I think that's an ignorant and simple-minded caricature. Clinton and other elected officials are influenced by the system of political (esp. fundraising and consulting) networks in which they are immersed. It doesn't mean that she's evil or "morally bankrupt." It just means that she and others are biased toward certain ways of understanding issues and analyzing policy, and predisposed toward favoring the interests of certain groups at the expense of others.
This is exactly it, and what so many of the comments mad at Sanders seem to miss, or at least how they seem to make me confused. Is this an illegitimate position to hold? If not, how are you supposed to raise it without it being characterized as a personal attack?
I share some sympathy with the view that some of Bernie's supporters are taking it as accusations of her being fully corrupt, but again I ask, how are we to speak about the influence of money in politics if it's going to get cast as a personal attack every time we do?
