raw_transcript.txt

WOODRUFF: Good evening, and thank you. We are happy to welcome you to Milwaukee for this Democratic
debate.
WOODRUFF: We are especially pleased to thank our partners at Facebook, who have helped us set up a vibrant
conversation among voters who are undecided. And tonight you're going to hear some of their questions for the
candidates. And you can follow along at home on the PBS NewsHour page on Facebook.
We also want to thank our hosts, the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, on whose campus we meet, here in the
beautiful Helen Bader Concert Hall.
IFILL: We want to also extend our warm thanks to Milwaukee Public Radio and Milwaukee Public Television, as
well as all of our friends at the PBS member stations across the country tuning in tonight.
This is the sixth time the Democrats have met face to face. Each time, we learn more about them and the presidents
they say they want to be. You know you're watching -- whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or neither --
because you believe the outcome of the election is important to you. And we believe that, too.
With that, let's welcome the candidates to the stage. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Welcome, Senator, great to see you.
And former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
Very good to be here with you.
CLINTON: Thank you.
IFILL: Welcome to you both.
WOODRUFF: Now, a word about format. There will be two short breaks, and the rules are simple: 90 seconds for
each answer and 30 seconds for the other candidate to respond.
IFILL: With Iowa and New Hampshire behind us, we are now broadening the conversation to America's heartland
and beyond, including here in Wisconsin. Now let's turn to the candidates for their opening statements. The order
was decided by coin toss. And, Senator Sanders, you go first. 
SANDERS: Well, Gwen and Judy, thank you very much for hosting this event. And, PBS, thank you.
Nine months ago, our campaign began. And when it began, we had no political organization, no money, and not
much name recognition outside of the state of Vermont. A lot has happened in nine months.
And what has happened is, I think, the American people have responded to a series of basic truths, and that is that
we have today a campaign finance system which is corrupt, which is undermining American democracy, which
allows Wall Street and billionaires to pour huge sums of money into the political process to elect the candidates of
their choice.
SANDERS: And aligned with a corrupt campaign finance system is a rigged economy. And that's an economy
where ordinary Americans are working longer hours for low wagers. They are worried to death about the future of
their kids. And yet they are seeing almost all new income and all new wealth going to the top 1 percent.
And then in addition to that, the American people are looking around and they see a broken criminal justice system.
They see more people in jail in the United States of America than any other country on earth, 2.2 million. We're
spending $80 billion a year locking up fellow Americans.
They see kids getting arrested for marijuana, getting in prison, getting a criminal record, while they see executives
on Wall Street who pay billions of dollars in settlements and get no prosecution at all. No criminal records for them.
I think what our campaign is indicating is that the American people are tired of establishment politics, tired of
establishment economics. They want a political revolution in which millions of Americans stand up, come together,
not let the Trumps of the world divide us, and say, you know what, in this great country, we need a government that
represents all of us, not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.
Thank you.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator Sanders.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Thank you, Senator Sanders.
Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: I'm running for president to knock down all the barriers that are holding Americans back, and to rebuild
the ladders of opportunity that will give every American a chance to advance, especially those who have been left
out and left behind.
I know a lot of Americans are angry about the economy. And for good cause. Americans haven't had a raise in 15
years. There aren't enough good-paying jobs, especially for young people. And yes, the economy is rigged in favor
of those at the top.
We both agree that we have to get unaccountable money out of our political system and that we have to do much
more to ensure that Wall Street never wrecks main street again.
But I want to go further. I want to tackle those barriers that stand in the way of too many Americans right now.
African-Americans who face discrimination in the job market, education, housing, and the criminal justice system.
Hardworking immigrant families living in fear, who should be brought out of the shadows so they and their children
can have a better future. Guaranteeing that women's work finally gets the pay, the equal pay that we deserve.
I think America can only live up to its potential when we make sure that every American has a chance to live up to
his or her potential. That will be my mission as president. And I think together we will make progress. 
WOODRUFF: Thank you both.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Thank you both. And we'll be right back after a short break to begin questions.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: And, welcome back to this PBS Newshour debate, Democratic debate, here in Milwaukee. Let's get
right to the questions.
Senator Sanders, to you first. Coming off the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, there are many voters who are
taking a closer look at you, and your ideas, and they're asking how big a role do you foresee for the federal
government? It's already spending 21% of the entire U.S. economy. How much larger would government be in the
lives of Americans under a Sanders presidency?
SANDERS: Well, to put that in a context, Judy, I think we have to understand that in the last 30 years in this country
there has been a massive transfer of wealth going from the hands of working families into the top one-tenth of 1%
whose percentage of wealth has doubled. In other words, the very rich are getting richer, almost everybody is going
-- getting poorer.
What I believe is the United States, in fact, should join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee healthcare
to all people. Our Medicare for all single-payer proposal will save the average middle class family $5,000 a year.
I do believe that in the year 2016 we have to look in terms of public education as colleges as part of public education
making public colleges and universities tuition free. I believe that when real unemployment is close to 10%, and
when our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our water systems, Flint, Michigan comes to mind. Our waste water
plants, our rail, our airports, in many places are disintegrating.
Yeah, we can create 13 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure at a cost of a trillion dollars.
WOODRUFF: But, my question is how big would government be? Would there be any limit on the size of the role
of government...
SANDERS: ... Of course there will be a limit, but when today you have massive levels of income and wealth
inequality, when the middle class is disappearing, you have the highest rate of child poverty of almost any major
country on Earth. Yes, in my view, the government of a democratic society has a moral responsibility to play a vital
role in making sure all of our people have a decent standard of living. CLINTON: Judy, I think that the best analysis
that I've seen based on Senator Sanders plans is that it would probably increase the size of the federal government by
about 40%, but what is most concerning to me is that in looking at the plans -- let's take healthcare for example.
Last week in a CNN town hall, the Senator told a questioner that the questioner would spend about $500 dollars in
taxes to get about $5,000 dollars in healthcare. Every progressive economist who has analyzed that says that the
numbers don't add up, and that's a promise that cannot be kept, and it's really important now that we are getting into
the rest of the country that both of us are held to account for explaining what we are proposing because, especially
with healthcare, this is not about math. This is about people's lives, and we should level with the American people
about what we can do to make sure they get quality affordable healthcare.
SANDERS: Well, let us level with the American people. Secretary Clinton has been going around the country
saying Bernie Sanders wants to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, people are going to lose their MedicAid, they're
going to lose their CHIP program.
I have fought my entire life to make sure that healthcare is a right for all people. We're not going to dismantle
everything. But, here is the truth.
Twenty-nine million people have no health insurance today in America. We pay, by far, the highest prices in the
world for prescription drugs. One out of five Americans can't even afford the prescriptions their doctors are writing.
Millions of people have high deductibles and co-payments. What I said, and let me repeat it, I don't know what
economists Secretary Clinton is talking to, but what I have said, and let me repeat it, that yes, the middle -- the
family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 dollars more in taxes, and get a reduction in their
healthcare costs of $5,000 dollars.
In my view healthcare is a right of all people, not a privilege, and I will fight for that.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: I can only say that we both share the goal of universal health care coverage. You know, before it was
called Obamacare, it was called Hillarycare. And I took on the drug companies and I took on the insurance
companies to try to get us universal health care coverage.
(APPLAUSE)
And why I am a staunch supporter of President Obama's principal accomplishment -- namely the Affordable Care
Act -- is because I know how hard it was to get that done. We are at 90 percent coverage. We have to get the
remaining 10. I've set forth very specific plans about how to get costs down, especially prescription drug costs.
And it is difficult to in any way argue with the goal that we both share. But I think the American people deserve to
know specifically how this would work. If it's Medicare for all, then you no longer have the Affordable Care Act,
because the Affordable Care Act, as you know very well, is based on the insurance system, based on exchanges,
based on a subsidy system. The Children's Health Insurance Program, which I helped to create, which covers 8
million kids, is also a different kind of program.
So if you're having Medicare for all, single-payer, you need to level with people about what they will have at the end
of the process you are proposing. And based on every analysis that I can find by people who are sympathetic to the
goal, the numbers don't add up, and many people will actually be worse off than they are right now.
IFILL: Final thought, Senator.
SANDERS: That is absolutely inaccurate. Look, here is the reality, folks. There is one major country on Earth that
does not guarantee health care to all people. There is one major country -- the United States -- which ends up
spending almost three times per capita what they do in the U.K. guaranteeing health care to all people, 50 percent
more than they do in France guaranteeing health care to all people, far more than our Canadian neighbors, who
guarantee health care to all people.
Please do not tell me that in this country, if -- and here's the if -- we have the courage to take on the drug companies,
and have the courage to take on the insurance companies, and the medical equipment suppliers, if we do that, yes,
we can guarantee health care to all people in a much more cost effective way.
CLINTON: Well, let me just -- let me just say, once again...
(APPLAUSE)
... that, having been in the trenches fighting for this, I believe strongly we have to guarantee health care. I believe we
are on the path to doing that. The last thing we need is to throw our country into a contentious debate about health
care again.
And we are not England. We are not France. We inherited a system that was set up during World War II; 170
million Americans get health insurance right now through their employers. So what we have tried to do and what
President Obama succeeded in doing was to build on the health care system we have, get us to 90 percent coverage.
We have to get the other 10 percent of the way to 100. I far prefer that and the chances we have to be successful
there than trying to start all over again, gridlocking our system, and trying to get from zero to 100 percent. 
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: I'd like to move along. I'd like to move along.
Secretary Clinton, you might -- you also have proposed fairly expansive ideas about government. You may
remember this pledge from a State of the Union Address at which I believe you were present, in which these words
were said: "The era of big government is over." You may remember that.
When asked your feelings about the federal government this week, 61 percent of New Hampshire Democrats told
exit pollsters that they are angry or at least dissatisfied. Given what you and Senator Sanders are proposing, an
expanding government in almost every area of our lives, is it fair for Americans who fear government to fear you?
CLINTON: No. But it is absolutely fair and necessary for Americans to vet both of our proposals, to ask the really
hard questions about, what is it we think we can accomplish, why do we believe that, and what would be the results
for the average American family?
In my case, whether it's health care, or getting us to debt-free tuition, or moving us toward paid family leave, I have
been very specific about where I would raise the money, how much it would cost, and how I would move this
agenda forward.
I've tried to be as specific to answer questions so that my proposals can be vetted, because I feel like we have to
level with people for the very reason, Gwen, that you are mentioning. There is a great deal of skepticism about the
federal government. I'm aware of that. It comes from the right, from the left, from people on all sides of the political
spectrum.
CLINTON: So we have a special obligation to make clear what we stand for, which is why I think we should not
make promises we can't keep, because that will further, I think, alienate Americans from understanding and
believing we can together make some real changes in people's lives.
IFILL: But I haven't heard either of you put a price tag on your -- you say...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: I will put a price tag. My price tag is about $100 billion a year. And again, paid for. And what I have
said is I will not throw us further into debt. I believe I can get the money that I need by taxing the wealthy, by
closing loopholes, the things that we are way overdue for doing.
And I think once I'm in the White House we will have enough political capital to be able to do that.
But I am conscious of the fact that we have to also be very clear, especially with young people, about what kind of
government is going to do what for them and what it will cost.
IFILL: Senator?
SANDERS: Well, Secretary Clinton, you're not in the White House yet. And let us be clear that every proposal that I
have introduced has been paid for. For example, all right, who in America denies that we have an infrastructure that
is crumbling? Roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, who denies that?
Who denies that real unemployment today, including those who have given up looking for work and are working
part-time is close to 10 percent? Who denies that African-American youth unemployment, real, is over 50 percent.
We need to create jobs. So yes, I will do away with the outrageous loopholes that allow profitable multinational
corporations to stash billions of dollars in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and in a given year pay zero, zero in
federal income tax. 
Yes, I'm going to do away with that. We will use those proceeds, a hundred billion a year, to invest in rebuilding our
infrastructure. Yes, I believe that as a result of the illegal behavior on Wall Street, that they are a Wall Street that
drove this country into the worst economic downturn since the Great Recession -- Great Depression.
Yes, I do believe that now after the American people bailed Wall Street out, yes, they should pay a Wall Street
speculation tax so that we can make public colleges and universities tuition-free.
We bailed them out. Now it is their time to help the middle class.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I think, again, both of us share the goal of trying to make college affordable for all young
Americans. And I have set forth a compact that would do just that for debt-free tuition.
We differ, however, on a couple of key points. One of them being that if you don't have some agreement within the
system from states and from families and from students, it's hard to get to where we need to go.
And Senator Sanders's plan really rests on making sure that governors like Scott Walker contribute $23 billion on
the first day to make college free. I am a little skeptical about your governor actually caring enough about higher
education to make any kind of commitment like that.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Next, we're going to...
SANDERS: A brief response.
WOODRUFF: Very brief, thank you.
SANDERS: Here is where we are with public education. A 100, 150 years ago incredibly brave Americans said, you
know what, working class kids, low income kids should not have to work in factories or on the farms. Like rich kids,
they deserve to get a free education.
And that free education of extraordinary accomplishment was from first grade to 12th grade. The world has
changed. This is 2016. In many ways, a college degree today is equivalent to what a high school degree was 50, 60
years ago.
So, yes, I do believe that when we talk about public education in America, today, in a rapidly changing world, we
should have free tuition at public colleges and universities. That should be a right of all Americans regardless of the
income of their families.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton, your campaign -- you and your campaign have made a clear appeal to women
voters. You have talked repeatedly about the fact, we know you would be, if elected, the first woman president.
But in New Hampshire 55 percent of the women voters supported and voted for Senator Sanders. What are women
missing about you?
CLINTON: Well, first, Judy, I have spent my entire adult life working toward making sure that women are
empowered to make their own choices, even if that choice is not to vote for me. I believe that it's most important that
we unleash the full potential of women and girls in our society.
And I feel very strongly that I have an agenda, I have a record that really does respond to a lot of the specific needs
that the women in our country face. So I'm going to keep making that case. I'm going to keep making sure that
everything I've done, everything that I stand for is going to be well known. 
But I have no argument with anyone making up her mind about who to support. I just hope that by the end of this
campaign there will be a lot more supporting me. That's what I'm working towards.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: As you know, just quickly, as you know, your strong supporter, former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, said the other day that there's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women. Do you
agree with what she said?
CLINTON: Well, look, I think that she's been saying that for as long as I've known her, which is about 25 years. But
it doesn't change my view that we need to empower everyone, women and men, to make the best decisions in their
minds that they can make. That's what I've always stood for.
And when it comes to the issues that are really on the front lines as to whether we're going to have equal pay, paid
family leave, some opportunity for, you know, women to go as far as their hard work and talent take them, I think
that we still have some barriers to knock down, which is why that's at the core of my campaign.
I would note, just for a historic aside, somebody told me earlier today we've had like 200 presidential primary
debates, and this is the first time there have been a majority of women on the stage. So, you know, we'll take our
progress wherever we can find it.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Senator Sanders, you're in the minority, but we still want to hear from you.
(LAUGHTER) SANDERS: Look, we are fighting for every vote that we can get from women, from men, straight,
gay, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans. We are trying to bring America together around an agenda that
works for working families and the middle class.
I am very proud, if my memory is not correct -- I think I am -- that I have a lifetime -- and I've been in Congress a
few years -- a lifetime 100 percent pro-choice voting record. I am very proud that over the years we have had the
support in my state of Vermont from very significant majorities of women.
I'm very proud that I support legislation that is currently in the Congress, got support of almost all progressive
Democrats in the House and Senate, which says we will end the absurdity of women today making 79 cents on the
dollar compared to men. And we will join the rest of the other -- the industrialized world in saying that paid family
and medical leave should be a right of all working families.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Senator, do you worry at all that you will be the instrument of thwarting history, as Senator Clinton keeps
claiming, that she might be the first woman president?
SANDERS: Well, you know, I think, from a historical point of view, somebody with my background, somebody
with my views, somebody who has spent his entire life taking on the big money interests, I think a Sanders victory
would be of some historical accomplishment, as well.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I have said -- I have said many times, you know, I'm not asking people to support me
because I'm a woman. I'm asking people to support me because I think I'm the most qualified, experienced, and
ready person to be the president and the commander- in-chief.
(APPLAUSE)
And I appreciate greatly Senator Sanders' voting record. And I was very proud to get the endorsement of the Planned
Parenthood Action Fund, because I've been a leader on these issues. I have gone time and time again to take on the
vested interests who would keep women's health care decisions the province of the government instead of women
ourselves.
CLINTON: I'm very proud that NARAL endorsed me because when it comes to it we need a leader on women's
issues. Somebody who, yes, votes right, but much more than that, leads the efforts to protect the hard-fought gains
that women have made, that, make no mistake about it, are under tremendous attack, not just by the Republican
presidential candidates but by a whole national effort to try to set back women's rights.
So I'm asking women, I'm asking men, to support me because I'm ready to go into the White House on January 20th,
2017 and get to work on both domestic and foreign policy challenges.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Final comment.
SANDERS: Let me concur with the secretary, no question women's rights are under fierce attack all over this
country. And I will tell you something that really galls me. I will not shock anybody to suggest that in politics there
is occasionally a little bit of hypocrisy. Just a little bit.
All over this country we have Republican candidates for president saying we hate the government. Government is
the enemy. We're going to cut Social Security to help you. We're going to cut Medicare and Medicaid, federal aid to
education to help you, because the government is so terrible.
But, by the way, when it comes to a woman having to make a very personal choice, ah, in that case, my Republican
colleagues love the government and want the government to make that choice for every woman in America.
If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what hypocrisy is.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Thank you both.
IFILL: We turn now to the first of several questions from our partners at Facebook. They were selected from a
curated group of people we've been following of undecided voters.
The first comes from Claudia Looze, a 54-year-old woman who works as a program manager at a public affairs
cable network in Madison, Wisconsin. And she writes: "Wisconsin is number one in African-American male
incarceration, according to a University of Wisconsin study. They found that Wisconsin's incarceration rate for
black men, which is at 13 percent, was nearly double the country's rate. What can we do across the nation to address
this?"
Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: This is one of the great tragedies in our country today. And we can no longer continue to sweep it under
the rug. It has to be dealt with. Today a male African-American baby born today stands a one-in-four chance of
ending up in jail. That is beyond unspeakable.
So what we have to do is the radical reform of a broken criminal justice system.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: What we have to do is end over-policing in African- American neighborhoods. The reality is that both
the African-American community and the white community do marijuana at about equal rates. 
The reality is four times as many blacks get arrested for marijuana. Truth is that far more blacks get stopped for
traffic violations. The truth is that sentencing for blacks is higher than for whites.
We need fundamental police reform, clearly, clearly, when we talk about a criminal justice system. I would hope
that we could all agree that we are sick and tired of seeing videos on television of unarmed people, often AfricanAmericans,
shot by police officers.
What we have got to do is make it clear that any police officer who breaks the law will, in fact, be held accountable.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I completely agree with Senator Sanders. The first speech I gave in this campaign back in
April was about criminal justice reform and ending the era of mass incarceration.
The statistics from Wisconsin are particularly troubling, because it is the highest rate of incarceration for AfricanAmericans
in our nation, twice the national average. And we know of the tragic, terrible event that lead to the death
of Dontre Hamilton right here in Milwaukee, a young man unarmed, who should still be with us.
His family certainly believes that. And so do I. So we have work to do. There have been some good
recommendations about what needs to happen. President Obama's policing commission came out with some. I have
fully endorsed those.
CLINTON: But we have to restore policing that will actually protect the communities that police officers are sworn
to protect.
And, then we have to go after sentencing, and that's one of the problems here in Wisconsin because so much of what
happened in the criminal justice system doesn't happen at the federal level, it happens at the state and local level.
But, I would also add this. There are other racial discrepancies. Really systemic racism in this state, as in others,
education, in employment, in the kinds of factors that too often lead from a position where young people,
particularly young men, are pushed out of school early, are denied employment opportunities. So, when we talk
about criminal justice reform, and ending the era of mass incarceration, we also have to talk about jobs, education,
housing, and other ways of helping communities.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Nothing that Secretary Clinton said do I disagree with. This mandatory sentencing, a very bad idea. It
takes away discretion from judges. We have got to demilitarize local police departments so they do not look like
occupying armies.
(APPLAUSE)
We have got to make sure that local police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity. And,
where we are failing abysmally is in the very high rate of recidivism we see. People are being released from jail
without the education, without the job training, without the resources that they need to get their lives together, then
they end up -- we're shocked that they end up back in jail again. So, we have a lot of work to do.
But, here is a pledge I've made throughout this campaign, and it's really not a very radical pledge. When we have
more people in jail, disproportionately African American and Latino, than China does, a communist authoritarian
society four times our size. Here's my promise, at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people
in jail than any other country.
We will invest in education, and jobs for our kids, not incarceration and more jails.
(APPLAUSE) WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton, I was talking recently with a 23 year old black woman who voted
for President Obama because she said she thought relations between the races would get better under his leadership, 
and his example. Hardly anyone believes that they have. Why do you think race relations would be better under a
Clinton presidency? What would you do that the nation's first African American has not been able to?
CLINTON: Well, I'm just not sure I agree completely with that assessment. I think under President Obama we have
seen a lot of advances, the Affordable Care Act has helped more African Americans than any other group to get
insurance, to be taken care of, but we also know a lot more than we did. We have a lot more social media, we have
everybody with a cellphone.
So, we are seeing the dark side of the remaining systemic racism that we have to root out in our society. I think
President Obama has set a great example. I think he has addressed a lot of these issues that have been quite difficult,
