But that was not what you posted about. You were challenging Bowers statement of Obama having the greatest number of "grassroots activists" and you asserted, without proof, that FDR did. As you can see that would have been virtually impossible due to the shear numbers of voters and population not to mention the advent of the Internet which has spawned a whole new breed of activist.

And yes the context does help my argument because context always sheds new, if not 'hidden', light that the critic didn't take into consideration in their critic. But then you know that.

Me being me? Hey the way I see it I'm helping Jeralyn keep her blog accurate and ging othr reader a different perspective on what is written. I don't think she would want a bunch of incorrect things on the front page would she? Especially stuff attacking other bloggers?  Besides, I'm not the only one who disagrees with you from time to time. Everyday I see others disagree with you. Everyday. It comes with the territory.

But again based on today's voting population and the huge numbers of activists both online and off I'd say Bowers is closer to the facts than you are.

But of course if you want to argue that with today's internet, telephones (both land and cell), faxes email, ease of getting around the country, and generally more money available for the average person to have all those things that activism is less today that it was in FDR's era...

Ancient history, yeh, I know.  Another anecdote: When I have students do a reading on abortion in the 19th century, when it still was legal, some are stunned to find out that, as one or another inevitably will write, abortion was "invented" before it was legalized again in the 1970s.

With the expansion of the franchise, as much as 30% of Americans could vote.  Wooooo woooo, huh?  Of course, we only have allowed for vote for a majority of Americans for 84 years now (since some states refused to abide by the 19th Amendment in 1920, and it took the Supreme Court to make them do so in time for the 1924 elections).

 Second, OF COURSE HE HAD SUPPORT.  So did Clinton (she was way ahead in the superdelegate count before it became clear it was going to matter).  Front runners have a tendency to have the support of what you deem "movers and shakers," since, you know, success is contingent on winning.

Chris Bowers writes:

Barack Obama will receive more grassroots, progressive activist support than any other Democratic candidate in history.

Um, more than FDR? I am sorry, but history did not start in 2004.

Speaking for me only

Now, my own reading is that there is NOT ONE WORD critical of Barack Obama in the post. From Bowers or me.

However, if you think saying that Obama is not yet FDR is critical, then I suppose that would allow you to think that.

Finally, you ask:

I don't know much about FDR, what grassroots support did he have?  How did he organize it?  What are the differences between the movement behind Obama and FDR?  Was it the times or was it FDRs ability to organize?

FDR was one of the most fascinating and important figures of the 20th Century, a giant. His political journey is one that anyone interested in progressive politics must study. His adoption of the Progressive agenda (Progressive meant something politcally then) and his cooptation of its themes were a central part of his remaking of the Democratic Party.

But, like Obama, FDR was not wiothout flaws and serious blots on his record. One of the more interesting ones was when he was a NY state legislator and he failed to fight for child labor reform. One of his closest New Deal confidants, Frances Perkins, one of the great women of the 20th century, was forthright and publically critical of FDR at the time.

FDR's story, particularly the political and policy story, is one of the most fascinating and stirring in the history of our country and it galls me no end that so called "Activists" of today have no clue about it.

My post expresses my great frustration with some of today's wannabe grassroots activists who have no sense of the history of our Party and who make such outlandishly stupid statements.

More importantly, I don't know much about FDR...

If this is meant to be ironic, it's puerile.

If it's true, perhaps a site named Talk Left is not the ideal place for you to flaunt your woeful ignorance.  

Was it the times or was it FDRs ability to organize?