Aaron Blake of the Washington Post published a desultory piece this morning (4/20) about Bernie Sanders’ supposed “curious” behavior. He mentioned how strange he found it that Sanders didn’t endorse Ossoff for the Georgia special election; that Sanders still didn’t call himself a Democrat; and that he had the audacity to reiterate the notion that Trump didn’t win the election, but rather the Democrats lost. He even criticized Bernie because he (gasp!) “differed” from DNC chair Perez on some points.

Blake’s article could be summed up as follows: why isn’t Bernie doing and saying what the establishment wants?

It is not curious, but it is bemusing, that Blake and other establishment pundits and politicians still somehow expect Bernie to fall in line, and still don’t get why he won’t. The most telling moment might be Blake’s take on Bernie saying he didn’t endorse Ossoff because he didn’t know much about him. Blake says it’s odd, because Democrats have invested so much “money and blood, sweat and tears” in Ossoff.

As if Democratic money should equate to Bernie’s knowlege.

Blake’s piece collapses once you take Bernie at his word: that he didn’t endorse Ossoff, because he doesn’t know much about him. That’s just Bernie acting with integrity, like he always does. All of Bernie’s other supposed ‘curious’ behavior is similarly un-curious once you apply that understanding – his daring to differ with Perez, maintaining his Independent status, and continuing to voice his (widely shared) view that the Democratic Party screwed up the election. In fact, Blake’s piece could be seen to illustrate why Bernie remains an independent: he is not willing to endorse every candidate or idea that the establishment holds up, no matter how much they try to bully him. Funny thing; that’s why he had the audacity to run for President in the first place. Why would anyone suppose he’d change now?