but he has gone forward. Now, what we have to do is to build on an honest conversation about where we go next.
We now have much more information about what must be done to fix our criminal justice system. We now have
some good models about how better to provide employment, housing and education. I think what President Obama
did was to exemplify the importance of this issue as our first African American president, and to address it both
from the President's office, and through his advocacy, such as working with young men, and Mrs. Obama's work
with young women.
But, we can't rest. We have work to do, and we now know a lot more than we ever did before. So, it's going to be my
responsibility to make sure we move forward to solve these problems that are now out in the open. Nobody can deny
them. To use the Justice Department, as we just saw, they have said they are going to sue Ferguson, that entered into
a consent agreement, and then tried to back out. So, we're going to enforce the law, we're going to change policing
practices, we're going to change incarceration practices, but we're also going to emphasize education, jobs, and
housing.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Senator Sanders?
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Well, I think, Judy, what has to be appreciated is that, as a result of the disastrous and illegal behavior
on Wall Street, millions of lives were hurt. People lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings. Turns out that the
African-American community and the Latino community were hit especially hard. As I understand it, the AfricanAmerican
community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse.
So when you have childhood African-American poverty rates of 35 percent, when you have youth unemployment at
51 percent, when you have unbelievable rates of incarceration -- which, by the way, leaves the children back home
without a dad or even a mother -- clearly, we are looking at institutional racism. We are looking at an economy in
which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And sadly, in America today, in our economy, a whole lot of those
poor people are African-American.
WOODRUFF: So race relation was be better under a Sanders presidency than they've been?
SANDERS: Absolutely, because what we will do is say, instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, we are going to
create millions of jobs for low-income kids so they're not hanging out on street corners. We're going to make sure
that those kids stay in school or are able to get a college education.
And I think when you give low-income kids -- African-American, white, Latino kids -- the opportunities to get their
lives together, they are not going to end up in jail. They're going to end up in the productive economy, which is
where we want them.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Let me turn this on its head, because when we talk about race in this country, we always talk about AfricanAmericans,
people of color. I want to talk about white people, OK?
SANDERS: White people?
IFILL: I know. (LAUGHTER)
So many people will be surprised to find out that we are sitting in one of the most racially polarized metropolitan
areas in the country. By the middle of this century, the nation is going to be majority nonwhite. Our public schools
are already there. If working- class, white Americans are about to be outnumbered, are already underemployed in
many cases, and one study found they are dying sooner, don't they have a reason to be resentful, Senator -- Secretary
Clinton?
CLINTON: Look, I am deeply concerned about what's happening in every community in America, and that includes
white communities, where we are seeing an increase in alcoholism, addiction, earlier deaths. People with a high
school education or less are not even living as long as their parents lived. This is a remarkable and horrifying fact.
And that's why I've come forward with, for example, a plan to revitalize coal country, the coalfield communities that
have been so hard hit by the changing economy, by the reduction in the use of coal. You know, coal miners and their
families who helped turn on the lights and power our factories for generations are now wondering, has our country
forgotten us? Do people not care about all of our sacrifice?
And I'm going to do everything I can to address distressed communities, whether they are communities of color,
whether they are white communities, whether they are in any part of our country.
I particularly appreciate the proposal that Congressman Jim Clyburn has -- the 10-20-30 proposal -- to try to spend
more federal dollars in communities with persistent generational poverty. And you know what? If you look at the
numbers, there are actually as many, if not more white communities that are truly being left behind and left out.
So, yes, I do think it would be a terrible oversight not to try to address the very real problems that white Americans -
- particularly those without a lot of education whose jobs have -- you know, no longer provided them or even no
longer present in their communities, because we have to focus where the real hurt is. And that's why, as president, I
will look at communities that need special help and try to deliver that.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Senator -- Senator, I want you to respond to that, but I also want you to -- am I wrong? Is it even right to be
describing this as a matter of race?
SANDERS: Yeah, you can, because African-Americans and Latinos not only face the general economic crises of
low wages, and high unemployment, and poor educational opportunities, but they face other problems, as well. So,
yes, we can talk about it as a racial issue. But it is a general economic issue.
SANDERS: And here's what the economic issue is.
The wages that high school graduates receive today are significantly less, whether you are white or black, than they
used to be. Why is that? Because of a series of disastrous trade policies which have allowed corporate America
through NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, Secretary Clinton and I disagree on those
issues.
But view is those trade policies have enabled corporate America to shut down in this country, throw millions of
people out on the street. Now no one thinks that working in the factory is the greatest job in the world. But you
know what, you can make a middle class wage, you have decent health care, decent benefits.
You once had a pension. Those jobs, in many cases, are now gone. They're off to China. Now you are a worker,
white worker, black worker, who had a decent job, that manufacturing job is gone. 
What have you got now? You are working at McDonald's? That is why there is massive despair all over this
country. People have worked their entire lives. They're making a half, two-thirds what they used to make. Their kids
are having a hard time finding any work at all.
And that's why this study, which shows that if you can believe it today, for white working class people between 45
and 54, life expectancy is actually going down.
Suicide, alcoholism, drugs, that's why we need to start paying attention to the needs of working families in this
country, and not just a handful of billionaires who have enormous economic and political power.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Thank you.
Senator Sanders, one of the causes of anxiety for working class Americans is connected to immigrants. President
Obama, as you know, has issued executive actions to permit some 5 million undocumented immigrants who are
living now in the United States to come out of the shadows without fear of deportation to get work permits.
Would you go further than that? And if so, how specifically would you do it? Should an undocumented family
watching this debate tonight, say, in Nevada, rest easy, not fear of further deportations under a Sanders presidency?
SANDERS: The answer is yes. We've got 11 million undocumented people in this country. I have talked to some of
the young kids with tears rolling down their cheeks, are scared to death that today they may or their parents may be
deported.
I believe that we have got to pass comprehensive immigration reform, something that I strongly supported. I believe
that we have got to move toward a path toward citizenship. I agree with President Obama who used executive orders
to protect families because the Congress, the House was unable or refused to act.
And in fact I would go further. What would motivate me and what would be the guiding light for me in terms of
immigration reform, Judy, is to bring families together, not divide them up.
And let me say this also. Somebody who is very fond of the president, agrees with him most of the time, I disagree
with his recent deportation policies. And I would not support those.
Bottom line is a path towards citizenship for 11 million undocumented people, if Congress doesn't do the right thing,
we use the executive orders of the president.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: I strongly support the president's executive actions. I hope the Supreme Court upholds them. I think
there is constitutional and legal authority for the president to have done what he did.
I am against the raids. I'm against the kind of inhumane treatment that is now being visited upon families, waking
them up in the middle of the night, rounding them up. We should be deporting criminals, not hardworking
immigrant families who do the very best they can and often are keeping economies going in many places in our
country.
I'm a strong supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. Have been ever since I was in the Senate. I was one of
the original sponsors of the DREAM Act. I voted for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.
Senator Sanders voted against it at that time. Because I think we have to get to comprehensive immigration reform
with a path to citizenship. And as president I would expand enormous energy, literally call every member of
Congress that I thought I could persuade.
Hopefully after the 2016 election, some of the Republicans will come to their senses and realize we are not going to
deport 11 or 12 million people in this country. And they will work with me to get comprehensive immigration
reform.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Secretary Clinton, I do have a disagreement here. If my memory is correct, I think when we saw
children coming from these horrendous, horrendously violent areas of Honduras and neighboring countries, people
who are fleeing drug violence and cartel violence, I thought it was a good idea to allow those children to stay in this
country. That was not, as I understand it, the secretary's position.
In terms of 2007 immigration reform, yeah, I did vote against it. I voted against it because the Southern Poverty Law
Center, among other groups, said that the guest-worker programs that were embedded in this agreement were akin to
slavery. Akin to slavery, where people came into this country to do guest work were abused, were exploited, and if
they stood up for their rights, they'd be thrown out of this country.
So it wasn't just me who opposed it. It was LULAC, one of the large Latino organizations in this country. It was the
AFL-CIO. It was some of the most progressive members of the United States Congress who opposed it for that
reason.
But we are where we are right now. And where we are right now is we have got to stand up to the Trumps of the
world who are trying to divide us up. What we have to do right now is bring our people together and understand that
we must provide a path towards citizenship for 11 million undocumented people.
CLINTON: Two quick responses. One, with respect to the Central American children, I made it very clear that those
children needed to be processed appropriately, but we also had to send a message to families and communities in
Central America not to send their children on this dangerous journey in the hands of smugglers.
I've also called for the end of family detention, for the end of privately-run detention centers, along with private
prisons, which I think are really against the common good and the rule of law.
And with respect to the 2007 bill, this was Ted Kennedy's bill. And I think Ted Kennedy had a very clear idea about
what needed to be done. And I was proud to stand with him and support it.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: I'd like... SANDERS: Well, let me just respond. I worked with Ted Kennedy. He was the chairman of
my committee. And I loved Ted Kennedy. But on this issue, when you have one of the large Latino organizations in
America saying vote no, and you have the AFL-CIO saying vote no, and you have leading progressive Democrats,
in fact, voting no, I don't apologize for that vote.
But in terms of the children, I don't know to whom you're sending a message. Who are you sending a message to?
These are children who are leaving countries and neighborhoods where their lives are at stake. That was the fact. I
don't think we use them to send a message. I think we welcome them into this country and do the best we can to help
them get their lives together.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, that just wasn't -- that just wasn't the fact, Senator. The fact is that there was a great effort made
by the Obama administration and others to really send a clear message, because we knew that so many of these
children were being abused, being treated terribly while they tried to get to our border.
So we have a disagreement on this. I think now what I've called for is counsel for every child so that no child has to
face any kind of process without someone who speaks and advocates for that child so that the right decision
hopefully can be made. 
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: If you would allow me now to move on, we've been talking about children. I want to talk about seniors. That
takes us to our second Facebook question from Farheen Hakeem, who writes, "My father" -- she's a 40-year-old
woman who works for a nonprofit here in Milwaukee. And she writes, "My father gets just $16 in food assistance
per month as part of Medicaid's family community program in Milwaukee County for low-income seniors. How will
you as president work to ensure low-income seniors get their basic needs met?"
Start with you, Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: OK. You know, you judge a nation not by the number of millionaires and billionaires it has, but by how
you treat, we treat, the most vulnerable and fragile people in our nation. And by those standards, we're not doing
particularly well.
SANDERS: We have the highest rate of childhood poverty among almost any major country on Earth. And in terms
of seniors, there are millions of seniors -- and I've talked to them in my state of Vermont and all over this country --
who are trying to get by on $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year Social Security. And you know what? You do the
arithmetic. You can't get by on $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year.
And here's an area where Secretary Clinton and I believe we have a difference. I have long supported the proposition
that we should lift the cap on taxable income coming into the Social Security Trust Fund, starting at $250,000.
(APPLAUSE)
And when we -- and when we do that, we don't do what the Republicans want, which is to cut Social Security. We
do what the American people want, to expand Social Security by $1,300 a year for people under $16,000, and we
extend the life of Social Security for 58 years.
Yes, the wealthiest people, the top 1.5 percent, will pay more in taxes. But a great nation like ours should not be in a
position where elderly people are cutting their pills in half, where they don't have decent nutrition, where they can't
heat their homes in the wintertime. That is not what America should be about. If elected president, I will do
everything I can to expand Social Security benefits, not just for seniors, but for disabled veterans, as well.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: I think -- I think it's fair to say we don't have a disagreement. We both believe there has to be more
money going into the Social Security system. I've said I'm looking at a couple of different ways, one which you
mentioned, Senator, but also trying to expand the existing tax to passive income that wealthy people have so that we
do get more revenue into the Social Security Trust Fund.
I have a slightly different approach, though, about what we should do with that initially. First, rather than expand
benefits for everyone, I do want to take care of low-income seniors who worked at low-wage jobs. I want to take
care of women. When the Social Security program was started in the 1930s, not very many women worked. And
women have been disadvantaged ever since. They do not get any credit for their care-taking responsibilities. And the
people who are often the most hard-hit are widows, because when their spouse dies, they can lose up to one-half of
their Social Security monthly payment. So we have no disagreement about the need to buttress Social Security, get
more revenue into the program. But I want to start by helping those people who are most at risk, the ones who, yes,
are cutting their pills in half, who don't believe they can make the rent, who are worried about what comes next for
them.
SANDERS: In all due respect...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: In all due respect, Secretary Clinton, a lot of the progressive groups, the online groups have really asked
you a simple question. Are you coming onboard a proposal? And what is that proposal?
Now, the proposal that I have outlined, you know, should be familiar to you, because it is what essentially Barack
Obama campaigned on in 2008. You opposed him then.
I would hope that you would come onboard and say that this is the simple and straightforward thing to do. We're
asking the top 1.5 percent, including passive income, to start paying a little bit more so that the elderly and disabled
vets in this country can live with security and dignity. I hope you will make a decision soon on this.
CLINTON: Well, Senator, look, I think we're in vigorous agreement here. We both want to get more revenue in. I
have yet to see a proposal that you're describing that the -- raising the cap would apply to passive income. That has
not been...
SANDERS: That's my bill. Check it out.
CLINTON: Well, that has not been a part of most of the proposals that I've seen. I'm interested in making sure we
get the maximum amount of revenue from those who can well afford to provide it. So I'm going to come up with the
best way forward. We're going to end up in the same place. We're going to get more revenue. I'm going to prioritize
those recipients who need the most help first.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: We're going to move on. Secretary Clinton, your campaign has recently ramped up criticism of
Senator Sanders for attending Democratic Party fundraisers from which you say he benefited. But nearly half of
your financial sector donations appear to come from just two wealthy financiers, George Soros and Donald
Sussman, for a total of about $10 million.
WOODRUFF: You have said that there's no quid pro quo involved. Is that also true of the donations that wealthy
Republicans give to Republican candidates, contributors including the Koch Brothers?
CLINTON: I can't speak for the Koch Brothers, you're referring to a Super PAC that we don't coordinate with, that
was set up to support President Obama, that has now decided that they want to support me. They are the ones who
should respond to any questions.
Let's talk about our campaigns. I'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750 thousand donors, and the vast
majority of them are giving small contributions. So, I'm proud of Senator Sanders, and his supporters. I think it's
great that Senator Sanders, President Obama and I have more donors than any three people who have every run,
certainly on the Democratic side. That's the way it should be, and I'm going to continue to reach out to thank all my
online contributors for everything they are doing for me, to encourage them and help me do more just as Senator
Sanders is.
I think that is the real key here. We both have a lot of small donors. I think that sets us apart from a lot of what's
happening right now on the Republican side.
The Koch Brothers have a very clear political agenda. It is an agenda, in my view, that would do great harm to our
country. We're going to fight it as hard as we can, and we're going to fight whoever the Republicans nominate who
will depend on the Koch Brothers, and others.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: I'm asking if Democratic donors are different than Republican donors.
SANDERS: What we are talking about in reality is a corrupt campaign finance system, that's what we're talking
about. We have to be honest about it. It is undermining American democracy.
When extraordinarily wealthy people make very large contributions to Super PACs, and in many cases in this
campaign, Super PACs have raised more money than individual candidates have, OK? We had a decision to make 
early on, do we do a Super PAC? And, we said no. We don't represent Wall Street, we don't represent the billionaire
class, so it ends up I'm the only candidate up here of the many candidates who has no Super PAC. But, what we did
is we said to the working families of this country, look, we know things are tough, but if you want to help us go
beyond establishment politics, and establishment economics, send us something. And, it turns out that up until -- and
this has blown me away, never in a million years would I have believed that I would be standing here tonight telling
you that we have received three and a half million individual contributions from well over a million people.
Now, Secretary Clinton's Super PAC, as I understand it, received $25 million dollars last reporting period, $15
million dollars from Wall Street. Our average contribution is $27 dollars, I'm very proud of that.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Senator Sanders, are you saying...
CLINTON: We are mixing apples and oranges. My 750,000 donors have contributed more than a million and a half
donations. I'm very proud. That, I think, between the two of us demonstrates the strength of the support we have
among people who want to see change in our country.
But, the real issue, I think, that the Senator is injecting into this is that if you had a Super PAC, like President Obama
has, which now says it wants to support me. It's not my PAC. If you take donations from Wall Street, you can't be
independent.
I would just say, I debated then Senator Obama numerous times on stages like this, and he was the recipient of the
largest number of Wall Street donations of anybody running on the Democratic side ever.
Now, when it mattered, he stood up and took on Wall Street. He pushed through, and he passed the Dodd-Frank
regulation, the toughest regulations since the 1930's. So, let's not in anyway imply here that either President Obama
or myself, would in anyway not take on any vested interested, whether it's Wall Street, or drug companies, or
insurance companies, or frankly, the gun lobby to stand up to do what's best for the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: The people aren't dumb. Why in God's name does Wall Street...
(APPLAUSE)
But let's not -- but let's not -- let's not insult -- let's not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren't
dumb. Why in God's name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it; they
want to throw money around.
(LAUGHTER)
Why does the pharmaceutical industry make huge campaign contributions? Any connection maybe to the fact that
our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs?
Why does the fossil fuel industry pay -- spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions? Any connection
to the fact that not one Republican candidate for president thinks and agrees with the scientific community that
climate change is real and that we have got to transform our energy system?
(APPLAUSE)
And when we talk about Wall Street, let's talk about Wall Street. I voted for Dodd-Frank, got an important
amendment in it. In my view, it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. But when we talk about Wall Street, you have
Wall Street and major banks have paid $200 billion in fines since the great crash. No Wall Street executive has been
prosecuted. 
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, let's just -- let's just follow up on this, because, you know, I've made it very clear that no bank is
too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail, and because of Dodd-Frank, we now have in law a process that the
president, the Federal Reserve, and others can use if any bank poses a systemic risk. I think that's a major
accomplishment.
I agree, however, it doesn't go far enough, because what it focuses on are the big banks, which Senator Sanders has
talked about a lot, for good reason. I go further in the plan that I've proposed, which has been called the toughest,
most effective, comprehensive plan for reining in the other risks that the financial system could face. It was an
investment bank, Lehman Brothers, that contributed to our collapse. It was a big insurance company, AIG. It was
Countrywide Mortgage. My plan would sweep all of them into a regulatory framework so we can try to get ahead of
what the next problems might be.
And I believe that not only Barney Frank, Paul Krugman, and others, have said that what I have proposed is the
most effective. It goes in the right direction. We have Dodd-Frank. We can use it to break up the banks, if that's
appropriate. But let's not kid ourselves. As we speak, there are new problems on the horizon. I want to get ahead of
those, and that's why I've proposed a much more comprehensive approach to deal with all of these...
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: We have to go to a break. We...
SANDERS: Let me, you know, again, respectfully disagree with Secretary Clinton here. When you have three out of
the four largest financial institutions in this country bigger today than they were when we bailed them out because
they were too big to fail, when you have six financial institutions having assets equivalent to 58 percent of the GDP
of America, while issuing two-thirds of the credit cards and a third of the mortgages, look, I think if Teddy
Roosevelt were alive today, that great trust-buster would have said break them up. I think he would have been right.
I think he would have said bring back a 21st-century Glass-Steagall legislation. I think that would have been right,
as well. That's my view.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you both. It is time for a break. And when we come back, we're going to turn to
some new topics, including how these candidates will keep America safe.
IFILL: There's a lot more to come in just a few minutes. Stay with us for more of the PBS NewsHour Democratic
Debate.
(BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Welcome back to the Democratic presidential debate. Before we return to our questions, we have a
follow-up question from our Facebook group. And it is to Senator Sanders.
Senator, it comes from Bill Corfield. He is a 55-year-old musician from Troy, Ohio. And he asks: "Are there any
areas of government you would like to reduce?"
SANDERS: Hey, I'm in the United States Senate, and anyone who doesn't think that there is an enormous amount of
waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy throughout government would be very, very mistaken.
I believe in government, but I believe in efficient government, not wasteful government.
IFILL: How about you, Senator Clinton -- Secretary Clinton? 
CLINTON: Absolutely. And, you know, there are a number of programs that I think are duplicative and redundant
and not producing the results that people deserve. There are a lot of training programs and education programs that I
think can be streamlined and put into a much better format so that if we do continue them they can be more useful,
in public schools, community colleges, and colleges and universities.
I would like to take a hard look at every part of the federal government and really do the kind of analysis that would
rebuild some confidence in people that we're taking a hard look about what we have, you know, and what we don't
need anymore. And that's what I intend to do.
SANDERS: If I could just answer that, we have also got to take a look at the waste and inefficiencies in the
Department of Defense, which is the one major agency of government that has not been able to be audited. And I
have the feeling you're going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: We spent the first part of this debate talking about domestic insecurity. The second part, we want to talk
about our foreign policy insecurities. And we want to start with a question for you, Secretary Clinton, about
America's role in the world.
Americans are becoming increasingly worried that attacks abroad are coming home, that they already are, in fact,
here. According to exit polls from last week, from earlier this week, more than two- thirds of Democrats in New
Hampshire are concerned about sending their children to fight in wars they can't win. They fret that the next attack is
just around the corner and we are not ready. Are we?
CLINTON: Look, I think we are readier than we used to be, but it's a constant effort that has to be undertaken to
make sure we are as ready as we need to be. We have made a lot of improvements in our domestic security since
9/11, and we have been able to foil and prevent attacks, yet we see the terrible attack in San Bernardino and know
that we haven't done enough.
So we have to go after this both abroad and at home. We have to go after terrorist networks, predominantly ISIS --
that's not the only one, but let's focus on that for a minute. We have to lead a coalition that will take back territory
from ISIS. That is principally an American-led air campaign that we are now engaged in.
We have to support the fighters on the ground, principally the Arabs and the Kurds who are willing to stand up and
take territory back from Raqqa to Ramadi. We have to continue to work with the Iraqi army so that they are better
