Than the alternative. They both suck and lead to the same place
Go Bernie!

(may our numbers grow)

A minor point — it isn’t necessary to change the Democratic party in order to change the country. It depends upon the goal of the revolution whether or not working from within the party is a proper utilization of resources. If it isn’t, then appropriate action elsewhere isn’t so much quitting as it is simply common sense.

Example: The Free Speech Movement did not change University policy by slowly burrowing into and then climbing the rungs of the University Administration so they could try to push it through from the top, but by challenging the University head on, taking it to the streets (in a manner of speaking) and to the courts. We would still be drafting people to fight in Vietnam if it were left up to changing party support for the draft and the war itself within both parties, it needed direct action. The political parties of the day began to grudgingly accept unions and women’s suffrage as a result of direct action.

The Civil War ended in 1865. Brown v Board of Education was 1954. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, oddly enough 1964. The schools are still massively segregated and the Clinton/DLC “Crime Bill” of 1994 was pretty much nothing but a direct assault on persons of color and their neighborhoods in order to keep them in their place and has resulted in mass incarceration and disenfranchisement. Then there’s all the other disenfranchisement. Society as a whole is still generally racist. It is now 2016. The case can be made that we don’t need another Hubert Humphry, but another Martin Luther King, not another Jimmy Carter, but another Malcolm X.

Just “correcting the record” as they say.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1529323/61701300#comment_61701300http:/...

When I think of those who are willing to accept the status quo,who are motivated by fear or narrow self interest
(in other words establishment Democrats)I think of a phrase from Daryl Hall of all people.

"The strong give up and move on while the weak give up and stay."

Having said that I'll be keeping my Dem registration for awhile longer.If we can't hijack the party we can at
least monkeywrench it by voting for insurgent candidates in the mid-term primaries.

Some things are good to quit: heroin, an abusive spouse, cigarettes, dKos, Hillary.

Or (in my best Yoda voice):
Good to you, it is not.
Good for you, it is not.

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

is the Clintons. They and their neo-liberal friends hijacked it years ago and remade it in their own image. The relationship that they have with the members of the Democratic party is an abusive one. It uses fear, strong arming, and humiliation as its weapons. As an example, look at how Bill Clinton dissed Jesse Jackson to his face with the Sista Souljah speech. One cannot stay and change the abuser because the abuse will continue and usually it escalates. It is not quitting to leave an abusive relationship in search of a better life. It is a courageous and very smart decision.

how do you move a comment you accidently entered at the wrong level?

Both Hillary's and Trump's supporters are doing what they're doing out of fear. Why would anyone with any sense of decency fall in line with that?

I salute you. That's a great moral statement.

Especially when in another 4 years we'll just see another boogeyman that the media and the Democratic Party want us to be afraid of so they can keep drawing and quartering us to death.

And that is a great pragmatic statement.

Weren't there "Reagan Democrats" in 1980, or was that 1984? I suspect quitting has its roots in aging out of the draft.