that they have to defer their dreams to another day, but they really mean another decade. that's what they mean. they don't mean another day. they mean decades and decades away. hillary has been there for 30 years, and she has accomplished nothing. just made things worse. [boos] mr. trump: she's the candidate of yesterday. we are a movement of the future. this is a movement, folks. [cheers and applause] this is a movement like our country has never seen before, and we are driving these characters crazy. they are not happy. our movement represents all from all backgrounds and all walks of life. the votes of for republicans, democrats,

independents, and first-time voters. there is going to be a lot of them, believe me. for everyhting citizen who believes that government should serve the people, not be donors, and not the special interests. [cheers and applause] to trump: we are fighting unlock the tremendous potential of every american community and every american family who yearn much better future, a better future. are just 10te, we days away from the change you have been waiting for your entire life. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i will never let you down, i promise you that. i will never let you down. [cheers and applause]

mr. trump: we will not be divided any longer. we will be a nation of love. together we will make america just again. just. we will make america strong again. we will make america safe again. we will make america wealthy again. and we will make america great again. god bless you, everybody. it out and vote. thank you. thank you. god bless you. thank you, arizona. [cheers and applause]

mr. trump: thank you. ♪ >> ♪ you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need ♪ ♪ i saw her today at the

reception a glass of wine in her hand i knew she would meet her connection at her feet was her footloose man get what youays want you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want , youtime try might find you get what you need ♪ ♪

>> on monday, donald trump will speak at a grand rapids michigan rally. we will have live coverage at noon eastern. at 6:15, we will show you hillary clinton speaking at a campaign event in cincinnati. see both of those events here on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service. to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> on the communicators, a discussion about the proposed merger between at&t and time warner. here to discuss our two men who

watch telecommunications policy here in washington. washington. the senior vice president of public knowledge and the president of the technology policy institute. let's begin. what would this merger mean to at&t? >> at&t wants to buy lots of content. it sees this as the future of the industry following the comcast merger. at&t is hoping to vertically integrate with time warner. >> what does vertical mean? >> and a horizontal merger you have two companies who compete with each other merging. t-mobile merger would have been horizontal, and it was blocked because of concerns related to that. in a vertical merger, you have an upstream and downstream company providing -- they are in separate markets.

you are not changing the industry concentration in either one. the justice department's tends to look at those differently. vertical mergers are easier to get through then horizontal mergers where you have to show that there will be improved efficiencies from the merger and there will be an anti-competitive effect -- which are typically less likely in a vertical merger. to aat would this made consumer of at&t or time warner? >> i think there is a lot of reason to be skeptical about this merger. particularly based on what we have seen and how the industry has involved and the increasing concentration within the industry and the vetting of the marquis programming, not just the clips you have on youtube but the big-name programming names -- movies

coming out of these studios that are critical for the success of online streaming services. is the concern here thing that consumers ought to be most concerned about is at&t is a national wireless carrier and they are also in another line of business but they recognize that the shift in watching video is moving from the big screen on the wall to be in in the handheld devices. comesa lot of that money from data overages, limiting on your data cap -- there is also a lot of money in advertising that they are increasingly becoming involved in with the -- heading -- [indiscernible] fcc voted on yesterday

and one of the things the sec found in looking abroad their privacy was companies like at&t have a tremendous window into you aree because as every device becomes connected to the internet as you carry a cell phone that is connected to the internet with you everywhere at&t is your provider can see what you can get for breakfast out of your smart refrigerator, what you -- when you go to work in the morning, when you are walking by a mcdonald's on the way to work and can combine that with its content that it would get from this to essentially dissect every element of your ite as a consumer and market back to you with these advertisements so that is one very important concern for consumers is you really want at&t following you around figuring out how to best sell you stuff -- some people may like up and a lot of people have

concerns about that -- the other is the pricing and the locket on the information. at&t will have incentives to push people toward its content and away from the content of others. we have some rules about that right now with what is called network neutrality, they cannot directly interfere with my going to a rival news company but what they can say is if you want to watch cnn, that will not count against your data cap but if you want to watch msnbc or bloomberg or fox news on your mobile set, you will, so, they will have this capacity to push people in a particular direction and particularly when it comes to things like news which is part of this, that is very troubling for democracy. >> before we go further, let's get video day you involved -- lydia involved. she is a telecom reporter.

