HRC would have been nominated without the superdelegates...that proves we don't NEED them.

[Ken Burch]

76. This thread isn't even about the nominee, or any other candidate.

What I'm saying is, as Democrats we should be the party that makes all progressive people welcome, that includes rather than excludes(while expecting everybody who is included to treat everybody else with respect).

It's in our interest as a party to make politics inviting and accessible...to be the place where people with progressive ideas, principles and passion are reached out to, whoever they are.

I know what it feels like to when the party doesn't do that...when it gives you the "shut up, know your place and do what you're told" treatment. It sounds like you've experienced that, too. You didn't deserve being treated like that. Neither does anybody else.

And the thing is it, it doesn't help the party to treat anybody like that.

It simply drives people away, sometimes driving them away from political involvement altogether.

Obama won because he sounded like he would challenge that idea of what our party's inner political culture should be-that it would be a party run from below as much from above. While the Obama Administration did some good things, the Obama era never allowed there to be that kind of transformation within the party. Now, we need to actually become the party we were supposed to become then.

Why not do that? Why not make this a party where all the voices from below...POC, LGBTQ people, women, progressive activists of all sorts, peace activists, rank-and-file labor and those who organize against austerity and neoliberalism are working together to shape what we're about, with candidates emerging from that kind of politics?

Compared to 2016, where we essentially lost everything on every level, what could possibly be worse in trying that?