Getty Images

Just over a year ago, I watched as Bernie Sanders announced his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Against a picturesque Burlington Waterfront Park backdrop dotted with quintessentially New England sloops coasting by, the Vermont senator laid out a platform based on overturning wealth inequality, raising the minimum wage, reversing climate change, reforming both campaign finance and Wall Street, providing universal health care, and making college more accessible for all—in short, all the issues that mattered most to me as an American. Issues that I did not foresee becoming core to the Clinton campaign. As I saw the crowd reverberate with applause and wave their "Bernie 2016" banners, it occurred to me: Maybe the inevitability of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was not as inevitable as I'd believed.

Throughout the entire contentious primary season, I would never have classified myself a "Bernie or Bust" type of supporter. Sure, he was my candidate of choice, but by no means could I deny that Hillary Clinton is an incredibly accomplished and pragmatic politician. Despite my respect for Clinton as a candidate, my personal values have often aligned with her opponent's but that hasn't stopped me from being excited about the chance to elect our country's first woman president.

The first presidential election I was eligible to vote in was 2008, and like so many of my peers, I was enamored with Barack "Change We Can Believe In" Obama. I spent hours knocking on strangers' doors, canvassing, and making phone calls, and I had a lot of heated debates with Hillary Clinton supporters. A lot of them. After eight long years under George W. Bush, I was ready for a president who would bring serious social change and (most importantly to me) end the Iraq War. But when I considered the two candidates’ positions, then-New York Senator Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq War was just too large a blemish on her political track record.

The last eight years didn't ease my mind, and I'm not alone—countless Bernie supporters are rightfully worried about what Clinton's previous foreign policy track record might mean for the future. After Obama took office, Clinton seemed to flourish as Secretary of State—all the while presenting a new, millennial-friendly public image (hello, Texts from Hillary). But, again, her hawkishness often left me uneasy. Even after leaving office, her affinity for interventionism was not something I could support (case in point: her clash with President Obama over his 2013 decision not to invade Syria). And though no charges were pressed against Clinton over her damn emails, I do think FBI director James Comey put it best when he said the whole Clinton camp was “extremely careless” with handling classified information.

Bringing it back to the presidential campaign, as I watched Sanders emerge from fringe candidate status to formidable opponent, all of these things came to mind. Seeing how economic disparity had only worsened during the quarter century I’d been on this earth, Sanders’ brand of democratic socialism truly resonated with me. I want a federally-mandated $15 minimum wage. I want Medicare for all. I want free tuition at public colleges and universities. I want to break up the big banks. As Bernie's main talking points continued to resonate with millions, they were juxtaposed against an ongoing discussion about Clinton’s numerous Wall Street speeches—and why she seemed so reluctant to release the transcripts. And of course, there was the lingering issue of the Iraq War. Though Obama was vocal about his opposition to the invasion during his 2008 campaign, he wasn't actually in the Senate when the vote was cast. Sanders was, and he voted against it. In my eyes, this was a key difference between the two 2016 contenders.