his policies. I don't see her as being different from him.

. . . I think it's an amazing statement that, after that huge presidential run of hers and all the time in the public eye that people who support Hillary don't 'have a real sense of who she is and what she stands for' . . . or that Sanders supporters are somehow better informed because of 'consistency' or whatever.

In keeping with the subject of the op, I think this is one perspective that may explain how one candidate's army of small donors and declared supporters can be regarded as nothing more than a tool of the establishment, and another less known, less popular candidate's support can be portrayed as sincere and unassailable.

I think it's a glaring fallacy to view or portray one supporter as 'grassroot' and the other as naive or uninformed. That attitude, expressed in conversations and debates here can lead to unnecessary divisiveness between folks who mostly agree on issues, if not on the policies of their respective candidates.

I prefer leaving characterizations of candidate supporters out of our debates, altogether, if not to just keep from perpetuating generalized views of folks here like the one you expressed. Posters here aren't one-dimensional.

Here at DU, many of us tend to see and respond to differences of opinion among us in stark terms of right and left; progressive and conservative; Democrat and republican. Yet, we'd be hard-pressed to conduct our lives that way and still function. I know that some do try and make those distinctions in the real world.

It's been the ambition of the right-wing, for decades, to divide Americans among the ideological lines they draw between their own culture and the rest of the emerging populations based on exploiting social fears and promoting jingoistic nationalism.

The republicans have recently taken to appealing to their mostly white base of voters' fear of that emerging minority-class which is slated to dominate the workplace in this century. We saw that political resistance bubble-up during the nomination and election of the first black president. We saw republicans work to exploit fears of black domination of the political landscape by denigrating the registrars who were signing up black voters in record numbers.

The danger in all of that is the likelihood of regarding everyone we work with, live with, and relate with outside of here with the same, divisive, ideological perspective. I daresay, that's the ultimate aim of political manipulators and operators.

The fact is, most Americans have a myriad of issues and concerns which motivate them politically and otherwise. That shouldn't have to be vocalized, but there's been so much blurring of interests and ambitions surrounding elections that it bears saying.

Blacks aren't one-dimensional. Whites aren't one-dimensional. Liberals aren't one-dimensional. Conservatives aren't either. Certainly, in this political bubble that we enjoy here on this progressive message board, there are stark lines being drawn between viewpoints. I suppose all of that may need to be sorted out into these little ideological boxes we sometimes create to help us keep track of where we're coming from in our little discussions.

I'd wager, however, that the majority of the sorting out is just flat-out incorrect. It just stands to reason. We can't possibly be all that much less complex and thoughtful than the rest of the electorate. We think deeply and look for answers to confirm what we feel, experience, relate. We aren't one-dimensional, at least on this board, we're actually pretty well informed about our choices.

among the larger groups that participate on this forum is between members of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Left. The Democratic Party consists of registered democrats, the majority of whom will always vote for a democrat. They view the political struggle in the context of the two-party system. There is, of course, a lot of truth in their position.

The Democratic Left includes some registered democrats, as well as a collection of people who identify themselves as being a Green, a socialist, a democratic socialist, as not belonging to any party, etc. They tend to view the two-party system as keeping the public trapped, by making most elections more about the lesser of two evils. And there is, of course, a lot of truth in their position.

The question becomes one of if these two sides (and I mean in the larger society) can find enough common ground for it to be in everyone's best interests to support a given candidate. When (including on DU) the position is taken that the Democratic Left has no other option, that is, of course, taking a group for granted.

When it comes to party loyalty, many on the Democratic Left have long enough memories to recall several presidential elections where a large number of conservative and even moderate democrats voted for republican presidential candidate -- Nixon in 1972, Reagan twice, etc. It would be difficult to convince the Democratic Left that they share common values with these democrats. But I suppose I should give some of our forum members credit for trying -- although I suspect they should be focusing more attention on their own ranks.

brought me here, legal equality for LGBT people. When I arrived many were openly hostile, several actually believed Obama was devoutly opposed to gay people, and the average 'moderate' here would gladly 'Straightsplain' that equality was 'impossible for a generation, don't let the perfect be the enemy of half a loaf, be pragmatic and give up' and they would do so endlessly.
It is good for people to meet those who are unlike themselves. It makes them think. That's why I come here.
It is difficult on some days not to laugh at the posters (and they are plentiful) who were raging against equality until the day Obama 'evolved' who instantly changed their opinion to fit with his. It was too obvious in some posters. I'm happy they now profess support, and that is sign that the liberal side of things always wins after we let the 'center and right' piss and moan and tell us how religious they are for a few weeks.

I joined sometime around maybe 2004. Not sure. I'd have to check.

The issues then were a little different. We had not yet left Iraq. Our economy was in trouble but no one was admitting it.

It isn't just DU that has changed. It's times. It's the country. It's the world. It's us. I personally have to admit that I have grown older. Many of us have. That's the way it goes.

Complaining about change is a waste of time but we all do it.

I am sometimes annoyed when someone posts a lot of stuff on DU that is so consistently the Democratic Party line that I think it is almost pure propaganda. I can think of one or two DUers who, in my opinion, do that. But I bet that if I named them, someone else would say that my two were OK, but look over there, those guys are the propagandists.

Tolerance is the key. We have to agree to disagree sometimes.

Policies that were raged against through the Bush admin are now defended and championed as wonderful things.

Growing is a part of life. Adopting Republican policies as positives because Obama continues them is insanity.

People on the DU always see things differently. For instance, I like this feature. Often times I read some outraged over something going on in the Democratic party and the media simply doesn't cover the Democratic position. Several posters clearly have access to party information and it is highly informative to know what the party thinks, what their rational is, and why it is doing what it is doing. I don't always agree with it, but honestly many times the DU is the only place you're going to find this information given to you in a clear manner.

The DU is, has been, and likely will be more liberal than the actual Democratic party. Some people long for purity in their politics and politicians others really do tote the party lines. But I really never see much change on the DU.

Thanks.

And not always in a good way...in fact seldom.
Can you think of any group that has?...most of the ones of the past have disappeared completely or have become so mainstream they are not even recognizable.

And the ones that have been destroyed were destroyed from the inside, as the highly committed (or radical) elements come to power and want everyone to line up and march in lock step to any and all ideas they have for change.
And the results is that most of the rank and file who also want change get pissed at the bullying tactics of the leaders and just leave...and eventually all you have is the most radical ones who turn it into a cartoon organization that will have only a negative effect on the populous at large.

At least that is my opinion by observations going back to the 60s...and it seems to repeat itself...and because of it the GOP still is in charge no matter how crazy they are...because we show them we can be crazy too in the eyes of the voter...who then don't even bother to vote because they think both sides are nuts.
And the low voter turn out favors the GOP because they have the majority of radicals who always vote.

So IMO the key to losing elections is to piss as many people off as you can...divide and conquer always works.

And BTW the civil right movement succeeded because they did not fall for that one...and kept their eyes on the prize.