I don't just mean Kamala who was appointed, or even how the DNC burnt Bernie, but what about Gore, Obama, Kerry...

The media has been liberal for decades, they chose how we see candidates.

Look how Gore's only challenger was portrayed:

Some media outlets critiqued Bradley's campaign style, describing him as sometimes appearing aloof or less dynamic than Gore. His campaign was occasionally described as lacking the vigor or strategic edge needed to overcome Gore's advantages, both in terms of the Democratic establishment's support and the incumbent vice president's visibility.

Bradley's health became a topic of discussion, particularly his atrial fibrillation, which was portrayed as a potential concern for his campaign and his ability to serve as president. This was highlighted especially around the time of the New Hampshire primary.

Initially, there was considerable media interest in Bradley, especially with endorsements from high-profile figures like Michael Jordan. There was early speculation and hope that he might present a real challenge to Gore, particularly in states like New Hampshire where he was sometimes leading in polls. This narrative shifted as he struggled to gain traction, leading to portrayals of his campaign as an underdog effort.

I could do a little digging on how the other primary challengers were treated compared to the favored candidate, but I suspect we will see a pattern.

Democracy has been subverted if true.