Return to Transcripts main page


Democratic Presidential Debate; Nearly 400 People Lost at Sea This Year Crossing the Mediterranean. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired February 11, 2016 - 22:00   ET



[22:00:00] JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR DEMOCRATIC DEBATE MODERATOR: ... and Donald Sussman for a total of about $10 million. You have said that there's no quid pro quo involved. But is that also true of the donations that wealthy republicans give to republican candidates, contributors including the Koch brothers?

HILLARY CLINTON, (D) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I can't speak for the Koch brothers. You're referring to a super PAC that we don't coordinate with, that was set up to support President Obama that has now decided they want to support me. They are the ones who should respond to any questions.

Let's talk about our campaigns. I'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750,000 donors. And the vast majority of them are giving small contributions.

So, I'm proud of Senator Sanders and his supporters. I think it's great that, you know, Senator Sanders, President Obama and I have more donors than any three people who have ever run, certainly on the democratic side. That's the way it should be.

And I'm going to continue to reach out to thank all my online contributors for everything they are doing for me, to encourage them, to help me and do more, just as Senator Sanders is. And I think that is the real key here.

We both have a lot of small donors. I think that sets us apart from a lot of what's happening on the republican side. The Koch brothers have a very clear political agenda. It is an agenda, in my view, that would do great harm to our country.

We're going to fight it as hard as we can and we're going to fight whoever the republicans nominate who will be very dependent upon the Koch brothers and others.


WOODRUFF: I'm asking if democratic donors are different from republican donors.

BERNIE SANDERS, (D) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What we are talking about in reality is a corrupt campaign finances and that's what we're talking about and we have to be honest it. And it is undermining American democracy.

When extraordinarily wealthy people make very large contributions to super PACs, and in many cases, in this campaign, super PACs have more money have raised more money than individual candidates have. OK?

We had a decision to make early on. Do we do a super PAC? And we said, no, we don't represent Wall Street, we don't represent the billionaire class so it ends up I'm the only candidate up here of the many candidates, who has no super PAC.

But what we did as we said to the working families of this country, look, we know things are tough, but if you want to help us, go beyond the establishment politics and the establishment economics, send us something. And it turns out that opened to this way and this has blown me away.

Never in a million years would I have believed that I'd be standing here tonight, telling you that we have received $3.5 million individual contributions from well over a million people.

Now, Secretary Clinton's super PAC, as I understand it, received $25 million last reporting period, $15 million from Wall Street. Our average contribution is $27. I'm very proud of that.


CLINTON: Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, are you saying...


CLINTON: My 750,000 donors have contributed more than 1.5 donations. I'm very proud. That I think between the two of us demonstrates the strength of the support we have among people who want to see change in our country.

But the real issue that I think the Senator is injecting into this is that, if you had a super PAC, like President Obama had, which now says it wants to support me, it's not my PAC, if you take donations from Wall Street you can't be independent.

I would just say, I debated then-Senator Obama numerous times on stages like this. And he was the recipient of the largest number of Wall Street donations of anybody running on the democratic side ever.

Now, when it mattered, he stood up and took on Wall Street.


He pushed through and he passed the Dodd-Frank regulation, the toughest regulations since the 1930s.

So, let's not in any way imply here that either President Obama or myself would in any way not take on any vested interest, whether it's Wall Street or drug companies or insurance companies or frankly, the gun lobby to stand up to do what's best for the American people! [22:05:00] (APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: So, let's not -- let's not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren't dumb. Why in God's name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it. They want to throw money around.

Why does the pharmaceutical industry make huge campaign contribution? Any connection maybe to the fact that our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Why does the fossil industry pay, spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions? Any connection to the fact that not one republican candidate for president thinks and agrees with the scientific community that climate change is real and that we have got to transform our energy system?


And when we talk about Wall Street, let's talk about Wall Street. I voted for Dodd-Frank. Got an important amendment in it. My view, it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. But when we talk about Wall Street, you have Wall Street and major banks have paid $200 billion in fines since the great crash. No Wall Street executive has been prosecuted.


CLINTON: All right. Well, let's just -- let's just follow up on this because, you know, I've made it very clear that no bank is too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail and because of Dodd-Frank, we now have in law a process that the president, the Federal Reserve and others can use if any bank poses a systemic risk. I think that's a major accomplishment.

I agree, however, it doesn't go far enough because what it focuses on are the big banks, which Senator Sanders has talked about a lot for good reason. I go further in the plan that I've proposed, which has been called the toughest, most effective comprehensive plan for reigning in the other risks that the financial system could face.

It was an investment bank, Lehman Brothers that contributed to our collapse. It was a big insurance company, AIG, it was countrywide mortgage. My plan would sweep all of them into a regulatory framework so we can try to get ahead of what the next problems might be.

And I believe that not only Barney Frank, Paul Krugman and others have said that what I have proposed is the most effective. It goes in the right direction. We have Dodd-Frank. We can use it to break up the banks if that's appropriate.

But let's not kid ourselves. As we speak, there are new problems on the horizon. I want to get ahead of those. And that's why I've proposed a much more comprehensive approach the deal with all of this.


WOODRUFF: We have to go to a break. SANDERS: Let me, you know, respectfully disagree with Secretary

Clinton here. When you have three out of the four largest financial institutions in this country companies bigger today, than they were when we bailed them out because they were too fail.

When you have six financial institutions having assets equivalent to 58 percent of the GDP of America why issuing of two-thirds of the credit cards and the third of the mortgages.

Look, I think if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, that great trust buster would have said break them up. I think he would have been right. I think he would have said bring back a 21st century Glass- Steagall legislation. I think that would have been right as well. That's my view.


WOODRUFF: Thank you both. It is time for a break. And when we come back, we're going to turn to some new topics including how these candidates will keep America safe.

IFILL: There's a lot to more to come in just a few minutes. Stay with us for more of the PBS Newshour democratic debate.


ANDERSON COOPER, AC360 SHOW HOST: I'm Anderson Cooper here in New York.

The candidates right now are taking a short break from debate in Milwaukee.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders their first debate since voters in New Hampshire boosted in his campaign and rock hers. The two clashing sharply but politely over immigration, and just moments ago, on campaign financing with Senator Sanders taking a swipe at her support from Wall Street.

She, meantime, hitting back and jabbing at him on how to pay for government reforms. Secretary Clinton suggesting that her reforms would be achievable and that his would not. And that is only the half of it.

Next, from Milwaukee, the candidates are going to talk about national security how to keep this country.

Then we're going to have a special late live edition of 360 featuring the best reporters, the best analysis, and the best conversation around, that's right after this debate for two hours, all the way until 1 a.m. The debate continues right after this.



WOODRUFF: Welcome back to the democratic presidential debate. Before we return to our questions, we have a follow-up question from our Facebook group. And it is to Senator Sanders. Senator, it comes from Bill Corfield, he's a 55-year-old musician from Troy, Ohio. And he asks "Are there any areas of government you'd like to reduce?"

SANDERS: Hey, I'm in the United States Senate. And anyone who doesn't think that there is an enormous amount of waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy throughout government would be very, very mistaken. I believe in government, but I believe in efficient government, not wasteful government.

[22:15:12] WOODRUFF: How about you, Senator Clinton -- Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Absolutely. And, you know, there are a number of programs that I think are duplicative, and redundant, and not producing the results that people deserve. There a lot of training programs and education programs that I think can be streamlined and put into a much better format so that if we do continue them they can be more useful in public schools, community colleges, and colleges and universities.

I would like to take a hard look at every part of the federal government and really do the kind of analysis that would rebuild some confidence in people that we're taking a hard look about what we have, you know, and what we don't need anymore. And that's what I intend to do.

SANDERS: If I could just add to that. We have also got to take a look at the waste and inefficiencies in the Department of Defense, which is the one major agency of government that has not been able to be audited. And I have the feeling you're going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities.


IFILL: We spent the first part of this debate talking about domestic insecurity. The second part we want to talk about our foreign policy insecurities. And we want to start with a question for you Secretary Clinton, about America's role in the world.

Americans are becoming increasingly worried that attacks abroad are coming home, that they are already are in fact here. According to exit polls from last week, from earlier this week, more than two-thirds of democrats in New Hampshire are concerned about sending their children to fight in wars they can't win. They fret that the next attack is just around the corner and we are not ready. Are we?

CLINTON: Look, I think we are readier than we used to be but it's a constant effort that has to be undertaken to make sure we are as ready as we need to be. We have made a lot of improvements in our domestic securities since 9/11. And we have been able to foil and prevent attacks, yet we see the terrible attack in San Bernardino and know we haven't done enough.

So, we have to go after this both abroad and at home. We have to go after terrorist networks, predominantly ISIS - that's not the only one but let's focus on that for a minute. We have to lead a coalition that will take back territory from ISIS that is principally an American-led air campaign that we are now engaged in.

We have to support the fighters on the ground, principally the Arabs and Kurds, who are willing to stand up and take territory back from Raqqa to Ramadi. We have to continue to work with the Iraqi armies so that they are better prepared to advance on some of the other stronghold inside Iraq like Mosul when they are able to so.

And we have to cut off the flow of foreign funding and foreign fighters and we take on ISIS online. They are a sophisticated purveyor of propaganda, a celebrator of violence, an instigator of attacks using their online presence.

Here at home, we got to do a better job coordinating between federal state and local law enforcement, we need the best possible intelligence, not only from our own sources but from sources overseas that can be a real-time fusion effort to get information where it's needed.

But the final thing I want to say about this is the following. You know, after 9/11, one of the efforts that we did in New York was if you see something or hear something suspicious, report it.

And we need to do that throughout the country, but we need to understand that American Muslims are on the front line of our defense. They are more likely to know what's happening in their families and their communities and they need to feel not just invited but welcomed within the American society. So, when somebody like Donald Trump and others...


... stirs up the demagoguery against American Muslims, that hurts us at home. It's not only offensive it's dangerous. And the same goes for overseas where we have to put together a coalition of Muslim nations.

I know how to do that. I put together the coalition that imposes the sanctions on Iran that got us on the negotiating table to put a lid on their nuclear weapons program. And you don't go tell Muslim nations you want them to be part of a coalition when you have a leading candidate for President of United States who insults their religion.

So, this has to be looked at overall and we have to go at it from every possible angle.


WOODRUFF: Senator Sanders, those are tough.

[22:19:55] SANDERS: Let me -- let me just say this. What a President of the United States has got to do and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility is to, a, make certain that we keep our people safe, that we work with allies around the world to protect democratic values, that we do all that we can to create a world of peace and prosperity.

I voted against the war in Iraq because I listened very carefully to what President Bush and vice President Cheney had to say and I didn't believe them. And if you go to my web site,, what you find is not only did I help lead the opposition to that war, but much of what I feared would happen.

When I spoke on the floor of the house, in fact, did happen in terms of the instability that occurred. Now, I think an area in kind of a vague way or not so vague where Secretary Clinton and I disagree is the area of regime change.

Look, the truth is that a powerful nation like the United States certainly working with our allies, we can overthrow dictators all over the world. And God only knows Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. We could throw, overthrow Assad tomorrow if we wanted to. We got rid of Gadhafi.

But the point about foreign policy is not just to know that you can overthrow a terrible dictator, it's to understand what happens the day after. And in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton as Secretary of State working with some other countries did get rid of a terrible dictator named Gadhafi.

But what happened is a political vacuum developed, ISIS came in and now occupies significant territory in Libya and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a terrorist foothold.

But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years with the United States has been involved in overthrowing governments. Mossadegh back in 1953, nobody knows who Mossadegh was. A democratic elected Prime Minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British.

As a result of that Reza Shah of Iran came in, a terrible dictator, as a result of that, you have the Iranian Revolution coming in and that's where we are today. Unintended consequences.

So, I believe, as president, I will look very carefully about unintended consequences. I will do everything I can to make certain that the United States and our brave men and women in the military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.


CLINTON: If I could -- two points. One, Senator Sanders voted in 1998 on what I think is fair to call a regime change resolution with respect to Iraq, calling for the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. He voted in favor of regime change with Libya, voted in favor of the Security Council being an active participant in setting the parameters for what we would do, which of course we followed through on.

I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS in 2016.


It's very important we focus on the threats that we face today. And that we understand the complicated and dangerous world we're in. When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the commander-in-chief.

And it's important that people really look hard at what's the threat and dangers we face are and who is best prepared for dealing with them. As we all remember, Senator Obama when he ran against me was against the war in Iraq.

And yet, when he won, he turned to me, trusting my judgment, my experience to become Secretary of State.


I was very honored to be asked to do that and very honored to serve with him those first four years.

SANDERS: Judy, if I -- if I can. There is no question that Secretary Clinton and I are friends and I have a lot of respect for her, that she has enormous experience in foreign affairs. Secretary of State for four years, you are a bit of experience I would imagine. But judgment matters as well. Judgment matters as well.

And she and I looked at the same evidence coming from the Bush administration regarding Iraq. I led the opposition against it, she voted for it. But more importantly, in terms of this Libya resolution that you've noted before, this was a virtually unanimous consent.

[22:25:06] Everybody voted for it wanting to see Libya move toward democracy. Of course we all wanted to do that. That is very different than talking about specific action for regime change, which I did not support.

CLINTON: You did support a U.N. Security Council approach, which we did follow up on. Look, I think it's important to look at what the most important counterterrorism judgment of the first four years of the Obama administration was, and that was the very difficult decision as to whether or not to advise the president to go after Bin Laden.

I looked at the evidence, I looked at the intelligence, I got the briefings, I recommended that the president go forward. It was a hard choice. Not all of his top national security advisers agreed with that.

And at the end of the day, it was the president's decision. So, he had to leave the situation room after hearing from the small group advising him and he had to make that decision. I'm proud that I gave him that advice and I'm very grateful to the brave Navy SEALS who carried out that mission.



SANDERS: One area very briefly.

WOODRUFF: That's the final word.

SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference. In the last debate, and I believe in her book, very good book by the way, in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger.

Now, I find it rather amazing because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive Secretaries of State in the modern history of this country.


I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger.

And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia when the United States bombed that country over -- through Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in who then butchered some three million innocent people - one of the worst genocides in the history of the world.

So, count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.


IFILL: Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy and we have yet to know who that is.

SANDERS: Well, it is not Henry Kissinger, that's for sure.

CLINTON: That's fine. That's fine. You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America.

So, if we want to pick and choose, and I certainly do. People I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world because it's a big, complicated world out there.


CLINTON: And, yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insights, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States.


SANDERS: I find it, I mean, it's just a very different, you know, historical perspective here.

Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do, I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da da, da da, da da.

That's what he talked about, the great threat of China. After the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up relations with China and now pushed various type of trade agreements resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible authoritarian communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he's urging American companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.


WOODRUFF: Senator, let me move on to another country with which the U.S. has a complicated relationship, Senator Sanders, and that's Russia.

On the one hand, we're aware that Russia is a country that the United States needs to cooperate with.

Just tonight, Secretary of State John Kerry has announced what appears to be an agreement with the Russians to lead -- that could lead toward a ceasefire in Syria, would be the first secession of conflict in that country in that Civil War in five years, but it comes at a very high price.

[22:30:06] Because not only have all we have seen the deaths, the removal of so many people, millions of people. We now see the Russians in the last few weeks have bombed in a way that benefits President Assad, not, has not gone after ISIS.

So, my question to you is when it comes to dealing with Russia, are you prepared -- how hard are you prepared to be? Are you prepared to institute further economic sanctions? Would you be prepared to move militarily if Russia moves on Eastern Europe? It seems that Russia recently has gotten the better of the United States.

SANDERS: Well, this is what I would say. It is a complicated relationship. I congratulate Secretary of State John Kerry and the president for working on this agreement.

As you've indicated, what is happening in Syria, the number of people, the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed, men, women, 20,000 children, the people are forced to flee their own countries -- their own country, it is unspeakable. It is a real horror.

Now, what I think is that right now we have got to do our best in developing positive relations with Russia. But let's be clear. Russia's aggressive actions in the Crimea -- in Crimea and in Ukraine have brought about a situation where President Obama and NATO correctly, I believe, are saying we're going to have to beef up our troop level in that part of the world to tell Putin that his aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched, that he is not going to get away with aggressive action.

I happen to believe that Putin is doing what he is doing because his economy is increasingly in shambles and he's trying to rally his people in support of him. But bottom line is, the president is right. We have to put more money, we have to work with NATO to protect eastern Europe against any kind of Russian aggression.

CLINTON: Well, with respect to Syria, I really do appreciate the efforts that Secretary Kerry has made. The agreement on humanitarian relief now needs to be implemented because there are enclaves that are literally filled with starving people throughout Syria.

The agreement on a ceasefire, though, is something that has to be implemented more quickly than the schedule that the Russians agreed to. You know, the Russians wanted to buy time. Are they buying time to continue their bombardment on behalf of the Assad regime, to further decimate what's left of the opposition, which would be a grave disservice to any kind of eventual ceasefire?

So, I know Secretary Kerry is working extremely hard to try to move that ceasefire up as quickly as possible. But I would add this, you know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution.

At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a ceasefire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.

This is incredibly complicated because we've got Iran as a big player in addition to Russia, we have Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others who have very important interests in their view.

This is one of the areas I've disagreed with Senator Sanders on, who has called for Iranian troops trying to end the Civil War in Syria, which I think would be a grave mistake putting Iranian troops right on the border of the Golan, right next to Israel would be a non-starter to me.

Trying to get Iran and Saudi Arabia to work together as he is suggesting in the past is equally a non-starter.

So, let's support what Secretary Kerry and the president are doing, but let's hope we can accelerate the ceasefire because I fear that the Russians will continue their bombing, try to do everything they can to destroy what's left of the opposition.

And remember, the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups. So, as we get a ceasefire and maybe some humanitarian corridors, that still leaves the terrorist groups on the doorstep of others in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and the like.

So, we've got some real work to do and let's try to make sure we actually implement what has been agreed to with the Russians.


SANDERS: Let me just say this. For a start, the Secretary and I disagree and I think the president does not agree with her in terms of the conflict of a no-fly zone in Syria. I think do you have a humanitarian tragedy there, as I mentioned a moment ago.

[22:35:04] I applaud Secretary Kerry and the president for trying to put together this agreement. Let's hope that it holds.

But furthermore, what we have got it do -- I'm sorry, yes, I do believe that we have got to do everything that we can and it will not happen tomorrow. But I do hope that in years to come, just as occurred with Cuba, 10, 20 years ago, people say reach normalized relations with Cuba -- and by the way, I hope we can end the trade embargo with Cuba as well, but the idea that we someday, maybe have decent relations with Iran, maybe put pressure on them so they end their support for terrorism around the world, yes, that is something I want to achieve.

And I believe that the best way to do that is to be aggressive, to be principled, but to have the goal of trying to improve relations. That's how you make peace in the world. You sit down and you work with people, you make demands of people, in this case demanding Iran stop the support of international terrorism.


CLINTON: Well, I respectfully disagree. I think we have achieved a great deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement to put a lid on the Iranian nuclear weapons program that has to be enforced.


CLINTON: Absolutely with consequences for Iran at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement.

I do not think we should promise or even look towards normalizing relations because we have a lot of other business to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, they have to stop trying to destabilize the Middle East causing more chaos.

Yes, they've got to get out of Syria, they've got to quit sponsoring Hezbollah and Hamas, they've got to quit trying to ship rockets into Gaza that can used against Israel. We have a lot of work to with Iran before we ever say that they could move towards normalize relations with us.

SANDERS: We have a lot of work to do.


We have a lot of work to do. But I recall Secretary Clinton then ran against then-Senator Obama. She was critical of him for suggesting that maybe you want to talk to Iran, that you want to talk to our enemies.

I have no illusions. Of course, you're right.

Iran is sponsoring terrorism in many parts of the world, destabilizing areas. Everybody knows that. But our goal is in fact to try over a period of time to in fact, deal with our enemies and not just ignore that.


WOODRUFF: But if you can -- we're talking...

CLINTON: You quote me, Senator Sanders from a debate in 2008...

WOODRUFF: Final -- final comment.

CLINTON: ... quote what I said. The question was "Would you meet with an adversary without conditions?" I said no. And in fact, in the Obama administration, we did not meet with anybody without conditions.


That is the appropriate approach in order to get the results that you are seeking.

SANDERS: No. I think the idea was that President -- then-Senator Obama was wrong for suggesting that it's a good idea to talk to your opponents. It's easy to talk to your friends. It's harder to talk to your enemies. I think we should do both.


IFILL: Let me move on. You have both mentioned the humanitarian tragedies, which have been an outgrowth in part what's happened in Syria and Libya.

More than a million refugees entered Europe in 2015, another 76,000 last month, about 2,000 arrivals every day. Nearly 400 people have been lost at sea so far this year crossing the Mediterranean and there are reports that 10,000 children are missing.

If we are leaders in this world, where should the U.S. be on this? What should the United States be doing, Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I was pleased that NATO announced just this week that they're going to start doing patrols in the Mediterranean, in the Aegean to try to interdict the smuggler -- the smugglers to try to prevent the kind of tragedies that we have seen all too often.

Also to try to prevent more refugees from coming to the European Union and it's especially significant that they are working with both Turkey and Greece in order to do this.

With respect to the United States, I think our role in NATO, our support for the E.U., as well as our willingness to take refugees, so long as they are thoroughly vetted and that we have confidence from intelligence and other sources that they can come to our country, we should be doing our part.

And we should back up the recent donor's conference to make sure we have made our contribution to try to deal with the enormous cost that these refugees are posing to Turkey and to members of the E.U. in particular.

[22:39:55] This is a humanitarian catastrophe. There's no other description of it. So, we do as the United States have to support our friends, our allies in Europe. We have to stand with them, we have to provide financial support to them, we have to provide the NATO support to back up the mission that is going on, and we have to take properly vetted refugees ourselves.

SANDERS: A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to go on a congressional delegation, and I went to one of these Turkish refugee camps right on the border of Syria. And what a sad sight that was. Men, women, children are forced out of their homes.

And Turkey, by the way, did a very decent thing providing what was reasonable housing and conditions for those people.

It seems to me that given our history as a nation that has been a beacon of hope for the oppressed, for the downtrodden, that I very strongly disagree with those republican candidates that say, you know what, we've got to turn our backs on women and children who left their home with nothing, nothing at all.

That is not what America is supposed to be about. So, I believe that working with Europe and, by the way, you know, we got some very wealthy countries there in that part of the world.

You got Kuwait and you got Qatar and you got Saudi Arabia. They have a responsibility as well. But I think this is a worldwide -- that the entire world needs to come together to deal with this horrific refugee crisis we're seeing from Syria and Afghanistan as well.


WOODRUFF: And we have a final question from our Facebook family. And it goes to Senator Sanders. It comes from Robert Andrews, he's a 40- year-old stay-at-home dad in Dover, Massachusetts. He says "The world has seen many great leaders in the course of human history. Can you name two leaders, one American, and one foreign, who would influence your foreign policy decisions and why do you see them -- why are they influential?"

SANDERS: You know, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the oath of office in 1933, at a time when 25 percent of the American people were unemployed; the country was in incredible despair. He stood before the American people and he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

A profound statement that gave the American people the courage to believe that, yes, we could get out of that terrible depression.

And then what he did is redefined the role of government. You know, you had Herbert Hoover before that saying, oh, we got to only worry about the deficit, so what if mass unemployment exist, so what if children are going hungry, that's not the role of the government.

And what FDR said, yes, it is, that we are going to use all of the resources that we have to create jobs, to build homes, to feed people, to protect the farmers, we are a nation which if we come together, there is nothing that we could not accomplish.

And kind of that's what I see our campaign is about right now. In this particular moment of serious crises, saying to the American people don't give up on the political process. Don't listen to the trumps of the world in allowing them to divide us.

If we reengage and get involved, yes, we can have health care for all people, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free, we do not have to have massive levels of income and wealth inequality.

In the same light was a a foreign leader, Winston Churchill's politics were not my politics, he was kind of a conservative guy in many respects, but nobody can deny that as a wartime leader, he rallied the British people when they stood virtually alone against the Nazi juggernaut and rallied them and eventually won an extraordinary victory. Those are two leads that are I admire very much.


CLINTON: I certainly agree with FDR for all the reasons that Senator Sanders said and I agree about the role that he played both in war and in peace on the economy and defeating fascism around the world.

I would choose Nelson Mandela for his generosity of heart, his understanding of the need for reconciliation.

But I want to -- I want to follow up on something having to do with leadership because, you know, today, Senator Sanders said that President Obama failed the presidential leadership test. This is not the first time that he has criticized President Obama.

[22:45:09] In the past he's called him weak, he's called him a disappointment. He wrote a foreword for a book that basically argued voters should have buyer's remorse when it comes to President Obama's leadership and legacy. And I just couldn't agree -- disagree more with those kinds of comments.

You know, from my perspective, maybe because I understand what President Obama inherited, not only the worst financial crisis but the antipathy of the republicans in Congress.

I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for being a president who...


... dug us out of that ditch, put us on firm ground and himself sent us into the future. And it is a -- the kind of criticism that we've heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from republicans. I do not expect from someone running for the democratic nomination to succeed President Obama.

(APPLAUSE) SANDERS: That is -- Madam Secretary, that is a low blow. I have worked with President Obama for the last seven years. When President Obama came into office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, 800,000 jobs a month. We owe 1.4 trillion deficits and the world's financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As a result of his efforts and the efforts of Joe Biden against unprecedented. I was there in the Senate. Unprecedented republican obstructionism we have made enormous progress.


But you know what? Last I heard we lived in a democratic society. Last I heard a United States senator had the right to disagree with the president, including a president who has done such an extraordinary job.

So I have voiced criticism, you're right, maybe you haven't. I have. But I think to suggest that I have voiced criticism, this blurb that you talk about, you know what the blurb said? The blurb said that "the next President of the United States has got to be aggressive in bringing people into the political process." That's what I said, that is what I believe.


President Obama and I are friends. As you know, he came to Vermont to campaign for me when he was a senator. I have worked for his re- election. His first election and his re-election. But I think it is really unfair to suggest that I have not been supportive of the president. I have been a strong ally on him, with him on virtually every issue. Do senators have the right to disagree with the president? Have you ever disagreed with a president? I suspect you may have.


CLINTON: You know, Senator, what I -- what I am concerned about is not disagreement on issues saying that this is what I'd rather do, I don't agree with the president on that.

Calling the president weak, calling him a disappointment, calling several times that he should have a primary opponent when he ran for re-election in 2012, you know, I think that goes further than saying we have disagreements.

As a senator, yes, I was a senator. I understand we can disagree on the path forward. But those kinds of personal assessments and charges are ones that I find particularly troubling.


IFILL: Senator, you have respond -- you may respond to that but it's time now for closing statements. And you can use your time for closing statements to do that.

SANDERS: Well, one of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.


All right. Look, this has been a great debate. A lot of interesting issues have come together. Let me conclude by just saying this -- there is no president in my view, not Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, who has the capability or the power to take on Wall Street, large campaign donors, the corporate media, the big money interest in this country alone.

This campaign is not just about electing a president. What this campaign is about is creating a process for a political revolution in which millions of Americans, working people who are given up on the political process, they don't think anybody hears their pains or their concerns.

Young people for whom getting involved in politics is as -- you know, it's like going to the moon, it is not going to happen. Low-income people who are not involved in the political process.

[22:50:03] What this campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent, who, today, have so much economic and political power. Thank you all very much.


IFILL: Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: You know, we agree that we've got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck main street again. But here's the point I want to make tonight.

I am not a single-issue candidate and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it's poison in the water of the children of Flint or whether it's the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today, who feels somehow put down and depressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that's what I want to take on.

And here in Wisconsin, I want to reiterate, we've got to stand up for unions and working people...


... who have better (Inaudible) the America's middle class and who are being attacked by ideologues, by demagogues. Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it have too much influence, you're right.

But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay, we would have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get married on Monday.

And we would still have Governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and conditions.

So, I'm going to keep talking about tearing down all the barriers that stand in the way of Americans fulfilling their potential. Because I don't think our country can live up to its potential unless we give a chance to every single American to live up to theirs.


WOODRUFF: Thank you, Senator Clinton. Thank you, Senator Sanders. We also want to thank our partner (Inaudible) and our host here at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

And I want to thank our audience, our quiet audience here (Inaudible) and all of you watching at home. Thank you, all.

Stay tuned for analysis of the debate and the overall race to the democratic nomination. That's coming up next here on PBS Stations and online at

IFILL: I'm going to remain here in Milwaukee tomorrow evening for a special edition of Washington Week here on PBS.

WOODRUFF: And I'm going to be returning to Washington. I hope you'll join for the PBS Newshour tomorrow at every night. That's it from all us here in Milwaukee. We thank you.

IFILL: Good night.

COOPER: And good evening again. Welcome to a late live edition of 360. The democratic candidates just wrapping up their debate in Milwaukee. What a debate it was.

In case you missed any of the best moments, we're going to have highlights at the top of hour. In just a few minutes right now I want to get a quick first take from our panel. And since it's been three hours since I've done this I've just managed to catch my breath in last time.

Here we go, CNN senior political analyst, David Gergen, Michael Smerconish, anchor of nationally syndicated radio show as Smerconish here on CNN; CNN chief political analyst, Gloria Borger, CNN chief national correspondent, John King, host of CNN's Inside Politics.

Also with us to my left, CNN political commentators, Paul Begala, Donna Brazile, Ana Navarro, and Bill Press, Bill is for Sanders; Ana is for Bush. But friends with Rubio. Donna is a senior Democratic Party official and Paul...


DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I thought we can't do tonight because we're not talking about our guy.

COOPER: Paul advises as pro-Clinton super PAC. Let's get quick reaction from our correspondents and analysts. David Gergen, you've seen a lot of these debates. What did you make of this one?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't -- I can't remember a candidate for the presidency who is more experienced and more competent than Hillary Clinton was tonight.

She was on top of the issues, she was very factual. I thought she -- I thought she won the arguments. I thought he did a better job in capturing the anger and the frustration in the country. And I'm not sure what it played out. I'm not sure it changed a lot of minds but I did think there was a real difference in debating style.

[22:55:05] COOPER: Michael Smerconish?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR & POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: For the first hour and 45 minutes I thought there was no blood drawn. You got very interesting at the end pertaining to Bill Press' book. I mean, you get to hear what he has to say about that.


SMERCONISH: I thought he looked shaken after she laid out what she had to say and I thought it was a pitch by Secretary Clinton to solidify her support in the African-American community by saying this guy has not stood with Barack Obama.

COOPER: Gloria?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I think the person looming over this debate is President Obama, completely. And what was interesting to me was the ways in which -- the multiple ways in which Hillary Clinton...

COOPER: Repeatedly.

BORGER: ... repeatedly tied herself to the president on the fact that he had a super PAC and still went after Wall Street, on immigration, on Obamacare, and on the fact that President Obama picked her as Secretary of State.

And I think, you know, on the economic issues, as David was saying, I think Bernie Sanders really sort of cuts through. But on foreign policy, I think Hillary Clinton does. So, I don't think it changed much.

COOPER: Someone before the debate, John King, was saying, I think it was over here was saying that she was going to wrap herself in President Obama. She certainly did that tonight, particularly at the end.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And he has incredibly high ratings, among democrats across the country, especially even higher than that among the African-Americans who will play first the democrats go to Nevada, then to South Carolina. She played the Obama card and she played that hard. He played the Kissinger card. We'll see -- we'll how that plays out.

COOPER: That's going to get the millennials.

KING: All the young voters for Bernie Sanders Goggling who is Henry Kissinger, trying to say that, you know, he doesn't take advice from Henry Kissinger.

The conversation among democrats so I would check it in during the debate is still making the point that she had a very strong case on the policy issues. Some of her friends and advisers who want her to get better as a candidate still think she's focuses too much on experience and past accomplishment and not as much on a narrative to look forward to the future.

COOPER: Bill Press, your book, which give the title and also read the blurb that Sanders actually gave to the book.


COOPER: Yes. Sure.

PRESS: Well, the name of the book is "Buyer's Remorse."

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Which you can get at Amazon for.


PRESS: Thank you.

COOPER: No, no.

PRESS: But here is -- this is a non-issue. But the Clinton campaign can't seem to let go of it. The blurb I think that she -- he did not read a foreword to the book. He did not endorse the book. He wrote a blurb. The blurb says what he says in every speech he gives, quote, "Bill Press makes case why long after taking the oath of office the next president of the United States must keep rallying the people who elected him or her on behalf of progressive causes, that's the only way real change will happen."

It's not a criticism of Barack Obama. My book is. Bernie's blurb is not. So, take it out on me, I am not running for president yet.

COOPER: Paul Begala, what do you think of tonight.

PAUL BEGALA, DEOMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: They both play the type. Before the debate we said, look, Bernie is a message machine and he is. And I think he run as risk of becoming the Marco Rubio butt of my party.

To paraphrase Joe Biden, every sentence was a noun, a verb and Wall Street, OK? Hillary Clinton to type, she's the walk, she's the studious one. She seems to know Bernie's record on health care, better then Bernie did or Bernie's plan. And you could tell, you could see his eyes sort of blazing over a second. Well, actually, it's actually of the GDP or whatever it was. That, you know, she knew the details of even Bernie's policies better. But he keeps coming back with that overarching message. It turns out I think he doesn't like Wall Street.

COOPER: Donna? What did you make of it?

BRAZILE: It was a very spirited debate. And I liked much of the exchange. If you walk into the room tonight for the first time and it wasn't Donald Trump show, you had an opportunity to listen to two candidates who offered a vision for the future on immigration, health care reform, jobs, criminal justice reform, et cetera.

That said, if you're an undecided voter in South Carolina and Nevada, you walk into the room and say, you know what, I like what Hillary Clinton said on this but I like the passion that Bernie, you know, gave on that.

So, I think it was great. But I want to tell you, I take issue with Bill Press' book but I won't do that right now.

COOPER: Ana Navarro?

NAVARRO: You know, I thought this was a political junkies and nerds, wonks debate. There was very little personality, there was very little multi-dimension to them when they were speaking. It was very policy oriented, a lot of substance, a lot meat particularly in Hillary Clinton's answers, very little personal anecdotes, personal stories including about themselves.

COOPER: We are just about at the top of the hour. And if you are just joining us or you just watched parts of the debate I want to take a quick moment to welcome any viewers who are just joining us now.

If you watch, you saw a sharp but civil exchange of views between the two candidates. If you didn't, we want to show you some of the highlights of the debate. The most important moments in exchange. Take a look.


[22:59:56] CLINTON: In my case, whether it's health care or getting us to debt-free tuition or moving us toward paid family leave, I have been very specific about where I would raise the money, how much it would cost and how I would move this agenda forward.

I believe I can get the money...