Last Updated Nov 15, 2015 10:01 AM ESTThe Democratic presidential candidates faced off on foreign policy and domestic issues at Drake University in Iowa on November 14, 2015. CBS News hosted the debate.
Good evening, I'm John Dickerson of CBS News in Des Moines, Iowa. The debate you've tuned in to see tonight is a symbol of the freedom we all cherish.
Last night the world watched in horror as freedom was savagely attacked in the heart of Paris. At least 129 people were killed and many more wounded in a coordinated series of terror attacks. Tonight, as France mourns, so does America.
So before we begin tonight's second debate with these candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination we ask you to join us in observing a moment of silence. (LONG PAUSE) Now please welcome to Drake University Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, (CHEERING) (UNINTEL), Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (CHEERING) and-- and Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland. (CHEERING)
Joining me in the questioning tonight are CBS News congressional correspondent, Nancy Cordes, anchor Kevin Cooney of our CBS Des Moines affiliate, KCCI and political columnist, Kathie Obradovich of The Des Moines Register. (APPLAUSE)
Twitter is another of our partners for this debate. Tweets will help us follow the reactions to what the candidates say. So please send us your comments using the hashtag DemDebate. And we'll begin in just a moment.
This is a people's campaign.
I am a real person with all the pluses and minuses that go along with that.
(UNINTEL) your own hardware
I'm running for (UNINTEL).
The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the damn unit (?). (LAUGHTER)
We are dead wrong for 21st century America. We're going forward, we're not going back.
[First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State during the 21st Century admits she was dead wrong?]
Before we-- before we start the debate here are the rules. The candidates have one minute to respond to our questions and 30 seconds to respond to our follow-up. Any candidate who is attacked by another candidate gets 30 seconds for rebuttal. Here's how we'll keep time, after a question is asked the green light goes on. When there are 15 seconds left the candidate gets a yellow warning light. And when time's up the light turns red. That means stop talking. (LAUGHTER)
Those are the rules. So let's get started. You will each have one minute for an opening statement to share your thoughts about the attacks in your Paris and lay out your visions for America. First, Senator Sanders.
Well, John, let me concur with you and with all Americans who are shocked and disgusted by what we saw in Paris yesterday. Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this marvelous organization called ISIS.
[Marvelous? ISIS was armed, trained and funded by the West, Gulf Countries and Turkey according to declassified US Defense Intelligence Documents:
I'm running for president because as I go around this nation I talk to a lotta people. And what I hear is people concerned that the economy we have is a rigged economy.
[Rigged by the Fed for Wall Street and Silicon Valley 1% against the American people and the world.]
People are working longer hours for lower wages.
And (UNINTEL) income and wealth goes to the top 1%.
And then on top of that we got a corrupt campaign finance system in which millionaires and billionaires are (UNINTEL) use some of the money into super packs heavily influencing the political process. What my campaign is about is a political revolution.
Millions of people standing up and saying, "Enough is enough. Our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires."
All right, Senator Sanders. Secretary Clinton.
Well, our prayers are with the people of France tonight. But that is not enough. We need to have a resolve that will bring the world together to root out the kind of radical jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS, the barbaric, ruthless, violence jihadist, terrorist group.
[Which you supported as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Benghazi.]
This election is not only about electing a president. It's also about choosing our next commander in chief.
[We have not had a female Commander in Chief. Feminizing the Military did not work, from Tailhook Scandal to Pregnancy Leaves to transgenders at taxpayer expense to Jessica Lynch, Shoshona Johnson, Yvonne Ridley captures and more than 145 women killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait:
And I will be laying out in detail what I think we need to do with our friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorism.
[And exactly what did HRC accomplish beside Bosnia, Iraq and Benghazi?:
Our country deserves no rest because all of the other issues we wanna deal with depends on us being secure and strong.
My heart, like all of us in this room, John, and all the people across our country-- my hearts go out to the people of France in this moment of loss, parents and-- and-- and sons and daughters and family members. And-- as our hearts go out and as our prayers go out to them we must remember this, that this is a new face of conflict and warfare, not in the 20th century but the new face of conflict of warfare in the 21st century.
And there is no nation on the planet better able to adapt to this change than our nation. We must be able to work collaboratively with others. We must anticipate these threats before they happen. This is the new sort of challenge, the new sort of threat that does, in fact, require new thinking, fresh approaches and new leadership.
As a former mayor and a former governor, there was never a single day, John, when I went to bed or woke up without realizing that this could happen in our own country.
We have a lot of work to do to better prepare our nation and to better lead this world into this new century.
[The FBI is watching 1000 Taliban threats in the USA that came in with the open border free ride welfare policy of Hillary Clinton (HRC), her party and President.]
All right, thank you, governor, thank all of you. The terror attacks last night underscored the biggest challenge facing the next President of the United States. At a time of crisis the country and the world look to the president for leadership and for answers. So Secretary Clinton, I'd like to start with you, hours before the attacks, President Obama said, "I don't think ISIS is gaining strength."
72% of Americans think the fight against ISIS is going badly.
Won't the legacy of this administration which is-- which you were a part of-- won't that legacy be that it underestimated the threats from ISIS?
Well, John I think that-- we have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated. There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more-- open and cooperative way-- that we can bring people together.
[After 23 years of HRC in DC big government, just how has that worked out for the American people and the world?]
But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the president has consistently said-- which I agree with-- is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS. That is why we have troops in Iraq that are helping to train and build back up the Iraqi military, why we have special operators in Syria working with the Kurds and Arabs so that we can be supportive. But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.
[US middle class taxpayers and HRC supported Special Forces in 147 countries this year. American taxpayers paid the bill for the $500 Million training of 15,000 "moderate" Syrian rebels to take out President Assad and ISIS, the so-called red line in the sand, with the result that only 54 graduates came under attack, suffered captures, and the failed program was disbanded. The Major General responsible for this expensive failure was promoted upstairs to the DC bureaucracy:
But-- Secretary Cli-- Clinton, the question's about what-- was ISIS underestimated.
And I'll-- I'll just ask-- the president referred to ISIS as the JVU in a speech, the council in foreign relations in June of 2014 said, "I could not have predicted the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq."
So you've got prescriptions for the future. But how-- how do we know if those prescriptions are any good if you missed it in the past?
Well, John, look, I think that what happened when we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush-- made with the Iraqis to leave-- by 2011 is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it.
[After seven years of two terms in office, again blaming your predecessor is a non-starter.]
And then with the revolution against Assad-- and I did early on say we needed to try to find a way to train and equip moderates very early so that we would have a better idea of how to deal with Assad because I thought there would be-- extremist groups filling the vacuum.
[HRC, her president and proxies, claimed Benghazi was an impromptu response to a video, not extremist terrorists. HRC wanted it both ways. Her policy of training and equipping "moderates" was a clear failure, as ISIS ended up with US hardware, including heavily armed Toyota Hilux Pickups:
So, yes, this has developed. I think that there are many other reasons why it has in addition-- to what's happened in the region. But I don't think that the United States-- has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.
[Putin and others claim gas attacks were not by Assad. CBS asked, "Where's the evidence?":
The US War on Terror accomplished everything Bin Laden hoped it would. US actions abroad repeatedly led to unintended, indefensible consequences, with 800 US military installations abroad and collateral damage on innocent civilian families that created hatred of offensive American foreign policy.
Freedom fighters were drawn to the Al Qaeda, ISIS and Taliban movement for reasons that had little to do with belief in extremist Islam.“I didn’t like Saddam, but at least we didn’t have war. When you came here, the civil war started.”
Okay, Governor O'Malley would you critique the administration's response to ISIS? If the United States doesn't lead (UNINTEL)?
John, I would-- I would disagree with-- with Secretary Clinton, respectfully, on this score. This actually is America's fight. It cannot solely be America's fight. America is best when we work in collaboration with our allies. America is best when we are actually standing up to evil in this world.
And ISIS, make no mistake about it, is an evil in this world. ISIS has brought down a Russian airliner. ISIS is now attacked the western democracy in-- in France. And we do have a role in this.
Not solely ours. But we must work collaboratively with other nations. The great failing of these last ten or 15 years, John, has been our failing of human intelligence on the ground.
Our world in the world is not to roam the globe looking for new dictators to topple.
Our role in the world is to make ourselves a beacon of hope, make ourselves stronger at home.
But also our role in the world, yes, is also to confront evil when it rises. We took out the save haven in Afghanistan but now there is undoubtedly a larger safe haven.
And we must rise to this occasion in collaboration and with alliances to confront it. And invest in the future much better human intelligence so we know what the next steps are.
Senator Sanders, you said you wanna rid the planet of ISIS.
In the previous date you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?
Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.
And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you're gonna see countries all over the world-- this is what the C.I.A. says, they're gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you're gonna see all kinds of international conflict.
But of course international terrorism is a major issue that we've got to address today. And I agree with much of what-- the secretary and-- and the governor have said. Only have one area of-- of disagreement with the secretary. I think she said something like, "The bulk of the responsibility is not ours."
Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely.
And led to the rise of Al Qaeda-- and to-- ISIS.
Now, in fact, what we have got to do-- and I think there is widespread agreement here-- 'cause the United States cannot do it alone. What we need to do is lead an international coalition which includes-- very significantly-- (UNINTEL) nations in that region are gonna have to fight and defend their way of life.
Quickly just-- let me ask you-- follow up on that, Senator Sanders, when you said the disastrous vote (?) on Iraq-- let's just be clear about what you're saying, you're saying Secretary Clinton-- who was then Senator Clinton-- voted for the Iraq war.
And are you making a direct link between her vote for that or-- and what's happening now for ISIS? Just so everybody--
Oh I don't think any-- I don't think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now.
I think that was one of the worst foreign policy plunders in the modern history of United States.
All right, let's let Secretary Clinton respond to that.
Thank you, John, well, I think it's important we put this in historic context. United States has unfortunately been victimized by terrorism going back decades. In the 1980s it was in Beirut, Lebanon under President Reagan's administration and 258 Americans, marines, embassy personnel and others were-- murdered.
We also had attacks on two of our embassies in-- Tanzania and Kenya-- when my husband was president.
Again, Americans murdered.
And then of course 9/11 happened which happened before there was an invasion of Iraq.
[In fact, Iraq was first invaded by the US in 1990 and 1991:
I have said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
[HRS voted for it, wants it both ways.]
