If Bernie really did go negative, he'd point out the obvious re. HRC's foreign policy "experience":

[brentspeak]

That today we are all less safe due partly to Hillary's blundering, bungling tenure as a Middle East regime-changing SOS.

Her ferocious push over several years to depose those few elements of law and order left standing in the Middle East -- Saddam, Assad, Qaddafi -- brutal though those dictators are and were -- unwittingly opened up a chaotic, uncontrollable power vacuum in that region of the world -- a power vacuum enthusiastically filled by self-made armies of murderous miscreants such as ISIS. Sec. Clinton's strategic shortsightedness in this critical area has foolishly helped unleash measureless opportunities for these terrorists to run wild and create unprecedented mayhem. HRC's fingerprints are all over this failed and dangerous foreign policy.

Bernie has been way too polite to say what has needed to be said on this matter.

[deathrind]

1. There is more than enough

HRC material for him to go negative on if he really wanted to. But has not which speaks volumes to his character and conduct.

[kcjohn1]

2. I agree

If he was going negative, he would call out Clintons for what they are GRAFTERS/CORRUPT. They are as bad if not worse than Republicans on corruption.

They have being in government for most for their adult lives. How do they justify being worth $100M+? I don't see other presidents including Bushes/Carter making $100M after/during public service. Bernie big issue is corruption of the political system, and Clinton are exhibit a for this, but he is not even calling them out on it. I understand why. It may actually be political smart given how popular the Clintons are within the democratic party.