>> you mention with a vertical integration there is usually ins antitrust concern but truth, as both of you can speak to what precise legal and regulatory issues might be raised by opponents who oppose this bill? >> i should let harold talk about legal issues because as an economist i don't not know any laws -- i do not know the any laws. together, we know nothing. specifically, though, on issues -- one of the things that harold mentioned is how time warner will treat content -- its content relative to how at&t will treat them. he is right. that is the potential way that is a vertical merger could be anticompetitive. they treat their own content differently.

that is going to be the biggest one. harold is bringing in the privacy issue. i is not sure that that fits into the merger itself. that seems like a different issue. beis definitely going to this question of whether at&t has both the incentive and the ability to foreclose on rivals or raise costs and in trying to think that through, they are going to look at the incentives on different sides. on the one hand, you can imagine that they would profit by contentcosts or keeping from others and so on. on the other hand, at&t on the video space has about -- at&t and directv have about 25% of the subscribers.

and also, not majority of internet subscribers so they try to withhold content, they lose licensing fees and advertising and the revenues associated with that. it is not clear that they would even have the incentive to do that. that said, i am sure that is what the doj will focus on. >> there are a couple of things from a legal perspective. that there is a big question whether the federal communications commission which one would think would be absolutely in the thick of something like this, whether it is dealing with one of our largest communications providers , our largest entertainment producers, but, because of the way the law works, it is not clear what role the fcc will have. there is a lot of speculation the because at&t which is company that is regulated by the fcc is the one purchasing time warner that the deal can be

structured in a way that completely avoids fcc review and traditionally,ut certainly, a lot of the concerns i have been talking about, the concern to democracy and news production, the concerns about privacy are more the subject of fcc interest to review than the department of justice. so, but, i do want to emphasize that we are actually at an important shifting point in antitrust and antitrust law and review and again these are evolutionary changes that do not take place overnight but we have certainly seen within the last decade, first -- a change in the literature around antitrust, scott has exactly described what traditionally it has been for the last 40 years and if you go

to and antitrust lawyer, that is exactly what they will tell you the department of justice has traditionally looked at. it is important to recognize that we have been seeing a gradual evolution particularly around these kinds of vertical mergers and particularly in these very large complicated markets. comcast nbc merger and what happened after that is something that people .2. on the one hand, certainly you look at that and said department of justice reviewed it and a putting conditions in a improved it. we have six years of administering those conditions and as we found out in the comcast time warner cable merger offer which was again that was horizontal budget a lot of the concern about it came from not expanding that vertical integration power with the

enhanced reach that they would have after the acquisition so i think in fact, there is a lot morescope and a lot challenges for at&t with regard to some of these vertical issues then we have previously seen. to be moree going challenges because of the political environment and so one and because even if they were able to get rid of them to make sure no licenses change 10, there is no way the fcc is going to stay out of it but i think that comcast nbc merger is a good precedent. you say what has happened since? whatthere hasn't been -- bad things have happened that are related to the merger itself? from comcast and nbc? lowe's companies are doing pretty well. nbc was a terrible network the time of the merger. theyou know, most of

critiques i have seen are things i do not have to do with the merger itself so i had some examples -- >> i mean, the one -- what has really come up and came up in the discussion of the comcast time warner cable was the ability of the department of justice to actually enforce in monitor the behavioral conditions so the biggest most disney example was when and news corp. or looking at and it wouldhulu potentially become a competitor in streaming and the allegation was that despite a merger condition that said comcast would not try to interfere with that, there was evidence that brian roberts had gone to the heads of news corp. and disney you were making these decisions and say, well, you know, maybe

you guys ought to consider, you know, comcast might want to invest more in you if you don't do this deal so a potential new -- thisor was squashed was precisely the danger that department of justice was concerned about, that is precisely why they imposed the condition and they didn't know about it until after the fact when they were investigating another merger. well, the department of justice apparently felt strongly enough about it because we never went to because they withdrew we never had a complaint we never do for certain but i can point to that -- i can point to the effort by there was a startup which tried to gain access to video programming under the video access condition that was there that would stimulate over the -- that did not work out very well. love that, i mean, with that example, that is a tough one because either on negotiations.