But I think if we're ever gonna really tackle the problems posed by jihadi extreme terrorism we need to understand it and realize that it had-- ans-- and (UNINTEL) to what happened in Iraq and we have to continue to be vigilant about it.
[American voters now understand Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and ISIS were armed, funded and trained by the West, Gulf States and Turkey:
Senator Sanders, let me just follow this line of thinking. You've criticized then Senator Clinton's vote. Do you have anything to criticize in the way she performed as secretary of state?
I think we have a disagreement. And-- the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq, if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change-- whether it was in the early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile or whether it was overthrowing the government Guatemala way back when-- these invasions, these-- these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences.
I would say that on this issue I'm a little bit more conservative than the secretary.
And that I am not a great fan of regime changes.
Here, let me go--
John, may I-- may I interject here? Secretary Clinton also said that we left the h-- it was not just the invasion of Iraq which Secretary Clinton voted for and has since said was a big mistake, and indeed it was.
But it was also the cascading effects that followed that.
It was also the disbanding of-- many elements of the Iraqi army that are now showing up as part of ISIS. It was-- country after country without making the investment in human intelligence to understand who the new leaders were and the new forces were that are coming up.
We need to be much more far f-- thinking in this new 21st century era of-- of nation state failures and conflict.
It's not just about getting rid of a single dictator. It is about understanding the secondary and third consequences that fall next.
All right, Secretary.
Well, and-- and of course each of these cases needs to be looked at individually and analyzed.
[No, covert US attacks on foreign nations that backfire need to be stopped for our prosperity.]
Part of the problem that we have currently in the Middle East is that Assad has hung onto power-- with the very strong support of Russia and Iran and with the proxy of-- Hezbollah-- being there basically fighting his battles.
So I don't think you can paint with a broad brush. This is an incredibly complicated region of the world. It's become more complicated. And many of the fights that are going on are not ones that the United States has either started or have a role in.
[Pouring gasoline on a fire does not solve problems.]
The Shia-- Sunni split, the dictatorships that have suppressed people's aspirations, the increasing globalization without any real safety valve for people to have a better life.
We saw that in Egypt. We saw a dictator overthrown, we saw Muslim Brotherhood president installed and then we saw him ousted and the army back. So I think we've got to understand the complexity of the world that we are facing and no places more so than in the Middle East.
[Let foreign nations solve their problems without US creating far more worse repurcussions.]
I understand. Quickly, Senator.
The-- the secretary's obviously right. It is enormously complicated. But here's something that I believe we have to do is we put together an international coalition. And that is we have to understand that the Muslim nations in the region, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, all of these nations, they're gonna just have to get their hands dirty, their boots on the ground.
They are gonna have to take on ISIS. This is a war for the soul of Islam. And those countries who are opposed to Islam, they are gonna have to get deeply involved in a way that is not the case today. We should be supportive of that effort. So should the UK, so should France. But those Muslim countries are gonna have to lead the efforts. They are not doing it now.
Well, I think--
I-- I think that is very unfair to a few that you mentioned-- most particularly Jordan which has put a lot on the line to the United States. It's also taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria and has been therefore subjected to threats and attacks-- by extremists themselves.
I do agree that in particular Turkey and the Gulf Nations have got to make up their minds. Are they going to stand with us against this kind of jihadi radicalism or not?
And there are many ways of doing it. They can provide sources, they can provide resources. But they need to be absolutely clear about where they stand.
Let me ask you-- Secretary Clinton a question about leadership. We're asking about what role does America pick.
Let me ask you about Libya. So Libya is a country in which ISIS has-- taken hold in part because of the chaos after Muammar Gaddafi, that was an operation you championed.
President Obama says is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, "The lesson was do we have an answer for the day after."
--supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is have a plan for after?
Well, we did have a plan.
[HRC's Arab Spring plan failed.]
And I think it's-- fair to say that-- of all of the Arab leaders Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when he moved on his own people threatening-- a mass occurred, genocide-- the Europeans and the Arabs, our allies and partners-- did ask for American help. And we provided it. And we didn't put a single boot on the ground. And-- Gaddafi was deposed.
[Under Gaddafi, Libya enjoyed the top living standard in Africa. NATO NeoCons, including HRC, marked Libyan gold, oil and water for one of the seven countries in five years to invade. They put Libya into civil war and the dark ages. HRC gun-running from Libya to Syria resulted in Benghazi American deaths under HRC, hardly a laughing matter:
The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful Arab elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now there has been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which you find in this arc of instability from North Africa to Afghanistan.
And it is imperative that we do more-- not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland-- but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability which does have a lot of impact on what happens in a country like Libya.
[Broken HRC promises.]
Governor O'Malley, I wanna ask you a question and you can add whatever you'd like to. But let me ask you, is the world too dangerous a place for a governor who has no foreign policy experience?
John, the world is a very dangerous place.
But the world is not too dangerous of a place for the United States of America provided we act according to our principles, provided we act intelligently.
I mean, let's talk about this arc of-- of instability that Secretary Clinton talked about.
Libya is now a mess. Syria is a mess. Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess.
As Americans we have shown ourselves-- to have the greatest military on the face of the planet.
But we are not so very good at anticipating threats and appreciating just how difficult it is to build up stable democracies and make the investments in sustainable development that we must as the nation if we are to attack the root causes of-- of the source of-- of instability.
And I wanted to add one other thing, John, and I think it's important for all of us on this stage.
I was in Burlington, Iowa and a mom of a service member of ours who served two duties in Iraq said, "Governor O'Malley, please, when you're with your other candidates and colleagues on-- on stage, please don't use the term boots on Iraq-- on the ground. Please don't use the term boots on the ground. My son is not a pair of boots on the ground."
These are American soldiers and we fail them when we fail to take into account what happens the day after a dictator falls.
And when we fail to act with a whole government approach, with sustainable development, diplomacy and our economic power in-- alignment with our principles.
Well, I think it's perfectly-- fair to say that we invested quite a bit in development aid.
Some of the bravest people that I had the privilege of working with as secretary of state were our development professionals who went sometimes alone, sometimes with our military into very dangerous places in Iraq, in Afghanistan-- elsewhere. So there does need to be a whole of government approach.
But just because we're involved and we have a strategy doesn't mean we're going to be able to dictate the outcome. These are often very long-term kinds of-- investments that--
[Actions and investments that failed.]
But when you talk about the long-term consequences of war let's talk about the men and women who came home from war. The 500,000 who came home with P.T.S.D. and traumatic brain injury.
[And a failed VA that the private sector can do better.]
And I would hope that in the midst of all of this discussion this country makes certain that we do not turn our backs on the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us. And that we stand with them as they have stood with us.
Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists.
Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed-- in-- the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam.
Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?
I don't think we're at war with Islam. I don't think we at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists who have--
Just to interrupt, he-- he didn't say all Muslims.
He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don't--
I-- I think that you can-- you can talk about Islamists who-- clearly are also jihadists.
But I think it's-- it-- it's not particularly helpful to make the case that-- Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we've gotta reach out to Muslim countries. We've gotta have them be part of our coalition.
If they hear people running for-- president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam-- that was one of the real contributions-- despite all the other problems that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a mosque in Washington, "We are not at war with Islam or Muslims. We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression."
And yes, we are at war with those people that I don't want us to be painting with too brand a brush.
The reason I ask is that you gave a speech at Georgetown University in which you said that it was important to show-- quote-- respect even for one's enemy. Trying to understand and in so far as psychologically possible empathize with their perspective and point of view. Can you explain what that means in the context of this kind of barbarism?
I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism-- it's very hard to understand other than the lust for power, the rejection of (UNINTEL), the total disregard for human life-- freedom or any other value that we know and-- respect.
[How does drone bombing civilian families in foreign lands show respect for human life?
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground:
Historically it is important to try to understand your adversary in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react. I-- I plead (?)-- that it's very difficult when you deal with-- ISIS and organizations like that whose-- whose behavior is so barbaric and so vicious-- that it doesn't seem to have any purpose other than lust for killing and power. And that's very difficult to put ourselves in other shoes.
Very quickly, do either of you-- radical Islam, do either of you use that--
I don't think the term is what's important. What is important to understand is we have organizations, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaeda, [armed by USA]
who do believe we should go back several thousand years, we should make women third-class citizens, that we should allow children to be sexually assaulted, that they are a danger to modern society.
And that this world with American leadership can and must come together to destroy them. We can do that.
And it requires an entire will to come together including, in a very active way, the Muslim nations.
Governor O'Malley, you've been making the case-- when you talk about lack of forward vision, you're essentially saying that Secretary Clinton lacks that vision.
And this critique matches up with this discussion of language. The critique is that the softness of language betrays a softness of approach. So if this language-- if you don't call it by what it is, how can your approach be effective to the cause. That's the critique.
I believe calling it what it is, is to say radical jihadis, that's to call what it is. But John, let's not fall into the trap of thinking that all of our Muslim-American neighbors in this country are somehow our enemies here. They are our first line of defense.
And we are going to be able to defeat ISIS on the ground there as well as in this world-- because of the Muslim-Americans in our country and throughout the world who understand that this brutal and barbaric group is perverting the name of a great world religion. And now like we never before-- we need our Muslim-American neighbors to stand up and to-- and to be a part of this.
Secretary Clinton, the-- French president has called this attack an act of war. A couple of days ago you were asked if you would declare war on ISIS and you said no.
Would you-- would you-- what would you say now?
Well, we-- we have an authorization to use military force against terrorists. We-- passed it after 9/11.
And you think that covers all of it?
It-- it certainly does cover it. I-- I would like to see it updated.
If you were in the Senate-- if you were in the Senate would you be okay with-- the commander in chief doing that without coming back to you?
No. It would have to go through the Congress.
[So does it cover it or not?]
And I know the White House has actually been working with members of Congress. Maybe now we can get it moving again so that we can upgrade it so that it does include all the tools and everything in our arsenal that we can use to try to work with our allies and our friends, come up with better intelligence.
[More HRC broken promises.]
You know, it is difficult finding intelligence that is actionable in a lotta these places. But we have to keep trying. And we have to do more to prevent the flood of foreign fighters who have gone to Syria, especially the ones with-- with western passports that come back. So there's a lot of work we need to do. And I wanna be sure that what's called the AUMF has the authority that is needed going forward.
