Yes, it does. Instead we get a troll and a guy who flounces off when his opinions are challenged.

You use nothing remotely resembling simple reasoning. You use the arguments I would expect of a mentally deficient defendent of that which is undefendable.

These stupid criticisms leveled about "automatic" vs "semi automatic" seriously piss me off. I never used full auto on my M16 in the military for a few reasons...one was that firing full auto at an enemy was usually a waste of ammo, which you carried in limited supply. Two, I could, if needed, fire almost as quickly on semi auto. Three, we were actually taught to fire in only 3 shot bursts maximum due to the problem of the magnesium barrel warping when overheated..and that thing would get brutal hot on full auto. The point being...semi auto is still the same seriously deadly weapon that has no business in the hands of civilians. It has no purpose other than killing people.

If she's using her time as First Lady as part of her record, she has to be able to defend that record surely.

Sure. But her record is not her husband's record. So any opinions she posited back then are fair game, as is legislation that she was actively involved in (e.g. her attempts to get healthcare reform passed), but legislation over which she had no direct influence isn't.

It is being alleged that Mitt Romney has filed papers to run...

Mitt Romney Recently Filed Papers With FEC To Run For President, Names Paul Ryan As His Vice President

Firstly, Hillary has already said that Bill will be one of her advisers, so his record is therefore fair game.

Second, she's invoked Bill's economic success on countless occasions, so again you've got to take the bad as well as the good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us...ic-legacy.html

it's fair game in the context of who she selects as an advisor. But I don't think it's fair game in the manner in which Sanders is trying to invoke it. For example, in last night's debate, Sanders droned on about bank deregulation at the end of Clinton's second term. The way he phrased it, you'd think it was (Hillary) Clinton that signed that legislation. Like Leslie, that feels to me like Hillary is being held to a different standard than other candidates.

I'm not sure... it feels more like she's "embraced" it in the sense of contrasting Democratic policies with the mess that was the Bush adminsitration policies. That was especially true in '08.

Perhaps that was unfair, but Clinton claimed Sanders voted against the auto bailout, which is disingenuous at best. I don't think Clinton is being held to a different standard. Both of them are trying to spin everything to their own advantage, this is politics after all.

Who is the most likely pick for VP for Clinton? Would Elizabeth Warren even consider it?

Watch for Cory Booker.

I don't think so. Not sure a 2 woman ticket would fly either.

Good call, got to cover the demographics.

I've heard his name thrown around a bit. He would easily beat Christie in a NJ popularity contest. Alternatively I've heard of some Texas based guys who could potentially bring in those electoral votes. Julián Castro, had to look his name up.

I've met him...very nice guy. I hope one day he will run for President.