prepared to advance on some of the other strongholds inside Iraq, like Mosul, when they are able to do so. And we
have to cut off the flow of foreign funding and foreign fighters.
And we have to take on ISIS online. They are a sophisticated purveyor of propaganda, a celebrator of violence, an
instigator of attacks using their online presence.
Here at home, we've got to do a better job coordinating between federal, state, and local law enforcement. We need
the best possible intelligence not only from our own sources, but from sources overseas, that can be a real-time
fusion effort to get information where it's needed.
But the final thing I want to say about this is the following. You know, after 9/11, one of the efforts that we did in
New York was if you see something or hear something suspicious, report it. And we need to do that throughout the
country.
But we need to understand that American Muslims are on the front line of our defense. They are more likely to
know what's happening in their families and their communities, and they need to feel not just invited, but welcomed
within the American society. So when somebody like Donald Trump and others...
(APPLAUSE)
... stirs up the demagoguery against American Muslims, that hurts us at home. It's not only offensive; it's dangerous.
And the same goes for overseas, where we have to put together a coalition of Muslim nations. I know how to do
that. I put together the coalition that imposed the sanctions on Iran that got us to the negotiating table to put a lid on
their nuclear weapons program.
(APPLAUSE)
And you don't go tell Muslim nations you want them to be part of a coalition when you have a leading candidate for
president of the United States who insults their religion.
So this has to be looked at overall, and we have to go at it from every possible angle.
IFILL: Senator Sanders...
SANDERS: Let me just say this. What a president of the United States has got to do -- and what is his or her major,
I think, responsibility -- is to, A, make certain that we keep our people safe, that we work with allies around the
world to protect...
... president of the United States has got to do, and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility, is to, A, make
certain that we keep our people safe. That we work with allies around the world to protect democratic values. That
we do all that we can to create a world of peace and prosperity.
I voted against the war in Iraq because I listened very carefully to what President Bush and Vice President Cheney
had to say and I didn't believe them. And if you go to my Web site, berniesanders.com, what you find is not only
going to help lead the opposition to that war, but much of what I feared would happen when I spoke on the floor of
the House, in fact, did happen in terms of the instability that occurred.
Now I think an area in kind of a vague way, or not so vague, where Secretary Clinton and I disagree is the area of
regime change. Look, the truth is that a powerful nation like the United States, certainly working with our allies, we
can overthrow dictators all over the world.
And God only knows Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. We could overthrow Assad tomorrow if we wanted to.
We got rid of Gadhafi. But the point about foreign policy is not just to know that you can overthrow a terrible
dictator, it's to understand what happens the day after.
And in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, working with some other
countries, did get rid of a terrible dictator named Gadhafi. But what happened is a political vacuum developed. ISIS
came in, and now occupies significant territory in Libya, and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a
terrorist foothold.
But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years where the United States has been involved in overthrowing
governments. Mossadegh back in 1953. Nobody knows who Mossadegh was, democratically-elected prime minister
of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British. And
as a result of that, the shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. The result of that, you had the Iranian Revolution
coming in, and that is where we are today. Unintended consequences.
So I believe as president I will look very carefully about unintended consequences. I will do everything I can to
make certain that the United States and our brave men and women in the military do not get bogged down in
perpetual warfare in the Middle East.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: If I could just respond. Two points. One, Senator Sanders voted in 1998 on what I think is fair to call a
regime change resolution with respect to Iraq, calling for the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. 
He voted in favor of regime change with Libya, voted in favor of the Security Council being an active participate in
setting the parameters for what we would do, which of course we followed through on.
I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS in 2016. It's very important we focus on the threats we face
today, and that we understand the complicated and dangerous world we are in.
When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the
commander-in- chief. And it's important that people really look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are, and
who is best prepared for dealing with them.
As we all remember, Senator Obama, when he ran against me, was against the war in Iraq. And yet when he won, he
turned to me, trusting my judgment, my experience, to become secretary of state.
I was very honored to be asked to do that and very honored to serve with him those first four years.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Judy, if I can, there is no question, Secretary Clinton and I are friends, and I have a lot of respect for
her, that she has enormous experience in foreign affairs. Secretary of state for four years. You've got a bit of
experience, I would imagine.
But judgment matters as well. Judgment matters as well. And she and I looked at the same evidence coming from
the Bush administration regarding Iraq. I lead the opposition against it. She voted for it.
But more importantly, in terms of this Libya resolution that you have noted before, this was a virtually unanimous
consent. Everybody voted for it wanting to see Libya move toward democracy, of course we all wanted to do that.
SANDERS: That is very different than talking about specific action for regime change, which I did not support.
CLINTON: You did support a U.N. Security Council approach, which we did follow up on. And, look, I think it's
important to look at what the most important counterterrorism judgment of the first four years of the Obama
administration was, and that was the very difficult decision as to whether or not to advise the president to go after
bin Laden.
I looked at the evidence. I looked at the intelligence. I got the briefings. I recommended that the president go
forward. It was a hard choice. Not all of his top national security advisors agreed with that. And at the end of the
day, it was the president's decision. So he had to leave the Situation Room after hearing from the small group
advising him and he had to make that decision. I'm proud that I gave him that advice. And I'm very grateful to the
brave Navy SEALs who carried out that mission.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Judy, one area very briefly...
WOODRUFF: Just a final word.
SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference, in the last debate -- and I believe in her
book -- very good book, by the way -- in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the
support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry
Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.
(APPLAUSE)
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact,
Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created
the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one 
of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry
Kissinger.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Secretary Clinton? CLINTON: Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy,
and we have yet to know who that is.
SANDERS: Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger. That's for sure.
CLINTON: That's fine. That's fine.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever
the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging
relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly
useful relationship for the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
So if we want to pick and choose -- and I certainly do -- people I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to
for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it's a big, complicated world
out there.
SANDERS: It is.
CLINTON: And, yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some
relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: I find -- I mean, it's just a very different, you know, historical perspective here. Kissinger was one of
those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I
do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That's what he talked about, the
great threat of China.
And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up relations with China, and now
pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to
China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he's urging companies to shut
down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Senator, let me -- let me move on to another country with which the U.S. has a complicated
relationship, Senator Sanders, and that's Russia. On the one hand, we're aware that Russia is a country that the
United States needs to cooperate with.
WOODRUFF: Just tonight, Secretary of State John Kerry has announced what appears to be an agreement with the
Russians to lead -- that could lead toward a ceasefire in Syria, would be the first cessation of conflict in that country,
in that civil war in five years, but it comes at a very high price, because not only have all -- have we seen the deaths,
the removal of so many people, millions of people, we now see the Russians in the last few weeks have bombed in a
way that benefits President Assad, has not gone after ISIS.
So my question to you is, when it comes to dealing with Russia, are you prepared -- how hard are you prepared to
be? Are you prepared to institute further economic sanctions? Would you be prepared to move militarily if Russia
moves on Eastern Europe? It seems to me that Russia recently has gotten the better of the United States.
SANDERS: Well, this is what I would say. It is a complicated relationship. I congratulate Secretary of State John
Kerry and the president for working on this agreement.
As you've indicated, what is happening in Syria, the number of people, the hundreds of thousands of people who
have been killed -- men, women, 20,000 children, the people who are forced to flee their own country -- their own
country -- it is unspeakable. It is a real horror.
Now, what I think is that right now we have got to do our best in developing positive relations with Russia. But let's
be clear: Russia's aggressive actions in the Crimea and in Ukraine have brought about a situation where President
Obama and NATO -- correctly, I believe -- are saying, you know what, we're going to have to beef up our troop
level in that part of the world to tell Putin that his aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched, that he is not going
to get away with aggressive action.
I happen to believe that Putin is doing what he is doing because his economy is increasingly in shambles and he's
trying to rally his people in support of him. But bottom line is: The president is right. We have to put more money.
We have to work with NATO to protect Eastern Europe against any kind of Russian aggression.
SANDERS: Well, with respect to Syria, I really do appreciate the efforts that Secretary Kerry has made. The
agreement on humanitarian relief now needs to be implemented, because there are enclaves that are literally filled
with starving people throughout Syria.
The agreement on a cease-fire, though, is something that has to be implemented more quickly than the schedule that
the Russians agreed to. You know, the Russians wanted to buy time. Are they buying time to continue their
bombardment on behalf of the Assad regime to further decimate what's left of the opposition, which would be a
grave disservice to any kind of eventual cease-fire? So I know Secretary Kerry is working extremely hard to try to
move that cease-fire up as quickly as possible.
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that
resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a
political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.
This is incredibly complicated, because we've got Iran as a big player, in addition to Russia. We have Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, and others who have very important interests in their view.
This is one of the areas I've disagreed with Senator Sanders on, who has called for Iranian troops trying to end civil
war in Syria, which I think would be a grave mistake. Putting Iranian troops right on the border of the Golan right
next to Israel would be a nonstarter for me. Trying to get Iran and Saudi Arabia to work together, as he has
suggested in the past, is equally a nonstarter.
So let's support what Secretary Kerry and the president are doing, but let's hope that we can accelerate the cease-fire,
because I fear that the Russians will continue their bombing, try to do everything they can to destroy what's left of
the opposition. And remember, the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.
So as we get a cease-fire and maybe some humanitarian corridors, that still leaves the terrorist groups on the
doorstep of others in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and the like. So we've got some real work to do, and let's try to
make sure we actually implement what has been agreed to with the Russians.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Let me just -- just say this. For a start, the secretary and I disagree -- and I think the president does not
agree with her -- in terms of the concept of a no-fly zone in Syria. 
I think you do have a humanitarian tragedy there, as I mentioned a moment ago. I applaud Secretary Kerry and the
president for trying to put together this agreement. Let's hope that it holds.
SANDERS: But furthermore, what we have got to do, I'm sorry, yes, I do believe that we have got to do everything
that we can, and it will not happen tomorrow. But I do hope that in years to come, just as occurred with Cuba, 10, 20
years ago, people would say, reach normalized relations with Cuba.
And by the way, I hope we can end the trade embargo with Cuba as well. But the idea that we some day maybe have
decent relations with Iran, maybe put pressure on them so they end their support for terrorism around the world, yes,
that is something I want to achieve.
And I believe that the best way to do that is to be aggressive, to be principled, but to have the goal of trying to
improve relations. That's how you make peace in the world. You sit down and you work with people, you make
demands of people, in this case demanding Iran stop the support of international terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, I respectfully disagree. I think we have achieved a great deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement
to put a lid on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That has to be enforced absolutely with consequences for Iran
at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement.
I do not think we should promise or even look toward normalizing relations because we have a lot of other business
to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, they have to stop trying
to destabilize the Middle East, causing even more chaos.
Yes, they've got to get out of Syria. They've got to quit sponsoring Hezbollah and Hamas. They have got to quit
trying to ship rockets into Gaza that can be used against Israel.
We have a lot of work to do with Iran before we ever say that they could move toward normalized relations with us.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. But I recall when Secretary Clinton ran
against then-Senator Obama, she was critical of him for suggesting that maybe you want to talk to Iran, that you
want to talk to our enemies.
I have no illusion. Of course you are right. Iran is sponsoring terrorism in many parts of the world, destabilizing
areas. Everybody knows that. But our goal is, in fact, to try over a period of time to, in fact, deal with our enemies,
not just ignore that reality.
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: ... Senator Sanders, from a debate in 2008, quote what I said. The question was, would you meet with an
adversary without conditions? I said no. And in fact, in Obama administration, we did not meet with anybody
without conditions. That is the appropriate approach in order to get the results that you are seeking.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: No, I think the idea was that president -- then-Senator Obama was wrong for suggesting that it is a good
idea to talk to your opponents. It's easier to talk to your friends. It's harder to talk to your enemies. I think we should
do both.
(APPLAUSE) 
IFILL: Let me move on. You have both mentioned the humanitarian tragedies which have been an outgrowth in part
of what has happened in Syria and in Libya. More than a million refugees entered Europe in 2015. Another 76,000
just last month, that is about 2,000 arrivals every day.
Nearly 400 people have been lost at sea so far this year, crossing the Mediterranean. And there are reports that
10,000 children are missing.
If we are leaders in this world, where should the U.S. be on this? What should the United States be doing, Secretary
Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I was pleased that NATO announced just this week that they're going to start doing patrols in the
Mediterranean, in the Aegean, to try to interdict the smugglers, to try to prevent the kind of tragedies that we have
seen all too often, also to try to prevent more refugees from coming to the European Union.
And it's especially significant that they are working with both Turkey and Greece in order to do this.
With respect to the United States, I think our role in NATO, our support for the E.U., as well as our willingness to
take refugees so long as they are thoroughly vetted and that we have confidence from intelligence and other sources
that they can come to our country, we should be doing our part.
And we should back up the recent donors conference to make sure we have made our contribution to try to deal with
the enormous cost that these refugees are posing to Turkey and to members of the E.U. in particular.
CLINTON: This is a humanitarian catastrophe. There is no other description of it. So we do as the United States
have to support our friends, our allies in Europe. We have to stand with them. We have to provide financial support
to them. We have to provide the NATO support to back up the mission that is going on. And we have to take
properly vetted refugees ourselves.
SANDERS: A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to go on a congressional delegation. And I went to one of
these Turkish refugee camps right on the border of Syria. And what a sad sight that was: Men, women, children
forced out of their homes. And Turkey, by the way, did a very decent thing, providing what was reasonable housing
and conditions for those people.
It seems to me that given our history as a nation that has been a beacon of hope for the oppressed, for the
downtrodden, that I very strongly disagree with those Republican candidates who say, you know what, we've got to
turn our backs on women and children who left their home with nothing, nothing at all. That is not what America is
supposed to be about.
So I believe that working with Europe -- and, by the way, you know, we've got some very wealthy countries there in
that part of the world. You got Kuwait and you got Qatar and you got Saudi Arabia. They have a responsibility, as
well.
But I think this is a worldwide -- that the entire world needs to come together to deal with this horrific refugee crisis
we're seeing from Syria and Afghanistan, as well.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: And we have a final question from our Facebook family. And it goes to Senator Sanders. It comes
from Robert Andrews. He's a 40-year-old stay-at-home dad in Dover, Massachusetts. He says, "The world has seen
many great leaders in the course of human history. Can you name two leaders -- one American and one foreign --
who would influence your foreign policy decisions? And why do you see them as -- why are they influential?"
SANDERS: You know, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the oath of office in 1933 at a time when 25 percent of the
American people were unemployed, country was in incredible despair. And he stood before the American people
and he said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," a profound statement that gave the American people the
courage to believe that, yes, we could get out of that terrible depression. 
And then what he did is redefine the role of government. You know, you had Herbert Hoover before that saying, no,
we got to only worry about the deficit. So what if mass unemployment exists? So what if children are going hungry?
That's not the role of the government.
And when FDR said, "Yeah, it is," that we're going to use all of the resources that we have to create jobs, to build
homes, to feed people, to protect the farmers, we are a nation which if we come together there is nothing that we
could not accomplish.
And kind of -- that's what I see our campaign is about right now. In this particular moment of serious crises, saying
to the American people don't give up on the political process. don't listen to the Trumps of the world and allowing
them to divide us. If we reengage and get involved, yeah, we can have health care for all people, we can make public
colleges and universities tuition-free. We do not have to have massive levels of income and wealth inequality.
In the same light, as the foreign leader, Winston Churchill's politics were not my politics. He was kind of a
conservative guy in many respects. But nobody can deny that as a wartime leader, he rallied the British people when
they stood virtually alone against the Nazi juggernaut and rallied them and eventually won an extraordinary victory.
Those are two leaders that I admire very much.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: I certainly agree with FDR for all the reasons Senator Sanders said. And I agree about the role that he
played both in war and in peace on the economy and defeating fascism around the world. I would choose Nelson
Mandela for his generosity of heart, his understanding of the need for reconciliation.
CLINTON: But I want to -- I want to follow up on something having to do with leadership, because, you know,
today Senator Sanders said that President Obama failed the presidential leadership test. And this is not the first time
that he has criticized President Obama. In the past he has called him weak. He has called him a disappointment.
He wrote a forward for a book that basically argued voters should have buyers' remorse when it comes to President
Obama's leadership and legacy.
And I just couldn't agree -- disagree more with those kinds of comments. You know, from my perspective, maybe
because I understand what President Obama inherited, not only the worst financial crisis but the antipathy of the
Republicans in Congress, I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for being a president...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: ... who got us out of that...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: ... put us on firm ground, and has sent us into the future. And it is a -- the kind of criticism that we've
heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans. I do not expect from someone running
for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama.
SANDERS: That is...
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Madam Secretary, that is a low blow. I have worked with President Obama for the last seven years.
When President Obama came into office we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, 800,000 jobs a month. We had a
$1.4 trillion deficit. And the world's financial system is on the verge of collapse.
As a result of his efforts and the efforts of Joe Biden against unprecedented, I was there in the Senate, unprecedented
Republican obstructionism, we have made enormous progress. 
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: But you know what? Last I heard we lived in a democratic society. Last I heard, a United States senator
had the right to disagree with the president, including a president who has done such an extraordinary job.
So I have voiced criticisms. You're right. Maybe you haven't. I have. But I think to suggest that I have voiced
criticism, this blurb that you talk about, you know what the blurb said? The blurb said that the next president of the
United States has got to be aggressive in bringing people into the political process.
That's what I said. That is what I believe.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: President Obama and I are friends. As you know, he came to Vermont to campaign for me when he was
a senator. I have worked for his re-election. His first election and his re-election.
But I think it is really unfair to suggest that I have not been supportive of the president. I have been a strong ally
with him on virtually every issue. Do senators have the right to disagree with the president? Have you ever
disagreed with a president? I suspect you may have.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, Senator, what I am concerned about, is not disagreement on issues, saying that this is what I
would rather do, I don't agree with the president on that, calling the president weak, calling him a disappointment,
calling several times that he should have a primary opponent when he ran for re-election in 2012, you know, I think
that goes further than saying we have our disagreements.
As a senator, yes, I was a senator. I understand we can disagree on the path forward. But those kinds of personal
assessments and charges are ones that I find particularly troubling.
IFILL: Senator, if you would like respond to -- you may respond to that but it is time for closing statements and you
can use your time for closing statements to do that.
SANDERS: Well, one of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: All right, look, this has been a great debate. A lot of interesting issues have come together. Let me
conclude by just saying this.
There is no president, in my view, not Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, who has the capability or the power to
take on Wall Street, large campaign donors, the corporate media, the big money interests in this country alone.
This campaign is not just about electing a president. What this campaign is about is creating a process for a political
revolution in which millions of Americans, working people who have given up on the political process, they don't
think anybody hears their pains or their concerns.
Young people for whom getting involved in politics is as, you know, it's like going to the moon. It ain't going to
happen. Low income people who are not involved in the political process.
SANDERS: What this campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is
about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and
not just the 1 percent, who today have so much economic and political power.
Thank you all very much. 
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: You know, we -- we agree that we've got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that
Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck Main Street again.
But here's the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single- issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a
single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding
people back, whether it's poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it's the poor miners who are being
left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and
oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that
need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that's what I want to take on.
And here in Wisconsin, I want to reiterate: We've got to stand up for unions and working people who have done it
before...
(APPLAUSE)
... the American middle class, and who are being attacked by ideologues, by demagogues. Yes, does Wall Street and
big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence?
You're right.
But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We
would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay.
We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday. And we would still have
governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to
organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions. So I'm going to keep talking about tearing down all
the barriers that stand in the way of Americans fulfilling their potential, because I don't think our country can live up
to its potential unless we give a chance to every single American to live up to theirs.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Thank you. Thank you Senator Clinton. Thank you, Senator Sanders. We also want to thank our partners at
Facebook and our hosts here at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
(APPLAUSE)
WOODRUFF: And we want to thank our audience, our quiet audience here in Helen Bader Concert Hall, and to all
of you watching at home. Thank you all. Stay tuned for analysis of the debate and the overall race for the
Democratic nomination. That's coming up next here on PBS stations and online at PBS.org/NewsHour.
IFILL: I'm going to remain here in Milwaukee tomorrow evening for a special edition of Washington Week here on
PBS.
WOODRUFF: And I'm going to be returning to Washington. I hope you'll join us for the PBS NewsHour tomorrow
and every night. That's it from all of us here in Milwaukee. We thank you.
IFILL: Good night.
(APPLAUSE)
END



























