At bolded: At the point at which she supported Clinton, Sanders only had a mathematical chance anymore to beat Clinton, meaning he would have needed to win the next states with Clinton getting squat and the other unpledged ones would have needed to endorse Sanders. In other words, she endorsed Clinton to not further enlarge the growing rift between the democrats.

It's actually a point that hurts Sanders now these days and that many hate him for: Clinton would have won the election if Sanders (unwillingly, I must add) wouldn't have moved so many voters to rather not vote or to even vote for Trump in protest for what the DNC did to him. There are quite a few who won't forgive him for ruining an election that was promised to the democrats.

I, for one, think that's way too harsh and doesn't address the plethora of Clinton's faults, which were at least equally damaging, as they made her an easy target for Trump. But there are some who will return the favor and not vote if he's gonna make the primaries as payback for the last election.

At underlined: Nevermind the platform, how could you not see coming what Trump would do? In fact, He managed to do even worse than I feared, and my bar was in the third underground already. It's a mystery to me how anyone could believe him back then, and an even bigger mystery how there's still anybody, let alone millions, who still do so after all his blatant and transparent lies.

As for your last sentence, no, you're no hypocrite since you truly believe in what you said, but blinded for sure.

Why did she wait so long to make an endorsement? She should have endorsed Bernie earlier.

anti establishment, anti war

Warren and Sanders share more in common than Warren and Clinton. I don't like why it took her so long to make an endorsement and when she did she endorsed Clinton.

Looking back now that Trump is president yeah he is bad but during the election I liked his messaging of changing America by draining the swamp and ending endless wars. He hasnt done none of that now but at the time you couldnt really know unless he had power if that makes sense.

Dude, even back then Trump was pretty much the swamp personified. He could just as well have said that he's going to give away all his money, that would have been just as believable.Anyone knowing just a tiny bit more than his persona on that TV show where he fired everyone would have known better than this.

Warren endorsed Clinton on June 9th, 2016. This was two days AFTER Clinton's victory on June 7th.

I think everyone did OK last night except for Castro and Yang. O'Rourke had some interesting moments. Nothing that should, in theory, change the race in any significant fashion.

The national convention was in July. Clinton was not the official nominee til then.

Warren isn't a hypocrite, although there are legitimate criticisms of her as there are for every candidate that's not one of them. Bernie endorsed Clinton as well. It is mind boggling though that she didn't endorse Bernie early on but it is what it is.

If she makes it to the general and takes corporate/big donors money like she said she was open to doing then I think you could call her a hypocrite.

The relevant date is not the ceremony; it's the day she won, June 7th. I don't know if it is some weird (and I hate to use this term) fake-news misinformation, or a bad faith acting, but the circumstances under which Warren endorsed Clinton were effectively identical to Bernie endorsing Clinton. To say one is positive and justified while the other is negative and heinous is blatant hypocrisy on the part of that segment of Bernie supporters.

DC had its primary on June 14th (a few days after the Warren endorsement) and the Sanders campaign continued to invest time at this race even though his chances were slim so no its not the same as Bernie endorsing Clinton after the primary.