Teacher:In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders reunited in Brooklyn, N.Y. on April 14 for a contentious CNN debate ahead of the New York primary. Here are the most contentious moments from that debate. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post) 
  
 Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debated in Brooklyn, N.Y., Thursday night, the first time the two had stood on the same stage in 36 days. I tweeted. The Fix posse annotated. And I also jotted down some of the best and worst from the night that was. Enjoy! 
  
 Winners 
  
 Hillary Clinton: Clinton didn't knock Sanders out. But she definitely won on points. She was ready when Sanders came at her on her judgment for voting for the war in Iraq, noting that the voters of New York as well as President Obama trusted her judgment. She noted, powerfully, that women's rights had not come up nearly enough in these debates and that Sanders had sought to minimize them as an issue when Donald Trump made his comments about abortion. (Side note: That was Clinton's best moment of the night, reminding people watching that her campaign to be the first female presidential nominee for a major party was both historic and unique.) 
  
 Most importantly, Clinton drove home -- again and again -- the idea that Sanders talked a good game but couldn't back it up. "It's easy to diagnose the problem," she said at one point. "It's harder to do something about the problem." That's her broader argument in this race -- what Sanders says sounds nice but can't be done -- and she did yeoman's work in making sure anyone watching understood that. 
  
 No, she wasn't perfect in the Brooklyn debate. Clinton continues to be evasive and unconvincing when it comes to her refusal to release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. The idea that the Republicans running for president need to release any paid speeches they gave before Clinton will do the same is a cop-out. Period. 
  
 But, Clinton came into the debate ahead in New York and the race more broadly. Nothing that happened on Thursday night will change that. 
  
 WaPo's Fact Checker: I already knew how good the Fact Checker blog -- run by Glenn Kessler with an assist from the terrific Michelle Lee -- was. But the two candidates are clearly paying a lot of attention to how many Pinocchios this dynamic duo is giving out. From fossil fuels to Clinton's claim about guns in Vermont to Sanders not releasing his tax returns, the candidates just kept citing the Fact Checker. In the words of Charlie Sheen, "winning." 
  
 John Dingell: If you don't already follow the former and longtime Michigan Democratic congressman on Twitter, you're doing it wrong. Dingell's tweet below was the single best one I saw all night. And I saw A LOT of tweets. 
  
 Old Guy Who Yells A Lot Sick Of Listening To Old Guy Who Yells A Lot — John Dingell (@JohnDingell) April 15, 2016 
  
 Losers 
  
 Bernie Sanders: Let's start with what Sanders did well in the Brooklyn debate: He effectively portrayed himself as the candidate of big ideas and Clinton as a seeker of half-measures, full of caution. And, if you came into this debate liking Sanders, you left it loving him. 
  
 Now, to what he did wrong: The sarcasm. He was dismissive to the point of danger, politically speaking, on a number of occasions. 
  
 Whoever told Bernie to go relentlessly angry and negative gave him very, very bad advice. He's come this far because of his inspiration. — Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) April 15, 2016 
  
 Why? I doubt it was any sort of strategy on the part of Sanders but rather a reflection that he has been running against Clinton for a long time now and is sick of listening to her talking points. Regardless of the reason, Sanders isn't going to win over many converts with that sort of approach to Clinton. And, make no mistake, that is what he needs to do going forward. If the race continues as it has to date, Clinton will be the nominee. It might not be as smooth a path as she and her team imagined, but she will win unless Sanders can start changing hearts and minds. Sarcasm isn't the way to do that. 
  
 The audience: I have been on the record in favor of live audiences at political debates. And I've even written favorably about audiences getting a little rowdy -- or at least somewhat actively involved in the back and forth between the candidates. I am now officially flip-flopping. The Brooklyn audience was so over the top, so bent on cheering for their preferred candidate no matter what he or she said that it made it hard to watch and listen to the debate at times. I said aloud several times during the debate, "Can everyone quiet down?" I was sitting alone in my home office at the time. 
  
 Yelling: I suppose, technically, yelling should be in the "winners" category since there was so much of it. But it's my blog, so I am putting it as a loser. It felt as though the entire first hour of the debate was Clinton and Sanders shouting at each other. Not great. 
  
 Nuance: Debates are where nuance goes to die. On fracking. On the Middle East. On just about every issue, the gray areas present in all of these issues were lost amid opposition research dumps and each side looking for an opening to pry at in a future 30-second TV ad. The Lincoln-Douglas debates these are not. ||||| The debate between Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham ClintonPodesta tops Clinton’s short list for chief of staff Paris agreement is the catalyst for a clean global economy Gary Johnson tears into reporter over polls MORE and Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersBernie's 'billionaires' rally against Johnson to push millennials to Clinton Senate Dems target Wells Fargo auditor Trump aide reveals 'three major voter suppression operations' MORE in Brooklyn on Thursday was fiery from beginning to end. 
  
 It was the ninth clash between the candidates and the final one before Tuesday’s New York primary, where 291 delegates are at stake. 
  
 ADVERTISEMENT 
  
 But, as the dust settles, what did we learn? 
  
 This time it’s personal 
  
 Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders don’t like each other. 
  
 To be sure, there were substantive exchanges on Thursday night, but the dominant impression left was one of real and deep enmity. 
  
 Sanders went at Clinton from the get-go and didn’t let up. In the debate’s opening moments, he reiterated his earlier statements that he doubted Clinton’s judgement. But things got much more abrasive from there, with Sanders often using sarcasm as his weapon of choice as a stony-faced Clinton looked on. 
  