sometimes cable companies pay a broadcaster or a content creator to -- they have to pay espn did somebody doesn't get on -- is it because of what the reasons you are talking but it because it was a negotiation that didn't work and something that we would never be able to separate out -- >> i agree but that is part of the reason why are there such [indiscernible] that the old attitude i would ,ay was because we don't know we should let the merger go through. i think there is an emerging sensibility of we have a lot of concentration in the market already. we are seeing a lot of difficulty in competitors emerging when we cannot think that it is safe we should be more skeptical rather than let a go through and hope that we have a conditions to stop it appeared >> i do question for you both. this merger announcement comes at a pivotal point for our nation and that of course is the presidential election. now hillary clinton has taken -- he is not really taking a

position to she said that folks should look into it but she is not opined -- donald trump has said he would disapprove it if he becomes president. what do you think the potential outcome of the election might play not just on this merger and the federal regulators that may be in charge of it but also on other subsequent merges to pity on who wins the white house? >> will first of all i think that the timing is really interesting. because you know when said he would not approve the merger, it was pointed out that the president is on an essay on the other hand, at this point in time, the president actually could have a say in it because the president has to appoint who is going to the next added the antitrust division at who will be the next chair of the fcc and potentially they can make a litmus test of what they want could the outcome the like they cease to win this case you can see the president having a big effect through at least the appointment process either direction now of course what donald trump thinks you might be

some the differential mario who knows what he thinks -- but i do think that very interesting report to do here is you are right that clinton did the presidential thing and say well you know if i were president of an make sure that we studied it very carefully which is that the they were supposed to say -- even the more centrist wing of the democratic party has made it clear that they think that antitrust needs to be revised, strengthened. what i like to call the new, new antitrust. busters were accused of being as generically bad, power that was concentrated. antitrust, since the 1960's and 1970's, which has become the standard antitrust, is economic efficiencies, versus

technocratic. of the new, new antitrust goes a step further. a say they need to recognize the limits of our economic analysis. of that a lot of times, we are just guessing. but there are the dangers of are unsureon when we we should be skeptical, rather than let it go through. i think that particularly if the democrats are elected, we are very likely to see, even if it does not impact of this merger specifically, the attorney general and folks that they department of justice and other agencies, more interested in these new ideas of antitrust. >> at its surface, does it make economic sense?

>> the economics suggest it is hard to see the harm in it. they are in separate markets. both industries are evolving. where they will end up, nobody knows. turn out to be a terrible idea for both of those companies. we have seen that before. my turned out to be a great idea. might turn out to be a great idea. if you can protect against those harms, it might be a great experiment. out,e merger does not work it is fine as long as they are not harmful. dataey have pointed to the they could potentially leverage from this combination. hoping to reduce the cost of the content through advertisement. you mentioned the

evolution of antitrust laws and market economics, how might the data that a combined at&t and time burner be able to mine and combine multiple platforms here? just from the economics of the merger, but the antitrust review of it? >> i still do not understand how the new privacy roles of the sec will pass. we do not have a draft of the order yet. but in principle, at&t will be operating under one set of privacy roles. those twoot know how things will fit together. setting aside what you think about privacy roles and whether at&t should be under different roles in the content side, i do not know how you put those two together when they operate under separate machines -- separate regimes. i do not know how to answer that question. >> from an economic perspective, there are a number of things to

look at. one, we see movement in the european union. information harvested and collected. there is recognition this has value, recognition it can be combined with other information in the market in ways that can have anti-competitive effect. it can be used to impact consumer behavior. if i know how to make it harder for you to switch, i can reduce the ability of people to compete with you. similarly, i can likewise use you, somewhat say to give stuff that is good for you, a positive benefit. or also, to know when competitors are offering you come eating -- offering you competing services, and do my best for that. this goes back to when we broke up the at&t monopoly.

