And the money would have been thrown at a male candidates's car too.

Not everything is sexism.

... saying "call a spade a bloody shovel"?

C'mon, either you admit some things are inappropriate to say/do when a candidate is of a protected class, or all the brouhaha over code words in 2008 was nonsense. You have to admit that at least with that particular idiom, it's traced back FAR further than even the 400+ years Africans have been treated to horrific racial epithets.

There was far worse said in 2008, and I deplored it. But it's absolutely tasteless for a campaign to sponsor throwing dollar bills at a female candidate like they are a stripper after letting someone introduce their candidate with a speech including the word "whore".

It might not be sexist, but it's damn sure tasteless and desperate.

If Hillary can't take it, she should get out of the kitchen. But the truth is that Hillary can give as good as she gets and is far stronger and smarter than her supporters.

... were for the Democratic Party.

I'm extremely disappointed in Jeff Weaver's behavior this week, particularly as evidenced here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/19/sanders_campaigns_weaver_race_will_be_determined_by_superdelegates_not_pledged_delegates.html

Bernie either needs to get him in hand, or he's officially saying for the campaign he plans to go PUMA outright.

I feel bad for Bernie's supporters, but I think Jeff's who lost them the nomination. He's been going overboard for months now.

If Bernie and his supporters "can't take it" maybe they should be the ones to get out of the kitchen.

Lose with some dignity, FFS.

BEAUTIFUL....

If you don't give a rat's ass about Congress, at least.

.But if the shoe fits....
You can't dispute the source of her funding, and those corporations are expecting a return on the 'investment', just like the Saudis did from their Foundation 'donation'.

That was his words..
So in your own words, Hillary is a corporate whore just like the rest of her fellow republicans.

Not his, not mine, but thin skinned Hillary supporters who are more obsessed about words than context and issues...

It's so nice to see "progressives" attack other progressives over a word to defend the corporate chiefs who give the candidates money so they can screw all of us. Way to deflect and scream over non issues to avoid the real issues - issues that Hillary supporters never discuss.

It would be more fitting to call these politicians corporate pimps, and the rest of us, the voters involuntary jizz catchers.

On Hillary's side it was beautiful!

Meanwhile everyone is talking about how nasty Bernie was and how gracious Hillary was last night. Sore loser is not a good look for anyone.

Bernie's angey too, but his anger is directed at causes of injustice.

Clinton has a simmering anger against anyone that challenges her. Not a good look.

She neither looked angry nor spoke in anger. The only boos from her supporters were for Trump and Cruz.

...than the implication that the only way to win office is with the permission of Big Money, or that Big Money has thereby bought access not available to us.

All the slights, real and imagined, are nearly insignificant next to the death of democracy. "Tone" is a red herring.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

Her judgment and her ties to wall street are issues. But I'm listening...

He all but explicitly said Hillary is corrupt, and when pressed on it, he couldn't name a single example.

He called her unqualified based on his own misreading and lack of research.

He, at the last minute, baselessly accused her of campaign finance crimes, which he sent to the DNC, not the FEC. If he believed it, he would have reported it to the right people, and not fund-raised off it.

And I won't even hold what happened at his rallies against him this time.

You can campaign by talking about how great your policies and credentials are, or you can campaign by talking about how bad your opponent is. There's a difference.

focusing on personalized negatives.

Yes Bernie went after her as part of the system -- but he used kid gloves to avoid going into some of the stuff in her past he could have brought up.

about her specifically. He talked about her speeches, and her Wall Street ties, and her fossil fuel contributions (which turned out to not really be true), and so on. He even called her unqualified. And then the day before the primary, his campaign legally challenged her joint fundraising with the state parties, which I thought was particularly a bad thing to do because regardless of who wins, they're going to need down ballot Dems to get anything done.

That is negative campaigning. If he had just said that there is too much money in politics, and that Wall Street needs to be cracked down on and we need to stop burning so many fossil fuels, without reference to Hillary, that would have been "negative about systemic problems." But the thing is, Hillary basically agrees with him about that, she has those points in her stump speech too.

