>> you're thinking like a tv produce tler. >> i might ask to borrow the puppet. >> that's a good idea. i like that. >> thanks, my friend. and thanks for joining thus hour. so "the washington post" says hillary clinton was "dominant in last night's first democratic debate. "the new york times" says hillary clinton was commanding in last night's debate. this is the headline at the new yorker today. hillary clinton wins big. "the wall street journal," even as they were trying to come up with a way to criticize hillary clinton, the best they could do today is call her methodical and ruthlessly efficient. clinton crushes it. whether or not you are a supporter of hillary clinton for president of the united states, everybody kind of has to admit she had a great night in last night's first democratic

presidential debate. want to know who else had a great night? bernie sanders. cnn did a focus group right after their own debate last night and a majority of people in the cnn focus group thought that all in all, bernie sanders won that debate. the fusion network did the same thing. and that focus group also thought that bernie sanders won that debate. even fox news did a focus group with democratic voters in florida and they, too, thought that bernie sanders won that debate. the bernie sanders campaign announced they raised nearly $1.4 million last night after the debate ended as donations poured in to support senator sanders. senator sanders was also the most searched candidate on google last night. he was the most discussed candidate on facebook. he was the most tweeted about candidate on twitter. bernie sanders, whether or not you're a supporter of bernie sanders for president of the united states, bernie sanders, you have to admit, had a great night last night in the first democratic presidential debate.

you want to know who else had a great night? this guy who now more americans than ever can confidently say is a man named martin o'malley. last night's first democratic presidential debate was his chance to basically introduce himself to a much larger swath of the american people than could have recognized him before last night. but he did that interduction. it happened in very positive terms. there's no such thing as a complaint about martin o'malley's performance last night in that debate. and most importantly for him, i think it's pretty clear that his performance made him seem more like a bernie sanders and hillary clinton caliber candidate than the kind of guy who ought to be relegated to some republican style kids table with lincoln chafy and jim webb. so martin o'malley last night had a very good night at the

first democratic presidential debate. now, the aforementioned lincoln chafy and jim webb, neither of them had a great night at the debate. although lincoln chafy i think is getting more shade thrown at him for his performance last night than he ought. to but even with lincoln chafy and jim webb having the kind of very quiet night, you might have expected, the big picture of what really happened last night is that three, i guess, main caned candidates on the stage had good nights. 6 it was a great ad for the democratic party. the nation magazine goes further today. joan walsh writing, who run the democratic debate? progressives hands down. she said not only did the democratic party put its best face forward but it turns out best face forward for the democratic party is the liberal

side of the party and, you know that, may or may not be good for any individual candidate on that stage. but it's good for democrats, good for liberals, good overall night. "the new york times" which, of course, is the nation's paper of record that has really interesting relationship to this race because "the new york times" is obviously mostly liberal on their op-ed page. they have this specific thing about this race. in the news pages, "the new york times" has its knifes out for hillary clinton more so than any other mainstream media outlet in the country. so there are very interesting outlet to watch at times like this when democratic politics are popping live. and even with that inclination to look for the worst in hillary clinton in every instance and to advance every negative story line they can get their hands on

whether or not it's come porting with the facts, even though, "the new york times" news coverage of last night's debate was absolutely glowing about hillary clinton's performance. and the op-ed page in the "new york times" was ecstatic about what the democrats showed off collectively in this performance. they titled the op-ed "the grown-ups take the stage." for those zparg about the future of american politics, here was proof that it doesn't have to revolve around candidates who pride themselves on knowing nothing or on believing that governing is all about destroying government." referring, obviously, to the republican candidates for president there. "new york times" continues in the editorial today, civility was a big winner. the discussion of real issues. so it was a really good night for democrats. and democrats and liberal minded media outlets and folk who's watched it and observers of politics right now are psyched about it. and you know what? in life and in politics, if you're going have a great night if, you're going to look your best, if you're going to surprise and delight the people who know you best with how much of your best you put out there