[The 2003 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq turned into an expensive debacle with no claimed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) found. That 2003 AUMF cannot by any stretch be used to justify invading Syria twelve years later. No senator or congressman wants to go on record supporting another potential quagmire:
Let me just-- let that is-- whatever you've got to say about refugees. You've been a little vague about what you've done in the Syrian refugees.
I mean, what's your view on them now--
[HRC and DC caused the Syrian refugee problem]
Let me pick up an issue that-- a very important issue that we have not yet discussed. This nation is the most powerful military in the world. We're spending over $600 billion a year on the military.
And yet significantly less than 10% of that money is used to be fighting international terrorism.
We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars (UNINTEL), 5,000 nuclear weapons.
I think we need major reform in the military making it more cost effective but also focusing on the real crisis that faces us.
The Cold War is over and our focus has got to be on intelligence, increased manpower, fighting international terrorism.
In terms of refugees I believe that the United States has the moral responsibility with Europe, with Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia to make sure that when people leave countries like Afghanistan and Syria with nothing more than the clothing on their back that of course we reach out.
Now what the magic number is, I don't know. Because we don't know the extent of the problem. But I certainly think that the United States should take its full responsibility in helping those.
Governor O'Malley, you have a magic number. I think it's 65,000. Does that number go up or down based on what happened yesterday?
John, I was the first person on this stage to say that we should accept the 65,000 Syrian refugees that were s-- were fleeing the sort of murder of-- of ISIL. And I believe that that needs to be done with proper screening.
But accommodating 65,000 refugees in our country, people of 320 million is akin to making room for six and a half more people in a baseball stadium with 32,000.
There are other ways to lead than to be a moral leader in this world rather than at the opposite end of a drone strike.
But I would want to agree with something that Senator Sanders says, the nature of warfare has changed. This is not a conflict where we send in the third divisions of (UNINTEL).
This is-- a new era of conflict where traditional ways of-- of huge standing armies are not as-- serve our purposes as well as special ops, better intelligence and being more proactive.
Just very quickly, 65,000, the number stays?
That's what I understand is the request from the international--
But-- what would you want?
I would want us to take our place among the nations of the world to alleviate the sorta death and the-- the-- the specter we saw--
--little kids, fathers walking up on a beach.
[The emotional picture of the dead toddler on a beach was a Kurdish family who capsized off Turkey, headed for Greece and Canada, rejected by Turkey, Greece and Canada, who supported the Syrian War until recently-elected Justin Trudeau withdrew from the so-called ISIS Coalition airstrikes, thus highlighting the expensive connection between government warfare and welfare:
Secretary Clinton, let me ask you a question from Twitter that's come in. And this is a question on this issue of-- of refugees. The question is with the U.S. preparing to absorb Syrian refugees, how do you propose we screen those coming in to keep our citizens safe?
I think that is the number one requirement. I also said that we should take-- increased numbers of refugees. The administration originally said ten [thousand?]. I said we should go to 65 [thousand?] but only if we have as carefully screening and vetting process as we can imagine whatever resources it takes.
[More expensive promises.]
Because I do not want us to-- in any way-- inadvertently allow people who wish us harm to come into our country.
But I wanna say a quick word about what-- Senator Sanders and-- and then O-- and Governor O'Malley said.
We do have to take a hard look at the defense budget. And we do have to figure out how we get ready to fight the adversaries of the future, not the past. But we have to also be very clear that we do have some continuing challenges.
We got challenges in the South China Sea because of what China is doing in building up-- these-- military installations.
We have problems with Russia. Just the other day Russia allowed a-- television camera to see the plans for a drone submarine that could carry a tactical nuclear weapon. So we've gotta look at the full range and then come to some smart decisions about have-- having more streamlined and focused--
[With Federal debt and obligations larger than our economy, can we still afford to be the world's cop? Can we afford simultaneous wars with China, MENA (Middle East and North Africa) and Russia?]
Senator Sanders, I'm sorry, we're gonna have to take a break now. We will have more of the Democratic debate here from Drake University in Des Moines, (APPLAUSE) Iowa.
Wanna turn now from terrorism to another important issue for many Americans, the financial squeeze on the middle class. For that, we go to my CBS News colleague, Nancy Cordes. Nancy?
John, thanks so much. We've learned a lot during the course of this campaign about what you'd like to do-- that you think help the middle class. So we haven't learned quite as much about who would pick up the tab.
So Secretary Clinton, first to you, you want to cap individual subscription drug costs at $250 a month. You want to make c-- public college debt free. You want community college to be free altogether and you want mandatory paid family leave. So who pays for all that?
Is it employers? Is it the taxpayers? And which taxpayers?
Well, first of all, it isn't the middle class. I have made very clear that-- hard-working, middle class families need a raise, not a tax increase.
In fact-- wages adjusted for inflation haven't risen since-- the turn of the last century after my husband's administration.
[In fact median real weekly earnings have not risen since 1971, including HRC's first time in Washington DC White House:
So we have a lotta work to do to get jobs going again, get incomes rising again.
And I have laid out specific plans. You can go to my website, HillaryClinton.com and read the details.
And I would pay for it by, yes, taxing the wealthy more, closing corporate loopholes, deductions and other kinds of favorable treatment. And I can do it without raising the debt, without raising taxes on the middle class and making it reasonably-- manageable within our budget so that we can be fiscally responsible at the same time.
[ The problem with socialists is they run out of other people's money ~ Maggie Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain in 1976:
Hillary Clinton’s tax plan would be ‘devastating’:
But a quick follow-up on that $250 a month a cap. Wouldn't the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies just pass that cost onto the consumers in the form of higher premiums?
Well, we're gonna have to redo the way the prescription drug-- industry does business. For example, it is outrageous that we don't have an opportunity for Medicare to negotiate for lower prices. In fact, American-- consumers pay the highest prices in the world for drugs that we helped to be developed through the National Institutes of Health and that we then tested through the FDA. So there's more to my plan than just the cap. We have to go after price gouging and monopolistic practices and get Medicare the authority to negotiate.
[More promises from the same HRC who failed to reform Healthcare in 1993 and lobbied for 0Care in 2010 as Secretary of State:
Governor O'Malley, you also want to make public college debt free, you want to--
--tuition. You've got your own family leave plan. How would you pay for it? In Maryland you raised the sales tax, you raised the gas tax and you raised taxes on families making over $150,000 a year. Is that the blueprint?
Nancy, the blueprint in Maryland that we follow was, yes, we did, in fact, raise the-- the sales tax by a penny. And we made our public schools the best public schools in America for five years in a row with that investment. And, yes, we did ask everyone the-- the top 14% of earners in our state to pay more in their income tax.
And we were the only state to go four years without a penny's increase to college tuition. So while other candidates will talk about the things they would like to do, I actually got these things in a state that (UNINTEL) not only a triple A bond rating but the highest medium [median?] income in America.
I believe that we paid for many of the things that we need to do again as a nation, investing in the skills of our people, our infrastructure and research and development and also climate change-- by the elimination of one big entitlement that we can no longer afford as a people.
And that is the entitlement that many of our super wealthiest citizens feel they are entitled to pay, namely a much lower income tax rate and a lower tax rate on capital gains.
I believe capital gains for the most part should be taxed the same way we tax incomes from hard work, sweat and (UNINTEL). And if we do those things we can be-- a country that actually can afford debt-free college again.
Senator Sanders, you want to make public college free altogether. You want to increase social security benefits. And you want to spend-- spend $1 trillion on infrastructure. So you said that to do some of these things you'll impose a tax on top earners. How high would their rate go in a Sanders administration?
Let me put those proposals-- and you're absolutely right. That is what I wanna do. That is what has to happen if we're gonna revitalize and rebuild the crumbling middle class. In the last 30 years there has been a massive redistribution of wealth. And I know that term gets my Republican friends nervous.
The problem is this redistribution has gone in the wrong direction. Trillions of dollars have gone to [from?] the middle class and working families to the top 1/10 of 1% who have doubled the percentage of wealth (UNINTEL).
Yes, I do believe that we must end corporate loopholes such that major corporations year after year pay virtually zero in federal income tax because they're stashing their money in the Cayman Islands.
Yes, I do believe there must be a tax on Wall Street speculation. We bailed out Wall Street. It is their time to bail out the middle class.
Help our kids be able to go to college tuition free. So we pay for this by do demanding that the wealthiest people and the largest corporation who
Well, let's get specific, how high would you go? You said before you'd go above 50%. How high?
We haven't come up with an exact number yet.
But it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90%. But it will be-- (LAUGHTER)
I'm not a socialist compared to Eisenhower. (LAUGHTER) But-- (CHEERING) but-- but we are gonna end the absurdity as Warren Buffet often reminds us--
--that billionaires pay an effective tax rate lower than nurses or truck drivers [or their secretary/assistants].
That makes no sense at all. There has to be real tax reform and the wealthiest (UNINTEL) corporations will pay when I'm president.
I mean, (UNINTEL) under Ronald Raegan's first term the highest marginal rate was 70%. And in talking to a lot of our neighbors who are in that super wealthy millionaire and billionaire category great numbers of them love their country enough to do more again in order to create more opportunity for America's middle class.
Secretary Clinton, Americans say that health care costs and wages are their top financial concerns. And health care deductibles alone have risen 67% over the past five years. Is this something that Obamacare was designed to address?
And if not, why not?
Well, look, I believe that we've made great progress as a country with the Affordable Care Act. We've been struggling to get this done since Harry Truman. And it was not only a great accomplishment to the Democratic Party but of President Obama.
[Every time HRC said "Look," she misdirected and did not answer the question. The facts are, 0Care canceled plans, lost doctors, bankrupted Co-ops and Medicaid, failed to lower healthcare costs that rose +49%, failed to provide healthcare to 45 M Americans, made healthcare less efficient and created 22 higher new taxes.
Obamacare Enters a Downward Spiral as Co-ops Fail and Enrollment Slows:
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425953/obamacare-health-insurance-co-ops-failing ]
I do think that it's important to defend it. The Republicans have voted to repeal it nearly 60 times. They would like to rip it up and start all over again, throw our nation back into this really contentious debate that we've had about health care for quite some time now.
I wanna build on and improve the Affordable Care Act.
