And it wasn't just them. The list of her surrogates furiously attacking him is very long.

<snip>

An aide to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Thursday evening that rival Hillary Clinton "should be ashamed" of her association with longtime ally David Brock.

Brock, who heads several groups supporting Clinton's bid, slammed a new ad from Sanders on Thursday and accused the Vermont senator of not caring about black

Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs issued a scathing statement directed at Brock's comments and stressed that Sanders has "one of the strongest civil rights records in Congress."

"He doesn’t need lectures on civil rights and racial issues from David Brock, the head of a Hillary Clinton super PAC," Briggs said in the statement.

"Twenty-five years ago it was Brock — a mud-slinging, right-wing extremist — who tried to destroy Anita Hill, a distinguished African-American law professor," the Sanders spokesman continued, referring to Brock in 2001 disavowing a book he had written attacking the woman who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.

<snip>

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266671-sanders-aide-clinton-should-be-ashamed-of-david-brock

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-smeared-as-communist-sympathiser-as-hillary-clintons-allies-sling-mud/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn_us_55f73339e4b00e2cd5e79e11
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/16/clinton-ally-refuses-apologize-super-pac-attack-bernie-sandershttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-brock-bernie-sanders-218954
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/15/1421400/-It-begins-Hillary-Clinton-smears-Bernie-Sanders-over-Single-Payer
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/claire-mccaskill-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-2016-election/

Chelsea lied in her smear claiming Bernie wanted to dismantle Obamacare.

McCaskill, Bill, Gutierrez and plenty more.

"An aide to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Thursday evening that rival Hillary Clinton "should be ashamed" of her association with longtime ally David Brock. "

Yeah, that's an unbiased source.

Half of your links are jumbled together and don't work. Perhaps in your zeal to jack up your post count, you could take more than five seconds to copy/paste so that we don't have to do your work for you.

As for the Sanders/Trump comparisons, they are both attacking Democrats and the Democratic Party with obvious glee, so the comparison is not as far detached from reality as you would like to believe. The frivolous lawsuits in CA, one involving a noted JFK conspiracy theorist, no less, are also somewhat familiar to Trump's style, not to mention the "debate", which was one of the more obvious political stunts in recent memory.

...some "zeal to jack up your post count", but it sure ain't cali.

politics, its the undeniable truth.

Commie stuff? I never saw or heard any of that used against him.

I'll look through some of the other stuff, but looks pretty tame to me, and Bernie and his supporters should be glad that the CAMPAIGN did not choose to pursue these things directly.

Then tell me which is longer. It isn't only about "Black Lives Matters". Many things that Bernie has done helps everybody of every race, ethnicity, class and gender.

I even saw them on here.

Just as it was right of you to ask me to back up my claim about Cenk yesterday, which I did.

And then you acted like you were doing him a favor by doing what it was your obligation to do.

Nobody has enough time to waste educating you when it is obvious that you don't really want the education anyway.

DU is littered with straw man arguments, and one reason why is because people don't feel the need to back up what they're saying. They somehow think making a claim makes the other person responsible for proving or disproving the claim they made. That's not how things work once you pull on your big boy/girl pants.

A big boy/girl should know that.

That may be modus operandi at DU, but that doesn't make it sensible. Again, DU is littered with straw man arguments because of that bull sh*t.

Facts and sound reasoning, evidence and reality-based thinking...these are things that matter to me.

Starting with Bernie's announcement in his home town, where he had been mayor in a gorgeous waterfront park, he was smeared for not caring about POC. The height of this was questioning his real involvement in the civil rights fights of the 60s - down to claiming he was NOT the man in a photo that documented that. The facts, that there was NO question that he was arrested and that he spent a year working for CORE on desegregating the Chicago school system AND the photographer proved (from other photos taken that day) that it was really Bernie Sanders.

