Isn't it a _bit_ disingenuous to call yourself a "democratic" party and then attempt to subvert (and eventually throw out) your democratic process for selecting a candidate?

Also I found it quite funny how the emails clearly show that Clinton ordered the media to focus on certain people from the Republican side as "credible" leaders and they included (but were not limited to): Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

I don't understand what the name of the Democrat political party has to do with their process for selecting a candidate.

If the Republican party has the word Republic in it, why don't they use representative electors?

See, doesn't really make sense.

When did the Democrat party make "a pretense of democracy?"

Then what exactly was the superdelegate system?

Exactly as you have described by naming it - a superdelegate system.

Do you believe that the unelected bureaucrats, not accountable to voters, holding 15% of the voting power is just something that is in line with the way one would imagine an ideal democracy in a primary?

Certainly not a perfect one, no, but that is exactly how the process works, so I don't see any pretense.

I voted for Bernie Sanders but pop over to the Wikipedia page and you'll see that he lost the popular vote by 3 million and change in an election 30 million people participated in. Not the narrowest of margins. In a perfect democracy, he'd have also lost. The superdelegate system was irrelevant in this case.