we said we really have to segmented these businesses because we cannot have the people who know all the information all be doing -- also be doing a long-distance and have those pieces interact. we didn't with the cable act of 1992 where we actually tried to break up content and the cable industry. privacy, thisto raises a very serious concern. is, again,cern that not in the traditional antitrust debt. but as digital information has become more important, its impact on competition has become more important. it is coming in as the new antitrust. >> is there are a couple things. on the eu point, harold is right. the eu is looking at troves of data as potentially anticompetitive. they are still arguing about

that. it is not clear that that is not the case. . it may not create a barrier to entry. and having data is not valuable in itself, you have to have the processing power and know-how. that is an actively debated question. the second point about the back, how weooking have separated content, that goes to the point that the boundaries of the forms are fixed. sometimes in-house, sometimes out of house. as time changes they send things often bring them in. what they choose to do inside and outside will depend on the transaction costs involved. the right answer today is the wrong answer tomorrow, and vice versa. it is a good thing. >> congress has scheduled one hearing on this merger in the

senate judiciary committee. you expect or anticipate congress saying in looking at this merger? congress, when you have a larger merger like this, plays a combination of bully pulpit and public temperature. , if peopleok at is are getting a lot of phone calls , i hate this, do not let this happen. asksee members of congress aggressive questions and voice skepticism about the deal. those are signals that are often agencies whothe are accountable to congress to get the budgets from congress. the doj and has professional staff, they are human beings like everyone else.

the other thing, it is part of our popular oversight debate. where, when you have public hearings, very important to advance in the public the nature of the argument for or against. they play a very valuable role, in the decisions by the staff, but in the broader sense in the country of whether we need to do something like re-examine our basic ideas about antitrust. or whether we are happy with the way things are going. >> there is another issue with congress right now. it is not just the hearings. we know that certain senators will be very opposed to it. elizabeth warren and al franken do not like this deal. they will have hearings and senators will make speeches. have the also

confirmation process, as i mentioned earlier. this will come up in the confirmation process, as well. congress will have an impact on the merger, in that sense. fcc, itf at doj and the is amazing how hard they work to do their analyses, it is impressive. offhandedlyoned that the fcc will find a way to get its hand into this. how can that happen? >> of that is a good question. >> maybe i should take that one. at the fcc is pouring through every document. it is hard to imagine how an that is such an important part of the regulatory process of at&t and time warner would manage to stay out.

all, ifld say, first of you are tom wheeler you are happy this is happening now, rather than when you have to stick around and deal with it. wheeler -- iirman do not have to figure this out. but there are a number of ways in which the fcc could be brought into this. the first is by the department of justice. they are free to consult the sister agency. there is a good working relationship between the staff. it is a little known fact the current antitrust jurisdiction with the department of justice over common carriers like at&t. even though they are not part of the merger review process, it is certainly appropriate to bring the men as part of the antitrust review.

is one way. if there are certain licenses that time warner has. havene tv station they got, that is easy to get rid of. in terms of the deal structure. but there are a lot of other licenses. as i like to remind people, -- they havethe time warner has a license to use their fcc radio. those are transferred as part of this deal. >> over 50 satellite base stations. >> so there are many, many licenses. normally the deal that does not fcc says wefcc, the need to record where licenses go. is not our business. there was a big case around this in the 1990's.

one fund was merging with mobile, the largest transfer to fcc licenses. the fcc should have said, we do not review that. you feel likeit the fcc ought to be involved. involvedare not because it is at&t buying time warner. do not get into it with these types of license transfers. but this time, we got into it. fix the justice department challenged the merger. they have to believe it would hold up in court. the fcc has to approve the merger. the conditions they ask for are very different. this merger is approved, what do you think the impact will be on the market, on consumers? would beot think there much impact on consumers, in the short or medium term.

it depends on how they try to use time warner's content. do they believe it will be valuable and introduce new services? we will have to see. we will have to see how all these business models layout. it is hard to see how it would be bad for consumers. >> first of all, whenever you have these sorts of things, you have another one of these arms races or everyone tries to grab for a partner. this not just what particular merger will do, verizon may want to buy cbs because they need more content. they are already getting content through aol and other things. you might have charter, time warner cable try to buy more content. the argument will always become a you let that guy do it, now i need to bulk up. ofre is a longer-term issue

the viewer choices, more concentration of media power. i do think for consumers the biggest problem is likely to be with content and data overages. where the most short-term affect will be right now, at&t already claiming to release their directv video where they will zero rate that and not charge it. it makes more sense to watch netflix on your handheld to watch at&t's competing video products. for consumers that leads to greater expense and less choice. >> so far, netflix is not involved in the merger. >> we will have to leave it there. gentlemen, thank you very much. lydia beyoud of bloomberg. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the

national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span, where history unfold daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. that is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. on election day, november 8, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of includingential race, campaign stops of hillary clinton, donald trump, and their surrogates. and follow key house and senate races with their coverage of their candidate debates and speeches. c-span, where history unfold daily. >> now, former president bill clinton speaks at a hillary clinton campaign event in columbus, ohio. this is about 35 minutes. mrs. clinton

