on our blog post about making the list.

CRN doesn't have a hissy fit over it. But, then again, CRN's director isn't working for our competition.

when her score is much lower than Bernie's (82% vs 95%) with a much shorter track record than his.

That's the real issue.

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/hillary-rodham-clinton

No doubt someone was paid off because there's no explanation for it.

Their endorsement also included initiatives she instituted while Secretary of State.

http://www.lcv.org/media/press-releases/LCV-Action-Fund-Endorses-Hillary-Clinton-for-President.html

Boy, Hillary's internal polling must be taking a swan dive. The entire establishment and Hillary's henchmen are hell bent to discredit Bernie this week.

This one is the most ridiculous, though.

If they really had a problem with the campaign using the logo, they should have just called them up and told the campaign why. There was no reason to pen a press release, especially since what the Sanders campaign wrote is exactly what the LCV wrote on their own webpage.

Fear is a traditional tool in that effort. So efforts to make Sanders look bad are on the rise

nothing is too ridiculous to be used

That doesn't mean that Bernie can use it.

On second thought, you should volunteer for Bernie's legal team. They could use this kind of out-of-the-box thinking.

Say, you think I can send out propaganda mailers with Amazon's logo on them? After all, their logo is right next to my name every time I log on there?

It's much ado about nothing.

The Sanders campaign probably didn't think the LCV would throw a hissy fit when what they printed says exactly what the LCV says on their own webpage.

I gave a similar example above.

Which is on every scorecard page.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/lcv-responds-to-green-backlash-after-endorsing-144158465.html

The League of Conservation Voters is defending its controversial endorsement in the Democratic primary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — who by the group’s own rating system has a better environmental record.

Complaints flooded the Facebook page of the LCV Action Fund after the endorsement was announced Monday — the earliest ever for the influential green group and the first time it has chosen a candidate before any primary votes were actually cast. Sanders, who has made fighting climate change one of his signature issues, along with income inequality, has a lifetime voting score of 95 from the LCV. Clinton’s rating is 82. “What an embarrassment! No organization which is serious about environmental progress would endorse HRC over Senator Sanders,” one commenter wrote.

Others vowed to stop donating money to the organization altogether. They variously cited Clinton’s votes for offshore oil drilling in the Senate, her support for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, domestically and overseas as secretary of state and her refusal for many months to publicly take a stand on the polarizing Keystone XL oil pipeline. (She ultimately came out in September against the pipeline, which President Obama vetoed on Friday.)

Sanders, on the other hand, has been against the Keystone XL oil pipeline since the beginning and has consistently opposed offshore oil drilling and fracking throughout his career.

Check out some of the 2700+ comments below that article. They hammer their choice of Hillary.

When I compared the two
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1085310

I found similar things. Bernie has been much stronger and more consistent in his support for this cause.

LCV reasoning was they just thought Hillary was the best shot against the GOP (like we've heard from so many even though the polls suggest otherwise).

I seriously doubt the organization's recommendation was based on who was "the best shot against the GOP".

So LCV's own scoring system agrees that Bernie has been much stronger and more consistent in his support for this cause.