Democrats? In Name Only.

Since the election of Mr. Limp, Democrats, Progressives, and political pundits leaning more left than right, have insisted that there must not even be a glimmer of collusion, partisanship, or impropriety emanating from this White House. The Republican faithful, not so much. This is not just a one sided issue. If the 2016 Presidential election had produced a different result, the rhetoric would be reversed. Just think about all all the nasty charges leveled at the Obama administration.
Partisanship is term not reserved to define political differences. It can exist within much smaller subsets of a population. Tommy Smothers always chided his younger brother Dick with the phrase, “Mom always liked you best”. Funny? Certainly was, in the context in which the brothers used it. Biased and partisan? Yes, especially if it was true.
Trying to stay “non-partisan” is a constant struggle with today’s ever widening range ans chasms between ideologies. One would be hard pressed to find a “Berner” that does not believe that the Democratic Party didn’t show partisanship towards Clinton in the 2016 primary contests. The DNC actually endorses bias through their use of the “Superdelegate”, a blatant nod to the policies of the long ago Jim Crow era.
How can the so-called “Democratic” party, and the principles that badge is meant to represent, justify that one person’s vote, just because they are a member of the party’s hiearchy, (or for any reason, for that matter), is worth more than another’s. Another, whose support, through both votes and treasure, they so desperately need. The Democratic Party does not believe in “one person, one vote”. These anointed don’t even have to follow what preferences their “constituents” have displayed. They are on their own. Left alone to follow their own predilection. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not even running in a single primary. D(d)emocratic? No. Partisan? Of course.