Brock clearly studied the SBVT method here. There were many many - seemingly independent people, backing HRC, who were in the civil rights movement that all said things - ranging from "I was there and I did not see him" (ignoring that he was an unknown and I doubt that had they seen him he would have stood out from the many NYC area Jews that risked their safety righting for black rights.) to "but, that was in the North" - ignoring that the first Mayor Daley's Chicago was not exactly kind to protesters of any kind -- I believe Sanders would have fit the phrase used then "outside agitator". (I grew up getting Chicago media.)

Then there was the whole pile on against him and O'Malley at the Daily Kos event where they were ambushed by Black Lives Matter activists. HRC was conveniently not there and was praised for her days later "correct" response. It always is easier to take a test when the answers had become public. Note, that both O'Malley and Sanders had been polite to them and were STILL bashed more than Bill Clinton was later when he raged against them.

i will not document other attacks, because it clearly serves no purpose. I would note that even a rather benign invitation to a Vatican conference was cause for days of attacks - ranging from attacking his honesty to diminishing him as much as possible.


BOTH the Kerry and Obama campaigns were far more high road -- or kind, to use your word.

issues that concern PoC and other groups issues like LGBT. To connect it to the Hillary campaign is baseless, however. And I grow weary of your constant pumping of Kerry over the Clintons. Truly.

If you want to blame anyone for pointing to Bernie's current stance on PoC issues, blame the activists that are fighting to be heard and represented.

Bernie changed Burlington policy to give health insurance to unmarried partners in the 1980s - before companies did so - and he voted against DOMA. Not to mention, HRC herself would not have let BLM TAKE the microphone away and Bill Clinton attacked them.

As to Kerry, I admit that I am far more impressed with him as a person, statesman, and as Secretary of State than the Clintons. The reason I mentioned him -- and Obama here - is that the OP used a superlative that suggested that Clinton had run a kinder primary campaign. To refute that, I used the last two campaigns. I really do not know what could have been a more relevant thing to do.

Now, as to my posts yesterday -- I would suggest you not go there. The Clinton team, from HRC herself to Adam Schiff and other surrogates were LYING in their "everybody else did it" counter to the SD IG report. In addition to distorting what Powell did (he did use personal email OUTSIDE the SD because the SD system was just for internal usage and the line was put in by the SD IT and he was completely public in having a computer on his desk attached to it) and what Albright and Rice did (they did not use email), they chose to completely distort what Kerry did - using his truthful comment that some people, he has known for decades, have emailed him on his private email for SD business. They conveniently ignore that Kerry also said that he forwards these to the SD account and that the IG confirmed that both these exceptions and the SD emails are all routinely archived.

You bet that I am furious that she would attempt to "borrow" from Kerry's earned reputation for integrity to suggest that what he did was the same as what she did. She had NO SD account, he primarily uses one for SD business; she personally archived nothing, he worked with the IG to set policies for himself and others to correct this problem.

I get that she is the nominee and people will rally around her, but you can bet that I will ALWAYS dispute her lying about others - especially good Democrats and most especially Kerry - to defend her by an excuse I never accepted by my kids and certainly never thought I could get with away with with my parents.

the only thing that matters now to the voters who didn't hear it. And THAT is why he got his clock cleaned by those voters.

You can be impressed by Kerry all you want. That is your right.

Kerry has tasted a little right wing action in 2004. Mostly they leave him alone because he's ina safe state. He has had it easy. The Judicial Watch doesn't CARE about going after Kerry. So every time you point to his halo, I will remind you about being swift boated and going down against one of the most unpopular doofuses of all time. k?

The biggest difference is that they attack Kerry for principled things that he did because he thought they were the right thing to do. As to losing in 2004, I could remind you that Kerry OUTPERFORMED what was considered likely. Bush was at 60 percent in December 2003 - and to win, they had to suppress the vote. Bush was NOT close to the "most unpopular" until after Katrina.

In addition, they had media complicity in their smears against Kerry, where the media treated their attacks on his service as him versus this large group of vets. In fact, it was a large group of vets, many already Bush/Cheney supporters and others angered by his 1971 protests, vs the OFFICIAL NAVY RECORD. Yet the media asked for no proof -- and continued to cover them even when multiple lies were debunked and many could be shown to have not even been in the same place at the same time.

