Superdelegate DNC opinion - what's justified, what's poisoning the well so that progressives cannot in conscience take part? Not wanting to hear about recent 2016 superdelegate history is a fault, in the minds of some who believe noses need to be rubbed in it. Rubbed in it in order to get the attention of entrenched comfort off the dime in needed good ways and in productive directions of actual CHANGE. Deny such a need, then perish by intransigence of the we-know-best self seekers' dismissal of popular intelligence. Bernie resonated for a reason and it was not among superdelegates, who favored defeat over victory on newer wiser terms.
UPDATE: Nina Turnder has HOPE. Whether DNC December decisions will be hopeful and helpful remains to be seen. Nina Turner is a realist, but will wait. A claim of a purge is being leveled by a TYT reporter. A more vocal critique, same basis, in another TYT segment.
FURTHER UPDATE: A third TYT exegesis - on the same basis. Should progressives be angered? Should primary challenges proliferate?
Superdelegates have been sub-super and that is unlikely to CHANGE. Fewer is better than many, none is best. Do you expect CHANGE? HOPE? Same old losing stuff? Money corrupting chances for the people to be recognized and served by the party using "Democratic" in its name?
FURTHER: Registered lobbyists mucking around DNC positions of influence? What's happening? Is it for the best of the nation? For the best of the peoples' interests being served?