I would certainly tackle the cost issues because I think that once the foundation was laid with a system to try to get as many people as possible into it, to end insurance discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions or women, for example, that, yes, we were gonna have to figure out how to get more competition in the insurance market, how to get the cost of particularly prescription drugs but other out of pocket expenses down.
[Did not happen, can not happen with 0Care.]
But I think it's important to understand there's a significant difference that I have with Senator Sanders about how best to provide quality affordable health care for everyone. And it's-- it's a worthy debate. It's an important one that we should--
--be engaged in.
--it is a worthy debate. Senator Sanders, a quick response and then we'll get-- into health care again later.
I am on the committee that helped write the Affordable Care Act. We have made some good progress. Now what we have to take on is the pharmaceutical industry that is ripping off the American people every single day. I am proud that I was the first member of Congress to take American (UNINTEL) Canadian border to buy breast cancer drugs for 1/10 the price they were paying in the United States.
But at the end of the day no doubt the Affordable Care Act is a step forward. I think we all support it. I believe we've gotta go further. I wanna end the international embarrassment of the United States of America being the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege.
(CHEERING) Also-- also what we should be clear about is we end up spending-- I think the secretary knows this-- far more per capita on health care than any other major country and our outcomes-- health care outcomes are not necessarily--
[Under 0Care, US health ranked lowest in the developed world:
All right, Nancy, I really--
--particularly found a way to reduce--
--hospital costs. So whenever we--
Governor, you're breaking the rules.
I'm sorry, we're gonna have to cut for a commercial. We'll be right back here from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
It cannot be an American fight. We will support those who take the fight to ISIS.
This actually is America's fight. It cannot solely be America's fight.
There's a lot of presidential history here in Iowa. It holds the first in the nation Caucus. Herbert Hoover was born in West Branch. And tonight we're in Pope County for our 11th president with three people who hope to be number 45. Joining me now to question them are Iowan Keven Cooney of KCCI and Kathie Obradovich of the Decides Moines Register, Kevin.
Thanks John. Candidates, we've already-- heard your answers on what you would do with Syrian refugees. With a crucial part of the immigration debate here at home controlling our own borders. Republican say the borders, security borders is a top priority.
Democrats say they wanna plan for comprehensive integration reform. So Governor O'Malley, are you willing to compromise on this particular issue to focus on border security first if they were keeping the country safe?
Well, security-- we've actually been focusing on do-- border security to the exclusion of talking about comprehensive immigration reform. In fact if more border security and the-- and more and more deportations we're going to bring our republican brothers and sisters to the table it would've happened long ago.
The fact of the matter is-- and let's say it in our debate because you'll never hear this from that-- immigrant bashing carnival barker Donald Trump, (LAUGH)
The truth of the matter is-- (APPLAUSE) the truth is matter is net immigration from Mexico last year was zero.
Fact check me, go ahead, check it out.
[Fact check: US residents born in Mexico bounced up in 2014. According to Homeland Security, Illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico surged +68% in 2014 led by Central America, while deportations fell -24% due to 0's illegal amnesty ruling and so-called sanctuary cities who refused 10,182 Federal deportation requests, 87,000 of whom had criminal records:
But the truth of the matter is if we want wages to go up we've got to get 11 million of our neighbors out of the (UNINTEL) shadow economy and into the full light of an American economy.
[How/Why would people who did not respect our borders respect our culture, language, economy, raise wages and pay taxes? Illegal immigrants were a $113 Billion drain on the economy. California alone spent $21,756 per illegal immigrant, not counting the loss of lower wages. Immigrants move to blue states for better benefits partially paid by Federal taxpayers.
Nevada has the nation’s largest share (8%) of unauthorized immigrants in its state population:
That's what our parents and grandparents always did. That's what we need to do as a nation. Yes, we must protect our borders. But there is no substitute for having comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people-- many of whom have known no other country but the United States of America. Our symbol is the Statue (APPLAUSE) of Liberty. It is not a barbed wire fence. Thank you.
[37.6% of Americans are out of work because of illegals and their billionaire interests:
Now, Secretary Clinton, you have said you would go further than the president when it comes to taking executive action to implement immigration reforms. But the President's already facing legal troubles on this. We've seen it more just in the past week. Realistically how can you go further with executive action?
Well, first of all, I know that-- the president has appealed the-- decision-- to the Supreme Court. And my reading of the law and the Constitution-- convinces me that the president has the authority that he is attempting to exercise with respect to dreamers and their parents because I think all of us on this stage agree that-- we need comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.
[Legal immigrants already have a path to citizenship.]
Border security has always been a part of that debate. And it is a fact that the-- net immigration from-- Mexico and south has basically zeroed out.
[Incorrect. +68% increase documented above.]
So what we wanna do is to say, "Look, we have 11 million people who have been here, many of them for decades." They have children who are doing so well. I've met and worked with dreamers. I think any parent would be so proud of them. So let's move toward what we should be doing as a nation and follow the values of our immigration history and begin to make it possible for them to come out of the shadows and to have (APPLAUSE) their kids-- (INAUDIBLE PHRASE)
[Follow the illegal drunk drivers, free riders, murders, uninsured motorists and voters burdening our communities, hospitals, jails and schools. More Than 347,000 Convicted Criminal Immigrants At Large In U.S.:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/illegal-alien-crime-and-violence-by-the-numbers-were-all-victims/ ]KATHIE OBRADOVICH:
Senator Sanders-- you guys have talked about immigration as being a wage issue in the United States. And I wanna actually go directly to the wage issue now.
You've talked about raising to $15.00 an hour everywhere in the country.
But the President's former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, Alan Krueger has said the national increase of $15.00 could lead to undesirable and unintended consequences like job loss. What level of job loss would you consider unacceptable?
Let me say this-- you know, no public policy doesn't have in some cases negative consequences.
[In other words, all government policies have negative consequences.]
But at the end of the day what you have right now are millions of Americans working two or three jobs because that wages that they are earning are just too low.
Real inflation accounting for wages has declined precipitously over the years. So I believe that in fact this country needs to move toward a living wage.
It is not a radical idea to say that if somebody works 40 hours a week that person should not be living in poverty. It is not a radical idea to say that a single mom should be earning enough money to take care of her kids. So I believe that over the next few years, not tomorrow, that over the next few years we have got to move the minimum wage to a living wage $15.00 bucks an hour. And I apologize to nobody.
But you said the-- the-- (APPLAUSE) you said there-- there are consequences for-- for any policy. Do-- do you think job losses are a consequence that are--
This is what many economists believe that one of the reasons that real unemployment in this country is ten percent, one of the reasons that African American youth unemployment and underemployment is 51 percent is the average worker in America doesn't have any disposable income.
You have no disposable income when you're making ten, $12.00 bucks an hour. When we put money into the hands of working people they're gonna go out for our goods. They're gonna go out for our services. And they are gonna create jobs in doing that. That is the kind of economy I believe, put money in the hands of working people, raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour.
[Only economic illiterates believe government can raise wages without raising inflation and unemployment. Look no further than the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development for real life examples.]
Kathie, this was not merely theory in Maryland. We actually did it. Not only were we the first state in the nation to pass a living wage we were the first to pass a minimum wage. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which hardly ever says nice things about democratic governors anywhere made our state number one for innovation and entrepreneurship.
We defended the highest median income in the country. And-- so look, the way the-- the-- a stronger middle class is actually the source of economic growth. And if our middle class makes more money, they spend more money. And our whole economy grows. We did it. And it worked. And nobody headed for the hills or left the state because of the--
You're calling for a $15.00-- minimum wage. But why did you stop at $10.10 in your state?
$10.10 was all I could get the state to do by the time I left in my last year. But two of our counties actually went to $12.80. And their county executives if they were here tonight would also tell you that it works. The fact of the matter is the more our people earn the more money they spend and the more our whole economy grows.
This is not an esoteric article-- argument. And you're seeing cities like Seattle, you're seeing cities like San Francisco, cities like Los Angeles doing it. And they are doing it well and workers are able to have more disposable income.
[MD is a special case because it benefits from profligate unproductive Washington, DC spending. San Francisco and Seattle are already laying off employees and closing businesses:
But I do take what Alan Krueger said seriously. He is the foremost expert in our country on the minimum wage-- and what its effects-- are. And the overall message is that it doesn't result in job loss. However what Alan Krueger said in the piece you're referring to is that if we went to $15.00 there are no international comparisons. That is why I support a $12.00 national federal minimum wage. That is what the democrats in the senate have put forward as-- proposal.
But I do believe that is a minimum. And places like Seattle, like Los Angeles, like New York City, they can go higher. It's what happened in-- Governor O'Malley's state. There was a minimum wage at the state level. And some places went higher. I think that is the smartest way to be able to move forward because if you go to $12.00 it would be the highest historical average we've ever had.
[Why stop at a $12 or $15 minimum wage? Why not go to a million dollar minimum wage? Government does not create wealth. It takes it.]
Oh, come on now. Yeah, but, yes, it should always be going up. I mean, it--
With all due respect to Secretary Clinton.
You would expect a median wage. Of course you would do the trial. And you would index it. But I-- I think--
I think we need to stop taking our advice from economists on Wall Street.
[None of these politicians has any business experience. They are career politicians who promise the sky and deliver dirt.]
He's not on Wall Street.
And start taking advice from--
You have-- you have given me the perfect segue. We are gonna talk about Wall Street. But now we've gotta go do a commercial. (LAUGH) (APPLAUSE) We're starting in the first hour. But there's another hour behind it. And we're gonna talk about Wall Street. So hang with us.
This country will rid our planet of ISIS.
We have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network.
The world is a very dangerous place but not too dangerous of a place for the United States of America.
This is an incredibly complicated nation of the world.
This role with American leadership can and must come together (UNINTEL).
We've got to understand the complexity of the world that we are facing and no place is more so than in the Middle East.
Live from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, CBS--
This country will rid our planet of ISIS.
We have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network.
The world is a very dangerous place but not too dangerous of a place for the United States of America.
This is an incredibly complicated nation of the world.
This role with American leadership can and must come together (UNINTEL).
We've got to understand the complexity of the world that we are facing and no place is more so than in the Middle East.
Live from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, CBS News brings you the democratic presidential debate here again, John Dickerson. (APPLAUSE)
Good evening again as we begin the second half of the debate. And joining me in the questioning are-- candidates, our CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes, Kevin Cooney of CBS Good Morning affiliate KCCI and Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register.
