Eight years ago, as the nation faced its worst economic crisis in more than half a century, the Treasury pressed Congress to immediately deliver $700 billion for stabilizing a financial services industry crippled by a wave of housing losses.

The enormity of such a bailout was infuriating to the public and, at least initially, too much for many lawmakers in both parties to swallow. Even New York’s junior senator, Hillary Clinton, railed against Wall Street’s excesses. Less surprising was the righteous indignation from the freshman senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.

But the ways in which they ultimately diverged on the bailout remains as good an illustration as any about their approaches to governance. She favors a search for policy alternatives and rhetoric that straddles the middle ground. He’s fond of populist stem-winders and willing to accept Pyrrhic victories.

Their differing styles have become clear during their longer-than-many-expected contest for the Democratic nomination. But they’ve gained out-sized notice recently, ahead of next week’s crucial New York primary, as each has suggested tartly that the other’s record and credentials leave them unqualified for the presidency.

Before this campaign, Clinton and Sanders got to size each up closely only during the 110th Congress, in 2007 and 2008, when he started his tenure as a senator and she waged her first bid for the White House before relinquishing her Senate seat to become secretary of state.