>> it is the greatest honor i can have, to have members of the congressional black caucus on the stage with me. after we hear our next speaker, you are going to have a treat when you hear these bad brothers and sisters bring it. you have seen them on msnbc, c-span, cnn, and today, you have the conscience of the congress, the brilliance of the congress, here with us. we have a very special guest. he decided he would take time to come to ars battleground state. to come be with us here today. this man needs no introduction. but i would be remiss if i did not say about the former

president, william jefferson 42nd presidenthe of the united states. someone who came to the white house and understood real diversity. someone who came to the white paye and understood equal for equal work with women. he understood that when women succeed, america succeeds. he understood our issues and worked with us. do not need to say more about someone i was honored to know when he was president, and i am honored to be able to say he is a friend. last week in florida, i leaned over and said, mr. president, it would be just wonderful if you could come to this place called columbus, ohio. this place where i am the member

of congress. i am just saying, i am congresswoman joyce beatty and i approve who will walk out on this stage. my friend, my president, president bill clinton. [applause] ♪ mr. clinton: first of all, i want to thank your congresswoman, joyce beatty, for that introduction, and her service. thank mayor gensler, the members of congress that are here, elijah cummings, cedric richmond, akeem jeffries --

thank you for being here. there are a number of mayors and former mayors here, and i want to thank them. you worked with me in the white house, steve benjamin has come from columbia, south carolina, where hillary's big victory there in the primary -- thanks in no small measure to him, got us started. alvin brown who also worked in , the administration. mayor dennis archer, former mayor of detroit, who has been my friend and hillary's friend for more years than i can count. the great former mayor of this city, michael coleman. i thank them all. [applause] mr. clinton: i want to thank state party chair david pepper, and thank you ted strickland, the first target of the koch brothers.

born up under the torrent of dark money. we need a new supreme court that will not allow dark anonymous , money to buy elections, and i want to thank hillary's first boss out of law school, who is backstage. the incomparable marilyn wright edelman, the founder of the children's defense fund. [applause] mr. clinton: look, i feel kind of crazy -- i feel like the 25th speaker at a four-hour banquet. [laughter] mr. clinton: everything that needs to be said has been said, but not everybody has said it yet. i do want to say a couple of things -- first of all, i am

profoundly grateful to all of you that supported hillary through the primary and the general. and i know -- this fellow had a bad week, and by accident went to the wrong rally. give him a hand. [applause] mr. clinton: give him a hand, you know. one big difference in this campaign -- you might be interested to know that today, in iowa, a woman was arrested for voting twice in this election for hillary's opponent, and she said i had to, the election is rigged. you have some experience with this in ohio.

she became the 36th person since 2000 to be accused of fraudulent voter id out of 200 million votes cast. as your republican governor said, this charge is bull, like so many of the others, but it shows you what the difference is. who would have thought when we started the campaign that it would come down to who we are as americans? for example, the arizona republic, in 126 years, has never endorsed a democrat. this is why they are screaming, by the way. in 126 years, the arizona republic has always endorsed republicans. [applause] mr. clinton: except this year

they endorsed hillary, and they have received death threats because of it, but they hung tough, because they know we are about the business of defining what it means to be an american in the 21st century. the columbus paper, and the cincinnati paper have not endorsed a democrat for 100 years. they endorsed hillary this year. "the dallas morning news" -- a, sort of, symbolic paper of republicanism in the middle of the country, has not endorsed a president for 75 years. now, right on the edge of world war ii, they said it might not be a hot idea to get rid of roosevelt -- we might not want to change commanders in chief right now. they had not done that again, but this year, they endorsed

hillary. for all the other side's bloviating about national security, two former cia directors have endorsed hillary, and dozens of republicans who spent their careers in national security have endorsed her, telling you what is really important about protecting this country. a commander of our forces in afghanistan -- a four-star general, endorsed hillary. wes clark, who commanded our forces it when we saved kosovo from slaughter and was involved when we ended the war in bosnia, endorsed hillary. why do they do this? because they would like to have a commander-in-chief that reflects american values, and understand how to keep us safe and strong enough so we can grow out of the problems that we have. [applause]

but at bottom this , election is about you. the one thing this crazy campaign has done for the other side is i can still go around -- i was in pennsylvania, reading, the other night, at a small college, and i went through the economic choice, the education choice, and lots of other issues. and half the crowd there, they were really involved in the election. they were voting for hillary. they still have not heard this stuff. because as you just saw, one , side would like you not to hear. here is what this election is about -- when hillary says stronger together, it is about having an economy that works for everyone, and a society that everyone can be proud to live in. [applause] mr. clinton: and, it is a way of life, and it is a way of thinking, and it is

quintessentially american. so, when her opponent says make america great again, hey, i am a 70-year-old white southerner. i know what that means. [applause] mr. clinton: i know what that means. [applause] mr. clinton: first it means i will give you the economy you had 50 years ago. that is like me saying i would like to be 20 again. i would, actually, but i would not vote for somebody who promised to make me 20 again. more importantly, it is saying you have to vote for me because i dislike the same people you dislike, move you back up the pole and move other people down. that is a bad idea. 50 years ago, it wasn't so great for african-americans, hispanic

americans, first-generation immigrants, or women in the workplace. children with disabilities could not go to school. nobody saw their abilities. gay people were still confined to a closet, even if they were free to walk around. what hillary believes is that a lot of her opponent's fervent supporters do have a legitimate beef, which is they have not been seen in their economic despair. they live in places that have been left out and left behind, and nobody has done enough to bring them back. but this totem pole deal is one bad idea. she wants to tear down all the totem poles so we can rise together. [applause] mr. clinton: the choice you have to make is she says we are stronger together. he says no, we are not. [laughter]

mr. clinton: she says it is ok to be angry, but the only thing that will help you is answers, so answers are better than anger. he says no they are not. she says i understand your resentment, but what you need is not somebody rubbing salt in so you are mad every day. what you need is empowerment. empowerment is way better than rubbing salt in your wounds. he says know what is not. she says we all like competition -- we are in football season, we have a great world series going on, and we have an election going on, but the only reason we are still here is because we have rules. the rule of law, the protection of the constitution -- everybody should live under the same set of rules. we should have the ability to grow and flourish. so, constant conflict is not the

answer. the answer is cooperation. it works better than constant conflict. he says no, it doesn't. , and she says you can say whatever you want, but america is better because we are more diverse, and we are going to the future, so we ought to treat each other with bridges, not walls. and he says i disagree. that is the choice. what does it mean to be an american in the 21st century? and it is profound. that is the reason all of these republican newspapers, and republican national security people -- many of whom probably disagree with her on her economic plans, and her specific social policies say nonetheless, she loves this country, and she is capable of being commander-in-chief, and we do have to have an economy that works for everybody. we are stronger together. [applause]

mr. clinton: so -- [applause] mr. clinton: and it is all coming down, like it normally does, to a handful of places, including ohio. if you carry ohio for hillary, she will be the next president of the united states. [applause] mr. clinton: there is not a chance in the world that is not true. so, i want you not only to vote early -- to take everybody you can -- there is a lot of evidence, by the way, when you get this close to an election, what your families, friends, neighbors say to you is more important than what you see in paid ads. it really matters. i will just give you an example -- i was in destin, florida, the other day. a big republican place. that is where they sent me, where at least these people did well.

