Yes, we all know what "corporate whore" means, but
the phrase still includes a loaded word with intense negative connotations, especially when aimed at a woman who is running. It's a bad word choice when referring to an opponent or that opponent's supporters. Bernie didn't say it. Someone who introduced him did. Bernie has apologized for the usage and said he'd never say that. OK. I'm fine with that, and don't hold it against Senator Sanders.
And yet, he's behind in all measurements of this primary race, from popular vote to delegate count. What that means is that he can either do better, hold his ground, or do worse. Small things can make big differences and even turn a potential win into a loss. That has happened in the past, and will happen in the future. It may be happening right now.
Bernie's a nice guy, if a little gruff and plain-spoken. It's not Bernie. It's those around him, I'm afraid, who are injecting negativity and name-calling into the campaign. Some are on his campaign staff. Others are avid supporters of his candidacy.
Months ago, I posted here that I was changing my support from Sanders to Clinton. Not that my support means anything, really, but that was my decision. In that post, I said that it was largely due to his supporters, and that hasn't changed as far as I can tell. While a candidate can't order supporters to act in any particular way, supporters' actions and words can still affect a campaign for better or worse.
Some people who identify as Sanders supporters are attacking elected officials who are superdelegates on their Facebook pages and elsewhere. Some of those are using highly-charged language in those attacks. My own House representative had to start deleting those comments from her FB page, since they were being posted on everything on the page. Being called a traitor and told that her support of Clinton would cause her to be primaried is not something to leave on a public FB page. Others, like Al Franken, are also being hammered on their own FB pages, on Twitter, and elsewhere, often in vile ways and with ugly name-calling.
Now, the people doing those things may not even be actual Sanders supporters. Who can say? But, that's the tone that is becoming the norm. That doesn't help the candidate in any way. In fact, it can work strongly against the candidate. It's being noticed, too, in media read by many, many Democratic voters and independents. We see it here on DU, as well, but that's far less important to primary results, frankly.
I changed my support. Nothing I've seen has shifted me from the reasons for that change. Some will say I never actually supported Sanders, but they're wrong. I can't support a candidate after so many of that candidate's supporters are using vile attacks on the opponent as a campaign strategy. Why? Because it's a losing strategy. It fails to generate support, but succeeds in shifting support to the candidate who is being attacked.
And there it is, from my point of view. I'm sure that many will disagree with me, but if Bernie Sanders fails in his bid for the Democratic nomination by a small margin, you can write that up to negative campaigning in general and vile attacks will have played an important role in hurting the Senator's chances.
On to the convention. That's where this will finally end, and we'll actually have a nominee to support.
This post is my opinion. Thanks for reading it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
So you changed your support from Bernie to Hillary because of "vile attacks" by his supporters, when those vile attacks are mostly fabrications by Hillary Inc. 
Suit up, I hope your armor is thick. 