Biden on Bernie's comments that Trump will eat Joe for lunch in a general election:

[TomCADem]

9. Bernie Sanders' Ugly Campaigning Is Bad for Democrats -- and Great for Trump

While Biden has been gracious to Bernie, the fact of the matter is that Bernie happily engages in scorched earth campaigning. Biden is not the first, and not the last. This is why Bernie is bad for the Democratic party. He elevates himself by tearing everyone around him as noted in the following article tracing the Bernie campaigns early attacks on potential rivals.

https://gen.medium.com/bernie-sanders-bad-attitude-is-bad-for-democrats-and-great-for-trump-bd0ac7376146

I never caught Betomania, but it’s hard to ignore the larger, more obvious pattern — that this has happened to every candidate who has gathered enough buzz to pose a challenge to Sanders, deserving or not. I can believe that O’Rourke is a sizzle in search of a steak. But I find it harder to believe that O’Rourke is the face of Big Oil, and Elizabeth Warren embraces neoliberal capitalism at its most rapacious, and Kamala Harris is the carceral state incarnate, and Cory Booker is popular only due to racial tokenism, and Kirsten Gillibrand is in deep with Big Tobacco, and Amy Klobuchar, I don’t know, never brings a hot dish. They haven’t gotten to her yet.
The problem is not the reporting on these politicians’ individual sins, some of which is correct, and some of which, like Sirota’s freakout, is wildly exaggerated. It’s not even the “boy who cried wolf” quality of hearing so many similar denunciations in a row, though it is increasingly tough to take any one hit piece seriously. It’s the implication that these errors are unilaterally disqualifying and should outweigh any good the candidates might do. There is no acknowledgment, after 2016, of just how dangerous that attitude might be or of what other forces might be arrayed against the candidates in question. The decision to tie Gillibrand to the fact that she represented tobacco companies as a young lawyer, for example, took place before she called for Al Franken’s resignation and her candidacy was nuked from orbit by powerful donors. Sanders’ core supporters went for Gillibrand as hard as possible, right out of the gate, not realizing that institutional sexism would eventually do their work for them. Again.

The lingering anger many Clinton supporters feel at Sanders isn’t because he ran against her or because he ran with the goal of pushing her to the left. Again, many of the ideas Sanders has nudged into the American mainstream are good ones. That mistrust stems from how reckless Sanders was with the anger he riled up. Long after he knew he’d lost, he continued to call Clinton “unqualified” or insist she was the head of a massive conspiracy. He knew it could do no good, and he should have seen that the dangerous toll of his negative messaging — the death threats to Democratic Party officials and reporters, the demolished coalitions and names dragged through the mud, the ever-increasing threat that if there was no Bernie, the nation itself would bust — was rising. Yet he appeared shocked that he could not undo the damage; even Bernie Sanders got booed for not supporting Bernie Sanders.

To destroy one rival this way may be regarded as a misfortune. To destroy them all looks like carelessness. It looks like a candidate who has not yet learned to push his advantage in any other way than going negative, even though any of his rivals, should they defeat Sanders, will be the only protection we have against a second Trump term. To be clear: If Sanders is the nominee, I will vote for him. The good he might do outweighs the harm. It’s just not clear that Sanders knows how to say that about anyone else. The viciousness of the 2016 campaign may just have been a mistake, even if it was a bad one. If the pattern continues into 2020, we will have to call it something much worse.