this guy comes up in a clinton/gore cap, and i said thanks for being with us back then, and he said i was with her before that. [laughter] suddennton: all of a these people start listening to , him. i said what do you mean, and he said i went to an early childhood conference in the 1980's, and hillary was the best person there, and that i was invited to arkansas to implement your school program. he said she is one of the best, kindest, most able people i've ever known, and it is awful the way they demonize her. they are out there every day, they just get the venom dripped every day. he was pouring out his heart from his personal experience. i tell everybody, there is one thing you need to know about this election. her strongest supporters are the people that have known her the

longest and worked with her the most closely. her second strongest supporters are people who have had dealings with her opponent. [laughter] [applause] mr. clinton: so -- [applause] mr. clinton: every time you see one of her ads and one of his, every time you hear the back-and-forth, you have to put it through that filter. do you want to go back to trickle down economics? that is not the change we need. this is a change election, all right -- the question is are we going to change forward, build on the good things president obama has done, or turn around and go backwards? every time i come to ohio, i think about one good thing he did -- when he got elected, he made it impossible for me to ever have the experience i had with congressman lou stokes. when lou was retiring in

cleveland, i called him and said i want to do something for you , in your district -- you decide. he said let's go to this little grade school where americorps volunteers are helping kids learn to read. so, we did -- we are sitting in this old-fashioned auditorium -- it is like this. all the kids are out here. he speaks, i speak. the americorps kids stand up, everybody claps, and we start shaking hands. we start with the sixth-graders, and we go down to the first graders and kindergartners, and this young, african-american boy looks up to me, and he says are you really the president? i said yes, i am. >> he said but you are not dead yet. until barack obama got elected, a lot of the kids in this country thought the definition of a president was an old, dead white guy -- washington, lincoln, jefferson. he freed me of that. people actually believe me now. [laughter] mr. clinton: we are laughing,

but you do not want to go back to trickle down economics. he says -- her opponent -- all we need to do is cut taxes for millionaires, billionaires, the biggest companies across the board. repeal the health care law. repeal the dodd frank bill, which stops wall street from making main street. all will be well. that does not sound like a new, antiestablishment program to me. she says no, everybody that has gotten the financial benefits since the great crash eight years ago should at least pay their fair share -- a minimum amount. that is their fair share. the so-called buffet rule -- 30% taxes won't kill anybody. and she says let's spend the money to put people to work and

modernizing the american infrastructure, which is roads, bridges, airports, seaports, but also making sure every child in this country has access to affordable broadband so they can do their homework at night. 5 million kids still don't have it. [applause] mr. clinton: also making sure that people that live in areas that do not have a lot of sun and wind can claim the benefits of clean energy. iowa has the cheapest electric rates in america because they have the largest reliance on wind energy. you want to bring more jobs to ohio -- cut the cost of power. we have the biggest market in the world. that is why your manufacturing leaders in congress -- there colleagues, congressman ryan and sherrod brown have endorsed hillary, because they want to work together to bring manufacturing jobs back. but to do it you have to have a modern transmission system to

take the energy where it is efficiently generated, where it is needed. and one of the things we learned in this primary season is a lot , of kids in flint, michigan, have elevated lead levels in their blood as they drank water out of rusty pipes, and people knew it and did not replace it. but we then learned it is nowhere near the only place in america where children have elevated lead levels in their blood because babies were drinking water out of rusty pipes. if you took all the rusty pipes up, gave all of our kids a healthy future without regard to , race or region, you would create a zillion jobs, and every single one would be an american job, and every single one of them would pay more than the national average income. [applause] mr. clinton: now, that will work better. and on the tax deal she said

look, i don't want to charge all businesses more taxes, but if they close a plant that is making money in america to make more money in the short run so rich shareholders can get a tax cut in a year and a day when capital gains kicks in, i do think they have to give back every last red cent they got from the state and local government. i do not think they should be able to bring their products back here. i am not for raising everybody's taxes. i want to lower corporate taxes if they fairly share profits with employees -- if they train employees so they can keep getting better jobs and better incomes. and if they will go into some of these areas that have been left out and left behind, too cold country to the rest of the small , towns in america, to neighborhoods in our cities that have had no new investment. if they do that, i would cut their taxes a lot, because they would be doing what americans should do -- making money by helping other people make money

