Weeks ago I argued that Bernie Sanders had already done damage to his own brand but hadn’t yet realized it.

His fateful (and likely fatal) decision to go hard negative on Hillary in 2016 was one of the reasons for Hillary’s clean sweep on March 15th and her prohibitive delegate advantage.

*****

I’ll repeat: Bernie’s Wall Street dog whistle is a barely concealed attempt to accuse Hillary Clinton of corruption, despite the fact that he lacks a scintilla of evidence to support that claim.

No matter how lofty and inspiring his message (and progressive values are inspiring), it is deeply unjust – and frankly, reckless – to run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s character through false innuendo.

If Bernie and his campaign want to keep running in the face of improbable odds, then how about running against what Republicans stand for? How about making proposals on issues and letting the people decide if they like them? How about dropping the artful smears against Hillary?

In the months after Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was freed from Taliban captivity, senior Army officials responsible for determining why he walked off his outpost and for recommending what the consequences should be struck a far milder and more sympathetic tone than Army commanders who are now pursuing charges that could send him to prison for life, new documents show.

The documents, which have not previously been disclosed, indicate that the Army’s 22-member investigative team, which spent two months interviewing scores of witnesses and compiled the report that formed the initial basis for prosecuting Sergeant Bergdahl, never proposed that he could be tried on the most serious charge he now faces: endangering the troops sent to search for him.

This dissonance has led members of the sergeant’s defense team to question whether the tougher line reflected improper influence from higher levels of the military or political considerations as top Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail declared the sergeant guilty and demanded he face stiff punishment.

The documents include a 371-page transcript of Sergeant Bergdahl’s interview in August 2014 with Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, who headed the Army’s investigation. The transcript provides the most complete account yet of his disappearance from a remote base in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009, which prompted a huge manhunt.

Today, I will announce the person whom I believe is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

*****

First, a Justice should possess an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and an unquestionable mastery of law. There is no doubt this person will face complex legal questions, so it is imperative that he or she possess a rigorous intellect that will help provide clear answers.

Second, a Justice should recognize the limits of the judiciary’s role. With a commitment to impartial justice rather than any particular ideology, the next Supreme Court Justice will understand that the job is to interpret the law, not make law.

However, I know there will be cases before the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. In those cases, a Justice’s analysis will necessarily be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.

Therefore, the third quality I looked for in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing times. In my view, that’s an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

****

President Barack Obama

P.S. If you’re looking for the latest on my Supreme Court nominee and the confirmation process in the Senate, check out @SCOTUSnom on Twitter. You’ll find all the facts and up-to-date information there.

Name American history's greatest, most natural, gifted politicians: LBJ. JFK. RFK. Bill Clinton. Barack Obama. Ronald Reagan.

What do they have in common (other than the three-initial thing)? They're all men.

*****

Qualities we associate with leadership – assertiveness, confidence, competitiveness – are also qualities for which we reward men and punish women. Bill Clinton, it's often said after any event at which he appeared, "owned the room": He's warm and personable, but also assertive, charismatic, and the center of attention. As one of the most brilliant and skilled presidents in American history, Bill Clinton has earned that confidence. But compare him to George W. Bush, another American president not exactly known for his intellectual prowess or political skill, but still "a guy I'd like to have a beer with" according to a significant number of American voters. Bush, too, exuded confidence. And many studies have shown that confidence, especially among men, is often mistaken for competence. Over-confidence, which often presents as I-know-it-when-I-see-it descriptors like "charisma" or "charm," is more present in men than women. It's why "Lord, give me the confidence of a mediocre white man" is combination funny/sad: Many women see just how far our middling male peers get on the fumes of self-assurance alone.

*****

People who believe they and they alone are the best suited of the 318.9 million people who live in the United States to be the nation's president share a few characteristics: Self-assuredness bordering on pathology; a desire for power and status; a hunger for admiration and approval. They are not lacking in confidence, but they are surely not your average human creatures. They are, in short, politicians, where everything, including perceived authenticity, is carefully calculated and cultivated. We need to care less about who does the best job at convincing us they're genuine and whose political skills seem the most natural, and instead ask whether they're competent, experienced, skilled, promoting policies with which we agree, and able to accomplish their proposed agenda. If that were the standard for male and female politicians alike, we might just see more women in elected office, leading us in all their stilted, robotic, witchy, bitchy, unnatural, unapologetically ambitious glory.

Real Clear Politics polling average Hillary 62.5 to Bernie 18.5.

Primary results: Hillary 82.6, Bernie 16.5

1) Donald Trump is very, very close to clinching the nomination...

2) Hillary Clinton’s loss in Michigan won’t stop her steady march to the nomination...

3) The electorate is furious...