Nothing really new here as far as I can tell but interesting that the LA Times is giving this story so much prominence on the run up to the California primary.

FWIW I think that this whole Brock led effort comes across as extremely desperate and does a whole lot more damage to Clinton than it does to Sanders. The rabid partisans at the Great Orange Ugly may lap this stuff up but there is zero evidence that the effort is having any impact whatsoever at the polling stations. Apparently the old, grumpy, out of touch, single issue dude is still really well liked and really well trusted by the vast majority of people - at least according to the exit polls and actual votes cast.

Some experts on digital campaigns think the idea of launching a paid army of “former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers” and others to produce online counterattacks is unlikely to prove successful. Others, however, say Clinton has little choice but to try, given the ubiquity of online assaults and the difficulty of squelching even provably untrue narratives once they have taken hold.

At the same time, however, using a super PAC to create a counterweight to movements that have sprung up organically is another reflection of the campaign’s awkwardness with engaging online, digital pros said.

LA Times
The article goes on to make the point that while these talking point driven attacks are rarely if ever successful at gaining converts they are good for getting the people already supporting Clinton "riled up and excited." In other words we are not the ones being played - rather it is the ones who think that they are doing the playing. So, next time a pro Clinton troglodyte responds obnoxiously to an innocuous comment don't get angry - they are the marks in this game not us.

Edited 1.19PM ET - (I somehow managed to post an earlier than final draft)