A word from HRC about attacks from the left...

[karynnj]

190. In a primary, EVERY side will bring up the negative points of any person polling

as well or better than they are. Why? In the primary, the positions on issues will be more similar than different.

In 2015, it was allies of Clinton who put out a stream of negative analysis articles on Joe Biden when it seemed he was putting his toe in the water- speaking of gaffes and positions through he took over a long career. The sense of many here was that it was a signal of what he would face if he jumped in.

Not to mention, while Sanders DID criticize HRC on her Goldman Sachs speeches and his perception she was too close to Wall Street, there were attacks on Sanders, not so much by HRC herself, but by her surrogates. These attacks started with his Burlington announcement. In many cases, they attacked fake strawman issues - like arguing that his history of fighting segregation of public schools in Chicago did not make him good on civil rights. This BEFORE the Sanders campaign even mentioned it. They even questioned whether a man in a photo was really Bernie.

Clearly HRC still feels that Sanders hurt her chances. However, she faced LESS primary pushback than Obama did in 2008 or Kerry in 2004. Obama made he SoS after her attacks on him - which were tougher than Sanders on HRC. You could say that it was because he won anyway, but I read Kerry's book and he does not have a single sentence blaming Dean, Clark, etc - both of which attacked him as much as Sanders attacked her.

It is absolutely normal for primary opponents to put their opponents' actions and positions in the worst light possible.