Democrats have taken the gloves (partially) off

[LetterRip]

Clinton apparently realized that she very well might lose, and so has started seriously attacking Sanders, both directly and through proxies (Pretty slimey of the Washington Post, wow lost a lot of respect for them).  It was politely suggested to her that that was a bad idea, and now she is getting hit back fairly hard.

She called for Sanders to 'apologize' to the Sandy Hook parents for his stance on gun control.  He responded by saying she should apologize to the parents of the soldiers who died because of her bad judgement.

[D.W.]

You got a link to the WP piece you are referring to?  I haven't chased it down yet, and my google skills are apparently weak today.  I see a New York Daily interview.  This it or was there another earlier in the week / late last week?

[LetterRip]

The WaPo piece takes the New York Daily interview and then totally misrepresents it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/

[D.W.]

I'll check it out, I just read the NY Daily and didn't see anything particularly damning other than the, "how do you ride the subway" jab.  WRONG! 

[D.W.]

This is the part of presidential campaigning I always find interesting.

We want them to tell us what THEY would do, as president, to achieve their objectives.  Because, they know that a lot of what they talk about is what they WANT and will try to SELL, but can't just dictate.  That's not how it works.

On the other hand, we as an unruly mob, are prone to forget that and often WANT a president to tell us THEY will do X, Y, and Z.

You risk alienating the uninformed if you explain the limitations of the office and you risk alienating the informed if you overstate what you WILL do, if they know it's not in your power. 

While some of his answers were a bit cautious (as I feel they should be) I was only worried when he started talking about whether or not the president already had the authority to just break up a bank.  I think a defensive, "I'm going to look into it and do everything within my authority to break them up if they are determined too big to fail."

[LetterRip]

The banking question - there are possible ways that a President might have the authority (Justice anti-trust for instance), or that banking regulatory authorities can accomplish it, but it would be better with explicit congressional authorization.  So it really is an open question because while the courts might decide that it is within the Presidents power or an overreach is quite unclear.

[NobleHunter]

A pretty solid interview, that WaPo piece was a joke. He was slightly dodgy about the immediate consequences of re-jigging Wall Street but I can't exactly fault a candidate for refusing to admit that his policies might cause the stock exchange to tank, even if it's for long term gain. He was a bit too fixated on breaking up the banks but it's a talking point, not policy.

Are there no more tokens for the NY subway? That's what I'd expect to use if I was visiting New York or only used it occasionally.

[D.W.]

It was a blatant, "Are you an authentic New Yorker?" question/trap, and (apparently?) he fell for it.

My guess is you can pay right at them now with cc / prepaid pass. 
Why add another layer on top of it to buy tokens still?  The whole intent of tokens was to stop someone fumbling for cash / coins from causing congestion I assume.