But Bernie went negative about Hillary specifically.

There's a big if in there. Speeches, wall street ties, fossil fuel - all issues. You have no clue about her fundraising or where the money eventually goes. Not a clue. Google Sunlight Foundation "Clinton" and then try to find out where the money actually goes.

Those are personalized negatives.

IMHO Weaver and failed operative Tad Devine made a decision to go scorched earth negative in New York.

I think it was a poor decision. That is not Bernie nor what he represents. IMHO that strategery cost Bernie votes.

Let's not be in denial here. Devine and Weaver have pushed Bernie in a direction he normally would not go. They are politics as usual. Bernie's a man of principle.

instead of only saying it is broken. With more details than the standard, break up the banks, free college, free medical care and increased social security. I would love to have all those things, but I 'd like to know how we get there.

He did get into the nits and bolts and wonky stuff, and very pragmatically gort a lot of the things done he talks about.

It's not president, but its the same executive skillset and leadership ability involved. And he got a lot of very specific things done. I think he could fo the same on a national level.

Also look at some of the bills and amkendments he has sponsored or cosponsored over the years. Again they are very detail and solution oriented, in terms of politicies.

Bernie called her unqualified, insinuated that she was in the TANK with big money interest even though he admits he has no proof, he spent 5 mil in NY.. He showed he had NO blue print on how to " break up big banks." Bernie used her as a punching bag in every single one of his rallies. The whole Pope fiasco... (huge turn off) Doubling down on his rhetoric about Hillary quid pro quo WITH NO EVIDENCE. Bernie surrogates accusing Bill Clinton of racism .. knowing full well Bernie also voted for the crime bill and NOT for the violence against women as he alleges.. proof in the video where he speaks of it. WAPO gave him something like 18 Pinocchio's because of the crap he spewed. He campaigned HARD and he LOST. Closed primaries are NOT Hillary's fault. Rules are rules. Get involved and change them!

Posts hidden by Jury: 7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313074&sub=trans

You just wander around DU saying mean and nasty things. It's your schtick.

This is going to come back to haunt ALL of us.

I flat out know you don't believe a word you typed.

It was about tone and tactics.

I'd have said the same about a male candidate who campaigned in the same way.

The audacity.

If Hillary is to be the nominee, then Bernie needs to do an about face and soon and urge his passionate supporters to do the same.

If it goes all the way to the convention, so be it.

But the ugliness best end on both sides because it is a long time to the convention.

The OP is quite the hyperbolic performance! !

Was it worth spreading the lie that challenging corporate control of life is somehow white supremacist?

Hillary did do this, to the women voters, the Hispanic, the African-Americans, and others who have been disadvantaged by the system for years.

Just because she wasn't speaking to you doesn't mean that she wasn't speaking out about progressive ideas, bro.

Nope, that was certainly just a sound bite of hers, sis!

It was Sanders and his campaign that ran the negative smear campaign. As to the fact that New York has a closed primary, those are the rules that are in place.

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

She did the same with Obama. This is one reason that so many people are so passionately against her. The Rovian playbook may work with Republicans and some "Democrats," but most only see it as condescension, of playing people as though they are too distracted or mindless to be truly informed.

You don't gain power winning a "particpant" ribbon.

It needed it, the party is full of corrupt people. It was somewhat good timing, as long as the republicans split up too then we can have out party back.

The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. The lies listed above are sad and pale in comparison to what the GOP would throw at Sanders. The amusing complaints in the OP are really weak if you live in the real world and know what the GOP, the Kochs and Karl Rove will be able to throw at Sanders.

VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild just as I do not think that the so-called attacks in the OP are serious compared to what the GOP would throw at Sanders but I live in the real world and know how the GOP attack machine works. Form the article:

would throw at Sanders after they stop throwing money at him because he's a bad investment who can't derail Hillary after all.

According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders