tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC February 4, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm PST
i will do my very best to make sure that that doesn't happen. i agree with the secretary that i think what has to happen -- let me just mention what the king of jordan said. what he said is essentially the war against isis is a war for the soul of islam and it must be muslim troops on the ground that will destroy isis with the support of a coalition of major powers, u.s., uk, france, germany and russia. our job is to provide them the military equipment that they need, the air support they need, special forces when appropriate, but at the end of the day for a dozen different reasons, not the least of which is that isis would like american combat troops on the ground so they can reach out to the muslim world and say look we're taking on those terrible americans, but combat on the ground must be
done by muslim troops with our support. we must not get involved in perpetual warfare in the middle east. >> can you address the question on afghanistan. >> you can't simply with draw tomorrow and allow the taliban or anyone else to reclaim that country, but what we must do and what we have seen in recent months is some progress in iraq. the iraqi army which has not been a par quickly fighting force retook -- that may be our training and their fighting capabilities are improving and we are going to make some progress in destroying isis. >> we have more american troops
in afghanistan right now than what we were talking about with iraq. >> absolutely. the president decided to leave more troops than he originally planned in afghanistan. we have a cooperative government there with the top partner. they are doing their very best and the afghan army is fighting and they're taking heavy losses to defend afghan territory. i would have to make an evaluation based on the circumstances at the time i took office as to how much help they continue to need because it's not just the taliban. we are now seeing outposts of fighters claiming to be affiliated with isis. so we have this instability and we have to pay close to it and we have to build coalitions, something that i did to take on the iran nuclear program and what i will do as president to make sure we defeat these
terrorist networks. >> nobody knows who your foreign policy advise orz are and it doesn't sound like all the time that foreign policy is a priority. you have not proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine yet. why? >> that's not quite accurate. i gave a speech where i talked about democratic socialism and foreign policy. maybe i shouldn't have combined the two in the same speech because the foreign policy part didn't get much attention. so let me take this opportunity to give you a short speech here on the issue. i think while it is true that secretary and i voted differently on the war in iraq, what is important that we learn a lesson of the war in iraq and that lesson is intringsic to my foreign policy is the united states cannot do it alone.
we cannot be the policemen of the war. we are spending more on defense. we have to work in strong coalition with the major powers of the world and with those muslim countries that are prepared to stand up and take on terrorism. so i would say that the key doctrine of the sanders administration would be no, we cannot continue do it alone, we need to work in coalition. >> if i could just add -- >> 30 seconds, please. >> a group of national security experts, military intelligence experts issued a very concerning statement about senator sanders' views on foreign policy and national security pointing out some of the comments he has made on these issues such as inviting iranian troops into syria to try to resolve the conflict there
putting them right on the doorstep of israel asking them to work together when they can't stand each other. so i think questions have been raised and questions have to be answered because when new hampshire voters go on tuesday to cast your vote you are voting for a president and commander chief and there's no way to predict what comes in the door of that white house from day to day that can pose a threat to the united states and i think this is a big part of the job interview that we are all conducting with the voters here. >> all right. senator, 30 seconds. >> i fully, fully concede that secretary clinton who was secretary of state for four years has more experience. that is not arguable in foreign affairs, but experience is not
the only point. judgment is. and once again, back in 2002 when we both looked at the same evidence about the wisdom of the war in iraq, one of us voted the right way and one of us didn't. in terms of iran and in terms of saudi arabia, of course they hate each other. that's not great secret, but john kerry was doing a very good job has tried to at least get these people in the room together because both of them are being threatened by isis. >> let me add that i've said this before and i'm proud of it that when it comes to judgment having run a hard race against senator obama at the time, he turned to me to be secretary of state. when it comes to the biggest counter terrorism issued we faced in this administration, namely whether or not to go after bin laden, i was at that table, i was exercising my
judgment to advise the president on what to do, on that, iran, russia and china. because i know from my own experience that you have to be ready on day one. there is just too much unpredictable threat and danger in the world today to try to just say i'll get to that when i can. that is just not an acceptable approach. >> secretary clinton, at the last democratic debate senator sanders called for moving as aggressively as we can to normal lies relations with iran. your campaign has criticized him for saying that. now that he's standing next to you can you explain why u.s. shouldn't try to normal lies relations in iran in your view. >> absolutely i started the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement sending some much my closest aids to begin the conversations with the iranians. i'm very pleased we got that nuclear agreement. it puts a lid on the nuclear
weapons program. we have to enforce it. there have to be consequences attached to it. but that is not our only problem with iran. we have to figure out how to deal with iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world. they are destabilizing governments in the region. they continue to support him in lebanon against israel. a lot of work that we have do is going to be incredibly hard. i'm prepared to do that work, but i believe just as i did with imposing the sanctions you have to get action for action. if we were to normal lies relations right now, we would remove one of the biggest pieces of leverage we have to try to influence and change iranian behavior. the president doesn't think we should. i certainly don't think we should. i believe we have to take this step by step to try to reign in
iranian aggression and bad behavior that can come back and haunt us. >> who said i think we should normalize relations with iran tomorrow? i never said that. they are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that, but you know a number of years ago people were saying normal relationship with cuba, what a bad and silly idea. they're communist. change has come. so please don't suggest that i think we normalize relations with tehran tomorrow. we don't. i would like to see us move forward and hopefully some day that will happen. you can correct me if i'm wrong, when you ran against senator obama you thought him naive because he thought it was a good idea to talk to our enemies. i think those are the people you have to talk to and you have to negotiate with. >> senator, let me correct the
record if i can. let me correct the record. >> 30 seconds, madam secretary. >> as i certainly recall the question was to meet with without conditions and you're right i was against that. i was against it then, i would be against it now. >> okay. >> part of dip lomsy is trying to extract whatever concessions you can get in giving something the other side wants. of course you have to try to make peace with and work with these who are your add ver sirry. that's not the way it works. >> i think president obama had the right idea and the bottom line is that of course there have to be conditions, but of course it doesn't do us any good to not talk with our -- >> we accept the conditions on iran, we worked hard to get them
established and enforced and it worked. that's what i did with the president. he and i were on the very same page. >> just to set the record straight, i very strongly supported the agreement which makes certain that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. >> as commander in chief, senator sanders, you have to prioritize potential threats to the united states. north korea, iran and russia how would you rank them with the biggest threat. i'm talking about these three countries, how would you orient our national security -- national defense? >> clearly north korea is a strange situation because it is such an isolated country run by a handful of dictators or maybe just one who seems to be somewhat paranoid and who has nuclear weapons. and our goal there in my view is
to work and lean strongly on china to put as much pressure. china is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for north korea and i think we have to do everything we can to put pressure on china. so i worry very much about an isolated paranoid country with atomic bombs. i think clearly we have got to work closely with china to reserve the serious problems we have and i worry about putin and his military adventurism. >> secretary defense ash carter this week picked one of those three and he has said russia was the most important national security threat. do you agree with his decision? >> no, i don't. i worry very, very much about an isolated country. that's what makes me nervous. russia lives in the world. china lives in the are world.
north korea is a strange country because it is isolated and i do feel a nation with nuclear weapons they have got to be dealt with and dealt with effectively. >> secretary clinton, what do you think of secretary of defense ash carter, he's putting russia above iran and north korea as the chief national security challenge right now. >> i haven't talked to secretary carter, but here's what i think he's planning. we do have the nuclear weapons agreement with iran. that's an enforcement consequence, action for action follow on. we have a plan, we will watch them, we will be vigilanvigilan. we do have to worry about north korea. they continue to develop their nuclear weapons capability and they're working on their ballistic capability. i know some of those plans could lead to a missile that could reach hawaii if not the west coast. we have to try to get the
countries in the region to work with us to do everything we can to confine and con strain them, but what secretary carter is looking at is the constant pressure that russia's putting on our european allies. the way that russia is trying to move the boundaries of the post world war two europe, the way that he is trying to set european countries against one another, seizing territory, beginning to explore whether they could make some inroads in the bal ticks. we know they are deeply engaged in supporting assad because they want to have a place in the middle east. they have a naval base. they have an air base in syria. they want to hang on to that. and i think what secretary carter is seeing, and i'm glad he is, is that we have to get nato back working for the common again defense. we have to do more to support our partners in nato and we have
to send a clear message to putin that this kind of testing of boundaries will have to be responded had to and the west way to do that is to put for armor in and put more money from the europeans can so they're contributing more to their own defense. >> thank you. >> i want to ask you about a national security issue that is closer to home. there are houses of veterans living in the state of new hampshire. either one of is nominated as the democratic party's nominee you will face a republican opponent who wants to abol issue big parts of the va. it's a new idea in politics. how will you win the argument on that issue given the problems in the va in the last years? what's your argument that the va should exist. >> first of all, i'm against privatizing the va and i'm going
do everything i can to build on the reforms that senator sanders and others in congress have passed to try to fix what's wrong with the va. there's a lot of issues about the wait times and services that have to be fixed because our veterans deserve nothing but the best, but you're absolutely right, rachel, this is another part of the agenda. they've formed an organization to try to convince americans we should no longer have guaranteed health care, specialized care for our veterans. i will fight that as hard as i can. i think there's where we can enlist the veterans service organizations, the veterans of america, because, yes, let's fix the va, but we will never let it be privatized and that is a promise. >> senator sanders, you as congress al ledder is the right contour of the fight?
>> as the secretary knows i have the privilege and the honor of chairing the committee on veterans affairs and it's interesting to me -- republicans give a lot of speeches about how much they love veterans. i work with the american legion and virtually every veterans organization to put together the most comprehensi hence ifr piece veterans legislation. i brought it to the floor of the senate. every democrat voted for it, i got two republicans. we ended up with 56 votes and i couldn't get the 60 votes that i needed. that is pathic. this was legislation supported by all of the veterans organizations addressing many of the serious problems that the veterans face in health care and how we deliver benefits to them. so republicans talk a good game about veterans, but when it came
to put money on the line to protect our veterans frankly they were not there. what i did next, rachel, is i had to retreat a little bit and compromise. i did work with john mccain. i did work with jeff miller over in the house and we put together not the bill i wanted, but probably the most comprehensive va health care bill in this country. secretary clinton is absolutely right, there are people who have a group called concerned veterans of america. the brothers want to destroy social security, medicare, medicaid, every governmental program passed since the 1930s. there are people out there who want to privatize it. i had a hearing. i had all of the veterans groups in front of me and i said tell me when a veteran gets in the va, understanding there are waiting lines and problems, is the quality of care good without
we are back. we're going do get into a little bit of election politics. the iowa democratic party has declared hillary clinton the winner. today the des moines register has an editorial calling for the audit of the results saying what happened at the democratic caucus was a debag kel. senator sanders, do you accept the idea that hillary clinton won iowa or do you believe the caucuses are still an open question? >> i agree with the des moines
register, but let's not blow this out of pore portion. this is not a winner take all thing. i think where we stand you have 22 delegates, i have 20 delegates. we need 2,500 delegates to win the nomination. this is not the biggest deal in the world. we think, by the way, based on talking to our precinct captains, we have at least two more delegates. what the des moines register said there were half a dozen coin flips, a fairly chaotic type situation. at the end of the day it will break roughly even. i love and respect the caucus process in iowa. i don't have to say it because they voted already. i love new hampshire too because you haven't voted, but i think people are blowing this up, but i think we need improvements in the process by way results are
determined. >> secretary clinton, will you participate in some sort of audit if that's what the party wants to do? >> whatever they decide to do, that's fine. >> that's fair enough. good we move on. we're happy with that. >> senator sanders, in 1964. >> oh word. see, when you are old, then they go back all these years. >> in 1964 i heard that the republicans nominated barry goldwater who was far to the right of most that party in 1972 the democrats nominated george mcgovern, but he was to the left of his party's main stream. both of those parties made activists excited and they got destroyed in the general election. even democrats who love you worry about your fate in a general election and i know you have good head-to-head polling
numbers against republican front-runners right now. we know that, but do you have a general election strategy that is different than the way you're running right now to get the nomination? >> general election is different than a primary and caucus process. but let me say in terms of where we are right now as you mentioned in a number of national and state, including new hampshire, for example the last poll i saw -- there may have been a new one, the last one i saw here in new hampshire had me defeating trump by 19, the secretary defeating him by one. there were large margins in iowa and wisconsin. here's where i think i will be if nominated the candidate. democrats win when there is a large voter turnout. when people are excited, when working people, middle class people and young people are prepared to engage in the
political process. republicans win when people are demoralized and you have a small voter turnout, which is why they love voter suppression. i believe that our campaign up to now has shown that we can create an enormous amount of enthusiasm from working people, from young people who will get involved in the political process and which will drive us to a very large voter turnout. if there is a large voter turnout, not only do we retain the white house, but i think we regain the senate, we win governors chairs up and down the line. i believe if you want to retain, the white house, if you want to see democrats do well across the board, i think our campaign is the one that creates the large voter turnout and helps us win. >> secretary clinton, your campaign and people who have endorsed you have suggested that or even said that if senator
sanders is the nominee that democrats will suffer nationwide and the chances will go down of the democrats holding on to the white house. with him here standing next to you can you tell us whether or not you believe he would win the general election if he were nominated. >> i can only tell you what i believe is and that is i am the strongest candidate to take it to the republicans in november. i say that with great -- with great respect for the campaign that senator sanders has been running. i personally am thrilled at the numbers of people and particularly young people who are coming to support your campaign. i hope that i will be able to earn their support. they may not support me now, but i support them and we'll work together, but what i'm concerned about is the views of many democrats who know their states, who know how hard it is to win a general election. and it also will put whoever the
nominee is into the spotlight. i've been vetted. there's hardly anything you don't know about me. and i think it's fair to say that whoever is in that position, senator sanders or anyone else who might have run, will face the most withering onslaut. so i think i am the person who can do all aspects of the job. i think i'm the person best prepared to take the case to the republicans and i think that at the end of the day it's not so much electability, it is who the american people can believe can keep them safe, can get the economy moving again, can get numbers rising, can build on the progressive accomplishments of president obama. and i think that the coalition that president obama put together to win twice is a coalition that i can put together and add to and that's
what i'm prepared for. >> thank you both. we're staying on this topic with secretary clinton, just like some democrats that question senator sanders' ability in the general election, many democratic voters that our reporters have been running into in iowa and new hampshire, they say over and over again they're worried about the e-mail issue not because they don't believe your explanation, but because it's a trick drip because the cloud is hanging over your head and that is will impact the general election. they see your numbers right now and they think it's the e-mail issue as to why you're not polling very well. so can you reassure these democrats that somehow the e-mail issue isn't going to blow up your candidacy if you're the nominee? >> absolutely i can. before it was e-mails it was ben g gazee and the republicans were stirring up controversy about that and i testified for 11 hours and answered their questions.
they said didn't get her. we tried. that was all a political ploy. we had a development in the e-mail matter today when it came out that secretary powell and close aids to former secretary rice used private e-mail accounts and now you have these people in the government who are doing the same thing to secretary powell and secretary rice's aids that they've been doing to me which is i never sent or received any classified material. they are retroactively clafing it. i agree with secretary powell that it's an absurdity. i have no concern about it whatsoever. >> madam secretary, there is an open fbi investigation into this matter about how you may have handled classified material. are you 100% confident that
nothing is going to come of this fbi investigation? >> i am 100% confident. this is a security review that was requested. it is being carried out. it will be resolved, but i have to add if there's going to be a security review about me, there's going to be security reviews about a lot of other people, including republican office holders, because we've got this absurd situation of retroactive classifications. honest to goodness, this is beggar as the imagination. i have to concerns about it, but we have to get to the bottom of what's going on here and i hope that will happen. >> senator sanders, you famously at the first debate said you didn't give a darn about her e-mails. i'm trying -- it's a family hour still right now. after 11:00 i'll say it the other way. you refrained from commenting on it, but recently you said it's a
serious issue and then the other day you said she's getting slapped with the e-mail controver controversy. how are you feeling about e-mails now? >> i'm feeling the way i felt at the first debate. there's a process under way. i will not politicalize it. by the way, there's not a day goes by when i am not asked to attack her on that issue and i have refrained from doing that and i will continue to refrain from doing that. >> senator sanders, thank you. senator in december one of your campaign staffers was fired from your campaign for taking voter data essentially from the clinton campaign. you apologized for that when the incident was made public. your campaign has now been cries sized for its operatives essentially impercent nating
culinary members and the telegraph has complained that you falsely imapplied in an advertisement that they had endorsed you when they did not. none of these issues are the end of the world, but they are a piece. are you in some sense losing control of your campaign? >> we have hired a whole lot of people in a rapid way and i am familiar with the first two instances and they are unacceptable and we have apologized and dealt with that. in terms of the last one ar, as understand it, we did not suggest we had the endorsement of the newspaper. newspapers also say positive things about other candidates and to the best of my knowledge that is what we did. so we never said, never said that a newspaper endorsed us that did not. what we did say is blah blah blah blah was said by the
newspaper. >> to follow up on that, the title of the ad in question was endorsement. >> that was not to be on television. that's an important point. that was just something -- as the secretary knows, you put titles on ads and you send them out, but there was no word in that ad, none, that said that those newspapers had endorsed us. >> secretary clinton, do you want 30 seconds on that issue? >> no. >> we'll take a break. oh remotes, you've had it tough.
the x1 voice remote is here. welcome back to the university of new hampshire. secretary clinton, on the issue of death penalty, here in new hampshire the one person who is on death row is there for killing a police officer. it's a crime that has caused anguish in this state, both among death penalty opponents and death penalty supporters. the last time i had the chance to talk with you on this issue of the death penalty, you said that capital punishment as a place in a very few federal cases, but you also said you would breathe a sigh of relief if the supreme court abolished the death penalty national wide. tonight do you still support capital punishment even if you
do so reluctantly. >> yes, i do. what i hope the supreme court will do is make it absolutely clear that any state that continues capital punishment either must meet the highest standards of evidentiary proof of effective assistance of counsel or they cannot continue it because that to me is the real dividing line. i have much more confidence in the federal system and i do reserve it for particularly heinous crimes in the federal system like terrorism. i had strong feelings about that. i thought it was appropriate that timothy mcvay receive the death penalty after blowing up the federal building. so i do for very limited
particularly heinous crimes believe it is an appropriate punishment, but i deeply disagree with the way that too many states still are implementing it. so if it were possible to separate it out i think that would be an appropriate outcome. >> senator sanders you have singled out the death penalty and said it makes it hard to consider her a progressive in your mind. >> i heard what the secretary said and i understand there are all of us know that we have seen in recent years horrible, horrible, horrible crimes and it's hard to imagine how people can do and kill 168 people in oklahoma city or the boston marathon bombing, but this is what i believe for a couple of reasons. number one, too many innocent people, including minorities,
african-americans have been executed when they were not guilt. that's number one. so we have to be very careful about making sure about that. but second of all, and maybe in a deeper reason, of course there are horrible acts out there, but in a world of so much violence and killing i don't believe the government should be part of the killing. so when somebody commits -- when somebody commits any of these terrible crimes that we have seen, you lock them up and you toss away the key. they're never going to get out, but i just don't want to see government be part of killing. that's all. >> on another issue related to the prop role of government in this case the role between the federal government and the states i want to talk about the issue of flint, michigan. on the flint lead poisoning disaster you have both been
critical of governor snyder and how they caused the lead problem and have not acted fast enough to fix it. the fact is michigan has not fixed it. there is no door to door delivery of clean water delivery. there is not replacement of the lead pipes today. if the state is failing -- secretary clinton, would you as president order a federal response to get it right over and above the wishes of the state? >> absolutely. absolutely. we have talked about this before which think you for going to flint to hold that town hall. i will in flint on sunday to get an in-depth briefing about what is and is not happening. this is an emergency. every day that goes by that the people are not tested so we can know what steps must be taken to try to remediate the effects of the poisoning that they have
been living with is a day lost and a child's life and i know from the work that i've done over so many years lead, the toxic nature of lead, can affect your brain development, your body development, your behavior. so i absolutely believe that what is being done is not sufficient. we need to be absolutely clear about everything that should be done from today to tomorrow into the future to try to remedy the terrible burdenen th that the p of flint are carrying. it includes fixing their pipes, it includes guaranteeing whatever health care and education they need going forward and i think the federal government has ways where it can bill the state of michigan if michigan won't do it, there has to be ways that we can begin to move and make them pay for it and hold them actable.
>> senator sanders are there things we can be doing? >> absolutely. i think the secretary described the situation appropriately. i don't go around asking for governor's resignations every day. in fact, i think i never have in my life, but i did ask for the resignation of governor snyder because his ir responsibility was so outrageous. what we are talking about are children being poisoned. that's what we're talking about. no one knows for sure because they haven't done the appropriate studies, but there's no question that kids' development may have been exact impacted. the idea that there hasn't been a dramatic response is beyond comp hence and when you have one of the significant public health crisis of recent years of course
the federal government comes in and of course the federal government says you're not going to be poisoning little kids and impacting their entire lives. last point on this and i suspect the secretary agrees, one wonders if this were a white suburban community what kind of response there would have been. flint, michigan is a poor community. it is disproportionately african-american and minority and what has happened there is absolutely unacceptable. >> thank you. >> secretary clinton, let me turn to the issue of trade. in the '90s you supported naftsa. as secretary of state you supported ttp, which is that trade agreement with asian countries, but you now oppose it as you make your second bid for president. if you oppose it should we
exami expect that if you're in office you would become supportive of these agreements again? >> i've had responsibility for voting for trade agreements as senator and i voted against it when i was senator because i did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of america, of our incomes, and i opposed it. i did hope that the ttp negotiated by this administration would put to rest a lot of the concerns that many people have expressed about trade agreements and i said that i was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that i was looking for. i waited until it had actually been negotiated because i did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. once i saw what the outcome was i opposed it. i have a very clear view about this. we have to trade with the rest of the world. we are 5% of the world's
populati population. we have to trade with the other 95% and it has to be reciprocal. that's the way the global economy works, but we have failed to provide the basic safety net support that american workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy. so it's not just what's in the trade agreement that i'm interested in. i did help to renegotiate the trade agreement that we inherited from president bush with korea. we go the the uaw on board because of changes we made. so there are changes that i believe would make a real difference if they could be achieved, but i do not currently support it as it is written. >> senator sanders, you have never supported a trade deal since you've been in congress. >> absolutely right. >> if you do that as president, if you do that as president how are you not essentially letting china, who will do all of these deals around the world, how are
you going to prevent china from essentially setting the rules of trade for the world? >> i believe in trade, but i do not believe in unfeted free trade. i believe in fair trade which works for the middle class and working families of this country and not just large multi-national corporations. i was not only in opposition to naft. -- nafta, i was on the picket line in opposition to nafta because i understood i don't think this is really rocket science. we heard all of the people tell us how many great jobs would be created. i didn't believe that for a second because i understood what the function of nafta and the ttp is, it's to say to american workers, you are now competing against people in vietnam who make 56 cents an hour minimum
wage. i don't want american workers to compete against people making 56 cents an hour. i don't want companies shutting down in america, throwing people out on the street, moving to china and bringing their products back into this country. so do i believe in trade? of course i believe in trade, but the current trade agreements over the last 30 years were written by corporate america for corporate america, resulted in the loss of millions of decent paying jobs, 60,000 factories in america lost since 2001, millions of decent paying jobs and a downward spiral, a race to the bottom where employers say you don't want to take a cut in pay, we're going to china. workers today are working longer hours for lower wages, trade is one of the reasons for that. >> thank you both. we're going to sneak in one more break here and when we come back we'll try to squeeze in as many questions as we can.
