Again, its not even really about the details, its the fact that the organization was conspiring behind the scenes to pick one over the other. The people should elect their person, not the DNC. Not sure why you are talking about purity tests.
I will say this, its not like they were trying to spread lies, or misrepresenting his views. The issue is that the primary is marketed as the process that the Democrats elect their representative, and that is not the full truth.
You seem to think that the DNC was going to be completely neutral between someone who had built relationships in it over 30 years and someone who just joined after a lifetime of explicitly spurning the Democratic Party. I find that expectation to be absurd. It was never going to happen and that's a surprise to no one.
Considering the stakes and Clinton and Sanders's relative standing I'm actually surprised the DNC was as neutral as it was.
Its far better to get this to come out and deal with it in the primary than it is to let it come out later. If you are trying to be a pragmatist, then you should see that.
Definitely not, attacks from your own party are much more damaging than attacks from the other party. As a pragmatist I see this.
What you are saying though, is you dont want the people voting with all the information because it could be ammo for the other side.
An election where people do not know who they are voting for is not really democracy. That is unless putting down 1 or 2 as the option and nothing else is democracy to the DNC.
The idea that people are going to get reliable information about candidates from opposing political campaigns is absurd, regardless of the candidate. If people don't know who they are voting for, the opposition candidate is the last person they should be asking for that information.
Parties can look after their interests and be transparent. Also, see above. Not knowing the details is a problem.
That is simply not how politics works.
People can be shitty. Just because its a process made by people does not make it less so. Just because this is standard political behavior does not mean its good. Murder is part of human behavior and in no way should we be accepting of that. This is what I meant when I said you would never apply this logic to other problems. Saying its standard does not mean it should be accepted.
This is part of the normal and efficient running of political campaigns and markets, unlike murder. It is standard because it is the most effective, if someone were to choose to deliberately be less effective in the name of moral purity then they would simply start losing until they re-adopted effective tactics.
It should be accepted because to do otherwise simply puts you at the mercy of anyone not willing to play by your rules (ie: everyone else). It's silliness.
If you were in a Walmart and you wanted a candy bar, but you forgot your wallet, would you steal it knowing nobody would find out? Most people have the ability to steal without being caught, but most people do not steal. Why?
If you want to accept this type of thing as inherent to politics then you are feeding into the problem. Nothing wrong with wanting to make anything a little better or at the very least trying.
Politics isn't beanbag.