Poor Bernie.

[Crossless2.0]

Having said that, I think the DNC's behavior in regard to Bernie, as revealed by the leaked emails, is disgraceful.

Why?  What is "disgraceful" about the DNC trying to elect a democrat instead of a lifelong independent who decided to make a run in the only possible place which would tolerate him?  Did the RNC unite to assist Drumpf?  I think not.  It really is time to learn what a political "party" is and what it is not. 

Sanders has shown a lot more common sense than his backers.

As others have pointed out, it's the DNC's flouting of its own rules that is disgraceful. This has fuck-all to do with the party leadership trying to elect a Democrat as opposed to a lifelong independent. There were other Democrats with establishment bona fides in the race before Sanders ate them for breakfast, and they apparently didn't have this kind of backstage 'assistance' to discredit their progressive rival's campaign. To put the most charitable interpretation on this as I can, this was about Sanders's perceived un-electability in November. Elements of the party leadership circled the wagons to help nominate the one person they thought could win against the GOP. Whether Sanders was really un-electable in the general election is debatable, but I can at least understand the thinking here, since I too had my doubts about his prospects should he have won the nomination. Nevertheless, that is no reason for the party leadership to violate the neutrality they were supposed to uphold. This was supposed to be about what the voters decided. Candidates and their campaign staffs can come up with their own talking points; it's not the job of the damn referees.

Less charitably, I could speculate that the presence of a real progressive, running independently of the party machinery and money men, was an embarrassment to the DNC, as it exposed their preferred candidate as a compromised centrist in the pockets of Wall Street and other special interests. Is Clinton better than the GOP's offerings? Yes, of course, but that's a pretty fucking low bar to clear. It's hard for such a person to claim the progressive high ground when the real deal is nipping at her heels at every turn. Shit, the Democrats had a collective meltdown after Nader drained away just enough votes from Gore to put the 2000 race up for grabs and into the hands of the Supreme Court. That was bad enough. But a Nader-type candidate in their own tent, threatening not merely to peel away some votes but to actually win the nomination? Perish the thought!

I'm on board with Clinton. She has a wealth of experience to bring to bear. She is bright as hell. And she is so obviously superior to Trump in every respect that it doesn't even merit debate, as far as I'm concerned. But she is shady. She does drag a lot of unnecessary baggage into the proceedings that the GOP can use to muddy the waters. And I am concerned about her commitment to enacting many of the progressive planks she and Bernie supposedly now agree upon.

As I said, I may be able to have my cake and eat it too: if a vote for Hillary looks doomed to irrelevance here in Louisiana, I won't lose any sleep about making a protest vote against the Democrats and their machinations. If the polls are close, I won't hesitate to vote for Clinton.

Frankly, Min, I'm surprised you are not outraged at the DNC's wanting to make Bernie's alleged atheism an issue. What the fuck?!? Or is your outrage over religious bigotry only reserved for low-stakes games on internet websites?