I really don't have a horse in this race; I've been voting 3rd party a lot and very well may do so again. With that disclaimer out of the way, there's been something about the Clinton/Sanders exchanges that I've found hard to understand.
When I hear Sanders talk about Clinton's Wall Street donations & speaking fees, it seems clear he's implying these donations somehow change her behavior - either to influence votes or at least provide access. This requires the listener to at least allow for the possibility that she is guilty of some degree of bribery. For many people, this is too much of a stretch since it is, frankly, a very serious charge.
So why doesn't he concede a presumption that she is in no way influenced by these donations, but then ask voters - Why does Wall Street nonetheless contribute disproportionately to her? If the answer isn't some form of bribery (conceded) and it isn't their concern for the greater good (ha!), then it must be because they perceive her as the lesser threat to their personal interests. And when the experts are so clear in their opinion of who (relatively) is Wall Street's friend, who are we to doubt them?
It just seems an obvious line of argument, yet he never ever seems to pick up on it. I'll be very curious to read others thoughts on the matter. Thanks!