I would have preferred Bernie to run as an independent (that is, after all, what he really is in that no democrat since B. Clinton would be recognized as anything other than a Liberal Republican by a genuine Democrat). But then I would also prefer to live in a country where the entirety of our body politic wasn't owned by the Banker/Big Pharma/Big Insurance/Big Oil/MIC class. But such is not the case.
The DNC didn't like that "an outsider" could come into their primaries and remind their base (who never has anywhere else to go) what a real Democrat looks like. It didn't help matters that the DNC and all established democrats since 1992 were repugnant enough to real Democrats that Bernie's camp felt no compulsion to help this other wing of the Plutocrats Party survive. So, they got angry with him. He was showing them up and worse, wouldn't bail them out financially. They, therefore, had no difficulty with allowing his competitor's campaign (herself a tried and true member of the oligarchical wing of the democratic party) to control "strategy, messaging and personnel." That all makes sense. The DNC was trying to save itself and had Bernie won (and therefore have had control of the DNC) then all the corporate shill lackeys that have had control of the democratic party since B. Clinton would be out on the streets. To make matters worse, they were hosting him in their primaries and the ungrateful bastard wouldn't pay them off. And they'd grown very accustomed to being paid off.
So, was the nomination rigged in the sense that votes were changed? I don't think so. But I do think, and am confident the evidence suggests, that the DNC did not want this outsider transforming its party back into the party of Roosevelt. I do think when decisions had to be made about how many and when to have debates, this anti-Bernie bias played into the decision making. How much that affected the ultimate outcome, I don't believe anyone can say.
The Superdelegates were supposed to keep an outsider (read: non-corporate shill) from having any chance of winning the nomination. It's worked pretty well so far. But 2016 looked like it might actually be a year in which the superdelegates alone could not keep a Progressive at bay.
The DNC didn't like that "an outsider" could come into their primaries and remind their base (who never has anywhere else to go) what a real Democrat looks like. It didn't help matters that the DNC and all established democrats since 1992 were repugnant enough to real Democrats that Bernie's camp felt no compulsion to help this other wing of the Plutocrats Party survive. So, they got angry with him. He was showing them up and worse, wouldn't bail them out financially. They, therefore, had no difficulty with allowing his competitor's campaign (herself a tried and true member of the oligarchical wing of the democratic party) to control "strategy, messaging and personnel." That all makes sense. The DNC was trying to save itself and had Bernie won (and therefore have had control of the DNC) then all the corporate shill lackeys that have had control of the democratic party since B. Clinton would be out on the streets. To make matters worse, they were hosting him in their primaries and the ungrateful bastard wouldn't pay them off. And they'd grown very accustomed to being paid off.
So, was the nomination rigged in the sense that votes were changed? I don't think so. But I do think, and am confident the evidence suggests, that the DNC did not want this outsider transforming its party back into the party of Roosevelt. I do think when decisions had to be made about how many and when to have debates, this anti-Bernie bias played into the decision making. How much that affected the ultimate outcome, I don't believe anyone can say.
The Superdelegates were supposed to keep an outsider (read: non-corporate shill) from having any chance of winning the nomination. It's worked pretty well so far. But 2016 looked like it might actually be a year in which the superdelegates alone could not keep a Progressive at bay.