Bernie says he won't apologize but he added he supports the families and anyone else who wants a right to sue.

Bernie touts his long time support of banning assault weapons. He acknowledges and won't apologize for voting for the 1994 Clinton/Biden crime bill.

I think Sanders got the better on economy/healthcare/education (combined discussion featuring his signature issues), and also on energy/climate change. Clinton won on guns women's issues and diversity.  Draws on various other issues on the table.

On governing overall, it just depends on if you favor competent, insider, machinery politics or grand bids to change the  game at large.  

On presence, I thought Hillary came across somewhat poorly early on with that kind of mean-spirited approach that I think was part of her demise against Obama 8 years ago, not because it's harsh for a woman, etc., but because it makes her look lacking in confidence and leadership, while Bernie loomed large and confident.  But by the end of the debate I thought Hillary owned the stage, with Bernie struggling to even be noticed, thanks to her repeatedly ignoring the moderators' attempts to stop her on time and claiming the stage more or less as her own campaign stop, particularly when she strongly protested that at no debate had women's issues ever been raised and then ruled on that issue for a few minutes.  

To close, Sanders' closing speech won the hearts crying out against an almost wholly rigged system and you saw almost Beatlesque rapture on audience faces and long, strong chants of "Bernie!"  Then Clinton countered with a local, regional, soft-pedaled "we're in this together, us New Yorkers, we've been together since 9/11 and I've been honored to serve you and would be humbled to be your choice to keep moving forward together."  I thought it was the closest I've ever seen her come to channeling Bill Clinton's personal touch style, and it was powerful.

The Sanders comment came when NY1 host and debate moderator Errol Louis asked Sanders why he had criticized Bill Clinton for defending his wife when confronted by protesters holding a sign that said "Black people are not super predators"--a term Hillary Clinton used in 1996 while campaigning for her husband and his criminal justice policies. "Because it was a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term," Sanders responded to applause.

I'm sorry to say, but Sanders is a nasty piece of work.  

 The difference, in this go-around,  was that Mr. Sanders presented them with emotions laced with less enthusiasm and more embitteredness. Mrs. Clinton tried to make a point without making an enemy, but soon found that the Sanders' point was to make her an enemy.

The debate dilemna for Mrs. Clinton seemed to be how to titrate assertions and challenges against policies and politics. And, of course, how to manage it all while seemingly being transported into a Sanders' rally, what with chants of Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

 That cataract soon fell away, and the course became clear---ignore the interruptions of the hapless and hopeless moderators and point out the less than pure record of Senator Sanders, being most successful on guns, along with pointing out his ineffectiveness of the past and his detail-shy plans for the future.

 Fortunately, for Mrs. Clinton, she did not have to confront the visual interruptions of Senator Sanders that may have annoyed her as much as it did many viewers--the finger raising and facial grimacing indicating displeasure, if not disgust with Mrs. Clinton's response. Surely they were blatantly wrong and needed instant correction:  But, not really.  Little of that urgency was carried forward when he was given, or took, an opportunity to do so.  

Mrs. Clinton applauded those who applauded Senator Sanders, applauding their enthusiasm and involvement, now for Sanders, later, implied, for her.  Of course, Senator Sanders runs the risk now that much of this enthusiasm was spent last night, and other matters, such as exams (where the professors will likely insist on details) may prevent ballot box enthusiasm.  And, Mrs. Clinton runs the risk that Senator Sanders anger and embitterment will fuel the Bernie or busters. And, then, the real winner of this debate would be neither Sanders or Clinton.

BASH: ... Thank you, Secretary. Senator Sanders, you were recently asked what you would replace the big Wall Street banks with if you could break them up. You said, quote, "That's their decision."
Why would you trust the banks to restructure themselves? SANDERS: First, Dana...
BASH: when you said the whole business model was fraudulent?
SANDERS: That's right. So, let's start off with the basic premise. A few days ago Goldman Sachs formally reached a settlement with the United States government for $5 billion dollars. What Goldman Sachs acknowledged was, essentially, that they were selling fraudulent packages of subprime mortgage loans.
Goldman Sachs was not the only bank, other banks, of course, did the same. Now, I don't need Dodd-Frank now to tell me that we have got to break up these banks, A, because they're based on fraudulent principles, and B, because when you have six financial institutions that have assets equivalent to 58% of the GFP of this country, they are just too big, too much concentration of wealth and power.
BASH: But, Senator...
SANDERS: The point is we have got to break them up so that they do not pose a systemic risk and so that we have a vibrant economy with a competitive financial system.
BASH: But Senator, you didn't answer the specific question which is not just about breaking up the banks, but why allow the banks to do it themselves?
SANDERS: Because I'm not sure that the government should say is you are too big to fail. You've got to be a certain size. And, then the banks themselves can figure out what they want to sell off. I don't know that it's appropriate that the Department of Treasury to be making those decisions. What we need is to make sure that they are safe.

Continued incoherence on his signature issue if you ask me.  

Someone once said that all politics are local and if this country is to progress, it starts there.  Keeping the reactionary, ignorant SOB's off our school boards and out of city/county/state government is so important. Those down ticket races are so vital. I'm worried too many people are caught up in hero worship to realize this.  

CNN SANDERS: Well, I think we got one that's coming out tomorrow.

BLITZER: Which one?

SANDERS: Last year's.

BLITZER: 2014? [ed note: check your calendar Wolf]

SANDERS: Yes.

He came through on his word all right, releasing the same return he made public months ago. Link

Repubs take 98% of FF donations but hey here's a website attacking the Clintons.

Actually, I was pointing out how Krugman has descended to name-calling and ad hominem attacks.  That's my complaint. Sure, I used a bit of sarcasm in so doing...

Here's my take, at the moment.

Krugman writes now including himself as a character in the play he wishes to comment on, misrepresents Sanders' points, ignoring the  detail Sanders has provided in order to press a point that Sanders has no details.  Including himself as part of the story is an issue he's had in his writing a long time, since early Obama administration.  Now, fine, it's an op-ed, not supposed to be journalism.  But Krugman has a lot of smugness himself and to go on an ad hominem attack like this is what I'm pointing out.  It doesn't stop me from liking him quite a lot still and appreciating many of his viewpoints, but he's so deeply embedded in being anti-Sanders and pro-Clinton that he's lost his way on this topic, IMHO.  When I find that article where he critiques some of her ideas the same way he has Obama's, forget even Bernie for a moment, I'll look for some balance in his writing on this particular topic. Until then, I'll recall his many op-eds that expressed views much closer to Sanders on a number of economic issues and wonder why he's putting his thumb so heavily on the scale in this primary.

The Krugman I respect is the one who maintains at least a modicum of distance from the fray, and from that distance, offers on a fairly frequent basis interesting observations and analyses.  That's the one I miss as he's so embedded in the current to and fro that he doesn't have much perspective IMO.