to the world, if you're going to have a night like that, the only thing you might also wish for in that great circumstance would be that everybody happened to be looking at you when you had that great moment. when you have that great night. and last night it turns out everybody was looking. if you're looking for a historical comparison of a previous presidential campaign, you can't look at 2012. that was the incumbent democratic president running for re-election. there is no comparison there for this year. the last contest we can compare to this year's election was the blockbuster democratic primary in 2007 and 2008 between hillary clinton and barack obama and lots of other compelling democrats besides. that's the point of comparison. that's the historically compelling recent democratic presidential primary. so for comparison's sake, at this point in that stunning race in 2007-2008, there were a lot

of televised democratic debates. and in part, there were a lot of them because they got huge audiences every time they were on tv. they got 2.8 million people watching in august. 2 about the 2 million people watching in in september, 2.5 million people watching in november. these were just huge audiences for the democratic primary debates. but the biggest audience that year by far was for the final democratic debate which happened really late. happened at the very end of the contest in april in philadelphia. it was on abc. and this was, again this was very late in the process. this was after super tuesday and everything. and nobody, still, that late in the process had, any idea if barack obama was going to win or hillary clinton was ultimately going to win the nomination. so this was the last big head-to-head brawl in that incredible race. unsurprisingly, that last democratic debate in 2008, it broke all records. 10.7 million people ended up watching that last democratic debate.

nearly 11 million people. well last night crushed that. last night over 15 million people watched the debate. and i can't give you anything official. i can tell you anecdoally as a person who works in the tv business and talks to other people in the tv business, i can tell you that the estimates within our industry about what kind of an audience was going to turn out for that debate last night was nowhere near 15 million people. it wasn't half 15 million people. but, surprise. turns out that people care. and people want to watch this stuff. and, no, there are not 17 different democrats running like there are republicans this year. and there's no crazy donald trump character running on the democratic side. and so the republican audience for their two debates so far, their audiences were bigger than what happened last night. but what happened last night went way beyond the wildest expectations for interest in the democrats.

and if you are sympathetic to the democratic cause and you want to put a cherry on that sundae from last night, it probably has to be this moment. biggest take away moment from the night. the one moment that will be remembered even if nothing is, turns out it wasn't one of the moments when one of the can candidates hits another candidate brutally hard or some terrible gotcha moment from the moderator. this wasn't one of the moments when one candidate is remembered forever for having terribly embarrassingly screwed something up on stage. no, it turns out from this debate, the blockbuster moment, the moment that brought the whole crowd to its feet in that auditorium in las vegas, it was a moment at which one of the leading candidates expressed basically kindness toward one of i had rivals. it was the opposite of an attack. it was a gesture of democratic support and unity against not only the republicans but also against the media and how this campaign has been covered so far.

this was the big moment of the debate. i want -- you probably seen this today. i want to play a long cut of this because i know if you've seen anything about the debate either last night when it was live or today in the recaps, i know you have seen how this ends. i think it's also important to see how this thins, to see how this windup goes here. which makes it all the more impressive and amazing to see the way it ended. >> this committee has spend $4.5 million of taxpayer money and they said that they were trying to figure out what we could do better to protect our diplomats so that something like benghazi wouldn't happen again. there railroad already seven committee reports about what to do. so i think it's pretty clear what their obvious goal is. but i'll be there. i'll answer their questions. but to night i want to talk not about my e-mails but about what the american people want from the next president of the united states. >> let me say this. let me say something that may not be great politics.

but i think the secretary is right. and that is that the american people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails. >> thank you. me, too. me, too. >> the middle class -- an let me say something about the media as well. i go around the country. i talk to a lot of people. middle class in this country is collapsing. we have 27 million people living in poverty. we have massive wealth and income and inequality. the trade policies cost us millions of decent jobs. the american people want to know if we're going to a democracy. enough of the e-mails. let's talk about the real issues facing america. >> thank you, bernie. thank you. >> i love that he started that by saying, let me say something that may not be great politics.

