Poole patronizes Sanders' delegates here in a way that is insulting and misleading, apparently deliberately so.
He implies that only a few delegates walked or protested. That's false and probably an outright lie.
He implies that such actions are not positive. Care to defend the proposition?
He omits the fact, now otherwise out front and admitted, that the Clinton camp defrauded the electorate and stole the nomination. On what grounds may this be considered irrelevant to what a positive action might be for a Sanders delegate denied Democratic process?
Poole is also an author who wrote a few months ago that the African American demographic should not be criticised for voting for Clinton. At the time, the omission of why they should or should not vote for Clinton seemed unimportant in the light of apparent confusion over whether the demographic should be allowed an opinion. Now that Poole shows so little understanding or empathy for a substantial group of people who have just been so directly defrauded and robbed of democratic process, it appears to be part of more dangerous a pattern.
First Poole would claim that the political choice of a demographic is not to be criticised. And surely there has been no end of injustices perpetrated against black people. That does not mean that the general demographic or any other is always correct about its political choices, and it does not mean that these should not be discussed as such.
And in this situation, there certainly ought to be the freedom to criticise a candidate. Yet here Poole makes an ad hominem attack: petty, indirect, and evasive. I suppose he does indeed have a right to an opinion, though it might be better to have expressed it directly. Either way, did he really not come here to do better, initially?