Not to mention, I would bet that the Iran deal and the various climate pacts culminating in the Paris Climate Pact will be what John Kerry, who was the essential American in getting them (other than Obama who approved him going for them). Not a bad legacy. One likely has avoided a terrible war, the other is the most positive move on climate change by the US, which has lagged EU. You could add his role in negotiating the removal of the Syrian chemical weapons - especially as the 600 tons removed would make a hellhole worse than it is.

As to Bernie, ALL his positions and biography were well known IN VERMONT. As Cali says in the OP, he had very little national recognition. Like Rove, Brock aimed to define Sanders before he could completely define himself. This was helped by the fact that the media gave Sanders VERY little coverage.

Kerry finally got welcomed to the club on a national stage. Its nothing new. Both Kerry and the Clinton's have a strong public record compared to what they promised they would do. I have no desire or reason to say Kerry doesn't leave a legacy of good. I take issue with your constant belittling of the Clintons. But you know that. You pick your Little spots to push the attack. The current one is that the email scandal is worthy of attack. You can stick that phony RW shit where the sun don't shine.

are not right wing and apparently they did not reject that Clinton really did not do the right thing here.

I am not "belittling" the Clintons. They clearly controlled much of the Democratic party for nearly 3 decades now. There impact is without question.

I take no issue with that.

But all of this flows from the Benghazigate. THAT is what lead to the email. For a different take on the email scandal you might want to read the recent Newsweek article, it paints a different picture than the lazy journalists that are just playing along for ratings.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

Why do you post what is untrue?

Who hired BrocK?

damned email". The closest he got to personal was her ties to Wall Street - and her transcripts. This is extremely related to his core issues. I think getting that kind of money for speeches from those sources when she intended to run was really questionable and at best terrible optics. This got conflated with the efforts that she and many other people took in 2009 to save the economy. Here, there is a genuine difference in their positions -- and surprise, I totally disagree with Sanders.

The speeches raised the question of how one deals with the banks and Wall Street. One way he made this an issue was the vote on the TARP bill. While I think she did handle the issue well by getting a proposal out there and getting it endorsed by people like Krugman, I wish that Clinton would have had the guts to defend that vote - showing she was willing to both take unpopular stands and was even years later willing to help educate people on why that was the right course. It was a vote, carefully orchestrated, with both parties committing to enough votes to pass it. The reason was that the US financial system was on the verge of failure. This would have hurt not just Wall Street, but every one. Small businesses, that needed a line of credit because of cash flow needs, would have failed. The scary economic situation we saw in 2009 would have been far far worse.

That is why I personally think that TARP was needed, though like most Democrats, wished that Democrats had driven a harder bargain for their votes. Things like having those helped, not just pay back money, but agree to sharing for as much as a decade, some % of their profits. The justification, had they not gotten the loans, they would have collapsed and certainly would not be back to huge bonuses within a few years. However, things had to happen quickly and a tougher deal would have needed more Democratic votes - and like Sanders', some were absolutely not going to happen.

I do think that an earlier effort to shore up the failing mortgages, by bailing out homeowners, could have stopped the deadly spiral where failing mortgages meant boarded up houses, lower property values, less people going to service industries in the area, more job losses, and thus more failures. Note THAT spiral is also what caused the derivatives to fail - the (il)logic behind them depended on the fact that they were property backed securities. Once foreclosures increased enormously AND the value of the property backing the loans sank, the derivatives held by all the banks etc disintegrated in value. However, the Bush administration and Republicans killed every such attempt. The Finance committee did pass out of committee a bill that included the Kerry/Smith(R, OR) bill that would have committed some (though likely not enough) money to this, but it was stripped after a veto threat. HRC, who was both not on the Finance committee and running for President, supported efforts like this in 2007. Clinton CAN and does claim that she was on record in favor of such actions.

It was all talking points stiring up peoples fears. The idea that Democrats should eschew contributions and fight the pukes with one hand behind their back is ridiculous. His smearing of a NY Senator for representing her State well, was BS.

