This is unacceptable. How can you be proud of cheating to win?
There is zero fair play at that level of politics, and if you have been coddled on your path to that chair in any way, including expectations of the orderly and fair appraisal of the absolute merits of your platform, you are unprepared.
I'm saying that Clinton, with all her party machinations, is proving that she understands and has controls over real levers of power, which in turn, suggests she is capable of operating at the level required for that position.
Sanders came in expecting a fair fight, and that's completely unrealistic, naive, little league politics. If you can't survive your party's nominating process, whatever that is, you are a light snack for the players at that level.
There are two senses of "expect", one about factual expectations (what you think will happen) and one about moral expectations (what you think should happen). There is plenty of efforts from Sanders efforts to impose accountability from very early on for variously ways the DNC seemed to be putting its finger on the scale that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the second sense, and was prepared to fight to make the fight as fair as possible.
There's zero evidence I can see that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the first sense, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
It's the kind of power where, upon victory, you can erase how you won.
The crux of the problem is that the majority of the voting public has been conditioned to treat their politics religiously. When people are organized as such, the diocese can do whatever it wants and label the collateral damage as heresy.