TODD: Good evening, and welcome to the MSNBC Democratic candidates debate.

MADDOW: We are super excited to be here at the University of New Hampshire. Tonight, this is the first time that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have squared off exactly like this. Face-to-face, just one-on-one, just the two of them.

TODD: And neither party has seen this yet. These candidates are both running for the Democratic nomination, but they are very different from each other when it comes to what matters most and how they would go about the job of being president. Our job tonight is to draw out those differences so you, the voters, can understand them and be fully informed.

MADDOW: And we do hope that the candidates will take this opportunity to show us the distinctions -- show us the differences between them. That's the whole reason that we're here tonight.

We're not here for talking points. We're to learn about the difference between the candidates. And with that, let's get going. Please join us in welcoming Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: First, I want to say a special thanks to the New Hampshire union leader for helping make this debate possible, and the readers, who helped provide some of the questions and topics that we'll be addressing tonight.

The rules tonight, by the way, are simple: 90 seconds for answers, 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals.

MADDOW: And with that, that's it. We're going to begin with 60- second opening statements from each of the candidates. And as agreed to in advance by the two campaigns, we're going to begin tonight with Senator Sanders.

SANDERS: Rachel, thank you very much.

Millions of Americans are giving up on the political process. And they're giving up on the political process because they understand the economy is rigged.

They are working longer hours for low wages. They're worried about the future of their kids, and yet almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent. Not what America is supposed to be about. Not the fairness that we grew up believing that America was about. And then sustaining that rigged economy is a corrupt campaign finance system undermining American democracy, where billionaire, Wall Street, corporate America can contribute unlimited sums of money into super PACs and into candidates.

Our job, together, is to end a rigged economy, create an economy that works for all, and absolutely overturn Citizens United. One person, one vote. That's what American democracy is about.

TODD: Thank you, Senator. Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: Well, I'm happy to be here in New Hampshire for this debate, as we move toward the primary on Tuesday.

I believe that America has the opportunity to once again live by our values, live up to our values in the 21st century, but I think that America can only do that if Americans can succeed. And there are lots of reasons why Americans today are feeling left out and left behind.

Yes, of course, the economy has not been working for most Americans. Yes, of course, we have special interests that are unfortunately doing too much to rig the game.

But there's also the continuing challenges of racism, of sexism, of discrimination against the LGBT community, of the way that we treat people as opposed to how we want to be treated.

I believe that we can get back on the right track. I want to imagine a country where people's wages reflect their hard work, where we have healthcare for everyone, and where every child gets to live up to his or her potential.

I'm fighting for people who cannot wait for those changes, and I'm not making promises that I cannot keep.

TODD: All right.

Let's get started.

Secretary Clinton, last night you cited the Concord Monitor when you said of Senator Sanders that, quote, "It's very hard to see how any of his proposals could ever be achievable." So please tell us why you think if he's elected president on a platform of promising things like free public college and universal healthcare, that he cannot achieve those things.

CLINTON: Well, let me start by saying that Senator Sanders and I share some very big progressive goals. I've been fighting for universal healthcare for many years, and we're now on the path to achieving it. I don't want us to start over again. I think that would be a great mistake, to once again plunge our country into a contentious debate about whether we should have and what kind of system we should have for healthcare.

