For one being a key person behind the efford to denigrate Sanders REAL civil rights actions in the

[karynnj]

1960s questioning that it happened.

Note that I am not saying that the year he took off from the University of Chicago when he actively worked on issues like desegretating the Chicago public schools meant that he deserved the black vote more than Clinton -- nor am I saying that Sanders, in his very early 20s, was a leader in this. I am saying he was very much there. Chicago, while not the deep south, was not an easy place to fight segregation with its strong ethnic neighborhoods. Not to mention, remember Mayor Daley!

To me, at its heart, this was designed to attack a REAL credible part of Sanders resume. Like Kerry's war record, it was something from his youth. In retrospect, from the moment Sanders declared, there was a HUGE effort to discredit him with POC. I was shocked that there was a pervasive negative story line that he should not have announced in Burlington, Vermont, because it is not sufficiently diverse. This ignores that it was where he lives, where he was an excellent mayor, and a place with a gorgeous waterside park that he enabled as mayor (rather than allowing it to become condos).

It ignored that near the end of his time as mayor, Burlington became a refugee resettlement center. It is commonplace in our supposedly "non diverse" city to find first grade classes that look like they could be a poster for a UN school. You see Nepalese and Somali people in traditional garb. The newest city council member, from the most "conservative" part of Burlington is a "new American" from Mauritania.

I live in Burlington and I KNOW the anger among Democrats and progressives here that to DEFINE Sanders as not very good for POC that our city and state - among the bluest, most tolerant places in the country - were smeared. I personally do not get why Clinton allies like Brock decided this was needed. Hillary and Bill Clinton were strong favorites for POC who had long supported them because of good things they had done. I absolutely do not get why they thought an attack on Sanders genuine civil rights credientials was needed.

Links - Brock attacked Sanders wonderful ad using the Simon and Garfunkle song, "America" - https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/21/david-brock-ally-of-hillary-clinton-skewers-new-bernie-sanders-ad/ - easily one of the best campaign ads I have seen in decades.

Here is a Common Dreams link, that outlines the coordinated attacks on Sanders on civil rights. I often have problems with CD, but though you may disagree with more subjective stuff, it does accurately describe many things that undeniably happened. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/24/clinton-campaign-relies-rumors-and-dishonesty-attack-sanders

I realize that this borders on relitigating the primaries, however my goal here is to argue that to win elections, we DO NEED TO USE REPUBLICAN TACTICS OF CHARACTER ASSISINATION - like Brock did. Like the SBVT, Brock existed OUTSIDE HRC's campain - providing distance. I would love to believe that she was personally against that sad chapter of the primaries. If you have anything she publicly said that either acknowledged Sanders real civil rights work or indicated that she was unhappy with where Brock and others went, I would love to read it because NOT seeing it seriously bothered me in 2016.