Hillary Clinton missed a golden opportunity last night

Hillary Clinton missed a slam-dunk opportunity to corner Bernie (socialist) Sanders in the Democrat debate last evening.  For someone of her supposed intellect and experience, how could she have missed this bunny shot?

Bernie Sanders railed against Hillary's exorbitantly high fees for delivering warmed over speeches.  Thundering mightily from a rattling ribcage, Sanders wondered aloud whether "anyone" is worth $250,000 for a 45-minute speech – the implication being that such fees, regardless of who may be willing and able to pay them, are tantamount to fraud or egregious violations of some nebulous human right. 

Hillary's sheepish response trailed off into a muffled "that's what they offered."  Dillinger at least had some sizzle in his soul by claiming he robbed banks because "that's where the money is."

A clear constitutional retort to Sanders's socialist sulk would have included these modest points of critical thinking:

a.) Cannot a private entity spend its dollars as it chooses?

b.) Cannot an American citizen offer a product or service at a price the market is willing to pay?

c.) By what act of divine fiat is it left to Bernie Sanders to intervene in private enterprise (e.g., setting prices, shaming buyers, manipulating markets)?

d.) And now the slam-dunk: "Senator Sanders, if elected to the presidency, do you intend to impose that same vision of fair pricing and market control over American's private affairs from the Oval Office?  

While clearly no fan of Hillary, there's a certain sadness involved in seeing the last flicker of a dying flame.  Out, out, brief candle.  Until then, even a dying flame can offer sufficient light from which the Constitution may rightly be read.

Hillary Clinton missed a slam-dunk opportunity to corner Bernie (socialist) Sanders in the Democrat debate last evening.  For someone of her supposed intellect and experience, how could she have missed this bunny shot?

Bernie Sanders railed against Hillary's exorbitantly high fees for delivering warmed over speeches.  Thundering mightily from a rattling ribcage, Sanders wondered aloud whether "anyone" is worth $250,000 for a 45-minute speech – the implication being that such fees, regardless of who may be willing and able to pay them, are tantamount to fraud or egregious violations of some nebulous human right. 

Hillary's sheepish response trailed off into a muffled "that's what they offered."  Dillinger at least had some sizzle in his soul by claiming he robbed banks because "that's where the money is."

A clear constitutional retort to Sanders's socialist sulk would have included these modest points of critical thinking:

a.) Cannot a private entity spend its dollars as it chooses?

b.) Cannot an American citizen offer a product or service at a price the market is willing to pay?

c.) By what act of divine fiat is it left to Bernie Sanders to intervene in private enterprise (e.g., setting prices, shaming buyers, manipulating markets)?

d.) And now the slam-dunk: "Senator Sanders, if elected to the presidency, do you intend to impose that same vision of fair pricing and market control over American's private affairs from the Oval Office?  

While clearly no fan of Hillary, there's a certain sadness involved in seeing the last flicker of a dying flame.  Out, out, brief candle.  Until then, even a dying flame can offer sufficient light from which the Constitution may rightly be read.