I want to build on the progress we've made; got from 90 percent coverage to 100 percent coverage. And I don't want to rip away the security that people finally have; 18 million people now have healthcare; preexisting conditions are no longer a bar. So we have a difference.

I also believe in affordable college, but I don't believe in free college, because every expert that I have talked to says, look, how will you ever control the costs. What I want to do is make sure middle class kids, not Donald Trump's kids, get to be able to afford college. I want to get the economy going again. It's not just enough about what we're against, as important as that is. I have a plan to create new jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy jobs that will make us the 21st century clean energy super power. I also want to make sure small businesses can start and grow again.

And of course, I believe in raising the minimum wage and equal pay for work. But the numbers just don't add up, from what Senator Sanders has been proposing. That's why all of the independent experts, all of the editorial boards that have vetted both of us have concluded that it is just not achievable.

Let's go down a path where we can actually tell people what we will do. A progressive is someone who makes progress. That's what I intend to do.

TODD: Thank you, Secretary.

Senator Sanders, so just explain how you spent nearly two decades in Congress and haven't gotten any of these things passed. Why do you think as president you'll be able to achieve big, big new programs like this?

SANDERS: Well, I haven't quite run for president before.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

Let's deal with some of the comments that Secretary Clinton made. And by the way, you know, sometimes there's a lot of drama here. I have known Secretary Clinton for 25 years and respect her very much.

Here is the issue. Every major country on earth, whether it's the U.K., whether it's France, whether it's Canada, has managed to provide healthcare to all people as a right and they are spending significantly less per capita on health care than we are. So I do not accept the belief that the United States of America can't do that.

I do not accept the belief that the United States of America and our government can't stand up to the ripoffs of the pharmaceutical industry which charge us by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

Number two, in the economy today, everybody understands that we need a well educated workforce. This is 2016. When we talk about public education, it can no longer be K through 12th grade. I do believe that public colleges and universities should be tuition free. Well, how do we pay for that? It's an expensive proposition.

I do believe that we should substantially lower student debt in this country, which is crushing millions of people. We pay for it, in my view, by a tax on Wall Street speculation. The middle class bailed out Wall Street in their time of need. Now, it is Wall Street's time to help the middle class.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: If I could just follow up on that.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: There is no disagreement between us on universal coverage for health care, the disagreement is where do we start from and where do we end up.

The Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I want to improve it. I want to build on it, get the costs down, get prescription drug costs down. Senator Sanders wants us to start all over again. This was a major achievement of President Obama, of our country. It is helping people right now.

I am not going to wait and have us plunge back into a contentious national debate that has very little chance of succeeding. Let's make the Affordable Care Act work for everybody.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Let me...

TODD: Go.

SANDERS: ... this is a good discussion here.

TODD: Yes, go ahead.

SANDERS: And let me just say this. As Secretary Clinton may know, I am on the Health Education Labor Committee. That committee wrote the Affordable Care Act. The idea I would dismantle health care in America while we're waiting to pass a Medicare for all is just not accurate. The Affordable Care Act has clearly, as Secretary Clinton made the point, done a lot of good things, but, what it has not done is dealt with the fact we have 29 million people today who have zero health insurance, we have even more who are underinsured with large deductibles and copayments and prescription drug prices are off the wall.

So I do believe that in the future, not by dismantling what we have here -- I helped write that bill -- but by moving forward, rallying the American people, I do believe we should have health care for all.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: All right, thank you both. Rachel. MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders is campaigning against you now, at this point in the campaign, basically arguing that you are not progressive enough to be the Democratic nominee. He has said that if you voted for the Iraq war, if you are in favor of the death penalty, if you wobbled on things like the Keystone Pipeline or TPP, if you said single payer health care could never happen, then you're too far to the right of the Democratic Party to be the party's standard bearer.

Given those policy positions, why should liberal Democrats support you and not Senator Sanders?

CLINTON: Well because I am a progressive who gets things done. And the root of that word, progressive, is progress. But I've heard Senator Sanders comments, and it's really caused me to wonder who's left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Under his definition, President Obama is not progressive because he took donations from Wall Street; Vice President Biden is not progressive because she supported Keystone; Senator Shaheen is not progressive because she supports the trade pact. Even the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for DOMA.

You know, we have differences and, honestly, I think we should be talk about what we want to do for the country. But if we're going to get into labels, I don't think it was particularly progressive to vote against the Brady Bill five times.

(APPLAUSE)

I don't think it was progressive to vote to give gun makers and sellers immunity. I don't think it was progressive to vote against Ted Kennedy's immigration reform. So we could go back and forth like this, but the fact is most people watching tonight want to know what we've done and what we will do. That's why I am laying out a specific agenda that will make more progress, get more jobs with rising incomes, get us to universal health care coverage, get us to universal pre-k, paid family leave and the other elements of what I think will build a strong economy, that will ensure Americans keep making progress. That's what I'm offering and that's what I will do as president.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, have you established a list of what it means to be a progressive that is unrealistic? SANDERS: No, not at all. Here's the reality of American economic life today. The reality is that we have one of lowest voter turnouts of any major country on earth because so many people have given up on the political process. The reality is that there has been trillions of dollars of wealth going from the middle class in the last 30 years to the top 1/10th of 1 percent. The reality is we that have a corrupt campaign finance system which separates the American people's needs and desires from what Congress is doing. So to my mind, what we have got to do is wage a political revolution where millions of people have given up on the political process, stand up and fight back, demand the government that represents us and not just a handful of campaign contribution -- contributors. SANDERS: Now all of the ideas that I'm talking about, they are not radical ideas. Making public colleges and universities tuition free, that exists in countries all over the world, used to exist in the United States. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and creating 13 million jobs by doing away with tax loopholes that large corporations now enjoy by putting their money into the Cayman Islands and other tax havens. That is not a radical idea.

What we need to do is to stand up to the big money interests, and the campaign contributors. When we do that, we can, in fact, transform America.

MADDOW: Thank you Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: I'd like to follow up on a comment that Secretary Clinton said, Senator. President Obama has not called for abolishing the death penalty. President Obama is for the big Asian trade deal known as TPP, and just yesterday you said you can't be both a moderate or a progressive, but you can't be both. Is President Obama, in your judgment, based on these policies positions, a progressive?

SANDERS: Let me just pick up on this point. This whole discussion began because I commented, not making overall evaluation about the Secretary. She was in Ohio, I think, in September or November and she got up and said something like, I have been -- I'm paraphrasing, I have been criticized because people think I'm a moderate. Well, I am a moderate.

That's where this came from. It wasn't me paraphrasing her. It is what she said, and all that I said was there's nothing wrong with being a moderate. But, you can't be a moderate, you can't a progressive.

In terms of President Obama, I think if we remember where this country was seven years ago, 800,000 jobs being lost every month, $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. The world's financial system on the verge of collapse. I think that President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate have done a fantastic job. We are in much better shape than we were seven years ago, although my Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten where we were seven years ago. That's the fact, but, we still have a very long way to go.

Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yes, I do. I disagree with him on a number of issues including the trade agreement. But, yes, I think he has done an excellent job.

CLINTON: Well, Chuck...

TODD: ... (inaudible) Clinton, go ahead...

CLINTON: ... If I could, you know, in the very first debate I was asked am I a moderate or a progressive and I said I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. Cherry picking a quote here or there doesn't change my record of having fought for racial justice, having fought for kids rights, having fought the kind of inequities that fueled my interest in service in the first place going back to my days in the Children's Defense Fund.

It certainly didn't stop me from taking on the drug companies and the insurance companies. Before it was called Hillarycare -- I mean, before it was called ObamaCare it was called Hillarycare because we took them on, and we weren't successful, but we kept fighting and we got the children's health insurance program. Every step along the way I have stood up, and fought, and have the scars to prove it.

So, again...

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: ... I think it's important that, look, I understand Senator Sanders really trying to distinguish himself. I understand that, that's what you do in campaigns, but at the same time let's not be -- in, I think an unfair way, making an accusation, or making an attack about where I stand and about where I've always stood.

It is fair to say, Senator, that in your definition, as you being the self-proclaimed gatekeeper for progressivism, I don't know anyone else who fits that definition, but I know a lot of really hard fighting progressives in the Democratic party who have stood up time, and time again against special interests, against the powerful on behalf of those who are left behind and left out.

And, that's what we ought to be celebrating. Let's talk about what we would do as President, and Commander in Chief to make sure the progress continues into the future.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: (inaudible) 30 seconds, and then we'll move.

SANDERS: That's right, I mean, instead of arguing about definitions, let's talk about...

CLINTON: ... Well, you began it yesterday with your comments...

SANDERS: ... What we should do, and one of the things we should do is not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. I am very proud to be the only candidate up here who does not have a Super PAC, who's not raising huge sums of money from Wall Street...

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: ... And special interests. I am enormously proud. Never believed it would happen that we have raised 3.5 million individual contributions, averaging $27 dollars a piece. That is what the political revolution means.(APPLAUSE)

TODD: Thank you.

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, as a Vermonter, you have almost a home state advantage here in New Hampshire. But back home across the border, you also have a long history of running against Democrats as a third-party candidate, for governor, Senate, for Congress.

In 1988 your candidacy as a third-party candidate arguably cost the Democrats a congressional seat and sent a Republican instead.

How can you lead the Democratic Party nationally when you have not been a member of the Democratic Party until very recently?

SANDERS: Well, Rachel, actually, that wasn't accurate. In 1988 the Republican did win, I believe, by 3 points. I came in second. It was 34-31, I think, 19 for the Democrat. In that race the Democrat was the spoiler, not me. And it is true...

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: It is true, it's not to be denied, I am the longest- serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. People of Vermont sent me to Washington as an independent. That is true.

But on the other hand, I have -- when I was in the House for 16 years, I caucused with the Democrats. In the Senate for nine years caucused with the Democrats, of course. And I was elected by the Democrats to be chair of the Veterans Committee three years ago, which I'm very proud of. And now am the rankings member on the Budget Committee, leader of the Democrats in opposition to the majority Republicans.

I am running for president as a Democrat. And if elected, not only do I hope to bring forth a major change in national priorities, but let me be frank, I do want to see major changes in the Democratic Party.

I want to see working people and young people come into the party in a way that doesn't exist now. And you know what, I want a 50-state strategy so the Democratic Party is not just the party of 25 states.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: You know, the person who first put out the idea of a 50-state party strategy is former Governor Howard Dean, who is with us tonight.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And I'm very proud and grateful to have the support of so many elected Vermonters and former officials. Two former governors, the current governor, the current other senator. I really appreciate that.

And I think it's because they've worked with me, they've seen what I do. They know what kind of a colleague I am. They want me as their partner in the White House. And that's exactly what I will do.

We'll get things done together. Democrats, Republicans, independents, we're going to make progress together when I'm president.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: So, Senator, to that point, Secretary Clinton is raising the issue of endorsements by your home state Democrats. She's implying that that says something about the people who know you best.

SANDERS: Well, I don't see it quite like that.

MADDOW: How do you see it?

SANDERS: I am -- will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more governors, mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That's a fact. I don't deny it.

But I am pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks apiece. That we have had meetings where 25,000-30,000 people have come out. That our campaign is a campaign of the people, by the people, and for the people.

So, Rachel, yes, Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans, and by the way, who are not all that enamored with the establishment, but I am very proud to have people like Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva in the House, the co-chairmen of the House Progressive Caucus.

MADDOW: Secretary.

CLINTON: Well, look, I've got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is... (APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: It is really quite amusing to me.

People support me because they know me. They know my life's work. They have worked with me and many have also worked with Senator Sanders. And at the end of the day they endorse me because they know I can get things done.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: I am not going to make promises I can't keep. I am not going to talk about big ideas like single-payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost.CLINTON: A respected health economist said that these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year.

I'm not going to tell people that I will raise your incomes and not your taxes, and not mean it, because I don't want to see the kind of struggle that the middle class is going through exemplified by these promises that would raise taxes and make it much more difficult for many, many Americans to get ahead and stay ahead. That is not my agenda.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, you'll have 30 seconds to respond to that.

SANDERS: What being part of the establishment is, is, in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests.

To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that is needed in this country for the middle class and working families.

CLINTON: Yeah, but I -- I think it's fair to really ask what's behind that comment. You know, Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I've tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be.

But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to -- you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.

And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it directly.

But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.

SANDERS: What...

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And I have stood up and I have represented my constituents to the best of my abilities, and I'm very proud of that.

SANDERS: ... you know...

CLINTON: So I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out...

SANDERS: (inaudible).

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: ... in recent weeks, and let's talk...

(BOOING)

... let's talk about about the issues. Let's talk about the issues that divide us.

SANDERS: Let's talk about -- OK, let's talk...

CLINTON: And let's -- let's...

SANDERS: ... let us talk about issues.

CLINTON: ... we both agree with campaign finance reform.

SANDERS: Let's talk about issues.

CLINTON: I -- I worked hard for McCain-Feingold.

SANDERS: Let's...

CLINTON: I want to reverse Citizens United.

SANDERS: ... let's -- let's -- let's talk about issues.

CLINTON: And so -- let's talk about issues.

SANDERS: Let's talk -- let's talk about issues, all right? Let's talk about why, in the 1990s, Wall Street got deregulated. Did it have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street provided -- spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions?

Well, some people might think, yeah, that had some influence.

(LAUGHTER)

Let's ask why it is that we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and your medicine can be doubled tomorrow, and there's nothing that the government can do to stop it.

You think it has anything to do with the huge amounts of campaign contributions and lobbying from the fossil fuel industry? Let's talk about climate change.

Do you think there's a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and that we need to transform our energy system? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system?

That is what goes on in America. I am not -- I like...

(APPLAUSE)

... there is a reason. You know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.

CLINTON: Well, you know, Senator, I don't think -- I don't...

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: ... Secretary, we're gonna...

CLINTON: ... I don't think you could find any person in political life today who has been subjected to more attacks and had more money spent against her by special interests, among whom you have named a few, than I.

And I'm proud of that. You know, when I took on the drug companies and the insurance companies for universal health care coverage, they went after me with a vengeance.

CLINTON: Today, you've got hedge fund billionaires aligned with Karl Rove, running ads against me to try to get Democrats to vote for you. I know this game. I'm going to stop this game.

But while we're talking about votes, you're the one who voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives in 2000, which contributed to the over-leveraging of Lehman Brothers, which was one of the culprits that brought down the economy.

So I don't know -- I'm not impugning your motive because you voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives. People make mistakes and I'm certainly not saying you did it for any kind of financial advantage. What we've got to do as Democrats -- what we've got to do as Democrats is to be united to actually solve these problems. And what I believe is that I have a better track record and a better opportunity to actually get that job done.

That's what this election should be about.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: Thirty seconds.

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: I think as Secretary Clinton knows, there is nobody who fought harder. I was on the House Financial Committee at that time. I heard the arguments coming from Democrats and Republicans -- Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan -- about great an idea it would be if we did away with Glass-Steagall and if we allowed investor banks and commercial banks and big insurance companies to merge.

Go to YouTube today. Look up Greenspan-Sanders. Listen to what I told them then. I helped lead the effort against deregulation. Unfortunately, we lost that. The result is -- was the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.

TODD: Thank you both.

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, Secretary Clinton, obviously we've touched a nerve. We're going to be back with more on this subject, and much more, right after this. Stay with us.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: All right, welcome back. Let's get right to it.

Senator Sanders, you were talking about all of your campaign contributions and campaign finance reform. You rail against big money in politics. But do you realize there is one public financing system that we do have in place, and it is -- it is in place to run for president. Why aren't you walking the walk on that?

Why aren't you participating in the presidential public financing system which is designed to essentially keep big money out of presidential politics?

SANDERS: Chuck, actually we looked at it, but it turns out to be a disaster. The way it is structured right now, if you make it all the way to California, you could do pretty well. But in terms of the early states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, the other states -- it just doesn't work.

Your point is well taken. I believe in public funding of elections, absolutely. But this system is -- I don't know if the secretary would agree -- is currently very antiquated and no longer applies to modern day politics.

TODD: Well, going on that then, why criticize her on Super PACs, and you got -- and all this when it is -- you know, that's the system? I mean, you could be participating in a publicly-financing -- public financing system...

SANDERS: But if the...

TODD: ... and being able to set -- being able to set an example.

SANDERS: -- but Chuck, it is a public financing system that everybody knows is antiquated. It no longer works. Nobody can become president based on that system. So what's the alternative? There are two alternatives. And, you know, we looked at it. Well, should we do a Super PAC, but I concluded, honestly, I don't represent Corporate America or billionaires, I didn't want it.

So the other alternative was to ask working families and the middle class to help out in a transformational campaign. And you know what? We got 3.5 million individual contributions, $27 a piece. I think that's pretty good.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, on the issue of Wall Street...

CLINTON: On the issue of Wall Street.

MADDOW: ... on the issue of Wall Street, when our reporters go out and talk to people on the ground in the early states, what they tell us over and over again when they find voters who are leaning toward Senator Sanders rather than yourself is that the most frequent area of concern that they hear from those voters is the issue of Wall Street and whether or not you are too close to Wall Street.

Last night, when you were asked about speaking fees and the amount of speaking fees you got from Goldman Sachs speeches, you said that's what they offered.

Have you been too dismissive of voters' concerns about this issue in your own campaign and your own career?

CLINTON: Well you know, Rachel, I think I may not have done the job I should in explaining my record. You know, I did -- when I left the secretary of State's office, like so many former officials, military leaders, journalists, others, I did go on the speaking circuit. I spoke to heart doctors, I spoke to the American Camping Association, I spoke to auto dealers, and yes, I spoke to firms on Wall Street. They wanted me to talk about the world, what my experience had been as secretary of State.

But what I want people to know is I went to Wall Street before the crash. I was the one saying you're going to wreck the economy because of these shenanigans with mortgages. I called to end the carried interest loophole that hedge fund managers enjoy. I proposed changes in CEO compensation.

I called for a consumer protection financial bureau before it was created. And I think the best evidence that the Wall Street people at least know where I stand and where I have always stood is because they are trying to beat me in this primary. They have collected and spent as much as $6 million on these ads. Hedge fund billionaires, Karl Rove, another billionaire, jumped in.

And why are they doing that? These are guys who try to make smart investments. They know my record, they know me, they know that I say what I believe and I will do it. And I also have a pretty good understanding about how to stop them.

So I do want people to know that, and I think it's important for everybody to understand I have a record, I have stood firm and I will be the person who prevents them from ever wrecking the economy again.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, you have been a critic of Secretary Clinton taking those speaking fees and having donations from Wall Street. What about her defense of her record? SANDERS: Let me just say this. Wall Street is perhaps the most powerful economic and political force in this country. You have companies like Goldman Sachs, who just recently paid a settlement fine with the federal government for $5 billion for defrauding investors.

Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. But this is what a rigged economy and a corrupt campaign finance system and a broken criminal justice is about. These guys are so powerful that not one of the executives on Wall Street has been charged with anything after paying, in this case of Goldman Sachs, a $5 billion fine.

Kid gets caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. A Wall Street executive destroys the economy, $5 billion settlement with the government, no criminal record. That is what power is about. That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: If I could, let me just say that of course it has to change. It has to change. And that's why I have put forward a plan to do just that. And it's been judged to be the toughest, most effective and comprehensive one.

I have great respect for Senator Sanders's commitment to try to restore Glass-Steagall. But I do not believe that that is enough. And in fact, I don't believe it really addresses a lot of the biggest issues we have.

You know, we now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I've said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk. But I want to go further, because it was investment banks, it was insurance companies, it was mortgage companies, all of which contributed.

So let's not just be narrowly focused on one part of the problem. We have a lot of issues with corporate power that have to be addressed. My plan takes us further and it would do the job.

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE) SANDERS: I would say that -- that folks who have looked at this issue for a long time, whether it's Elizabeth Warren or many other economists, will tell you that right now, yes, we do need a 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation. And I would tell you also that when you have three out of the four largest banks in America today, bigger than they were -- significantly bigger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, I think if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, a good Republican by the way, what he would say is: Break them up; they are too powerful economically; they are too powerful politically.

And that is what I believe and many economists believe. Time to break them up.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Look we have a law -- look, you know, I -- I appreciate the senator's advocacy. We have a law. It was passed. It was signed by President Obama. It lays out a process that you go through to determine whether a systemic risk is posed.

And by the way, President Obama signed that, pushed it through, even though he took donations from Wall Street, because he's a responsible president. So we have a law in place. If the circumstances warrant it, I will certainly use it. And from what you say, I know you will as well.

But that is not enough. And I keep going back to this because part of the reason the Wall Street guys are trying so hard to stop me -- the hedge fund guys, the shadow banking guys -- is because I've got their number on all of that. And my plan goes so much further to try to prevent the problems of the future.

You know, we can't just fight the last war. We've got to be prepared to stop these guys if they ever try to use their economic power once again, to hurt the economy, and to hurt so many Americans. And my plan, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, a lot of experts who understand what the new challenges might be, have said I am exactly on point, and the Wall Street guys actually know that.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: ... she has had more people praise her plan than yours.

SANDERS: Well, we've had a number of economists supporting our legislation. And here's where we are. The American people can judge. Six largest financial institutions in America today have assets of roughly $10 trillion; equivalent to 58 percent of the GDP of the United States of America.

SANDERS: That is a lot of money. They issue two thirds of the credit cards, and by the way they're ripping off a whole lot of people with high interest rates on the credit cards, and they write about one third of the mortgages.

That is a lot of power for six financial institutions. That's it. I think it is too much power. Too much economic power, too much political power, and the economists that I talk to say we should break them up.

TODD: Thank you both. Let me move on to our next question here, and in fact it comes to us through New England Cable News.

Secretary Clinton, it's addressed to you, and it's about this issue of the speeches, particularly to Goldman Sachs. This is what the questioner wrote verbatim.

"I am concerned with the abuses of Wall Street has taken with the American taxpayers money," and then she asks whether you would release the transcripts of your Goldman Sachs speeches, and then added, "Don't you think the voting public has a right to know what was said?"

But, let's make that bigger. Are you willing to release the transcripts of all your paid speeches? We do know through reporting that there were transcription services for all of those paid speeches. In full disclosure, would you release all of them?

CLINTON: I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it. But, I can only repeat what is the fact that I spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot of different constituents, a lot of different kinds of members about issues that had to do with world affairs. I probably described more times than I can remember how stressful it was advising the President about going after Bin Laden.

My view on this is look at my record. Look at what I am proposing, and -- we have a vigorous agreement here. We both want to reign in the excesses of Wall Street. I also want to reign in the excesses of Johnson Controls that we bailed out when they were an autoparts company, and we saved the auto industry, and now they want to avoid paying taxes.

I want to go after the pharmaceutical companies like Valeant, and Turns that are increasing prices without any regard to the impact on people's health. Now, if all we're going to talk about is one part of our economy, and indeed one streak in our economy, we're missing the big oil companies. We're missing other big energy companies. We're missing the big picture, and I have a record of trying to go at the problems that actually exist, and I will continue to do that.

TODD: Senator, you sound like you want to respond. Go ahead.

SANDERS: Yeah, I do. I agree with much of what the Secretary said, but, madam Secretary, it is not one streak. Wall Street is an entity of unbelievable economic and political power. That's a fact.

And, I want to say something, and it may sound harsh, not to you, but to the American people. In a sense, in my view, the business model of Wall Street is fraud. It's fraud. I believe that corruption is rampant, and the fact that major bank after major bank has reached multi billion dollar settlements with the United States government when we have a weak regulator system tells me that not only did we have to bail them out once, if we don't start breaking them up, we're going to have to bail them out again, and I do not want to see that happen...

CLINTON: ... Well, Senator, no one wants to see that happen. I mean, look, I care deeply about this because just like you I have met so many people who had their life savings wiped out, who lost their homes, who are barely back with their heads above water.

This was a disaster for our country, and we can never let that happen again. We have no disagreement about this. But, I think it's a broader target list than just Wall Street, and I believe that we have to be very focused on how we try to take back the power and increase the empowerment of the American people. And, I think I have that kind of experience, maybe because they've beat me up for so many years, and I know exactly how to handle them because I've been in the arena with them time and time again.

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, let me turn to, I think, where this direction is heading anyway, which is the broader issue of big business and power in our political system. You on the campaign trail have railed against big name American corporations like Boeing, and General Electric, and Wal Mart. But, some big businesses in this country have also been part of advancing progressive goals like that nationwide initiative to expand employment opportunities for veterans. That was all about cooperation between the Obama administration and some very big business. The Affordable Care Act, some of the thorniest problems in that bill were worked out in cooperation with big business in order to accomplish progressive goals.

Could you work with them, or have you made enemies of big business in this country with the way you've approached them in this campaign?

SANDERS: Of course I can work with them, but let's be clear. When I talked about Boeing and I talked about General Electric, what I was referring to is an outrage. I suspect the secretary agrees request me.

Right now you have a loophole such that these guys are putting their profits, multi-billion dollar profitable corporations putting billions of dollars into the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens.

And in a given year, Rachel, after making billions of dollars in profit, do you know how much they're paying in taxes to the United States government in a given year? Zero. Now explain to me how that makes any sense at all.

So what I have said with regard to Boeing and GE and other multinationals that pay zero taxes, you know what we're going to do? We're going to end that loophole. They are going to pay their fair share of taxes.

We're going to use that money to rebuild our infrastructure and create up to 13 million jobs.

Can I work with corporations? Are there good corporations doing incredible cutting edge research and development? Absolutely they are. And we should be proud of them.

But on the other hand, there are many corporations who have turned their backs on the American worker, who have said, if I can make another nickel in profit by going to China and shutting down in the United States of America, that's what I will do.

I will do my best to transform our trade policy and take on these corporations who want to invest in low-income countries around the world rather than in the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, thank you.

And with that, we're going to take a break.

TODD: We'll be right back. And we're going to get to trade and a lot of other issues.(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: Welcome back -- welcome back to the Democratic candidates' debate. We're going to be talking about America in the world, both in terms of some trade issues, but also national security.

And Secretary Clinton, we're going to start with you. There are more than 4,000 American troops back in Iraq right now as part of the fight against ISIS. It has been 15 straight years of wars and multiple deployments for America's military families, who have borne such a disproportionate burden.

Is President Obama right to keep escalating the number of U.S. troops that's fighting ISIS right now?

CLINTON: Well, I think what the president understands, and what he's trying to do, is that we have to support the Arab and Kurdish fighters on the ground who are actually doing the fighting.

I agree with the president. I've said myself, we will not send American combat troops back to either Syria or Iraq -- that is off the table.

But we do have special forces, we do have trainers, we do have the military personnel who are helping with the airstrikes that the United States is leading so that we can try to take out ISIS infrastructure, take out their leadership.

And I think that, given the threat that ISIS poses to the region and beyond, as we have sadly seen in our own country, it is important to keep the Iraqi army on a path where they can actually take back territory, to work with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province and elsewhere so that their fighters can be also deployed, to work with the Kurds to provide them the support, but they're doing the fighting. We're doing the support and enabling.

And I also think we've got to do more to stop foreign fighters, foreign funding and take ISIS on online, as well as doing everything necessary to keep us safe at home.

So as I look at what the president it doing, it adds up to me. We just have to keep -- try to get more support for those people on the ground in Syria and Iraq who have to actually physically take the territory back. MADDOW: To be clear, to the specific question, if that strategic goal that you're describing requires considerably more of Americans -- an ever-increasing number of Americans in Iraq and maybe in Syria, are you OK with the numbers increasing?

CLINTON: No. I mean, of course that's a theoretical question, and we don't know what it would be for, and we don't know how many numbers there are. I am against American combat troops being in Syria and Iraq.

I support special forces. I support trainers. I support the air campaign. And I think we're making some progress. I want to continue to intensify that, and that's exactly what the president is doing.

MADDOW: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

TODD: Go ahead, Senator Sanders -- 30 seconds, your response.

SANDERS: OK. Let me agree with much of what the secretary said, but where we have a different background on this issue is we differ on the war in Iraq, which created barbaric organizations like ISIS.

Not only did I vote against that war, I helped lead the opposition, and if you go to my website, berniesanders.com, you will see the statement that I made in 2002. And it gives me no pleasure to tell you that much of what I feared would happen the day after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, in fact, did happen.

TODD: All right. Senator, I want to stay, though...

CLINTON: If I could -- if I could...

TODD: Go ahead. 30 seconds.

CLINTON: ... respectfully add -- look, we did differ. A vote in 2002 is not a plan to defeat ISIS. We have to look at the threats that we face right now...

(APPLAUSE)

... and we have to be prepared to take them on and defeat them.

TODD: Let me -- let -- we're gonna -- we're staying -- we're staying basically on this topic. Obviously you've been emphasizing this difference on the Iraq war, but one place where you do agree, and one place where you voted to authorize the use of force, was in favor of the war in Afghanistan.

Right now, it is possible President Obama is going to be leaving the next president, perhaps President Sanders, at least 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. How long will those troops be in Afghanistan under President Sanders?

SANDERS: Well, I think our great task is to make certain that our young men and women in the military do not get sucked into never- ending, perpetual warfare within the quagmire of Syria and Iraq. And I will do my very best to make sure that that doesn't happen.

I agree with the secretary that I think what has to happen -- and let me just mention what King Abdullah of Jordan said. I think he hit the nail on the head.

SANDERS: And what he said is essentially the war against ISIS is a war for the soul of Islam. And it must be Muslim troops on the ground that will destroy ISIS, with the support of a coalition of major powers -- U.S., U.K., France, Germany and Russia.

So our job is to provide them the military equipment that they need; the air support they need; special forces when appropriate. But at the end of the day for a dozen different reasons, not the least of which is that ISIS would like American combat troops on the ground so they could reach out to the Muslim world and say, "Look, we're taking on those terrible Americans."

The combat on the ground must be done by Muslim troops with our support. We must not get involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.

TODD: Can you address a question on Afghanistan?

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: How long are these troops going to be there? If President Obama leaves you 10,000 troops, how long do you think they're going to be there?

SANDERS: Well, you can't simply withdraw tomorrow. Wish we could, and allow, you know, the Taliban or anybody else to reclaim that country. But what we must do, and what we have seen in recent months, is some progress in Iraq, where finally the Iraqi army, which has not been a particularly effective fighting force, retook Ramadi. ISIS has lost I think 40 percent of the territory that it held in the last year.

Hopefully, and you know, one can't predict the future, that maybe our training and their fighting capabilities are improving and we are going to make some progress in destroying ISIS.

TODD: Secretary Clinton, 30 seconds: How long are these troops going to be in Afghanistan? We have more American troops in Afghanistan than what we were talking about with Iraq.

CLINTON: Oh, absolutely. The president decided to leave more troops than he had originally planned in Afghanistan. We have a very cooperative government there, with Ashraf Ghani and his top -- his top partner, Abdullah. And they are doing their very best. And the Afghan army is actually fighting. The Afghan army is taking heavy losses defending Afghan territory.

And I would have to make an evaluation based on the circumstances at the time I took office as to how much help they continue to need. Because it's not just the Taliban. We now are seeing outposts of, you know, fighters claiming to be affiliated with ISIS.

So, we've got this arc of instability from North Africa to South Asia, and we have to pay close attention to it. And we have to build coalitions, something that I did to take on the Iranian nuclear program, and what I will do as president to make sure that we defeat these terrorist networks.

TODD: You know, Senator Sanders, nobody knows who your foreign policy advisers are. You haven't given a major foreign policy speech. And it doesn't sound like all the time that foreign policy is a priority, other than when you're asked about it, and you say you're going to crush ISIS, as you said last night and earlier.

You have not proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine yet. Why?

SANDERS: Well, that's not quite accurate. I did give a speech at Georgetown where I talked about democratic socialism and foreign policy. Maybe I shouldn't have combined the two in the same speech, because the foreign policy part of it didn't get much attention. So, let me take this opportunity to give you a very short speech here on the issue.

I think, while it is true that the secretary and I voted differently on the war in Iraq, what is important is that we learn the lesson of the war in Iraq. And that lesson is intrinsic to my foreign policy if elected president, is the United States cannot do it alone. We cannot be the policeman of the world. We are now spending more I believe than the next eight countries on defense. We have got to work in strong coalition with the major powers of the world and with those Muslim countries that are prepared to stand up and take on terrorism.

So I would say that the key doctrine of the Sanders administration would be no, we cannot continue to do it alone; we need to work in coalition.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: A group of national security experts, military intelligence experts, issued a very concerning statement about Senator Sanders's views on foreign policy and national security, pointing out some of the comments he has made on these issues, such as inviting Iranian troops into Syria to try to resolve the conflict there; putting them right at the doorstep of Israel. Asking Saudi Arabia and Iran to work together, when they can't stand each other and are engaged in a proxy battle right at this moment.CLINTON: So I do think questions have been raised and questions have to be answered because when New Hampshire voters go on Tuesday to cast your vote, you are voting both for a president and a commander in chief. And there is no way to predict what comes in the door of that White House from day to day that can pose a threat to the United States or one of our friends and allies, and I think this is a big part of the job interview that we are all conducting with the voters here.

