It’s amazing that for months and months the Hillary Clinton campaign and her followers scream “sexist” at every negative comment even ones on her policies, and then in one night can shatter that whole narrative as well as the one of the “Bernie Bro” by attacking Jane Sanders looks, her appearance, the kind of clothes she wears, or her weight.

"Amusing how a man who claims he will take on ISIL is apparently afraid to take on septuagenarian senator from Vermont in a simple war of words," wrote WeAreChange.org.

One can already imagine the monologue:

“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

You can’t run a candidate with actual integrity against those guys. Are you nuts? You need a real nitty-gritty mud-slinging spitfire like Hillary, who is somehow considered even more dishonest. She understands the trench warfare that wins elections. Because if there’s one thing that drives progressives to the ballot box, it’s feeling disheartened by their own candidate.

And I wouldn’t worry about millennial voters either, even though they’re critical to the party’s general election success and are gleefully declaring that they won’t support anyone but Bernie in November. Don’t sweat it. Hillary’s this close to understanding what they’re all about.

One thing you should never do is to vote for the candidate who represents what you want the country to become, in the hope that it’s the start of a process that leads to an America we can be proud of—one which protects and supports all its people. That would be exactly the kind of naive, starry-eyed mistake you and your stupid Sanders comrades are dumb enough to make. What you would do, if you had any brains, is to forget the big picture entirely, ask reductive questions like, “can Bernie Sanders immediately pass universal health care?” and, if the answer is no, throw your vote to whichever compromised puppet the establishment shoves down your throat.

But in recent days, Clinton campaign officials have been playing down their candidate’s prospects; campaign manager Robby Mook, the architect of Clinton’s Nevada victory in 2008, and Brian Fallon, the campaign spokesman, both caused eyebrows to raise when they suggested the state was “80% white”.

The claim was quickly batted back by the state’s Democratic senator Harry Reid, who was instrumental in securing Nevada’s “first in the west” position as an early-nominating state, in large part to ensure a more diverse state has a say early on in the primaries.

But the remark left a strong impression in the state. “Both Mook and Fallon know that 80% figure is ludicrous, and the attempt to make Nevada seem like Iowa and New Hampshire is a spin too far,” wrote Jon Ralston, the most influential pundit in the state, pointing out that around half of the state’s population are minorities.

He added: “I don’t smell a rat. I smell something much more pungent from the Clinton campaign: fear.”

She has the gall to accuse Bernie Sanders of not being transparent. Sanders is a presidential candidate who doesn’t take big-fee speeches or big donations from fat cat influence-peddlers, and his record is as clean as the Clintons’ political entanglements are sordid. (See Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer.)

But it is in the area of foreign and military affairs that “Hillary the hawk” is most vulnerable. As Secretary of State her aggressiveness and poor judgement led her to the White House where, sweeping aside the strong objections of Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, she persuaded President Obama to bomb Libya and topple its dictatorial regime.

...

Whether as Senator on the Armed Services Committee or as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton has never met a war or raid she didn’t like, or a redundant, wasteful weapons system she was willing to aggressively challenge. As president, Hillary Clinton would mean more wars, more raids, more blowbacks, more military spending and more profits for the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower so prophetically warned about in his farewell address.