That's the spirit that got those bravely risking everything to gain essential information from the Nazis for the Resistance killed by unthinking patriots during and after the war, because they assumed that these just must be collaborators, since some others were - even though they may have in actuality saved many lives. Finding out too late what an ... embarrassing mistake? it was killing heroes?

When in doubt, go by character and principles, not by the fact that some others are corrupt or weak.

Dunno who called Hillary a 'revolution' - did spell-check mess up 'revolting' again?

You appear to have been asleep when he railed against the corrupt economic system and the corrupt campaign finance system. His primary theme has been to fix the corrupt system so that it operates for the people. How one could rail against those corruptions and give corruption of the actual electoral process a pass is beyond comprehension. That is the problem for Sanders's credibility going forward- when faced with stark evidence of corruption, what do you do? Yes, it's a challenge for him, but I would argue it's one he cannot evade without detriment to his standing. Embracing the candidate who rigged the election can only undermine his credibility. Be clear- my problem was not with his endorsement of Clinton (although I disagreeed with it, I respect that decision). It is endorsing Clinton with the knowledge that she rigged the election and denied the people a fair and free election. That is where my disappointment with Sanders lay.

You appear to hold the "common wisdom" views (I would call them bourgeois) about fear and optics and not upsetting the apple cart. I reject those attitudes. Perhaps this is the core of our disagreement. Playing the ossified game- worrying about optics, worrying about upsetting people, worrying about appearing angry (in short, acting out of fear)- is a loser. You think looking like an angry old man would undermine him? Where have you been? He has been angry at times and he has already been portrayed that way in teh media. You're fearing the breakdown that has already occurred. The people have the ability (as they have demonstrated) to understand anger when it is warranted. (Of course, the comfortable class hates anger; it scares them because they have never understood anger, given their privileged lives. Anger is a threat to their comfort.) And anger at a corrupted electoral process is warranted. It is quelling that anger that is the detriment. It invalidates that righteous anger. And that is a betrayal.

You also place a great deal of value in the "inside game" (the worst tired trope, IMO). What does he gain from an inside position if he loses the confidence of the people who stood behind him? He chose to step into the limelight to start a movement of citizens. There is no role for the people in the "inside game." Bernie has been playing the inside game (successfully, I would argue) for 30 years. If all he wants is to return to that game, with added favor from the insiders for silencing himself in the face of corruption, yes, they will greet him with open arms. But will the people? I suggest they would not. I can certainly speak for myself when I say that we would have to work around Sanders because we know we will not engage the most difficult battles. He would be merely a helpful insider, fighting against the corrupt system, impotent in the face of the challenges we face.

Furthermore, a Clinton administration will do everything it can over the next four years to squelch the movement and to keep Sanders in check (which he will have already indicated he is willing to do). She and the DNC will actively work against us. He is, in short, making a deal with the devil.

You also cannot ignore the current context. We have heard words for the past 30 years, without action. Bernie presented himself as being prepared for action. To back away from action in the face of corruption undermines his entire campaign. You obviously disagree, but I think great majority of his supporters will feel betrayed, especially the young voters who thought they finally had a voice.

On the media, your argument makes no sense. You say on the one hand that the media will not cover it even if he does raise the issue and then argue that they would only marginalize him as angry if he did. So, in your eyes apparently, there's nothing to be done. If you're so afraid of media distortion, you might as well crawl in a cave- or cave on your principles. The media clearly are in the bag, as the emails demonstrate. If you're going to let them dictate your actions, you've already lost the fight. I would argue that this is the atittude that has dictated politics on the left for the past 30 years. It's why all of the leftist organziation are overrun with comfortable class people with no real desire to fight. Keep that powder dry! has been the mantra (which you appear to embrace). The irony of your view is that the media will use Sanders's acquiescence repeatedly to divide his movement. Well, Bernie supports Clinton, so only the deadenders are still battling against her.

Worrying about the media is a cowardly crouch IMO. Look at what has been accomplished with the media's silence. (You seem to forget that, too.) His message was able to pierce the media silence and condescension because the message carried over the din. It was his willingness not to be hampered by the media, not to play the game that you advocate, that has garnered support. His supporters have used social media to get around that blackout.

Sanders was on national news shows yesterday. Had he taken a stand, his message would have gotten out by word of mouth and social media (to say nothing of the actual eyeballs watching the shows). Same with his convention speech. He holds 43% of the delegates at the convention and millions of voters and other supporters. He has the highest favorability of the pres candidates. That wouldn't disappear if he spoke out. I would argue that it would grow stronger in number and commitment.

You continue with your snideness demanding anything but "magical thinking and unsupported conjecture." Typical small-minded attitude. Yes, your conjecture is meritorious, notwithstanding that you have offered no support. But opposing views are absurd or magical thinking. I will offer this support to you- look at the comments of Sanders supporters here, on social media, and elsewhere. There is a lot of disappointment. You will dismiss that from your comfy perch. But what do you have to offer in support of your position?