He is not attacking NY and the lamest argument ever was that HRC was "representing Wall Street" She was representing all New Yorkers - from all walks of life. (In fact, more than half of "wall streeters" live in NJ or CT.)

I do not think it is a conspiracy theory that a person running for President should not accept that kind of money for talks. If nothing else it creates the optics that they are buying access.

What I hear is what I have heard from many many Democrats - and even Republicans -- usually as they exit politics. It is clear that being able and willing to give big dollars will buy ACCESS. Note that access does not mean that they necessarily will get legislation that benefits them, but it does give them a disproportionate weight.

It is also true, that no one is willing to unilaterally disarm - and there are cases where doing so - even out of principle can lose a seat - example Russ Feingold.

in politics. Hillary's campaign finance reforms including SC Justices that will overturn Citizens United and she is for increased accountability/disclosure, and small donor matching system.

The rest of her plans includes all kinds of stuff that large corporations and wall street is not going to like. She has not rolled out the full corporate tax plan yet but its coming.

Instead of attacking her proposals, he attacked her character by using the kinds of phrases that have been floating around on the internet. Same as his attacks on Democrats. Instead of playing a strong role in Congres and the Senate to pass legislation he stands on the outside and throws rocks. Screw that.

How sad he attack her on her actual record... instead of suppressing voters.

She was slimy in 2008 and has not changed her MO at all this time around. In fact through her surrogates: Brock, Steinem, Albright, Boxer ... she's been worse.

Thankfully her lying ways are unraveling her alleged inevitability

whether someone believes it or not.
Sanders is less qualified, has fewer votes and delegates, but is somehow more deserving. And he's always given a pass for his regressive record. I wonder why?

In addition, Sanders blew through $200,000,000 running his dirty campaign. He will forever be remembered as a bitter old man who felt entitled to the nomination of a party he joined in order to exploit it.

opponent. He won every single state. (He won by 54% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2000 ) Compare that to 2004, where Kerry had LESS superdelegate support and media support than Dean going into Iowa. He clinched the first week of March - losing just 4 states, 2 to favorite sons after they dropped out. Kerry won by 42% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2004 )

Go back to 1992, and her husband had 32% more support than the next highest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1992 Even Dukakis in a very competitive race beat the next highest by 13% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1988 Neither of these races had one person who so completely had the media and party support at the start - though Clinton was a clear media favorite.

Other than 1984 and 2008, races have usually ended faster and the winner has been more dominant. I assume that you would also concede that both Mondale and Obama had tougher opponents than a Vermont Democratic socialist.

delegates -- a point that HRC will not reach until the day CA and NJ vote.

Note that Kerry lost 4 states - SC, NC, OK, and VT. Gore won all of them. HRC has lost 21 contests. BIG difference.

Black Friday, that's always going to draw a crowd. The fact the he knows that Congress wouldn't allow his proposals to see the light of day didn't stop Sanders' pandering college tour. His popularity is not a mystery. Unrealistic, but not a mystery.

I defer to an excerpt from his speech in Providence last month....

But caucuses suppress the vote and I'm not sure where Sanders would be if we only had primaries.

The race was effectively put out of reach in New York.

And those weaknesses of Bernie's that you pointed out are part of the reason that she crushed him. This isn't graded on a curve, it's whoever gets more votes/delegates wins. They don't give out handicap delegates for weak candidates to even the playing field.

Like if an amateur plays tennis against Federer and gets crushed 6-1 6-1, you can say that for an amateur, he did a great job, and exceeded expectations, but in the end it would still be a crushing.

In any other context, that's a blowout.

Delegates, not including SDs: 1769 to 1497. 54/46. Same.

Besides, your assertion doesn't really fit reality. The vast majority of the media and supporters of both candidates aren't talking about this as a blowout (DU is not representative of reality, to preempt an expected retort).

If anything, it's the exact opposite. Mathematically, it's been over since at least NY, yet nearly everyone thinks the race is still close. It's not.