As those who watched the first hour now our topic is Wall Street for those just joining us, welcome. Senator-- excuse me, Secretary Clinton this time, went to the past there for a moment, Senator Sanders recently said quote, "People should be suspect of candidates who receive large sums of money from Wall Street and then go out and say, "Trust me, I'm going to reregulate Wall Street."
So you've received millions of dollars in contributions and speaking fees from Wall Street companies. How do you convince voters that you're gonna level the playing field when you're indebted to some of the biggest players?
Well, I-- I think it's pretty clear that they know that I will. You've got two billionaire hedge fund managers who've started a super PAC. And they're advertising against the (UNINTEL) as we speak. So they clearly think I'm going to do what I say I will do. And you you can look at what I did in the senate. I did introduce legislation to reign in-- compensation.
[So much for freedom.]
I looked at ways that the shareholders would have more control over what was going on in that arena and specifically said to Wall Street that-- what they were doing in the mortgage was bringing our country down.
I've laid out a very aggressive-- plan to reign in Wall Street not just the big banks. That's a part of the problem. And I am going right at them. I've got a comprehensive, tough plan. But I went further than that. We have to go after what's called the shadow banking industry, those hedge funds.
Look at what happened in '08, AIG a big insurance company, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank helped to bring our economy down. So I wanna look at the whole problem. And that's why my proposal is much more comprehensive than anything else that's been put forth.
[Talk is cheap. HRC was First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, a Washington DC Insider for 23 years and accomplished none of that except to put her name on the Clinton Foundation with blatant financial conflicts of interest including illegal foreign political donations.]
Senator Sanders, you've-- you've said that the donations to Secretary Clinton are compromising. So what did you think of her answer?
Not good enough. (LAUGH)
Here's the story. I mean, you know, let's not be naive about it. Why do-- why over her political career has Wall Street a major-- the major-- campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton?
You know, maybe they're dumb and they don't know what they're gonna get. But I don't think so.
Here is the major issue when we talk about Wall Street, it ain't complicated.
You got six financial institutions today that have assets of 56 per-- equivalent to 50-- six percent of the GDP in America.
They issue two thirds of the credit cards and one third of the mortgages. If Teddy Roosevelt, the good republican, were alive today you know what he'd say? "Break them up. Reestablish (APPLAUSE)
(UNINTEL) like Teddy Roosevelt (UNINTEL) that is leadership. So I am the only candidate up here that doesn't have a super PAC.
I'm not asking Wall Street or the billionaires for money. I will break up these banks, support community banks and credit unions-- credit unions. That's the future of banking in America.
Quick follow-up because you-- you-- (APPLAUSE) Secretary Clinton, you'll get a chance to respond. You said they know what they're going to get. What are they gonna get?
I have never heard a candidate, never, who's received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate, go, "OH, these-- these campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm gonna be independent."
Now, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that.
Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, $750,000 and $30 apiece. That's who I'm indebted to.
Well, Scott, Scott, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Secretary Clinton gets to respond.
--answer to impugn my integrity, let's be frank here.
No, I don't.
Oh, wait a minute, senator. (LAUGH) You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small,
[In fact, most of HRC's disclosed donations are from Wall Street and an International Law Firm. The tax-free Clinton Foundation is on a watchlist for failure to disclose all donors and only 10% of donations to charity:
I am very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. (APPLAUSE)
So I-- I represented New York. And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked.
Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy. And it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country. (APPLAUSE)
So, you know, it's fine for you to say what you're gonna say.
But I look very carefully at your proposal reinstating Glass Steagall is a part of what very well could help but it is nowhere near enough. My proposal is tougher, more effective and more comprehensive because I go after all of Wall Street not just the big banks. (APPLAUSE)
Hold on, hold on, he was attacked. Go--
Here's-- she touches on two broad issues. It's not just Wall Street. It's campaigns, a corrupt campaign finance system.
And it is easy to talk the talk about ending-- Citizens United.
But what I think we need to do is show by example that we are prepared to not rely on large corporations and Wall Street for campaign contributions.
And that's what I'm doing. In terms of Wall Street I respectfully disagree with you, Madame Secretary in the sense that the issue is when you have such incredible power and such incredible wealth, when you have Wall Street spending five billion dollars over a ten year period to get re-- to get deregulated the only answer that I know is break them up, reestablish Glass Steagall.
Senator, we have to get Senator O'Malley in. But no-- along with your answer how many Wall Street-- veterans would you have in your administration?
Well, I'll tell you what, I've said this before, I-- I don't-- I believe that we actually need some new economic thinking in the White House. And I would not have Robert Rubin or Larry Summers with all due respect, Secretary Clinton, to you and to them, back on my council of economic advisors.
Anyone (UNINTEL PHRASE).
If they were architects, sure, we'll-- we'll have-- we'll have an inclusive group. But I won't be taking my orders from Wall Street.
And-- look, let me say this-- I put out a proposal-- I was on the front line when people lost their homes, when people lost their jobs.
I was on the front lines as the governor-- fighting against-- fighting that battle. Our economy was wrecked by the big banks of Wall Street.
And Secretary Clinton-- when you put out your proposal (LAUGH) on Wall Street it was greeted by many as quote/ unquote weak tea. It is weak tea. It is not what the people expect of our country. We expect that our president will protect the main street economy from excesses on Wall Street.
And that's why Bernie's right. We need to reinstate a modern version of Glass Steagall and we should have done it already. (APPLAUSE)
Well, you know, governor I know that when you had a chance to appoint a commissioner for financial regulation you chose an investment banker in 2010. So for me it is looking at what works and what we need to do to try to move past what happened in '08.
And I will go back and say again AIG was not a big bank. It had to be bailed out. And it nearly destroyed us. Lehman Brothers was not a big bank. It was an investment bank. And its bankruptcy and its failure nearly destroyed us. So I've said if the big banks don't play by the rules I will break them up.
The big bank--
And I will also go after executives who are responsible for the decisions that have such bad consequences for our country. (APPLAUSE)
Look, I don't know-- with all due respect to the secretary, Wall Street played by the rules. Who are we kidding? The business model of Wall Street is fraud. That's what it is.
And we-- we have-- (APPLAUSE) and let me make this promise, one of the problems we have had I think all-- all Americans understand it is whether it's republican administration or democratic administration we have seen Wall Street and Goldman Sachs dominate administrations.
Here's my promise Wall Street representatives will not be in my cabinet. (APPLAUSE)
All right, I wanna get to the-- bridge to the issues of guns here.
Secretary Clinton, you've said that Senator Sanders is not tough enough on guns. But basically he now supports roughly the same things you do. So can you tell us some of the exact differences going forward between the two of you on the issue of gun control?
Well, I think that there are different-- records. I-- you know, know that-- Senator Sanders-- had a different vote than I did-- when it came to giving immunity to gun makers and sellers. That was a terrible mistake. It basically gave the gun lobby even more power to intimidate-- legislators not just in Washington but across the country.
But just think about this, since we last debated in Las Vegas nearly 3,000 people have been killed by guns, 21 mass shootings including one last weekend in Des Moines where three were murdered, 200 children have been killed.
[AP fact check said this was untrue:
This is an emergency. There are a lot of things we've gotta do in our country. Reigning in Wall Street is certainly one of them. I agree with that. That's why I've got such a good plan.
But we have to also go after the gun lobby. And 92 percent of Americans agree we should have universal background checks, close the gun show loophole, close the out of (APPLAUSE) loophole and-- I wanna-- but I-- I will do everything I can as president to get that accomplished.
[Surprise! Hillary Clinton Lied About Guns in Democrat Debate. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that only 45% of respondents believe universal background checks would reduce violent crime:
When guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns.
Our Second Amendment states, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. History shows governments that disarm their citizens, like New Orleans during Katrina, become despotic.]
Secretary Clinton just a quick follow up, you say that-- Senator Sanders took a vote that-- on immunity that you don't like. So if he can be tattooed by a single vote and that ruins all future-- opinions by him on this issue, why then is he right when he says you're wrong on Iraq vote tattoos for offering your judgment?
I-- I said I made a mistake on Iraq. And I would love to see Senator Sanders join with some of my colleagues-- in the senate that I-- see in the audience, let's reverse the immunity. Let's--
Let's go to the gun makers and tell-- on notice that they're not gonna get away with it.
[Not get away with business and constitutional free markets?]
Let's do more than reverse the immunity.
'Cause you think that that's a mistake.
But let's-- let me hear it-- if there's any difference between the secretary and myself. I have voted time and again to-- for-- for the background checks. And I wanna see it improved and expanded. I wanna see them do away with the gun show loophole. In 1988 I lost an election because I said we should not have assault weapons on the streets of America.
[Facts show More Guns, Less Crime:
Insistence by Stanford Law Professors that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder confused correlation with causality. Of course more people defend themselves with guns in high crime areas:
We have to do away with the strong man proposal. We need radical changes in mental health in America. So somebody who's suicidal or homicidal can get the emergency care they need. But we have-- I don't know that there's any disagreement here.
[Needs and wants are not always practical.]
Oh yes, there is.
We have lots-- come forward with a consensus--
Yes, there is.
--that in fact will work--
Senator, a mistake or not, you're-- you're-- so quickly before--
We will talk of that bill which I agree with parts, I disagree-- I am certainly absolutely willing to look at that bill and make sure-- and not a form of the bill.
Not a mistake.
John, this is another one of those examples. Look, we have-- we have a lot of work to do. And we're the only nation on the planet that buries as many of our people from gun violence as we do in my own state after they-- the children in that Connecticut classroom were gunned down, we passed comprehensive-- gun safety legislation, background checks, ban on assault weapons.
[Doctors are statistically more deadly than guns:
And senator, I think we do need to repeal that immunity that you granted to the gun industry.
[Immunity was also granted to Telecom and Vaccine companies that broke laws or harmed people.]
But Secretary Clinton, you've been on three sides of this.
When you ran in 2000 you said that we needed federal robust regulations. Then in 2008 you were portraying yourself as Annie Oakley and saying that we don't need those regulation on the federal level.
And now you're coming back around here. So John, there's a big difference between leading by polls and leading with principle. We got it done in my state by leading with principle. And that's what we need to do as a party, comprehensive gun--
All due respect-- I think it's fair to say that Baltimore is not now one of the safest cities in America. But the issue-- and it's a lot--
Saved a lot of lives along the way.
