It's subtle but Bernie is telegraphing the notion of hypocrisy and greed ... Hillary is a sell out. 40 years ago, there was no daylight between Clinton and Sanders.

Supposedly she was fired from that Committee for unethical practices: Fact Check: Was Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate investigation? | jacksonville.com

Specifically, she wrote a brief seeking to deny the right of counsel to Nixon and hid the fact that there was at least one major precedent for the right to counsel in impeachment proceedings (Supreme Court Justice Douglas). Lawyers know that to file a brief and to knowingly hide a contrary precedent, is unethical behaviour, which could lead the court to recommend proceedings for disbarment.

Also, according to her boss on the Committee, Zeifman, a Democrat by the way, she also took the records of the Douglas case and hid them in her office, which put them beyond the reach of others and the public.

If, of course, all this is true. I'm sure the usuals will come down on me like a ton of bricks, so I'm not staking out the position that it is true, or even that I hope it is true. I simply would not at all be surprised if it were true.

Thing I like about Bernie is he seems to be honest and ethical, even though I disagree with all of his positions.

Watching it now .... presumably a re-run.

How wonderfully refreshing to hear two intelligent adults having a fairly substantial debate about meaningful topics. Comparing this debate to the last Republican debate, it's hard to believe they are both in the same country and heading for the same goal.

I really cannot fathom why there are such strong feelings against Clinton; she's clearly smart and experienced. She's not the most affable person on the planet, but I don't get how she inspires such strong feelings.

I really do like Bernie; very good to listen to. But given the amount of opposition Obama faced in the Congress, how could Bernie ever get anywhere with his more extreme positions.

Clinton's last remarks about Bernie not supporting Obama were a mistake, I feel.

"his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions. "

FALSE: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation : snopes.com

It really was refreshing after the shrill harshness of the Republican debates.

Agreed. It was a pretty lame attempt to shore up the black vote by trying to paint Sanders as critical of Obama. It really didn't work.

I thought she handled it rather well; I despised Kissinger as an idealistic teenager growing up in the UK, but have grown to appreciate some of his achievements over time. She pretty much made the logical point that you shouldn't refuse input from anyone.

What was the basis for Clinton being on the Judiciary Committee ... was this when she was a budding lawyer? It really speaks to her experience in the political process at this point.

Okey dokey.

I think she handled it well enough but it stands for what it is. I think that Bernie was making a personal point that he cared about, and maybe some older voters will catch the drift, which paints Hillary as a sell-out. She changed from being a far left liberal into a big business, pro Wall Street, centrist Democrat. I don't know if meant much of anything to the electorate, but it obviously meant something to Bernie. Many of Bernie's voters would not have even been born ... they don't remember the Clinton's of the 90s much less the 70s.

I think, despite Gloria Steinem's poor attempts at pop psychology, it is understandable that Hillary may have become more conservative with age and marriage. This tends to happen to women and men. What doesn't make sense in Steinem's assessment is ... if women become more radical with age then why are older women supporting Hillary? Bernie is clearly more liberal.

Yes, Hillary was a Washington wonder-kid in the 70s. Even then it was the children who were really running the Nation's Capital.

Yes, insulting to their intelligence.

You like "honest and ethical", yet you aren't honest enough to properly quote an article that you cite.

From the article:

So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.

Your version:

Supposedly she was fired from that Committee for unethical practices

It would be, er, honest, for you to say that one person claims that she was fired and that those claims are unverified. But that wouldn't have the spin that you were looking for.

You are so full of surprises and fresh takes on things, aren't you? I wasn't spinning anything, but you're such a rigid leftie and a true believer you just can't believe that anyone on the Left could ever be anything less than pure as the driven snow or that anyone on the Right could ever be less than evil incarnate.

Zeifman was her boss, and he was the person who fired her for the reasons he stated, which - if we both read the same article - was based primarily on the brief she wrote, which failed to acknowledge and argue against an important precedent. Had that brief been presented to the Court it could have gotten her disbarred for failing to be candid with the Court.

Maybe Zeifman really fired her because being a young, if rather unattractive, lawyer in his office, she refused to give him oral sex upon request; and he has since scrambled to justify the firing. I'll grant you something along those lines.

If you read Snopes' analysis you'll see that Zeifman wasn't her boss and nor did he have the power to fire her. It also debunks the rest of the argument you are trying to make.

Lame.

So what's up next? "Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster" perhaps?

You guys have been trying for twenty years to find a scandal. You fail every time, and you embarrass yourselves in the process -- you can't even quote your own sources accurately.

At some point, you should recognize that this persistent tilting at windmills just makes you look gullible and neurotic. Time for you to find new tactics.

Now that Gilmore has suspended, this will really mix things up for the GOP!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/jim-gilmore-suspends-presidential-campaign/

Did not know he was in.