Criticizing an opponent's RECORD is not "character assassination"

Criticizing an opponent's VOTING RECORD, & MONEY sources are NOT "personal attacks" or "character assassination".

Both political opponents and VOTERS should in fact be doing TWO THINGS in this and every election -- and with EVERY candidate:

1. Look at the candidate's voting RECORD ie: how they voted on legislation that came before them or in chambers (it's public info)
2. FOLLOW THE MONEY (much of it is public info - much more should be).

Often, the two coincide in "interesting" ways. Sometimes, not.

Either way, you can learn a lot about a candidate by looking at these two things. You can determine a lot about their character, their priorities, and their JUDGEMENT. It's important to note these things about any candidate.

Questioning an opponent's JUDGEMENT in voting a particular way on various pieces of legislation or for going to war is thus not a "personal attack" or "character assassination" or "because she's a woman". It's LOOKING AT THEIR RECORD. And doing so is a valid exercise. PARTICULARLY when the criticisms should raise questions in the minds of voters.

So, the bullshit claims that Sanders is "running a negative campaign and he said he wouldn't do that!" -or- "he's personally attacking Hillary!" -or- "that's character assassination!" -- are BULLSHIT.

Sanders is doing what he and every voter out there ought to be doing (whether they do it do Sanders or Clinton or Trump or whoever). It's a valid exercise.

He's sticking to the ISSUES and he's DOING HIS JOB as a candidate by questioning her RECORD and distinguishing himself and his judgement from hers based on their past RECORD.

Meanwhile, Clinton's supporters are attacking Mrs. Sanders' appearance. And that IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. (Not to mention sexist as Hell)

Pretentious hypocrisy is the hallmark of REPUBLICANS. Please don't behave like them. Democrats are better than that.