The issue is I believe and I believe this honestly and I don't know that there's much difference on guns between us but I believe coming from a state that has virtually no gun control I believe that I am in a position to recount of the 60 or 70 percent of the American people who agree with us on those issues. The problem is--
--people all over this country, not you Secretary Clinton, are shouting at each other. And what we need to do (LAUGH) is bring people together to work on the agreement where there is broad consensus. And that's what I intend to do.
There-- there is broad consensus. 92 percent in the most recent poll of Americans want gun safety measures.
[Double-down on a lie. Only 45% believe government gun control works.]
And 85 percent of gun owners agree. We've got the consensus. What we're lacking is political leadership. And that's what you and others can start providing in the senate. (APPLAUSE)
[Triple down on a lie: 45%.]
Yes, I agree.
Sorry, I'm gonna bring in Nancy Cordes with a question from Twitter about this exchange.
(IN PROGRESS) --about guns but also about your conversation on campaign finance. And Secretary Clinton, one of the tweets we saw-- said that I've never seen a candidate invoke 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations until now the idea being that, yes, you are a champion of the community after 9/11. But what does that have to do with taking big donations?
Well, I'm sorry that whoever tweeted that-- had that impression because I worked closely with New Yorkers after 9/11 for my entire first term to rebuild. And so yes, I did know people. I had a lot of folks give me donations from all kinds of backgrounds, say, "I don't agree with you on everything. But I like what you do. I like how you stand up. I'm going to support you." (LAUGH) And I think that is absolutely perfect.
Well, I-- if I might-- I-- I-- I think the issue here is that I-- I applaud Secretary Clinton. She did. She's the senator from New York. She worked-- many of us supported you in trying to rebuild that devastation.
But at the end of the day Wall Street today has enormous economic and political power. Their business model is greed and fraud.
And for the sake of our economy they must-- the major banks must be broken up.
John, I think somewhere between the--
Senator Sanders, I'm sorry, so what is it in Secretary Clinton's record-- that shows you that she's been influenced by those donations?
The issue right now is whether or not we reestablish Glass Steagall. I led (UNINTEL PHRASE) unfortunately unsuccessfully against deregulation because I knew when you merge large insurance companies and investment banks and commercial banks it was not going to be good.
The issue now is do we break them up? Do we re-establish Glass Steagall? And Secretary Clinton unfortunately is on the wrong side.
Well, I'll tell you who's on my side, Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist who said my plan for what we should do to reign in Wall Street was more comprehensive and better. Paul Volcker, one of the leading (UNINTEL) of trying to reign in the excesses has also said he does not support reinstating Glass Steagall. So I mean, this may seem like a bit of an arcane discussion.
[Glass Steagall anything but arcane when the two biggest economic collapses in American history were caused by Wall Street Monopolies. Our economy has still not fully recovered from the 2009 0 W crash. Paul Krugman is an advocate of big government something for nothing Keynesian Economics. Paul Volcker in fact opposed full repeal of Glass Steagall and still does, another fib by HRC:
I have nothing against the passion that my two friends here have about reinstating Glass Steagall. I just don't think it would get the job done. I'm all about making sure (APPLAUSE) we actually get results for whatever reason.
That's-- a final word-- the final word, Governor O'Malley, before we go to commercial.
John, there is not-- a serious economist who would disagree that the six big banks of Wall Street have taken on so much power and that all of us are still on the hook to bail them out on their bad debts. That's not capitalism, Secretary Clinton-- Clinton, that's crummy [crony?] capitalism.
That's a wonderful business model if you place that bet-- the taxpayers bail you out. But if you place good ones you pocket it.
Look, I don't believe that the model-- there's lots of good people that work in finance, Secretary Sanders. But Secretary Clinton, we need to step up. And we need to protect main street from Wall Street.
And you can't do that by-- by campaigning as the candidate of Wall Street. I am not the candidate of Wall Street. And I encourage--
--everybody watching this tonight to-- please-- acknowledge that by going online at MartinO'Malley.com and help me wage this campaign for real American capitalism.
We have to-- we have to go for a commercial, I'm sorry. We have to go for a commercial here. We'll be right back with the democratic debate here in Des Moines, Iowa on CBS.
Back now in Des Moines with the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Sanders, I wanna start with you. Let's say you're elected president. Congratulations.
Thank you. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING) Looking forward to it. (APPLAUSE)
You've said you'll have a revolution.
But there's a conservative revolution going on in America right now. As John Boehner knows, and as Democrats know who have lost in state Houses across the country--
--those conservatives are watching tonight and probably shaking their heads. So (LAUGHTER) how you deal with that part of the country? The revolution's already happening, but on the other side.
And we are gonna do a political revolution which brings working people, young people, senior citizens, minorities together. Because every issue that I am talking about, paid family and medical leave, breaking up the banks on Wall Street, asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes, rebuilding a fumbling [crumbling?] infrastructure, raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, every one of those issues is supported by a significant majority of the American people.
Problem is, that as a result of a corrupt campaign finance system, Congress is not listening to the American people.
It's listening to the big money (UNINTEL). What the political revolution is about is bringing people together to finally say, "Enough is enough. This government belongs to us, not just the billionaires."
Senator, a 30-second follow-up. We've heard already tonight that-- that your 92% of support for background checks. Let the ar-- let's look at that as-- as an example. If there were something 92% of the public was for, there have been these-- these mass shootings, there was emotional support behind it.
[Repeating a lie four times does not make it true. 45%]
The president, the full force of his office.
It went nowhere. That's the model you're talking about-- nothing happened.
What we need is leadership in this country which revitalizes American democracy. And makes people understand that if they stand up and fight back and take on the bullet-- p-- billionaire class, we can bring about the change that we need.
If we are not successful, if we continue the same old same old Washington being run by corporate lobbyists and big money and trusts (?), nothing changes.
Look, I am very happy in this campaign that we have had rallies with tens of thousands of people, mostly young people.
What the polls are showing is that we are absolutely defeating the secretary among younger people.
We're giving young people and working people hope that real change can take place in America. That's what the political revolution is about.
A ques-- a question from Kathie Obradovich.
Yes. Senator Sanders, you famously said in the last debate that you were sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails. But then you told The Wall Street Journal that the questions about whether or not Secretary Clinton's emails compromised classified information were valid questions. So what does it mean? Is it an issue or is it not?
That's just media fluff. I was sick and tired of Hillary Clinton's email. I am still sick and tired of Hillary Clinton's (UNINTEL). (LAUGHTER) And the issue is-- the problem is the front pages every day we're dealing (?) with that. I didn't know I had so much power. But after I said that, without hearing much of that, Hillary (LAUGH) (UNINTEL PHRASE).
But (UNINTEL) all right--
What I would like for the media now (APPLAUSE) is for us to be talking about why the middle class is disappearing while we have more people in jail than any other country, why we have massive levels of income and wealth inequality and we're the only major country (UNINTEL PHRASE) [without] paid family and medical leave.
We've gotten off of Hillary's emails, good. Let's go to the major issues facing America. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
Secretary Clinton, your response?
I agree completely. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) I couldn't have said it better myself. But-- but I-- I did wanna-- I-- I wanted to follow up.
Look, we need more Americans to be involved in the political process. And I give Senator Sanders a lot of credit for really lighting a fire under many people, young, old, everybody who sees a chance to be involved and have their voice heard.
[Ironically, HRC is correct on this one. Because most Americans were turned off by billionaire dirty candidate politics, 0 was elected by 65,915,796 voters, 20% of our population, one in five Americans, hardly a representative mandate. America, the most divided since the Civil War and Amewrican Revolution, is ready for a Washington or Lincoln of our time to re-unite US:
Look at what's happening with the Republicans. They're doing everything they can to prevent the voices of Americans to be heard. (APPLAUSE)
They're trying to prevent people from registering to vote. So we do need to take on the Republicans-- very clearly and directly.
[In fact, requiring positive photo ID of all voters who provide it when they buy alcohol or tobacco, enter a government buidling, fly on a plane, get a driver's license or register for welfare, reduces illegal voter fraud.]
But the other thing I just wanted quickly to say is I think President Obama deserves more credit than he gets for what he's gotten done-- (APPLAUSE) in Washington despite the Republican oppression. [opposition?]
[Constitutional representative government is protected by fair elections, guns, impeachments and balance of powers. In fact, the Speaker of the House resigned because he was not representing most Americans, but special interests who funded him and his party.]
Secretary Clinton, just one-- more question on the email question.
[This was the first question here.]
For Democrats, there's an F.B.I. investigation going on.
Can you satisfy Democrats who might worry about another shoe dropping?
That you and your staff have been totally truthful to them and that another shoe is not gonna drop?
Well, I think after 11 hours that's pretty clear. Yeah. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)
You know, I-- I do think it's important to do exactly what Senator Sanders said. And that is to start talking about the
issues that the American people really care about and that they talk to each of us about and to contrast.
I mean, there are differences among us. You've heard some of those tonight. I still wanna get back to healthcare, because I think that's a worthy topic to explore. But the differences among us pale compared to what's happening on the Republican--
--side. And if you listen to what they say, and I had a chance over those 11 hours to watch and listen as well as what I see in their debate, they are putting forth alarming plans.
I mean, all of us support funding Planned Parenthood.
[In fact, most Americans do not support funding 330,000 Planned Parenthood Abortions with body part chop shops a year. 78% of Americans oppose a billion dollars a year in federal funding for any organization involved in the sale of aborted babies’ body parts. A CNN poll reveled that 58% of Americans believe that abortion “should be illegal in most” cases:
All of us believe climate change is real.
[Another HRC big lie. 36% believe global warming will pose a serious threat to our way of life during our lifetimes:
All of us want equal pay for equal work.
[Define equal. Should we all be paid as much as Tim Cook, Apple CEO's $378 Million?:
They don't believe in any of that. So let's focus on what their election is really gonna be about. (APPLAUSE)
Another-- well, race relations is another issue everyone cares about. And we're gonna switch to that now. Governor O'Malley, let me ask you a question. The-- the head of the F.B.I. recently said, "It might be possible that some police forces are not enforcing the law because they're worried about being caught on camera."
The acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration said a similar thing.
