- Oct 25, 2017
Huh. So it looks like the story out of the Sanders campaign pinning their attacks on Warren on "rogue staffers" was not true after all.
It certainly casts a different light on the he said/ she said situation re: a woman being elected from my POV (and that whole mess seems to have stemmed from this Sanders campaign choice too, ugh).
I’m saying that nothing Politico offers in the story demonstrates that the talking points were “more official” (whatever that means).
This is from the article. Are these the vicious, dirty attacks that Sanders' team is unleashing on Elizabeth Warren?
From the sounds of it, it was technicallly more pro-bernie than anti anyone in particular but there were optional sections to try and convert supporters of each of the remaining candidates
Or obscuring the truth if this was actually a deliberate, concerted effort by the Sanders campaign (ie, signed off by him or someone high up) to begin attacking Warren and hoping no one notices. Though it seems like a bizarre and uncharacteristic tactic from the Sanders camp to knowingly do this and then clumsily backpedal the moment it's brought to light.
Yes, but there had been an agreement between their campaigns (I'm pretty sure) not to do this sort of stuff, however accurate. Thus the response from Sanders and his campaign.