Hillary Clinton had to be feeling desperate this morning after her socialist rival Bernie Sanders trounced her in Wisconsin last night, the sixth win for Sanders in the last seven Democrat primary contests.

She was just as desperate in 2008, when a Illinois junior Senator named Barack Obama started rolling on her. It was then that the well-oiled smear machine of Clinton loyalists kicked into high gear. They created the so-called “birther issue,” asserting that Obama was a foreigner ineligible to be President in a last, desperate bid to save Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid.

Their desperate attempts failed.

Clinton’s allies in the media are now attempting to save her again, as they conspire with Hillary in a desperate lie to right her sinking ship of a campaign.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday ripped rival Bernie Sanders for his “unimaginable” position on guns.

Clinton pointed to the front page of Wednesday’s New York Daily News, which exclaimed “Bernie’s Sandy Hook shame,” describing it as dealing with an issue that is among her “biggest contrasts” with Sanders.

“That he would place gun manufacturers’ rights and immunity from liability against the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook is just unimaginable to me,” Clinton said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Sanders was asked by the Daily News’s editorial board about family of the victims in the 2012 Newtown, Conn., shooting calling for the ability to sue gun manufacturers for damages. Sanders said he didn’t think victims of a gun crime should be able to sue the manufacturer.

“In the same sense that if you’re a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill [someone] … do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused?” Sanders asked, shaking his head.

“But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people.”

Sanders, while he doesn’t seem to know how economics work in the slightest, is at least correct on the basic ideas of fairness under the law. As we noted earlier today, Mrs. Clinton is boldly and intentionally lying about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).Companies in the firearms industry can be, have been, and are being sued when they manufacture faulty products or engage in criminal activity, as Sanders noted alluded to about straw purchases.  All PLCAA does is protect the firearms industry against frivolous lawsuits. Period.

Not content to stop with that smear-job, the Clinton campaign then sought to assert that Sanders’s home state of Vermont is responsible for the guns that keep finding their way into the hands of New York’s criminals.

This is also a desperate lie.

Hillary Clinton deployed a new attack against Bernie Sanders on Monday that appeared not to be rooted in fact, claiming that the 74-year-old senator’s home state of Vermont is the source of many of the guns used in New York crime.

“She said that it’s going to be coming out in the very near future that many of the catastrophes that have taken human lives in the State of New York have been the product of guns coming over the border from Vermont,” New York State Sen. Tim Kennedy told Capital New York.

…

It was an obvious ploy: tie Sanders to his home state’s relatively loose gun control laws. It’s a continuation of Clinton’s strategy of painting Sanders as soft on gun control — the one issue on which she can claim to be more progressive than her competitor.

But data compiled by the federal government shows that less than one percent of the guns recovered in New York were initially purchased in Vermont, which borders the Empire State on the northeast.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight.

I think that both Clinton and Sanders are both horrible candidates for different reasons, and that neither should be allowed in the White House without first having passed through a security check (and Clinton again on the way out).

But as much as I disagree with Sanders’s warped view on economics, he’s at least not blatantly trying to fool voters in New York and Connecticut the way Clinton is, in a desperate bid to keep her campaign from imploding, yet again.