Where-- where are you on this question and what would you do if you were president and two top members of your administration were floating that idea?
Well, look-- John, I think the-- I think the call of your question is how can we improve both public safety in America and race relations in America understanding how very intertwined both of those issues are in a very, very difficult and painful way for us as a people.
Look, the truth of the matter is that we should all feel a sense of responsibility as Americans to look for the things that actually work to save and redeem lives and to do more of them.
[There's that lie trigger word "Look" again. Fact is, the Baltimore death and destruction riots occured after the good Governor and Mayor claimed he fixed Maryland and Baltimore with a disputed 37% reduction in violent crime:
And to stop doing the things that don't. From my part, that's what I have done in 15 years of experiences in there and as the governor, we restored voting rights to 52,000 people, we decriminalized possession of small amounts of americ-- of marijuana.
I repealed the death penalty, and we also put in place a civilian review board. We reported openly discourtesy and-- and lethal force and brutality complaints.
[This is not what Baltimore residents demonstrated, with at least twenty police officers injured, at least 250 people arrested, 285 to 350 businesses damaged, 150 vehicle fires, 60 structure fires, 27 drugstores looted, thousands of police and Maryland Army National Guard troops deployed, and with a state of emergency declared in the city limits of Baltimore, not a tribute to Baltimore, Maryland governance:
This is something that-- and I put forward a new agen-- agenda for criminal justice reform that is informed by that experience. So as president, I would lead these efforts and I would do so with more experience and probably the attendance of more gravesites than any of the three of us on this stage when it comes to urban-- crime, loss of lives.
And-- the truth is-- I have learned on a very daily basis that yes indeed, black lives matter.
[So why aren't you and your fellow candidates Black?]
All right, governor. Sen-- (APPLAUSE) se-- Senator Sanders, one of your former colleagues, an African American member of Congress said to me recently that a young African American man had asked him where to find hope in life. And he said, "I just don't know what to tell him about being young and black in America today." What would you tell that young African American man?
Well, this is what I would say. And the congressman was right-- according to the statistics that I'm familiar with, a black male maybe born today stands a one in four chance of ending up in the criminal justice system. Fifty-one percent of high school African American graduates are unemployed or underemployed. We have more people in jail today than any other country on earth.
We're spending $80 billion locking people up disproportionately, Latino and African American. We need very clearly major, major reform in a broken criminal justice system from top to bottom. And that means when police officers out in a community do illegal activity, kill people who are unarmed, who should not be killed, they must be held accountable.
It means that we end minimum sentencing for those people (UNINTEL). And it means that we take marijuana out of the federal law as a crime and give space for freedom to go forward with legalizing marijuana.
Secretary-- Clinton, you told some Black Lives Matter activists recently that there's a difference between rhetoric and activism and what you were trying to do, which is-- was enforce law-- or get laws passed that would help what they-- were pushing for.
But-- recently at the University of Missouri, that activism was very, very effective. So would you suggest that kind of activism take place at other universities across the country?
[Mob rule is effective?]
Well, John, I come from-- the '60s, a long time ago. There was a lot of activism on campus. Civil rights activism, anti-war activism, women's rights activism. And I do-- appreciate the way young people-- are standing up and speaking out. Obviously, I believe that on a college campus, there should be enough respect so people hear each other.
But what happened-- at the university there, what's happening at other universities, I think reflects the deep sense of, you know, concern, even despair that so many young people, particularly of color have. And I recently met with a group of mothers who lost their children to-- either-- killings by police or random killings-- in their neighborhoods.
And hearing their stories was so incredibly, profoundly heartbreaking. Each one of them, you know, describes their child, had a picture. You know, the mother of the young man with his friends in the car who was playing loud music and, you know, some older white man pulled out a gun and shot him because they wouldn't turn the radio down.
[HRC played the race card.]
Or a young woman who had been-- performing at President Obama's second inauguration, coming home-- absolutely stellar young woman, hanging out with her friends in a park, getting shot by a gang member. And of course, I-- I met the mothers of Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin and so many of them who have lost their children.
[Is that now the job of the Secretary of State to advocate the violation of free speech by students at Amherst, Yale, Mizzou and others? Answer the question. Appealing to emotion rather than reason dumbs America down, as Ethics Alarms noted:
So your original question is the right question, and it's not just a question for parents and grandparents to answer. It's really a question for all of us to answer. Every single one of our children deserves the chance to live up to his or her god-given potential. And that's what we need to be doing to the best of our ability in our country--
All right. Over to Kevin Cooney. (APPLAUSE)
Senator-- Senator Sanders-- we've heard a lot about this, your offer-- you-- you wanna offer free tuition in public universities and colleges.
A couple questions about this. Fifty-three percent of those who enroll graduate. First question, you're just throwing a lot of money away if we're looking at a third of these people are not going to complete college.
[53% is closer to half, not a third.]
No, it's not throwing-- it is an extraordinary investment for this country. In Germany, many other countries do it already.
In fact, if you remember, 50, 60 years ago, University of California, City University of New York were virtually tuition-free. Here it's a new (?) story.
It's not just that college graduates should [not?] be $50,000 or $100,000 in debt.
More importantly, I want kids in Burlington, Vermont, or Baltimore, Maryland, who are in the six grade or the eighth grade who don't have a lot of money, whose parents that-- like my parents, may never have gone to college. You know what I want, Kevin? I want those kids to know that if they study hard, they do their homework, regardless of the income of their families, they will in fact be able to great a college education.
Because we're gonna make public colleges and universities tuition-free. This is revolutionary for education in America. It will give hope for millions of young people.
[What does it matter when 67.6% of Americans are out of work?:
21:34:41:00 Well, one of the things that you want to do is to have the states pay for about a third of this $70 billion plan, correct?
There are 16 states that are running budget deficits right now. Where are they expected to come up with--
Well, I think that they're gonna be pretty smart. If I think a lot of states will do the right thing and I think those states that don't will pay a heavy penalty.
[Please answer the question.]
Bottom line here is, in the year 2015, we should look at a college degree the same we look at a high school degree, 50 or 60 years ago.
[In other words, grade inflation. Someone please explain demand and supply curves to Marxist Senator Sanders.]
If you wanna make it into the middle class, I'm not saying (UNINTEL), we need t-- plumbers and we carpenters and electricians. That's for sure. And they should get help as well.
[Everybody must get stoned.]
But bottom line now is, in America, in the year 2015, any person who has the ability and desire should be able to get an education, college education, regardless of the income of his or his family. And we must substantially lower, as my legislation does, interest rates on student debt.
[Thus further bankrupting student loans.]
Governor O'Malley, jump in, yeah.
Okay, thank you. I have thought that-- (APPLAUSE) I would agree with much of what Senator Sanders says, Kevin. I-- I believe that actually affordable college, debt-free college is the goal that we need to attain as a nation.
And-- unlike my three distinguished colleagues on this stage, I actually-- made college more affordable and was the only state that went four years in a row without a penny's increase to college tuition.
I respectfully disagree with Senator Sanders' approach. I believe that the goal should be debt-free college. I believe that our federal government needs to do more on programs, states need to stop cutting higher education, and we should create a new block grant program that keeps the states in-- in the game, and we should lower these outrageous interest rates that parents and kids are being charged by their own government, 7% and 8% to go to college?
I mean, my dad went to c-- college on the GI bill after comin' home from Japan, flying 33 missions. My daughters went to college on a mountain of bills. But we were proud of them on graduation day. But we're going to be proud every month for the rest of our natural lives. (LAUGHTER) It-- it doesn't need to be that way. We can (APPLAUSE) have debt-free college in the United States.
[But wait, there's more freebies.]
Governor, if I could just jump in. I-- I believe that we should make community college free. We should have debt-free college if you go to a public college or university. You should not have to borrow a dime to pay tuition. I wanna use Pell grants to help defray-- the living expenses that often-- make a difference whether a young person can stay in school or not.
I disagree with free college for everybody. I don't think taxpayers should be paying to send Donald Trump's kids to college.
It think it oughta be a compact (?), (APPLAUSE) families contribute, kids contribute, and together, we want to make it possible for our new generation of young people to refinance their debt and not come out with debt in the future.
[Is this Fantasy Island or a serioius Presidential Debate? Are these giveaway socialists actually running for the highest office in the land in the once greatest economy in the world? Send them back to remedial school to learn business and economics? Please.]
All right, Nancy Cordes has a question.
Back to healthcare by popular demand.
First to you, Senator Sanders. You prefer to scrap ObamaCare and move to a single-payer system, essentially Medicare for all. You say you wanna put the private insurance companies out of business. Is it realistic to think that you can pull the plug on a $1 trillion industry?
[Good question, lousy answer. Save US from political utopians.]
It's not gonna happen tomorrow. And it's probably not gonna happen until you have real campaign finance reform and get rid of all these super PACs and the power of the insurance companies and the drug companies.
But at the end of the day, Nancy, here is a question. In this great country of ours, with so much intelligence, with so much capabilities, why do we remain the only (UNINTEL) country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right?
[And why do we rank last in the civilized world for healthcare? For the same reason. Government does not produce. It takes.]
Why do we continue to get ripped off by the drug companies who can charge us any prices they want? Why is it that we are spending per capita far, far more than Canada, which is a hundred miles away from my door, that guarantees healthcare to all people?
[Because corporate monopolies own politicians.]
It will not happen tomorrow. But when millions of people stand up and are prepared to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies, it will happen and I will lead that effort.
Medicare for all, single-payer system is the way we should go. (APPLAUSE)
[That's what uninformed voters think until the rigged economy collapses.]
Secretary Clinton, back in-- (CHEERING) Secretary Clinton, back in 1994, you said that momentum for a single-payer system would sweep the country. That sounds Sandersesque. But you don't feel that way anymore. Why not--
Well, the revolution never came. (LAUGHTER) And I waited and I've got the scars to show for it. We now have this great accomplishment known as the Affordable Care Act.
[Canceled policies, higher healthcare costs for less coverage. Great accomplishment? What planet are you on Madame?]
And-- I don't think we should have to be defending it amount [amongst] Democrats. We ought to be working to improve it and prevent Republicans from both undermining it and even repealing it.
I have looked at-- (APPLAUSE) I've looked at the legislation that Senator Sanders has proposed. And basically, he does eliminate the Affordable Care Act, eliminate private insurance, eliminates Medicare, eliminates Medicaid, Tricare, children's health insurance program.
