Nothing you posted actually disproves my point. All you did was attempt to redefine and parse words.

The fact she fired a staffer or two after they got caught (and had to apologize) attacking Obama does not mean her campaign wasn't behind it. In fact, an apology and firing is indicative of her campaign's culpability, not innocence.

Furthermore, whether or not the criticisms were "offensive," to you or anyone else, does not mean they weren't attacks.

Really, I don't understand why you go to so much effort to pretend that everyone Hillary does is completely benign. You could have just as easily, and somewhat justifiably, pointed out that campaigns are rough operations, that Hillary is not doing anything other campaigns don't do to one extent or another and perhaps even: (a) expressed concern that her staff's shenanigan's could hurt her by taking away from policy discussions; or (b) tried to argue that this shows she's tough and battle tested.

Instead, you have to rewrite history on minor points just to avoid having to concede the woman isn't Mother Theresa. It's just bizarre.