-- giving other people a chance, other people a chance to start. i have been doing this half my life. this will work better. you do not have to take my word for it. we have been fighting over trickle down economics versus growing out the economy from the middle down and the middle up for 36 years now. had it for many of those years. even the first president bush, who did not believe in it, were forced to follow it by the extreme of their party. so we can keep score -- the eight years i served, the eight years president obama served, and there are 20 -- what is the private sector job score? in their 20 years, 15.8 million jobs. in our 16 years, four years less, even if you count the more than 2 million jobs we lost

right at the beginning of president obama's term that he had nothing to do with -- that crash occurred four months before he took office -- even if you count that, republicans 15.8. our two administrations, more than 32 million jobs. better than two to one. [applause] mr. clinton: that is what is at issue in this campaign. across all the races and every region of america, you cannot afford to go back to trickle-down economics on steroids. small businesses account for two thirds of the jobs. only one candidate has a small business plan -- to get more loans out. to relax the rules not at the top of the pyramid so futures can be gambled away, but at the bottom, so people can make any -- make community loans again. it works, and it is important. i could give you a lot more ideas, but you get the idea. she has an economic program that will work.

we also need to live together. that means we need to treat each other with respect. hillary was the first candidate in either party to have a program to put affordable drug prevention and treatment programs in every county in america that needs it, and this is the first drug epidemic in my lifetime worthy of addiction -- lifetime of where the addiction rates are even higher in small towns and rural america than they are in urban areas. then, she met with the police chiefs of cities that have very good community relations across racial lines, and they were an interesting group. they said look, we do not care about body cameras. have them. and we need more training -- always, we can use it. do it. but what we really need is mental health in every community in america. you don't want people to be killed under pressure, we need more mental health. [applause]

mr. clinton: she is the only person you can vote for who believes being part of a community includes mental health. this is a huge deal. i was in pennsylvania the other day, and the mayor of that city's twin brother is the head of the city council, and it has suffered a lot because they have lost some jobs. i said how did this happen? he said one night a couple of years ago, 3:00 in the morning, i got word my sister had been shot, and we rushed to her, and i held her in my arms, and she said i am not going to make this. you and your brother, you have to save our community.

she was shot by her own child. no mental health coverage. and in honor of their sister, he became the mayor, his brother became the city council chairman, and he said we are going to grow this together. we are going to get out of this, and we are going to have our heads in the right place. we have got to believe we are stronger together. i will never forget that as long as i live. i have a friend -- he was african-american. i have a friend from new hampshire, where there are almost no african-americans, who was the chief justice of the supreme court when his mentally ill son nearly beat him to death. and he said that -- and this guy has been my friend for 25 years. i know him, i know his wife. they are wonderful people.

he said "my son -- i did not know -- i did not even know how to do this." he said i was for you because we were friends, and i agreed with you that i am for her because i know it is a life-and-death matter to get mental health services to every single community in america. [applause] mr. clinton: this has a happy ending. he stayed with his son through his prison term. he made sure he got mental health treatment. the young man has an eight-year-old son now, married to a woman who won an emmy for a documentary. he got his life back because we are stronger together, because we did not give up on people. [applause] mr. clinton: mr. clinton: i am tired of everyone saying america's future is bad. we have at 79 months of job

growth. we have never had that before. there have been trillions of dollars from other countries sent to america because people believe we have the right -- best future. why are we bad mouthing it? we have left too many people behind. let's put them up and go forward together. that is a we have to do. nobody can be invisible to us -- and this is the last thing i want to say. the most important thing for you to do is vote, because if she wins ohio, she will be president. [applause] mr. clinton: the second most important thing to you -- if you get somebody screaming at you, like i did. do not respond in kind. say the difference in our campaign and yours is we want you to go along in our trip to the future because we think we are stronger together, and we need you, and it is not right that you have been left out and left behind, but answers are better than anger, and empowerment is better than resentment. get on the truck, and let's go home. [applause] mr. clinton: let's go.

i was in mayor brown's old town yesterday, and there are a lot of republicans there, too. i did this rally, and when i finished, i win down and shook hands. i always look for the little kid that get squeezed out. there was this young boy looking at me, and he said you know why i'm for hillary, and i said no, but i would like to, and he said because i am autistic, and she won't make fun of me. i said you are pretty smart, too, aren't you, and he said that is what they say, but i have trouble getting along. but he got the message. i said well, you should know that hillary joined with democrats and republicans when she was a senator, in an autism group, and she was the first person to run for president that had a position on this, and the number of children with your