Puts it all together in a big program which he then hands over to the state to administer.
And I have to tell you, I would not want, if I lived in Iowa, Terry Branstad administering my healthcare. (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
[Iowa's longest serving Governor, in 2016 America's longest serving Governor, repeatedly elected by the people. His only disqualification would appear to be his party affiliation, more divisive politics:
I-- I think-- I think as Democrats, we ought to proudly support the Affordable Care Act, improve it, and make it the model that we know it can be--
[Our partisan government, right or wrong. Up to 55% of Americans favor repeal of 0Care, more when 2016 draconian IRS rules are enforced.]
Right. Well, let me just say something--
We don't-- we don't eliminate Medicare. We expand Medicare to all people. And we will not, under this proposal, have a situation that we have right now with the Accordable Care Act.
We've got states like South Carolina and many other Republican states that because of their right-wing political ideology are denying millions of people the expansion of Medicaid that we passed in the Affordable Care Act.
Ultimately, we have got to say as a nation, Secretary Clinton, is healthcare a right of all people or is it not? I--
May I jump in--
--thirty seconds on healthcare-- (APPLAUSE)
I'm sorry, I'm sorry governor. We've got to take a break or the machine breaks down. (LAUGHTER) You're watching the Democratic Debate here on CBS. (APPLAUSE) (MUSIC)
Begin the final segment of this debate with something none of you saw coming. Something quite unexpected. Soon after your inauguration, you will face a crisis. All presidents do.
What crisis have you experienced in your life that suggest you've been tested and can face that inevitable challenge? Secretary Clinton, you first.
(THROAT CLEAR) Well, there are so many. I don't know where to start. (LAUGHTER) I guess the one I-- I would pick is-- the fact that I was part of a very small group that had to advice the president about whether or not to go after bin Laden. I spent a lot of time in the situation room-- as secretary of State and there were many very difficult-- choices presented to us.
But probably that was the most-- challenging. Because there was no certainty attached to it. The intelligence was by no means absolute. We had all kinds of-- questions that we discussed. And, you know, at the end-- I recommended to the president that we take-- the chance-- to do what-- we could to find out whether that was bin Laden and to finally-- bring him to justice.
[We were led to believe he was murdered, not brought to justice. Some say UBL, cousin to Bush Carlyle investors, died in Bora Bora in 2001 of kidney disease, the reason his body was buried at sea, not according to Muslim beliefs as claimed:
It was an excruciating experience. I couldn't talk to anybody about it. In fact, after it happened, the president called my husband, he called all the former presidents. And he said to Bill, "Well, I-- I assume Hillary told you about this." And Bill said, "No, no, she hasn't." There was nobody to talk to and it-- it really did give me an insight into the very difficult problems presidents face--
[HRC punted on Benghazi, ethical lapses, national security and her husband's impeachment among others:
Yeah. Governor O'Malley, what crisis proves that you're tested?
John, I don't think that there is a crisis at the state or local level that really you can point to and say, "Therefore I am prepared for the sort of crises that any man or woman who is the commander in chief of our country has to deal with."
But I can tell you this. I can tell you that-- that as a mayor and as a governor, I learned certain disciplines which I believe are directly applicable to that very, very-- powerful and most-important-of-all jobs of the United States, president, whose first and primary duty is to protect the people of our country.
You learn that threats always change. You learn to create-- a security cabinet. You learn to create feedback mechanisms. You learn to constantly evaluate and understand the nature of the threats that you are being faced with. I have been tried under many different emergencies.
And-- I can tell you that in each of those emergencies, whether they were-- inflicted by-- by drug gangs, whether they were natural emergencies, I knew how to lead and I knew how to govern because I know how to manage people in a crisis and be very clear about the goal of protecting human life.
Senator Sanders, what (APPLAUSE) experience could you draw on in a crisis--
Well-- I had the honor of being chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs for two years. And in that capacity, I met with just an extraordinary group of people from World War II, from Korea, Vietnam, all of the wars.
People who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan without legs, without arms. And I've been determined to do everything that I could to make VA healthcare the best in the world, to expand benefits to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend (UNINTEL).
[VA Healthcare is not the best in the world. Neither is 0Care, which BS voted for without reading it:
And we brought together legislation, supported by the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, Vietnam Vets, all of the veterans' organizations, which was comprehensive, clearly the best (UNINTEL) for veterans' legislation brought forth in decades.
I could only get two Republican votes on that. And after 56 votes, we didn't get 60. So what I have [had] to do then is go back and start working on a bill that wasn't the bill that I wanted.
To (UNINTEL) people like John McCain, to (UNINTEL) people like Jeff Miller, the Republican chairman of the House, and work on a bill. It wasn't the bill that I wanted. But yet, it turns out to be one of the most significant pieces of veterans' legislation passed in recent history.
You know, the crisis was, I lost what I wanted. But I have [had] to stand up and come back and get the best that we could.
All right, Senator Sanders. We end-- (APPLAUSE) we've ended the evening on crisis, which underscores and reminds us again of what happened last night. Now let's move to closing statements, Governor O'Malley?
John, thank you. And to all of the people of Iowa, for the role that you've performed in this presidential selection process, if you believe that our country's problems and the threats that we face in this world can only be met with new thinking, new and fresh approaches, then I ask you to join my campaign. Go onto MartinOMalley.com. No hour is too short, no dollar too small.
If you-- we will not solve our nation's problems by resorting to the divisive ideologies of our past or by returning to polarizing figures from our past.
We are at the threshold of a new era of American progress.
That [?] it's going to require that we act as Americans, based on our principles. Here at home, making an economy that works for all of us. [sic]
And also, acting according to our principles and constructing a new foreign policy of engagement and collaboration and doing a much better job of identifying threats before they back us into military corners.
There is new-- no challenge too great for the United States to confront, provided we have the ability and the courage to put forward new leadership that can move us to those better and safer and more prosperous (UNINTEL). I need your help. Thank you very, very much. (APPLAUSE)
Secretary-- Secretary Clinton?
Well, thank you very much to-- CBS and everyone here this evening, for giving us another chance-- to appear before you.
[Another Chance? Remindful of Being There:
You've heard a lot about me-- in this debate. And I'm gonna keep talking and thinking about all of you. Because ultimately, I think the president's job-- is to do everything possible, everything that she can do to lift up the people of this country.
[She? There has not been a woman President. The woman candidate for Vice President was ethically challenged and withdrew. My how things have changed.]
Starting with (APPLAUSE) our children and moving forward.
[HRC's first slush fund was possibly Children's Defense Fund:
I've spent my entire life, since I started as a young lawyer for the Children's Defense Fund, trying to figure out how we can even the odds for so many people in America, this great country of ours, who are behind, who don't have a chance.
And that's what I will do as your president. I will work my heart out. I need your help. All of you in Iowa, I need you to caucus for me. Please go to HillaryClinton.com and be part of making this country what we know it can and should be. (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
This country today has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth.
We have a corrupt campaign finance system, dominated by super PACs.
We're the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all people.
We have the highest rate of childhood poverty.
[PolitiFact said "Mostly False":
And we're the only in the world, (UNINTEL) the only country that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical leave. That's not the America that I think we should be.
But in order to bring about the changes that we need, we need a political revolution.
[Hitler had a revolution, Kim Il-Sung had a revolution, Lenin and Stalin had a revolution, Mao Zedong had a revolution, Pol Pot had a revolution. Lots of people died:
Millions of people are gonna have to stand up, turn off the TVs, get involved in the political process, and tell the big monied interests that we are taking back our country.
Please go to BernieSanders.com, please become part of the political revolution. Thank you. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)
All right, back with some final thoughts in a moment. (MUSIC)
And as the candidates are thanking each other for a good debate, Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley now have two debates in the books, so four more to come.
So, Major Garrett, how did they do tonight and what's getting the most talked about on Twitter? Major Garrett is with us in this finale.
So, John, our partnership with Twitter reveals the most-talked-about moments for each of the three candidates-- when you're having this kind of conversation, it doesn't mean it's all good, it could be good and bad, but it's what drove the conversation most.
In order: Hillary Clinton, when she defended her integrity on campaign contributions and mentioned 60% of her donors are women. That was her big spike moment.
For Bernie Sanders, it's when he called Dwight D. Eisenhower a noted socialist for referring to his (CHEERING) income tax bracket being very high and much higher than they are now.
Martin O'Malley's big spike moment is when he called Donald Trump an immigrant-bashing-- (CHEERING) carnival barker.
And remember that as the (UNINTEL PHRASE) plan for Martin O'Malley, immigrant-bashing-- carnival barker for (CHEERING) Donald Trump.
Those are the big fight moments for the three candidates, as recorded by Twitter, our partnership with them has revealed the most interesting moments of conversation as defined by the three candidates. John?
(UNINTEL) thanks so much, Major Garrett. Thanks all of you for joining us for this Democratic president debate, hosted by Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. CBS News will bring you a debate on the Republican candidates on February 13th, from Greenville, South Carolina.
I will have much more about the presidential race and the Paris attack tomorrow on Face the Nation. (MUSIC) Our guests include Senator Sanders.
And you can see more on post-debate coverage on our 24-hour digital news network, CBSN which is available on all devices at CBSNews.com. From my CBS News colleagues, Major Garrett and Nancy Cordes, Kevin Cooney of KCCI, and Kathie Obradovich of The Des Moines Register, and with a thanks to all the folks here at Drake for their hospitality. I'm John Dickerson. Good night. (APPLAUSE)
* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *
Our three long-term political governance simple solutions are:
A) Freeze government red tape, real spending and waste for seven years like Reagan, Grace, Clinton, Gingrich, Joseph and the Pharaoh did during seven tough years:
B) Implement the Constitutional Uniform Nobel Laureate-backed 28 basis point (.0028) Automatic Payment Transparent Transaction Tax to replace and reduce unproductive government debt, regressive income taxes and progressively increase productive private sales, profits and tax revenues:
C) Encourage seven years of saving during the resultant times of plenty to be the first administration since Andrew Jackson in 1834 to retire all but $33,733 of public debt. We will use prosperity to liberate Americans from government dependence and debts into greater equity and responsible freedom for all:
The alternative is utter economic failure leading to the collapse of our government.
Up to $2700 individual donations per election with occupation may be given via PayPal here now: