>>>I would never want a victory as tainted as the one HRC was just given
>
>I'm curious: lots of commentators said the DNC party apparatus was against Sanders all along - as it was last time against Obama, fwiw. It was no secret that the DNC elites and party infrastructure were all for Hilary in 2008 and when Obama won despite them, unsurprisingly he didn't cuddle up or issue traditional rewards afterwards. Sanders clearly knew what was up and had joined the fray, e.g. his public statement "let me also say this, in all due respect to the current [DNC] chairperson: If [I am] elected president, she would not be reappointed chairwoman of the DNC."
>
>So I'm just wondering why it's a scandal of scandals now - is there a particular e-mail from the wikileak that got you going or is this just an opportunity to bang the familiar old drum again?

JR, there's a big difference between the DNC's actions in 2008 vs 2016. I remember 2008 very well - it was a bitter fight, with HRC actually carrying a slight edge on the popular vote and Obama carrying more of the super delegate vote

The DNC scheduled far fewer debates in 2016 than the did in 2008, in recognition that HRC is a very poor debater. They knew that a grass-roots candidate like Sanders would spell trouble for HRC, especially given the recent HRC problems.

As for the WikiLeaks content, it speaks for itself. There are blatant situations where the DNC tried to discredit and trip up Sanders. There are emails that make racist comments to describe Hispanic/Latino outreach. There are emails that talk about plans to attack Sanders based on his religion. There are emails that talk about news organizations sending news stories to the DNC for vetting/approval, and stories of the DNC telling a news network (MSNBC) to "back off and stop it, now" when that network was being critical of HRC and the DNC. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the content. It is beyond disturbing. The DNC engaged in tactics that they have accused the RNC of for years.

But perhaps the biggest problem is HRC's reaction on 60 minutes on Sunday night. HRC refused to discuss the content, and would not even comment on a hypothetical question on whether it's appropriate for the DNC to favor one candidate over another. I'm about to make an analogy that you probably will not hear anywhere else. This all reminds me of the statements by former Penn State coach Joe Paterno, when he was asked about the actions of Jerry Sandusky. Paterno refused to answer questions. Many sports analysts raised this point..."If you can't speak, how can you coach? If you can't make comments about a situation that has gone public, how can you possibly represent the university in a public setting?"

That is my feeling about HRC - if she is unwilling to speak about the blatantly undemocratic actions of the DNC, how can she accept a nomination in good conscience from the political party whose national committee violated its own principles so blatantly?