So it’s been going for an hour, and I haven’t seen thread on it yet…
It’s being run by Univision and Washington Post, in Miami.
Some impressions:
Wow, this is brutal. The moderators are really hammering the candidates, particularly Clinton. The gloves are off between Sanders and Clinton as well.
It seems like every time Sanders answers a question, he turns it around to attacking Wall Street banks.
If he wants to disprove Hillary’s charge that he’s a one-issue candidate, that doesn’t seem to be the way to do it. But then, he might not feel he needs to disprove it.
Well, to be fair, on the Benghazi question, he didn’t blame Wall Street. 
Clinton’s proposals seem to be smaller, but she’s providing more details. She’s not predicating changes on a “political revolution” either.
There it is, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro. This is the stuff that would end Sanders in a general election.
agreed. Hence why if the Democrats nominate him, say hi to the Trump Administration.
Isn’t that just like a woman? 
Not as against Trump or Cruz, it wouldn’t, and who else could it possibly be at this point? And Sanders is no Castro, and Hillary is no Ortega (if only!). :rolleyes:
Transcript here - seems to be a work in progress.
Clinton again dishonestly brought up the auto bailout line.
If voters had any sense, it would be automatically disqualifying to have voted against TARP. I’m glad at least that Hillary has finally pushed back and used pretty much the same exact verbiage I do, calling it the “so-called bailout” and noting that it was all paid back with interest.
From the transcript:
So, a little more nuanced. The bill that Sanders voted against contained both the auto and the bank bailout. He voted against it. His reply:
So - on principle - he voted against bailing out both the auto industry and the banking industry, because the Wall Street banks were included.
I personally disagree with him; failing to bail out the banks would have led to a worse recession, IMO, and as I recall the payback of the bailout was baked into the bill.
Basically, Sanders voted due to his desire to punish Wall Street, for their greed, etc.
I distrust ideologues, even when I agree with them.
Grr Bernie the proof isn’t in the pudding - the proof odd the pudding is in the eating.
I don’t think it’s dishonest at all. When it came down to it, rescuing the auto industry meant less to Sanders than punishing the financial industry. That may well encapsulate the divide between Clinton and Sanders in a nutshell, and Clinton is perfectly justified in pointing it out. I wonder how Sanders’ justification of it will play going forward.
Bernie voting against the 2007 immigration reform bill is an interesting factor as well.
I think Sanders is losing his authenticity cred. Sanders’ history on immigration is of defending low income American workers from cheap labor the same way he does on trade. He’s flip flopped for no particular reason other than that Latino voters can be important in some Democratic primaries.
And what’s with their reluctance to call Donald Trump racist?
My guess: he’s the Republican frontrunner, and calling the frontrunner racist is tantamount to calling a large plurality of Republican voters racist, and even for Sanders that’s a bridge too far.
I couldn’t help but note that Sanders favors no restrictions on abortion other than that it’s “between a woman and her doctor”.
My question though, is that is this a firm liberal principle, or are doctors allowed to exercise their conscience “for now”?
[wipes tapioca off 45 automatic] Actually, the proof is in the pudding.