Main thing is, he never had to worry about running a general election campaign, because he was out of it basically since March. So he didn't have to worry about alienating any Dems or centrist voters. Hillary has had to worry about that the whole time.

That allowed him to propose lots of programs that he couldn't possibly pay for, and a lot of voters are drawn to that kind of populism. That's why it's called populism. It takes more courage to be level with voters and say, look, this doesn't add up, I have realistic goals.

Meanwhile, Hillary, who couldn't afford to alienate his voters, didn't really go after him, except possibly for a bit in the stretch to New York. But mostly, she's been playing a balancing act, keeping the general election and primary in mind at the same time. Basically, she fought him with one hand and Trump with the other, while Bernie used both hands for the primary.

And, there were lots of caucuses, that helped Bernie with his smaller-but-more-passionate support group. It would have been even more lopsided without caucuses.

But I will give Bernie a grade of "exceeded expectations", to be fair.

better than anythign else.

Clinton exceeded the majority of delegate targets set by her campaign.

Sanders missed most of his.

Those are the only expectations - and results - that really matter, in the end.

Meanwhile...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511452714

The convention hasn't yet arrived.

every new fact that emerges only serves to confirm my belief that she broke the law, willingly and intentionally. That doesn't mean she'll be indicted and convicted, but I'm pretty certain she's corrupt to the core and the Democratic Party's version of Richard M. Nixon.

I for one don't want to see a Democratic President impeached and suffer 2-3 GE cycles in the political wilderness as a result of voter disgust with Party corruption.

She needs to step aside, but her ego would never allow for that. This will get very unpleasant for all of us, and I will only be able to say "I told you so", which is of little comfort if the GOP gains total control of the government for the remainder of my lifetime.

Wake up folks. Somebody tell the Royal Gum Fetcher to inform Her Majesty of the untenable nature of her position WRT the ongoing investigations. Those emails are not gone forever, and if a hacker or hostile foreign government produces them... yikes...

And congratulations are due for what he's accomplished.

But he's too far behind numbers wise, to get the nomination.

My concern at this point is that Bernie's increasing demands about the convention will tear it apart. So far, the DNC decisions have been fair. On the platform committee, Hillary has 6 seats, Bernie only one less, and the DNC has 4.

His demands that 2 committee chairs be replaced are too much. His demands far exceed those of Democratic runner-ups in every past convention that I can remember. In fact, I can't remember any demands made by the ones in 2nd place, and I've watched a lot of conventions.

If the convention implodes, it will go great harm to the most important goal of all: beating Donald Trump.

Bernie supporters who don't care about a Trump victory, should reconsider. Because that attitude has no place in the Democratic Party and certainly no place at DU.

As a Hillary supporter, I've enjoyed reading your posts.

if it was me, I would destroyed him the moment he announce his intention of running in our primaries as a democrat....4 weeks of tv ads would have sent him back to vermont......and we all be saying bernie who???

Good Lord. She's whipping him in every measure. I wish folks would just deal with it and stop the damn whining.

Not me. She's winning, of course. Someone always wins in the primaries, but Bernie did quite well. In the end, not well enough to prevail, though.

The primaries are over, for all intents and purposes. It's time to turn to the next phase of this election year. I've made the turn already. Soon, we'll all have to, or turn away altogether.

Choices. We have choices to make.

Like all of the posts that suggest there's an epidemic of DU posters claiming Clinton can reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Or the posts suggesting there's an epidemic of DU posters railing against "class warfare." And so on.

There's a whole army of straw people on this site. I, for one, would like to see them get burned to the ground.

30% more votes..30% more delegates

...is delusional.

Even though I've been a rabid Hillary supporter throughout the season (LOL you know we've sparred a few times ), I can't have anything other than respect and awe for the accomplishments of Senator Sanders campaign. This should have never been this close, and I'm both hoping the establishment wakes up to this, and this momentum gets into high gear into changing the landscape of Congress. It's a very likely victory at this point, but it's by no means crushing.