Bernie Sanders releases negative ad on Hillary... Hillary whines about it...

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

LOL

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pmw5CAc3rk&feature=youtu.be

[Lief 🗽]

I thought he had never ran a negative ad in his life and never planned to???

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I thought he had never ran a negative ad in his life and never planned to???

He FIGHTS! That's why

[This account no longer in use.]

I don't see anything having to do with Hillary. Am I missing some sort of subtext here?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I don't see anything having to do with Hillary. Am I missing some sort of subtext here?

It's indirectly attacking Hillary's support for Wall Street

[Holmes]

I don't see anything having to do with Hillary. Am I missing some sort of subtext here?

Maybe Sanders is attacking O'Malley?

[This account no longer in use.]

I don't see anything having to do with Hillary. Am I missing some sort of subtext here?

Maybe Sanders is attacking O'Malley?

Hey, now. Somebody's going to try to stop Martin O'Mentum. Just look at HuffPost Pollster; he was at 4% in Iowa two months ago, now he's at 5%.

[Wells]

I don't see anything having to do with Hillary. Am I missing some sort of subtext here?

Maybe Sanders is attacking O'Malley?

Hey, now. Somebody's going to try to stop Martin O'Mentum. Just look at HuffPost Pollster; he was at 4% in Iowa two months ago, now he's at 5%.

At this rate he'll win Iowa in about six years!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't see anything having to do with Hillary. Am I missing some sort of subtext here?

Maybe Sanders is attacking O'Malley?

Hey, now. Somebody's going to try to stop Martin O'Mentum. Just look at HuffPost Pollster; he was at 4% in Iowa two months ago, now he's at 5%.

At this rate he'll win Iowa in about six years!

Maybe he should move to Iowa and start campaigning for the 2024 election.

[Ebsy]

You would have to be pretty dense to not get the underlying message of the ad. Definitely a negative ad, and it isn't surprising that Sanders is the first one to start negative advertising.

[tallguy23]

Politicians are politicians. They're in it to win. Sanders isn't some white horse who's different.

[Ebsy]

Politicians are politicians. They're in it to win. Sanders isn't some white horse who's different.

This is what several of us have been saying for quite some time. Bernie Sanders isn't above misleading attacks and flagrant dishonesty.

[The Other Castro]

You would have to be pretty dense to not get the underlying message of the ad. Definitely a negative ad, and it isn't surprising that Sanders is the first one to start negative advertising.

Misleading the public that Sanders wants to take away everyone's healthcare and is a pro-gun nut isn't going negative? Just because you've chosen a side doesn't mean you should blind yourself.

[Ebsy]

You would have to be pretty dense to not get the underlying message of the ad. Definitely a negative ad, and it isn't surprising that Sanders is the first one to start negative advertising.

Misleading the public that Sanders wants to take away everyone's healthcare and is a pro-gun nut isn't going negative? Just because you've chosen a side doesn't mean you should blind yourself.

You should reread what I said.

[Asian Nazi]

A crooked, disgusting ad from a crooked, disgusting man.

[The Other Castro]

You would have to be pretty dense to not get the underlying message of the ad. Definitely a negative ad, and it isn't surprising that Sanders is the first one to start negative advertising.

Misleading the public that Sanders wants to take away everyone's healthcare and is a pro-gun nut isn't going negative? Just because you've chosen a side doesn't mean you should blind yourself.

You should reread what I said.

You said Sanders was the first to start negative advertising, which is clearly not true.

[Adam Griffin]

Sanders running the first "negative ad" isn't relevant to the broader theme being pitched here (if you really want to make it specifically about Hillary - half of the Democratic Party falls into the first camp described in the video; they're a menace to the party and deserve to be called out). The fact was that both camps agreed to no negative campaigning, which obviously isn't limited to TV ads. Who took the first real swing here? If the Clinton camp's attacks on Sanders where they say he wants to "dismantle Obamacare" and Medicaid are true in a technical sense, then implying that Hillary Clinton took millions of Wall Street dollars and is now saying she'll stand up to them is at least equally so. Deal with it, etc.

[Ebsy]

You said Sanders was the first to start negative advertising, which is clearly not true.

So where are Clinton's negative ads?

[The Other Castro]

You said Sanders was the first to start negative advertising, which is clearly not true.

So where are Clinton's negative ads?

You should read Adam's post.

[Ebsy]

You should read Adam's post.

I did, and I found it incredibly inane.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I love seeing the other side destroy themselves.  Please nominate Sanders.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

You said Sanders was the first to start negative advertising, which is clearly not true.

So where are Clinton's negative ads?

Clinton has started viciously attacking Sanders it's no surprise that he's attacking back.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Politicians are politicians. They're in it to win. Sanders isn't some white horse who's different.

This is what several of us have been saying for quite some time. Bernie Sanders isn't above misleading attacks and flagrant dishonesty.

Quit projecting the many flaws of your candidate.

[Adam Griffin]

You should read Adam's post.

I did, and I found it incredibly inane.

Then you should try reading it again and again until your hackishness dissolves.

Trying to act like "this is the first negative mention ever in the primary!" is dumb. Arguably even dumber is acknowledging that this isn't the first negative element from the primary, but then trying to construct some sort of loophole/technicality where you say "well, this is the first negative TV ad in the primary!", as if that somehow makes an iota of difference.

Will we be greeted with similar gotcha moments if/when a campaign creates the first negative flyer, the first negative Facebook ad aimed at 25-34 year-olds, and the first negative 12x6 county office banner?

They've both pledged not to go negative. They've both broken that promise - months ago. They've both hidden behind the technicalities like what is being used to justify this ad before ("it's not a negative attack if we are 'drawing distinctions' between our records!"). This is exactly the same justification Clinton has used to attack Sanders on his gun votes and healthcare, and exactly the same justification that Sanders has used to attack Clinton on her Iraq votes, TPP support, KXL waffling and Wall Street connections.

[Ebsy]

The part I found inane is when you called half the party, including myself, "a menace to the party".

The rest of it is pointless pragmatics that I don't really care about that much, as I am totally willing to acknowledge that the tenor of the campaign has changed and both candidates are starting to take a more negative tone, as we always knew they would. Of course, it is an undisputed fact that Clinton has not yet bought airtime for any negative advertisement, and that is what I said, and all you have done is argued that criticizing Sanders is the same thing, to which I respectfully disagree.