 One memorable moment came when Clinton said she had been willing to criticize Wall Street during her time as a senator. 
  
 “Secretary Clinton called them out. Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this,” a withering Sanders said. “And was that before or after you received huge sums of money [for] giving speaking engagements?” 
  
 Later, when Clinton was asked about her campaign’s suggestion that many guns on the streets of New York had come from Sanders’s home state of Vermont, she began to answer only for her rival to laugh audibly. 
  
 “It’s not a laughing matter,” the former secretary of State retorted. 
  
 One thing is for sure: It seems an eternity since Sanders sprang to Clinton’s defense over her email controversy at their first debate in Las Vegas. In fact, that was just six months ago. 
  
 Sanders has pushed Clinton to the left — sort of 
  
 The scars of Hillary Clinton’s loss to President Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary run deep. She knows better than anyone the danger of getting outflanked by a more liberal candidate who can inspire young Democrats and speak to the yearnings of the party’s progressive base. 
  
 She is determined not to let that happen again, and Thursday night’s debate showed that Clinton was willing to move — rhetorically, at least — to try to avoid any such danger. 
  
 During the Brooklyn debate, for example, she insisted that she had “supported the fight for 15” — that is, the battle for a $15 per hour minimum wage. Sanders immediately shot back that “a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.” 
  
 In fact, Clinton has backed a $12 per hour minimum wage while offering more general support for the workers campaigning for the $15 figure. 
  
 Later in the debate, she seemed to suggest she was open to lifting the income cap on Social Security contributions. 
  
 Clinton skeptics will argue that she left herself plenty of wriggle room — her actual answer on the income cap was, “That is one way. If that is the way we pursue, I will follow that.” 
  
 Still, the mere fact that she feels obligated to make such statements suggests she sees a need to protect her left flank from Sanders. 
  
 Clinton needs to get better at straight answers 
  
 The former secretary of State is a formidable debater for the most part, but Thursday was not one of her more impressive showings. 
  
 In part that may have been because Sanders came for her so aggressively and because a boisterous crowd seemed to lean — very vocally — in his direction. 
  
 But Clinton’s tendency to take refuge in nuance — or, her detractors would say, to provide slippery answers — continues to be a problem. 
  
 The response cited above about Social Security was one example. 
  
 Another came when she was asked whether she would apologize for her advocacy of former President Bill Clinton Bill ClintonPodesta tops Clinton’s short list for chief of staff Trump aide reveals 'three major voter suppression operations' Clinton faces new challenges on ObamaCare MORE’s 1994 crime bill. 
  
 “I’m sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people’s lives,” came the reply. 
  
 Such moments, too clever by half, are not likely to ease doubts in voters’ minds about Clinton’s honesty and authenticity. 
  
 Fault lines are opening on Israel and the Palestinians 
  
 An extended exchange about Israel and the Palestinians was the most compelling part of an otherwise broadly predictable segment devoted to foreign policy. 
  
 Sanders unapologetically stood by his earlier statements that Israel’s actions in Gaza in 2014 were “disproportionate.” He also complained that in a recent speech by Clinton to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, “I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people.” 
  
 Clinton held fast to a more orthodox pro-Israel position throughout — which may prove to be the politically smarter move. 
  
 Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president if elected, may feel he has more leeway on this issue than presidential candidates in previous years. But it was nonetheless revealing to hear such clear differences on an issue where Democrats often speak with one voice. 
  
 All the fireworks won’t change much 
  
 The vigor of the exchanges on Thursday night made for compelling television. And Sanders’s supporters can make a good case that this was one of his best nights on a debate stage since the contest began. 
  
 But, at this point, the number of voters whose minds can be changed is limited. Clinton holds a double-digit polling lead in New York and a near-impregnable advantage in the Democratic delegate race. 
  
 The fundamental shape of the race won’t shift at this point barring some absolute catastrophe for Clinton — and even her worst moments on Thursday didn’t come anywhere close to that status. |||||
Student:
No punches or chairs were thrown, but the Democratic debate in Brooklyn Thursday night is being widely described as a battle, a brawl, and a slugfest. If they weren't before, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are now genuinely bitter rivals, according to commentators who are more or less evenly split on whether Clinton or Sanders won the debate, suggesting the pair managed to fight to a draw. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post calls it for Clinton. She "won on points" and "drove home—again and again—the idea that Sanders talked a good game but couldn't back it up," he writes. Sanders was too sarcastic and dismissive to win over Clinton supporters, according to Cillizza, but "if you came into this debate liking Sanders, you left it loving him." Clinton suffered a "drubbing" and turned in a "cringeworthy" performance, according to Dylan Matthews at Vox, who notes that Sanders was on offense all night and deployed his economic justice arguments very effectively. He "didn't just accuse Clinton of being weak on climate change: He accused her of being weak because she's in hock to billionaires and corporations," Matthews writes. Thursday wasn't one of Clinton's "more impressive showings," according to Niall Stanage at the Hill, who notes that she appeared to leave herself some "wriggle room" while trying to avoid being outflanked on the left by Sanders on issues like a $15 minimum wage. Her "tendency to take refuge in nuance—or, her detractors would say, to provide slippery answers—continues to be a problem," he writes. Clinton "did slightly better in terms of her performance" in a contest that had so much shouting and interrupting it resembled recent GOP debates, writes Julian Zelizer at CNN. Sanders had good moments, including the raising of questions on Clinton's foreign policy record, Zelizer writes, but Clinton scored with attacks on Sanders' gun control record and with her "commitment and determination to fight for women's issues." Click for some of the debate's best lines, including Sanders' scathing take on Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches.