And, no, I don't expect Sanders to be a policy wonk. However, on one of his three signature ideas — the second being the related overturning of Citizens United and the third being single-payer — I would expect some grasp of a fundamental.
Even if it's Camp Clinton attacking him on this.
After all, she was right in 2008 for calling out Obama for not having an individual mandate specified in what became Obamacare.
I mean, "free college for all" is further down on his list, debatable as to what level of college should be covered, etc. But, "break up the banks," like "appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Citizens United," is both specific and fairly narrowly targeted.
Oh, and no, CEPR's idea of putting a market cap on banks then inviting them to think of how to break themselves up isn't a good idea, either. It's only a good idea for seeing how creative banks could be in creating holding companies and shell corporations.
As for the larger lament of CEPR's post, erm, two wrongs don't make a right. I don't care how much Paul Ryan lacks specifics.
As for the whys on this, and on early campaign stumbles, along with what type of campaign he should run and spin about that? I'll blame, in part, the other person in the room with him on that endorsement interview, wife Jane. (Theory? She saw him making a "white knight crusade" campaign run as a legacy-builder or something.)
I've participated in a few endorsement interviews of candidates at small dailies. Never saw a spouse of a candidate asked — or allowed — to be part of the process.
And, that opening paragraph? That was a rhetorical trope.
As CNN notes, the NYDN has been relatively favorable to Sanders. Certainly, unlike the NYT, it hadn't made up its mind months ago. (The Daily News has yet to endorse anybody.)
Otherwise, this is about more spinning. Dems of all stripes, let alone those further left, never let Ronald Reagan get away with sounding like St. Ronald of Reagan.
And, as I get to know Doug Henwood more, I guess being a fanboy of Freud (unconscious urges) and Marxism (economic determinism) could be seen as part of why he doesn't "need" specifics from Sanders.
And, no, Bernie may not have been totally in that territory, but ...
That said, Carl Beijer also weighs in on Bernie's behalf. So does Liberal Values. I may be partially persuaded, but not fully. The flip side is that the NYDN interview was exactly that. Sure, the MSM may have done its share of spinning, but, an educated, relatively unbiased layperson can tell it doesn't look 100 percent good.
And, if the NYDN editorial board honestly didn't know that Obama had reversed policy again on who controlled drones, then that couldn't be a "gotcha." A gotcha question can only occur when the asker has knowledge the interrogatee does not.
No, the MSM isn't perfect. Yes, per Beijer, it's ever more cramped for time, though an editorial board is an exception to the time-crampedness of staff writers. And Liberal Values is wrong on its first pullout. The Fed, by definition, is NOT "the administration."
Finally, per the link to the actual editorial about the endorsement interview, it appears the NYDN still hasn't met with Clinton, and has yet to endorse anybody.
The last graph:
Over to you, Secretary Clinton. Your turn to speak.
Therefore, at least in terms of proof, there's no known overall "gotcha" that exists at this point.
There IS one thing the NYDN got very wrong, though, that it got very wrong, and I'll venture very deliberately wrong. It shows some clear and deep Zionist tilt in this editorial comment claiming that Sanders would totally reset the Middle East piece process. On that, the whole thing is a tissue of lies.
And, on those grounds, though it has not formally endorsed Clinton, can there be any doubt?