The Demo­c­ratic National Com­mittee needs to dump Hillary Clinton and #feelthebern.

Democrats must firmly reject the can­didate who has not ded­i­cated her career to the party’s pro­gressive values. Bernie Sanders’ cam­paign reflects a desire for Democrats to leave the past behind and march towards the future.

Sanders’ surge in pop­u­larity has come as a sur­prise to Democrats and Repub­licans alike, but it has sur­prised Clinton the most. The Vermont senator’s sudden rise to national promi­nence echoes Barack Obama’s unex­pected rise and eventual defeat of Clinton in 2008 primary. However, as the New York Times cal­cu­lates, this year’s primary race between Sanders and Clinton is much closer than 2008’s.

While Clinton won Iowa by a coin toss, New Hamp­shire gave her a solid thrashing a week later. Sanders was able to maintain a rel­a­tively close margin in the Nevada primary, but if the 2008 primary results indicate any­thing about voters in the Pal­metto State, it’s that Clinton won’t do well in South Car­olina.

But why couldn’t 2016 be Clinton’s year? Eight addi­tional years in the public eye ought to have but­tressed Clinton’s rep­u­tation and expe­rience. Nev­er­theless, her cam­paign seems more harried than ever. Last fall, House Repub­licans hounded her on whether she broke federal law with the cre­ation of a private email server, and last week, the Wash­ington Times reported that the State Department deemed 15 percent of her last batch of emails too clas­sified to be released.

Because these scandals con­tinue to follow Clinton’s pres­i­dential run, Sanders pro­vides Democrats with the oppor­tunity to maintain their own party’s integrity and dignity.

Throughout the 2016 election cycle, pub­li­ca­tions have called Clinton’s pres­i­dential cred­i­bility into question over her tenure as Sec­retary of State and her con­flicting political state­ments. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that even though the Clinton Foun­dation “swore off dona­tions from foreign gov­ern­ments when Hillary Clinton was Sec­retary of State,” the foun­dation still received “mil­lions of dollars from for­eigners with con­nec­tions to their home gov­ern­ments.” In the same month, Politico reported that Clinton rescinded her support for the Iraq war, calling it a “mistake.” In June of 2015, Poli­tiFact gave Clinton “a full flop” when they reviewed her past 20 years of state­ments on same-sex mar­riage.

Clinton’s tenure reveals an untrust­worthy politician moti­vated by political expe­dience — and the polls con­tinue to show it.

People don’t trust her.

For example, the Wash­ington Post’s article “Hillary Clinton’s honesty problem just keeps getting worse,” doc­u­mented how Clinton’s per­ceived trust­wor­thiness has con­tinued to poll below other pres­i­dential can­di­dates. After the New Hamp­shire primary, Fox News reported that New Hamp­shire voters over­whelm­ingly per­ceived Sanders as more trust­worthy than his opponent.

“[They] are most likely to want a nominee who is honest and trust­worthy … Sanders is favored among voters who pick each of these traits.”

Last October in Foreign Affairs Review, Daisy Fleming examined how Clinton as the Sec­retary of State defended her diplomacy and posed this question: Is Clinton a defender of human rights or a political oppor­tunist? Fleming notes: “She has stressed her role as a ‘fighter’ and a ‘champion’ above all else, empha­sizing her earlier activism above her work as a senator or as Sec­retary of State,” but “Her admin­is­tration was respon­sible for relaxing the sanc­tions against Burma … this engagement has helped paved the way for further human rights abuses.”

The Demo­c­ratic Party suffers because of her public life.

On the other hand, Sanders has a demon­strable record that avoids the political pit­falls that Clinton faces because of her record. Poli­tiFact reported last Sep­tember that Sanders’ statement that he has sup­ported same-sex mar­riage for 30 years is true. He voted against the Clinton administration’s Defense of Mar­riage Act. He can suc­cess­fully counter the accu­sation that his values are formed by political expe­dience. In Sep­tember, the Huff­ington Post recalled that Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which may have been Clinton’s poison pill in the 2008 election.

Sanders’ cam­paign offers the Demo­c­ratic Party more than a nifty hashtag. He offers voters political integrity, some­thing which Clinton has shown herself to lack. The Demo­c­ratic Party needs to rec­ognize the political value of a Sanders pres­i­dency and be com­fortable without a Clinton in the White House.