ambition stuff done in his first year and a half. you made choices. he did health care and it came at the expense of immigration reform. so there's three big lifts that you've talked about. immigration, reform, climate change. what do you do first because you know the first one is the one you have the best shot at getting done. >> well, i don't accept that premise, chuck. i think we've talked a lot tonight about wha we're against, income inequality. i'm for a lot of things. i don't want to just stop bad things from happening, i want to start good things happening. i believe if i'm so fortunate to get the nomination i will begin to work immediately on putting together an agenda and begin to talk with members of congress and others about how we can push forward. i want to have half a billion
more solar panels deployed in the next four. i want us to keep working on the affordable care act to get not only to 100% coverage, but to bring down the costs of prescription drugs. i want to move forward on paid family leave, on early childhood education, do more for small businesses. small businesses have to create most of the jobs and we're not creating and growing small businesses. i think if you have a smart ade agen agen agenda, you pick the economies that ha committees and you really make a big push in the beginning. immigration reform, economic revietization with manufacturing and infrastructure, we put it out there and we begin to work on a big agenda that will produce the results i want to see for our country.
>> senator sanders, you still have to do something first. as you know history shows what you pick first is your best shot at getting and how you priorize things, immigration reform fell by the way side -- >> i am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and a path towards citizenship for 11 million people today living in the shadows. we have to do that, but you miss -- when you look at the issues, you missed two of the most important. and that is you're not going to accomplish what has to be done for working families and the middle class unless there is campaign finance reform. so long as big money interests control the united states congress, it is going to be very hard to do what has to be done for working families. so let me be very clear. no nominee of mine, if i'm elected president to the united
states supreme court will get that nomination unless he or she is loud and clear and says they will vote to overturn citizens united. second point is that the only way we make change in terms of health care, in terms of dealing with a broken criminal justice system which today allows us to have more people in jail than any other country, largely african-american and latino, the only way we create millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure will have a tax system that says to the wealthy that they are going to pay their fair share is when millions of people become involved in the political process. no you can't negotiate with mitch mcconell. he's going to have to look out the window and hear people say
start working for families. >> thank you. >> secretary clinton, republicans, particularly in campaign years, often talk about which departments of government they would get rid of if they were elected president, the epa, department of education, the commerce department, oops, is there a department of government that you would get rid of or is there a whole new one that you would create? >> the answer to both of those is no. i'm interested in making what we have work better. i want to stream line programs that are redundant. i want to have a top to bottom review about what works and doesn't work and be clear we're getting rid of what doesn't work. i have had an opportunity to run a big agency. i was flattered when i was told i ran the state department
better than anybody had run it in a long time so i have an idea of what it's going to take to make our government work nor efficiently. when you put together a budget, you have to make a lot of hard decisions, but i think it's not appropriate to say i'm going to ged rid of that until you have a good process that gives you the information about what to do. i want to add something else because, look, we have so much work to do in our country and i think it's the greatest work that americans will be called to do and of course we have to have people in every community involved in it. we have to have the political voice, the political grass roots speaking up and speaking out about what we have to try to accomplish in washington, but we also need to have a very clear set of goals that we are going to achieve and we need to level with the american people about what they are, what they will cost, what will be expected of our