Here, the "name one thing" challenge of the Clinton campaign.
That video, or a substantially similar cut of the Moyers-Warren interview was embedded in this item. Similar YouTube posts use the Moyers-Warren bankruptcy about face interview, e.g., here. That item with the embedded video, among other links, linked over to here, which has its own set of links.
Yesterday's video dealt with the question of Clinton reticence over releasing transcripts of her quarter-million dollars per pop "presentations" to Wall Street, proof being in the pudding.
To date, no Clinton tax returns, no six-figure-speech transcripts, and yesterday's video indicates proof has been uncovered that transcripts exist (at least for some speaking engagements), and the transcripts by contract are "intellectual property" of the Clintons.
Not owned or constrained by those paying the piper. Owned by the one singing the tune. So, quit the evasiveness and produce.
As with Nixon's tapes where the evidence then spoke for itself, with these transcripts, when released, the evidence again will speak for itself.
Bernie is not bought. Bernie is not paid for. Not as sharp a dresser as Newt Gingrich, not the perfect Gingrich-like every hair in place coiffure, but unlike Newt, Bernie is a legitimate and decent human being.
___________UPDATE__________
Appeasement as an outlook? You decide.
Would such a position make Neville Chamberlain proud? If the Clintons prevail, would it represent a greater peace in our times than a GOP alternative? Something to really wrestle with, if/when.
If we get a Clinton cramdown, which we in fairness should not, will the judicial appointments situation be enough of a consideration to hold one's nose and vote DEM? Imagine Trump appointing Supreme Court justices. Or Cruz doing it. Worse as simply a quality control thing, Rubio appointees to the Court of a comparable quality to Rubio himself?