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

[Ken Burch]

124. From what I've read they haven't

And why would it surprise you that I might agree with loyalsister and pnwmom on various things? We supported different candidates but that doesn't define every position I take and I suspect we would agree far more than disagree on the issues of the day.

It appears that you see me solely as a Sanders supporter, and that you believe everything I do or say is about pushing for Bernie as a candidate and for trying to impose the ideas of his campaign OVER the ideas of everyone else.

That's not me.

I supported Bernie in 2016, and still feel that was the right choice to make.

I DON'T support the idea of Bernie ever running for president again.

I DON"T believe the party should be "taken over" by Bernie.

I DON'T believe that every idea his campaign had was better than every idea any other campaign had.

What I'm actually working for is a synthesis, for putting the party in support of something like this combination of ideas:

The need to center antioppression work that was associated with the HRC campaign-and was actually accepted and supported by most rank-and-file Sanders people, whatever the former candidate's failings in communication, and he had many;much of what Sanders talked about on economics, adjusted to take into account the effects of historic and continuing oppression; single-payer healthcare and a strengthened ACA until we achieve single-payer; a real antipoverty program based on providing resources for the poor, wherever they live, to improve their own conditions on their own terms; and a foreign policy based on spending a hell of a lot less time trying to rearrange other countries by force.

None of that is tied to any particular candidate and if you feel any of it leaves anyone in the base out, I'm open to adjusting it. My purpose is unity and I don't support ANY candidate at this point.

If you have any suggestions about

As to poverty, I'm sorry, but there have been tiny measures at best since the end of the LBJ era. No major programs were brought in under Carter(who had an overwhelmingly Democratic congress)there was the creation of CHIP but otherwise more lost ground than gained ground in the Clinton yeas-and, other than the ACA, only marginal improvements under Obama.

There were good intentions and occasional small measures, but no Democratic president after 1968 tried to mobilize the country against poverty, none called on Congress, the business sector or there rest of the non-poor to deal with poverty on any significant level other than to treat the poor as if they DESERVED to be lectured, regimented and treated as failures.

It does the party no harm to acknowledge the truth-our party's leaders largely(not totally, but largely)distanced itself from the poor. Given that you weren't the one who decided the party should do that, why would it bother you that I pointed it out? I doubt you were actually thrilled about it.