Assuming that she is not indicted (which most legal experts do not believe will happen)

I don't see how it stays on the front page. Yeah, we over here can maybe agree that she didn't make the best choices in terms of setting this up but unless it's shown that she did something patently illegal that harmed national security, I just can't fathom how most average people not already inclined to hate Hillary will care. Trump has tons more baggage- and he turns off more people every time he opens his mouth. Hillary- with all of her shortcomings- will still look reasonable and mature by comparison IMHO.

And Hillary (and supporters) haven't been pretty demonized too?

If the thought of Trump becoming President

isn't horrific enough to make them AT LEAST hold their noses and vote for Hillary, then I would question their progressive bonafides/concern for the country. Yeah, Hillary might not be as progressive as Bernie but she won't be a disaster for the country like four (maybe even eight) years of Trump as POTUS. I challenge anybody to make a contrary argument.

Few points

Transgender persons don't carry around "proof" of their GD and there are some people whom identify as Transgender whom haven't been to a therapist yet and officially diagnosed as such and some have yet to start medical transition (and some whom don't plan on medical transition or whom are unable due to pre-existing conditions or medical issues). Being Transgender is such a subjective experience too that can be difficult for one to "prove" it to another person. That being said, I think that, despite letters or some kind f physical proof, it still would be fairly easy for authorities to weed out the people whom genuinely assert they are Transgender from those whom are simply being obnoxious (i.e. right wing fundies entering the "wrong bathroom" to prove a point) or inappropriate. I would also suggest that most Transgender people- because of risks to their own safety (which has been made worse by NC's law and the current discussion of it)- keep to themselves and aren't out to draw attention to themselves.

Has he ever discussed this with his campaign manager

who helped create the system in the first place? Sanders was welcomed into the party to run for President but it seems like he is trying to demand that the party changes its rules to help him- even though if all superdelegates were banned effectively tomorrow, he still would be in the same position as well in regards to pledged delegates.

Or.......

Hillary is a longtime member of the Democratic Party and most voters in the Democratic Primary believe that she is best qualified to be POTUS? Maybe because many Democratic Primary voters don't trust Bernie due to him only recently joining the party just so that he can run for President? Maybe because most Democratic Primary voters believe that Hillary is more likely to deliver on her agenda than Bernie? Maybe because most Democratic Primary voters don't view this election- or the selection of Hillary- as being apocalyptic as some Sanders supporters believe it is?

Obama was ahead, however

It is virtually impossible for Bernie to tie or pull ahead of Hillary at this point.

I honestly haven't heard this line of attack

Can't say that I agree with it (outside of them both being "anti-establishment&quot though the constant comparisons of Hillary to Republicans, calling her a "Goldwater Girl" and declarations that there is "no difference" between Hillary and Republicans are pretty irksome/inaccurate IMHO. I feel like we're re-living Election 2000 where we were coming off a pretty successful two-term Democratic Presidency and progressives, unhappy about the lack of progress on progressive issues (mostly due to Republican control of one or both chambers in Congress for 6 of the 8 years), are unhappy with the presumptive Democratic nominee, accusing said nominee of not being different enough from Republicans, and, in some cases, threatening to stay home in November if they can't vote for the nominee they really want. I can only hope that Election 2016 doesn't end the same way- with an extremist Republican in the WH and Republicans having full control of Congress (and are able to pick Scalia's replacement after all).

Might as well abolish parties then

If anybody can vote in the Democratic Party primary, then what's the point of having it as a party. People whom don't want to belong to the Republican or Democratic parties have other parties to join, vote for, and try to build into a bigger party.

Unless scores of Bernie supporters refuse to vote for her

She will win the states that Democrats are expected to win generally. Do you see Trump taking any Blue states that Republicans normally lose? And if scores of Bernie supporters decide to NOT vote for Clinton under any circumstances then, well, hello President Republican. Is that what Bernie supporters really want (I would assume/hope not)? Is having a Republican President for the next 4-8 years *really* going to be better for the country than 4-8 years of President Hillary Clinton? I mean, c'mon. Really? Hillary may not be a "progressive icon" like Sanders in but anybody thinking rationally will have to concede that they will be happier and less miserable under President Hillary Clinton than they will under President Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. No, she isn't going to rip apart "the establishment" root and branch and replace it with a progressive utopia (and neither would Sanders accomplish this BTW) but she will get to pick the next one or more SCOTUS Justices, scores of Federal Judges, run federal agencies, and conduct foreign policy. Do we want her doing these things or Donald Trump? How did the whole Nader debacle help things back in 2000? Were progressives really happier that we got 8 years of Bush in the WH instead of Al Gore? And are Bernie supporters ready to go down that path again on the heels of another successful Democratic Presidency? I certainly hope not. Some people need to seriously calm down and get a grip about Hillary Clinton.