TODD: All right, Senator, 30 seconds.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: (OFF-MIKE) I fully, fully concede that Secretary Clinton, who was secretary of State for four years, has more experience -- hat is not arguable -- in foreign affairs. But experience is not the only point, judgment is. And once again, back in 2002, when we both looked at the same evidence about the wisdom of the war in Iraq, one of us voted the right way and one of us didn't.

In terms of Iran and in terms of Saudi Arabia, of course they hate each other. That's no great secret. But John Kerry, who is I think doing a very good job, has tried to at least get these people in the room together because both of them are being threatened by ISIS.

CLINTON: Well, let me just add that, you know, I've said this before and I'm very proud of it, that when it comes to judgment, having run a hard race against Senator Obama at the time, he turned to me to be secretary of State. And when it comes to the biggest counterterrorism issues that we faced in this administration, namely whether or not to go after bin Laden, I was at that table, I was exercising my judgment to advise the president on what to do, on that, on Iran, on Russia on China, on a whole raft of issues.

Because I know from my own experience that you've got to be ready on day one. There is just too much unpredictable threat and danger in the world today, you know, to try to just say wait, I'll get to that when I can. That is just not an acceptable approach.

SANDERS: Well...

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, at the -- at the last Democratic debate in Charleston -- I want to get specific here -- Senator Sanders called for moving as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran. Your campaign has criticized him for saying that. Now that he's standing next to you here on this stage, can you explain why the U.S. shouldn't try to normalize relations in Iran in your view?

CLINTON: Absolutely. You know, I did put together the coalition to impose sanctions. I actually started the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, sending some much my closest aides to begin the conversations with the Iranians.

I'm very pleased we got that nuclear agreement. It puts a lid on the nuclear weapons program. We have to enforce it, there have to be consequences attached to it. But that is not our only problem with Iran. We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

They are destabilizing governments in the region. They continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon against Israel. A lot of work that we have do is going to be incredibly hard. I'm prepared to do that work, but I believe, just as I did with imposing the sanctions, you have to get action for action.

If we were to normalize relations right now, we would remove one of the biggest pieces of leverage we have to try to influence and change Iranian behavior. The president doesn't think we should. I certainly don't think we should. I believe we have to take this step by step to try to reign in Iranian aggression, their support for terrorism and the other bad behavior that can come back and haunt us.

SANDERS: Who said That think we should normalize relations with Iran tomorrow? I never said that. I think we should move forward as quickly as we can.

And you're right. They are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that. But you know, a number of years ago, people were saying normal relationship with Cuba, what a bad and silly idea. They're Communists, they are our enemy. Well guess what? Change has come.

So please don't suggest that I think we normalize relations with Tehran tomorrow. We don't. But I would like to see us move forward, and hopefully some day that will happen. And I would say if I might, Madam Secretary -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong. When you ran against Senator Obama you thought him naive because he thought it was a good idea to talk to our enemies. I think those are exactly the people you have to talk to and you have to negotiate with.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well Senator, let me just correct the record if I can. You know -- let me correct the record.

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: 30 seconds, madam secretary.

CLINTON: As I -- as I certainly recall, the question was to meet with without conditions. And you're right, I was against that. I was against it then I would be against it now.

SANDERS: OK.

CLINTON: Part of diplomacy, the hard work of diplomacy is trying to extract whatever concessions you can get, and giving something the other side wants. Of course you've got to try to make peace with, and work with those who are your adversaries, but you don't just rush in, open the door, and say, "Here I am. Let's talk and make a deal."

That's not the way it works.

SANDERS: I think President Obama had the right idea, and the bottom line is that of course there have to be conditions. But, of course it doesn't do us any good to not talk with our adversaries...

CLINTON: ... Well, we set conditions on Iran. We worked hard to get them established, and to be enforced, and then we talked. That's exactly the right...

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: ... And, that's what I did with the President, so he and I are on the very same page.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Just to set the record straight, I very strongly supported the agreement which makes certain that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.

TODD: Alright, as Commander in Chief, Senator Sanders, you've got to prioritize potential threats to the United States. Three countries, North Korea, Iran, Russia. How would you rank them in order of their threat to America's security right now...

SANDERS: ... ISIS...

TODD: ... Starting with the biggest threat.

SANDERS: ISIS, you forgot one...

TODD: ... I didn't say that...

SANDERS: ... No, no...

TODD: ... No...

SANDERS: ... ISIS would be ...

TODD: ... We already had that. I'm talking about these three countries. How would you orient our national security, our national defense posture.

SANDERS: Clearly North Korea is a very strange situation because it is such an isolated country run by a handful of dictators, or maybe just one, who seems to be somewhat paranoid. And, who had nuclear weapons.

And, our goal there, in my view, is to work and lean strongly on China to put as much pressure. China is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for North Korea, and I think we got to do everything we can to put pressure on China. I worry very much about an isolated, paranoid country with atomic bombs.

I think, clearly, we got to work closely with China to resolve the serious problems we have, and I worry about Putin and his military adventurism in the Crimea and the Ukraine.

TODD: Secretary of Defense Ash Carter this week picked one of those three, and he has said Russia is, basically, the most important national security threat. Sort of reorienting the defense and the challenges to that. Do you agree with his decisions...

SANDERS: ... No, I don't. I worry very, very much about an isolated country. That's what makes me nervous. Russia lives in the world. China lives in the world. North Korea is a very, very strange country because it is so isolated, and I do feel that a nation with nuclear weapons, they have got to be dealt with. Dealt with effectively.

TODD: Secretary Clinton, what do you think of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. He's basically putting Russia above Iran, above North Korea, as sort of the chief national security challenge right now.

CLINTON: I haven't talked to Secretary Carter, but here's what I would think he's planning. We do have the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, that's an enforcement consequence, action for action, follow on. We have a plan, we will watch them, we will be vigilant.

We do have to worry about North Korea. They continue to develop their nuclear weapons capability, and they're working very hard on their ballistic missile capability.

And, I know that some of those plans could very well lead to a missile that might reach Hawaii, if not the West Coast. We do have to try to get the countries in the region to work with us to do everything we can to confine, and constrain them.

But, what Secretary Carter is looking at is the constant pressure that Russia's putting on our European allies. The way that Russia is trying to move the boundaries of the post-World War II Europe. The way that he is trying to set European countries against one another, seizing territory, holding it in Crimea. Beginning to explore whether they could make some inroads in the Baltics.

We know that they are deeply engaged in supporting Assad because they want to have a place in the Middle East. They have a naval base, they have an air base in Syria. They want to hang on to that. I think what Secretary Carter is seeing, and I'm glad he is, is that we got to get NATO back working for the common defense. We've got to do more to support our partners in NATO, and we have to send a very clear message to Putin that this kind of belligerence, that this kind of testing of boundaries will have to be responded to. The best way to do that is to put more armor in, put more money from the Europeans in so they're actually contributing more to their own defense.

TODD: Thank you both, Rachel?

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, I want to ask you about a national security issue that is closer to home. There are thousands of veterans, over 100,000 veterans living in the state of New Hampshire.

If either one of you is nominated as the Democratic Party's nominee, you will likely face a Republican opponent in the general election who wants to privatize or even abolish big parts of the V.A. It's a newly popular idea in conservative politics.

How will you win the argument on that issue given the problems that have been exposed at the V.A. in the last few years? What's your argument that the V.A. should still exist and should not be privatized?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, I'm absolutely against privatizing the V.A. And I am going do everything I can to build on the reforms that Senator Sanders and others in Congress have passed to try to fix what's wrong with the V.A.

There are a lot of issues about wait times and services that have to be fixed because our veterans deserve nothing but the best.

But you're absolutely right, you know, Rachel, this is another part of the Koch brothers agenda. They've actually formed an organization to try to begin to convince Americans we should no longer have guaranteed health care, specialized care for our veterans.

I will fight that as hard as I can. I think there's where we can enlist the veterans service organizations, the veterans of America, because, yes, let's fix the V.A., but we will never let it be privatized, and that is a promise.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, you, as a congressional leader on veterans issues and the Veterans Committee, you've worked in a very bipartisan way with Senator John McCain and others on veterans issues. Is the right contour of the fight, the way she's talking about this issue?

SANDERS: Let me agree. You know, as the secretary knows, I chaired -- I had the privilege and the honor of chairing the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And it is interesting to me, you know, Republicans give a lot of speeches about how much they love veterans. I work with the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, the Vietnam Vets, and virtually every veterans organization to put together the most comprehensive piece of the veterans legislation in the modern history of America. That's what I did.

And I brought it to the floor of the Senate. Every Democrat voted for it, I got two Republicans. We ended up with 56 votes and I couldn't get the 60 votes that I needed. That is pathetic.

This was legislation supported by all of the veterans organizations, addressing many of the serious problems that veterans face in health care and in how we deliver benefits to them.

So Republicans talk a good game about veterans, but when it came to put money on the line to protect our veterans, frankly, they were not there.

What I did next, Rachel, is I had to retreat a little bit, I had to compromise. I did work with John McCain. I did work with Jeff Miller over in the House. And we put together not the bill that I wanted, but probably the most comprehensive V.A. health care bill in the modern history of this country.

Secretary Clinton is absolutely right, there are people, Koch brothers among others, who have a group called Concerned Veterans of America, funded by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers, by the way, want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, every governmental program passed since the 1930s. Yes, there are people out there who want to privatize it.

The last point that I'd make. I had a hearing. I had all of the veterans groups in front of me. And I said to them, tell me when a veteran gets in to the V.A., understanding there are waiting lines and real problems, when a veteran gets into the system, is the quality of care good?

Without exception, what they said, good, excellent, very good. We've got to strengthen the V.A. We do not privatize the V.A.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Sanders, Secretary Clinton, we're going to take another break. We'll be talking about Social Security and some of those other issues when we come back.(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: And we are back. We're gonna get into a little bit of election politics, electability, in a little bit.

Senator Sanders, The Iowa Democratic Party has declared Hillary Clinton the winner of Monday's Iowa caucuses -- narrowest of margins. Today, the Des Moines Register has an editorial that calls for the audit of the results, saying, quote, "what happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. The results were too close not to do a complete audit."

Senator Sanders, do you accept the idea that Hillary Clinton won Iowa? And do you -- or do you believe the caucuses are still an open question?

SANDERS: Well, I agree with the Des Moines Register, but let's not blow this out of proportion. This is not a -- this is not, like, a winner-take-all thing.

I think where we now stand -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you have 22 delegates, I have 20 delegates. We need 2,500 delegates to win the nomination.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, so this is not -- this is not the biggest deal in the world. We think, by the way, based on talking to our precinct captains, we may have at least two more delegates.

What the Des Moines Register said -- you know, there were coin -- I think there were half a dozen coin flips -- a fairly chaotic type situation. At the end of the day, no matter how it's recounted, it will break roughly even.

And by the way, I love and respect the caucus process in Iowa. See, and I don't have to say it, because they voted already.

(LAUGHTER)

And I love New Hampshire, too, because you haven't voted, but...

(APPLAUSE)

... but, look, I think people are blowing this up out of proportion. But I think we need improvements in the process by which results are determined.

TODD: Secretary Clinton, will you participate in some sort of audit, if that's what the party wants to do? You good with that?

CLINTON: Whatever they decide to do, that's fine.

TODD: That's fair enough. OK.

CLINTON: All right.

TODD: Good, we move on. We're happy with that. We have more questions.

MADDOW: Senator -- Senator Sanders, in 1964...

SANDERS: Oh (inaudible).

(LAUGHTER)

See, when you are old, then they go back all these years. All right. What have you got?

MADDOW: In 1964, I heard that the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, who was the hero of the conservative movement. He was, however, far to the right of most of that party. In 1972, the Democrats nominated George McGovern, who was a hero of liberals in the antiwar movement, but he was to the left of his party's mainstream.

Both of those nominees made activists very excited, and they both got destroyed in the general election. Even Democrats who love you worry about your fate in a general election. And I know you have good head-to-head polling numbers against Republican frontrunners right now. We know that. But do you have a general election strategy that is different than the way you're running right now to try to get the nomination?

SANDERS: Well, you know, a general election is different than a primary and caucus process. But let me just say this. In terms of where we are right now, as you mention, Rachel, in a number of national and state, including New Hampshire. For example, the last poll I saw -- there may have been a new one -- last one I saw here in New Hampshire, a battleground state, had me defeating Trump by 19; the secretary defeating him by one. There were also pretty large margins in Iowa and Wisconsin.

These are polls. Polls go up. Polls go down. But here's why I think I will be, if nominated, the strongest candidate. Democrats win when there is a large voter turnout; when people are excited; when working people, middle class people and young people are prepared to engage in the political process.

Republicans win when people are demoralized and you have a small voter turnout, which by the way is why they love voter suppression. I believe that our campaign up to now has shown that we can create an enormous amount of enthusiasm from working people, from young people, who will get involved in the political process and which will drive us to a very large voter turnout.

If there is a large voter turnout, not only do we retain the White House, but I think we regain the Senate. We win governors' chairs up and down the line. So I believe if you want to retain the White House, if you want to see Democrats do well across the board, I think our campaign is the one that creates the large voter turnout and helps us win.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, your campaign surrogates, and people who have endorsed you, have suggested that or even said that if Senator Sanders is the nominee, that Democrats will suffer nationwide and the chances will go down of Democrats holding onto the White House. With him here standing next to you, can you tell us whether or not you believe he would win the general election if he were nominated?

CLINTON: I can only tell you what I believe, and that is that I am the strongest candidate to take it to the Republicans and win in November.

(APPLAUSE)

And I say that with great -- with great respect for the campaign that Senator Sanders has been running. I personally am thrilled at the numbers of people, and particularly young people who are coming to support your campaign. I hope that I will be able to earn their support. They may not support me now, but I support them and we'll work together.

But what I'm concerned about is the views of many Democrats who know their states, who know how hard it is to win a general election. And it also will push whoever the nominee is into the spotlight. I've been vetted. There's hardly anything you don't know about me. And I think it's fair to say that whoever is in that position, Senator Sanders or anyone else who might have run, will face the most withering onslaught.

So, I think that I am the person who can do all aspects of the job. I think I'm the person best prepared to take the case to the Republicans. And I think that at the end of the day, it's not so much electability. It is who the American people can believe can keep them safe, can get the economy moving again, can get incomes rising, can build on the progressive accomplishments of President Obama.

And I think that the coalition that President Obama put together to win twice is a coalition that I can put together and add to. And that's what I'm prepared to...

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: We'll stay on this issue. We'll stay on this topic.

TODD: Secretary Clinton, just like there are some Democrats that question Senator Sanders' ability in the general election, many Democratic voters that our reporters have been running into in Iowa and New Hampshire, they tell our reporters over and over again they're worried about the emails issue, not because they don't believe your explanation, but because it's a drip-drip, because the cloud is hanging over your head and that it will impact the general election.

They see your numbers right now and they think it's the email issue as to why you're not polling very well. So can you reassure these Democrats that somehow the email issue isn't going to blow up your candidacy if you're the nominee?

CLINTON: Absolutely I can. You know, before it was emails, it was Benghazi, and the Republicans were stirring up so much controversy about that. And I testified for 11 hours, answered their questions. They basically said yeah, didn't get her. We tried. That was all a political ploy.

Now, we had a development in the email matter today when it came out that Secretary Powell and close aides to Former Secretary Rice used private e-mail accounts. and now you have these people in the government who are doing the same thing to Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice's aide they've been doing to me, which is that I never sent or received any classified material. They are retroactively classifying it.

I agree completely with Secretary Powell, who said today this is an absurdity. And so I think the American people will know it's an absurdity. I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: All right, Madam Secretary, there is an open -- there is an open FBI investigation into this matter about how you may have handled classified material. Are you 100 percent confident that nothing is going to come of this FBI investigation?

CLINTON: I am 100 percent confident. This is a security review that was requested. It is being carried out. It will be resolved. But I have to add if there's going to be a security review about me, there's going to have to be security reviews about a lot of other people, including Republican office holders, because we've got this absurd situation of retroactive classifications.

Honest to goodness, this is -- this just beggars the imagination. So I have absolutely no concerns about it, but we've got to get to the bottom of what's really going on here, and I hope that will happen.

TODD: Well, Senator sanders, you famously at the first debate said you didn't give a darn about her emails; I think you used another (inaudible).

SANDERS: (OFF-MIKE)

TODD: You're right. I'm trying to -- it's a -- it's a family hour still right now. After 11:00, I'll say it the other way. And you mostly have refrained from commenting on it, but recently you called it a very serious issue, and then the other day you said well she's getting slapped with the email controversy.

Are you -- how are you feeling about these darn emails now?

SANDERS: I am feeling exactly the way I felt at the first debate. There's a process under way. I will not politicize it.

TODD: OK. Senator Sanders, thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: And by the way -- and by the way, if I may, the secretary probably doesn't know that there's not a day that goes by when I am not asked to attack her on that issue, and I have refrained from doing that and I will continue to refrain from doing that.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, thank you. Senator, in December, one of your campaign staffers was fired from your campaign for taking voter data essentially from the Clinton campaign. You apologized for that when the incident was made public.

Your campaign has now been criticized for its operatives essentially impersonating culinary union members wearing union pins in Nevada, and the Nashua Telegraph has complained recently that you falsely implied in an advertisement that they had endorsed you when they did not.

None of these issues obviously is the end of the world, but they all are of a piece. Are you in some sense losing control of your campaign?

SANDERS: Not losing control of our campaign. You know, we have hired a whole lot of people in a rapid way and I am familiar with the first two instances and they are unacceptable, and we have apologized and dealt with that.

In terms of the last one, as I understand it, we did not suggest that we had the endorsement of a newspaper. Newspapers who make endorsements also say positive things about other candidates, and to the best of my knowledge, that is what we did. So we never said, never said that somebody, a newspaper endorsed us that did not. What we did say is blah blah blah blah was said by the newspaper.

MADDOW: Just to follow up on that, the title of the ad in question was Endorsement.

SANDERS: But that was only for -- that was not to be on television. That's an important point. That was just something -- as the secretary knows, you put titles on ads and you send them out, but there was no word in that ad, none, that said that those newspapers had endorsed us.

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, do you want 30 seconds on that issue?

CLINTON: No.

MADDOW: And with that, we will (inaudible).

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: Welcome back to the University of New Hampshire, and the Democratic candidates' debate.

Secretary Clinton, on the issue of the death penalty, here in New Hampshire, the one person who is on death row is there for killing a police officer. It's a crime that has caused anguish in this state, both among death penalty opponents and death penalty supporters.

The last time I had the chance to talk with you on this issue, on the death penalty, you said that capital punishment has a place in a very few federal cases, but you also said you would breathe a sigh of relief if the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty nationwide. Tonight, do you still support capital punishment, even if you do so reluctantly?

CLINTON: Yes, I do. And -- you know, what I hope the Supreme Court will do is make it absolutely clear that any state that continues capital punishment either must meet the highest standards of evidentiary (ph) proof of effective assistance of counsel or they cannot continue it because that, to me, is the real dividing line.

I have much more confidence in the federal system, and I do reserve it for particularly heinous crimes in the federal system, like terrorism. I have strong feelings about that. I thought it was appropriate after a very thorough trial that Timothy McVeigh received the death penalty for blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children in a daycare center.

I do for very limited, particularly heinous crimes believe it is an appropriate punishment, but I deeply disagree with the way that too many states are still implementing it. If it were possible to separate the federal from the state system by the Supreme Court, that would, I think, be an appropriate outcome.

MADDOW: Senator Sanders, you have singled out the death penalty, and Senator Clinton's support for the death penalty, as an issue that makes it hard to consider as progressive in your mind...

SANDERS: ... Look, I hear what the Secretary said, and I understand, but look, there are -- all of us know that we have seen in recent years horrible, horrible crimes. It's hard to imagine how people can do, bomb, and kill 168 people in Oklahoma City, or do the Boston Marathon bombing, but this is what I believe, and for a couple of reasons.

Number one, too many innocent people, including minorities, African Americans, have been executed when they were not guilty. That's number one. We have to be very careful about making sure about that.

But, second of all, and maybe, in a deeper reason, of course there are barbaric acts out there. But, in a world of so much violence and killing, I just don't believe that government itself should be part of the killing. So, when somebody commits...

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: ... Somebody commits any of these terrible crimes that we have seen, you lock them up, and you toss away the key. They're never going to get out. But, I just don't' want to see government be part of killing. That's all. (APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Another issue related to the proper role of government, and in this case, specifically the role of government between the federal government and the states. I want to talk for a moment about the issue of Flint, Michigan. On the Flint lead poisoning disaster, you have both been highly critical of Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan, and how the state in Michigan both caused the lead poisoning problem, and has not acted fast enough to fix it. You have both been outspoken on that.

The fact is that Michigan though has not fixed it. There is no door to door delivery of clean water in Flint even today. Not a single lead pipe has been replaced in Flint, even today. If the state is failing, would you, Secretary Clinton, would you as President order a federal response to get it right over and above the wishes of the state?

CLINTON: Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, Rachel, you and I have talked about this before. I thank you for going to Flint to hold that town hall. I will be in Flint at the Mayor's invitation on Sunday to get an in depth briefing about what is, and is not happening.

This is an emergency. Everyday that goes by that these people, particularly the children, are not tested so we can know what steps must be taken to try to remediate the effects of the poisoning that they have been living with is a day lost in a child's life. I know from the work that I've done over so many years, lead, the toxic nature of lead can affect you brain development, your body development, your behavior.

I absolutely believe that what is being done is not sufficient. We need to be absolutely clear about everything that should be done from today to tomorrow, into the future to try to remedy the terrible burden that the people of Flint are bearing. That includes fixing their pipes, it includes guaranteeing whatever healthcare and educational embellishments they may need going forward, and I think the federal government has way where it can bill the state of Michigan. If Michigan won't do it, there have to be ways that we can begin to move, and then make them pay for it, and hold them accountable.

(APPLAUSE)

MADDOW: Senator Sanders are there things the President could be doing? President Obama could be ordering, done, right now, in Flint, Michigan that are not being done that you as President would do?

SANDERS: Absolutely. I think the Secretary described the situation appropriately.

SANDERS: You know, I don't go around asking for governor's resignations every day. In fact, I think I never have in my life. But I did ask for the resignation of Governor Snyder because his irresponsibility...

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: ... was so outrageous.

What we are talking about are children being poisoned. That's what we're talking about. We don't know, no one knows for sure because they haven't done the appropriate studies, but there's no question that kids' intellectual development may have been impacted. We don't know how many thousands.

The idea that there has not been a dramatic response is beyond comprehension. And when you have one of the, I think, significant public health crises of recent years, of course the federal government comes in.

And of course the federal government says, you're not going to be poisoning little kids and impacting their entire lives.

Last point on this. And I suspect the secretary agrees. One wonders if this were a white suburban community what kind of response there would have been.

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Flint, Michigan, is a poor community. It is disproportionately African-American and minority. And what has happened there is absolutely unacceptable.

MADDOW: Senator, thank you.

TODD: Secretary Clinton, let me turn to the issue of trade. In the '90s you supported NAFTA. But you opposed it when you ran for the president in 2008. As secretary of state, you supported TPP, and then -- which, of course, is that trade agreement with a lot of Asian countries, but you now oppose it as you make your second bid for president.

If elected, should Democrats expect that once you're in office you will then become supportive of these trade agreements again?

CLINTON: You know, Chuck, I've only had responsibility for voting for trade agreements as a senator. And I voted a multinational trade agreement when I was senator, the CAFTA agreement, because I did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of America, of our incomes, and I opposed it.

I did hope that the TPP, negotiated by this administration, would put to rest a lot of the concerns that many people have expressed about trade agreements. And I said that I was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for.

I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.

Now I have a very clear view about this. We have to trade with the rest of the world. We are 5 percent of the world's population. We have to trade with the other 95 percent. And trade has to be reciprocal. That's the way the global economy works.

But we have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy. So it's not just what's in the trade agreement that I'm interested in.

I did help to renegotiate the trade agreement that we inherited from President Bush with Korea. We go the UAW on board because of changes we made. So there are changes that I believe would make a real difference if they could be achieved, but I do not currently support it as it is written.

TODD: Well, Senator Sanders, I know you want to respond on this, you have never supported a trade deal since you've been in Congress.

SANDERS: Absolutely right.

TODD: But if you do that as president...

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: If you do that as president, how are you not essentially letting China, who will do all of these deals around the world, how are you going to prevent China from essentially setting the rules of trade for the world?

SANDERS: Chuck, I believe in trade, but I do not believe in unfettered free trade. I believe in fair trade which works for the middle class and working families of this country and not just large multinational corporations.

I was not only in opposition to NAFTA -- and this is an area where the secretary and I have disagreements. I was not only in opposition to NAFTA, I was on the picket line in opposition to NAFTA because I understood -- I don't think this is really rocket science.

We heard all of the people tell us how many great jobs would be created. I didn't believe that for a second because I understood what the function of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and the TPP is, it's to say to American workers, hey, you are now competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour minimum wage.

I don't want American workers to compete against people making 56 cents an hour. I don't want companies shutting down in America, throwing people out on the street, moving to China, and bringing their products back into this country.

SANDERS: So, do I believe in trade? Of course, I believe in trade. But the current trade agreements over the last 30 years were written by corporate America, for corporate America, resulted in the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs, 60,000 factories in America lost since 2001, millions of decent-paying jobs; and also a downward spiral, a race to the bottom where employers say, "Hey, you don't want to take a cut in pay? We're going to China."

Workers today are working longer hours for lower wages. Trade is one of the reasons for that.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: All right. Thank you both.

We're going to sneak in one more break here, and when we come back we'll squeeze as many questions as we can before we end this thing. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: All right. Welcome back here in the final minutes.

MADDOW: The home stretch.

TODD: The home stretch of this only Democratic debate in the final week before the primary.

Let me start with you, Secretary Clinton, on this question. Obviously, President Obama got a lot of ambitious stuff done in his first year and a half. You're going to have to make choices. And there's a lot of heavy lifts. And he made choices. He did healthcare and it came at the expense, arguably, of immigration reform. Had he put immigration reform first, perhaps that gets done and healthcare doesn't.

TODD: So there are three big lifts that you've talked about: immigration, gun reform, climate change. What do you do first? Because you know the first one is the one you have the best shot at getting done.

CLINTON: Well, I -- I don't accept that premise, Chuck. I think that we've got so much business we have to do. We've talked a lot tonight about what we're against -- we're against income inequality. We're against the abuses of powerful interests. We're against a lot of things.

I'm for a lot of things. I don't want to just stop bad things from happening, I want to start good things from happening. And I believe, if I'm so fortunate to get the nomination, I will begin to work immediately on putting together an agenda, beginning to talk with members of Congress and others about how we can push forward.

I want to have half a billion more solar panels deployed, the first four years.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to have enough clean energy to power every home the next four years. I want us to keep working on the Affordable Care Act, to get not only to 100 percent coverage, but bring down the costs of prescription drugs and out-of-pocket costs.

I want to move forward on paid family leave, on early childhood education, I want us to do more for small businesses.

(APPLAUSE)

Small businesses have to create most of the jobs, and we're not creating and growing small businesses. I think, if you have a smart agenda, you pick the committees that you know have to begin to work on these various pieces -- because that's the way Congress is set up. You go through different committees, and you really make a big push in the beginning.

Immigration reform, economic revitalization with manufacturing, with infrastructure -- we put it out there, and we begin to work on an ambitious, big, bold agenda that will actually produce the results that I want to see for our country.

TODD: All right, but Senator Sanders...

(APPLAUSE)

... you've still got to do something first. As you know, history said -- shows what you pick first is your best shot at getting, and how you prioritize things.

SANDERS: No, let...

TODD: Immigration reform, for instance, fell by the wayside in the first term because of this.

SANDERS: ... I am absolutely supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and a path towards citizenship for 11 million people today who are living in the shadows. All right? We got to do that.

(APPLAUSE)

But you miss -- when you looked at the issues, you missed two of the most important. And that is you're not going to accomplish what has to be done for working families and the middle class unless there is campaign finance reform.

(APPLAUSE)

So long as big money interests control the United States Congress, it is gonna be very hard to do what has to be done for working families. So let me be very clear. No nominee of mine, if I'm elected president, to the United States Supreme Court will get that nomination unless he or she is loud and clear, and says they will vote to overturn Citizens United.

(APPLAUSE)

Second point -- second point is that the only way we make change in terms of health care, in terms of dealing with a broken criminal justice system which, today, allows us to have more people in jail than any other country -- largely African-American and Latino -- the only way we create millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure or have a tax system that says to the wealthy that they are going to pay their fair share, is when millions of people become involved in the political process.

No, you just can't negotiate with Mitch McConnell. Mitch is gonna have to look out the window and see a whole lot of people saying, "Mitch, stop representing the billionaire class. Start listening to working families."

And as president, that's what I will work hard on.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: OK. Thank you.

MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, Republicans, particularly in campaign years, often talk about which departments of government -- which agencies of government they would get rid of if they were elected president. The EPA, the Department of Education, the Commerce Department, oops -- is -- is there a department of government that you would get rid of? Or is there a whole new one that you would create?

CLINTON: The answer to both of those is no. I'm interested in making what we have work better. I want to streamline programs that are duplicative and redundant. I want to have a top-to-bottom review about what works and what doesn't work, and be absolutely clear we're getting rid of what doesn't work.

I have had the opportunity to run a big agency. I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better -- better than anybody had run it in a long time. So I have an idea of what it's going to take to make our government work more efficiently.

And when you put together a budget, you have to make a lot of hard decisions, but I think it's not appropriate to say "I'm going to get rid of this, get rid of that" until you have a very good process that gives you the information about what to do.

CLINTON: But I want to add something else, you know, because look, we have so much work to do in our country, and I think it's the greatest work that Americans will be called to do. And of course, we have to have people in every community involved in it. We have to have the political voice, the political grassroots speaking up and speaking out about what we have to try to accomplish in Washington.

But we also need to have a very clear set of goals that we are going to achieve, and we need to level with the American people about what they are, what they will cost, what will be expected of our citizenry. So I see as president having a constant dialogue with Americans here's what we're trying to get done, here's why I need your help, here's why you may think comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship isn't something you care about, but I'm telling you it will help fix the labor market, it will bring people out of the shadows --

MADDOW: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: -- it will actually raise wages. You have to make all those connections so that you've got people with you every step of the way. That's what I want to do.

MADDOW: Thank you very much. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: All right, before we go, I want to ask each one of these. Secretary Clinton, you've made it clear when you look at Senator Sanders, you do not see a president, but do you see --

CLINTON: I never said that.

TODD: But do you see -- do you see a vice president?

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: Look --

TODD: Would you unite the party by trying to pick Senator Sanders as your running mate?

CLINTON: Well, I'm certainly going to unite the party, but I'm not -- I'm not getting ahead of myself. I think that would be a little bit presumptuous. If I'm so fortunate as to be the nominee, the first person I will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done will be Senator Sanders.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: Senator, would you consider the secretary?

SANDERS: I agree with what the secretary said. We shouldn't be getting ahead of ourselves. And as I have said many times, you know, sometimes in these campaigns, things get a little bit out of hand. I happen to respect the secretary very much, I hope it's mutual. And on our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: That's true. That's true.

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: Secretary Clinton, closing statements. You are first.

CLINTON: Well first, thanks to MSNBC and thanks to all of you for holding this debate before the New Hampshire primary. I am going to campaign as hard as I can between now and Tuesday to earn your votes in that primary, and I hear some talk that people are trying to decide do they vote with their heart, do they vote with their head, I'm asking you to bring both your heart and your head to vote with you on Tuesday because we have a lot of work that can only come because your heart is moved.

You know, we didn't get to talk about the continuing struggles that Americans face with racism, with sexism, with discrimination against the LGBT community, with new Americans, with people with disabilities. Yes, we have income inequality, we have other forms of inequality that we need to stand up against and absolutely diminish from our society.

So I have been moved by my heart ever since I was a young woman about the age of a lot of Senator Sanders' supporters worrying what I can do to make a difference for my country, and I will bring that heart with me, but I will also tell you we've got to get our heads together to come up with the best answers to solve the problems so that people can have real differences in their lives that will make them better for now and into the future.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Senator Sanders.

SANDERS: I -- my dad came to this country at the age of 17 from Poland. Didn't have any money, couldn't speak English, he died pretty young, and I think it would have been beyond his wildest dreams to see his son up here on this stage today running for president.

I love this country and my dad loved this country, and he was the most proud American because of what it gave him in terms of raising his family, even though we never had much money. But today in America, we are the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people, that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical leave. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. We are seeing millions of families unable to send their kids to college in the United States of America.

I'm running for president because I believe it is just too late for establishment politics and establishment economics. I do believe we need a political revolution where millions of people stand up and say loudly and clearly that our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.

Thank you all.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: Well, there you have it. I promise you, Rachel and I have a lot more questions, but we just don't have any more time, unless we could (inaudible) a third hour, but I don't think so.

Our debate coverage -- (inaudible) debate coverage will continue in just a moment with our colleague (inaudible).

And we want to thank all of you for being here, and we want to thank the two candidates for taking part in this important event.

MADDOW: We also want to thank our host, the University of New Hampshire, and the people of New Hampshire. You guys get to vote in just five days. I can't wait to see how it turns out. Don't screw up.

TODD: We'll see you in a few minutes. Thank you.

MADDOW: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)