maybe bernie sand serz redefining what great politics is. i mean, senator sanders, if you know anything about the trajectory of his career, you know two things, number one, entirely consistent on every major policy issue throughout his career the number one. number, two he's never been a negative campaigner in his life in any of the campaigns at any level of government. he doesn't personally attack people. he doesn't go negative. he just doesn't. and if you know that about him, maybe it should not come as a shock for him to neighboring defense of hillary clinton last night, for him to interject into that discussion in which he was not involved to say i want in on this. i want to be on record here saying this is not a scandal. people are tired of it. and he's basically saying i'm not going to participate in the way the media is treating this issue. i think we should interrupt this trajectory. and it maybe shouldn't have been a surprise that he did. that it was. and for a moment like that to be senator sanders' big funneled fund-raising moment after this debate is remarkable. but that is the moment that his campaign is fund-raising on

since the debate ended last night and all through today. of course, the clinton campaign has been reveling in it. right, they're finally get something support on what they have been saying about this issue for weeks and months now even as the media refuses to move on. if you're looking for a contrast between the two parties, here's the democrats getting their biggest cheers, their biggest reaction, their biggest take away moment that's good for both candidates involved and it's on the occasion of two candidates standing together. in contrast, the republicans have just had two debates and which they showed off to the country was candidates literally calling people stupid and making fun of each other's looks. so yeah. democrats are psyched about last night's debate. it did not got way people expected it to on a million different levels. democrats are psyched to have shown off the candidates, differences with the republican party and very psyched to have done it before an unimaginebly huge audience of 15 million people.

it was a good night for the republican party overall. great night for most of the democratic candidates up there on that stage. but -- we did learn one really specific, really important thing last night about what will change in washington if we do elect a democratic president to succeed president obama. we learned one really important thing last night that will be really different about his presidency from a democratic presidency that might come next. i'm not sure anybody else has picked up on this yet. it was a quick moment in the debate. i think it is a doozy. and that's next.

one question asked at last night's debate that i thought was the most important i sight we have yet had about how the next president will govern if that president is a democrat. and it turns out we should expect things to be really different from what we're getting from president obama.

this was a quick moment in last night's debate. i think it was crucial and totally illuminating and that's next. alright, be alert here. peyton! i needed this big screen to show you the big toppings on the new monster toppings pizza. they're big, aren't they? yeah they're huge. but really? now? is this really happening? up your game with our new monster toppings pizza 33% larger than our large with monster-sized pepperoni

and italian sausage, just $12. add garlic or cinnamon knots for $5 more. better ingredients. better pizza. better football. at the new papa johns.com htake care of what makes you,e. you. right down to your skin. aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion with 5 vital nutrients for healthier looking skin in just one day. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results® the other night during the state of the union speech, the president called out congress for bad behavior and for our poison political era. he included his own mistakes and promised to talk to the other side. well, today he went to the other side. a meeting of republicans televised live where he took their questions and defended his own position and no one who was watching had ever seen anything like it before. it was unusual enough. >> into the heart of the

opposition, the president traveled today to baltimore for the house republicans annual meeting, anxious to show the country he's serious about bipartisanship. >> i don't believe that american people want us to focus on our job security. they want us to focus on their job security. >> taking questions perfect republican members of congress for more than an hour -- >> i'm not an idealogue. i'm not. >> president obama right after his first state of the union address. he had been in office about a year. trying to bridge the gap with republicans in washington. last night's democratic presidential debate, none of the candidates on that stage criticized president obama. they took pains to praise limb and talk about how they have worked with him and how much they respect him as a person and as a president. i mean some republican candidates now take shots at george w. bush. no democrats take shots at president obama. but there is a thing about the obama presidency that at least

one major candidate is now signalling, will not happen again if democrats win another shot at the white house to succeed him. and it has to do with republicans. it has to do specifically with this president's view of who republicans are and what they want and how republicans should be treated by democrats. the last time -- okay, let's be honest -- the only time i interviewed mr. obama when he was the democratic nominee for president, that issue of how he feels about republicans ended up being a focus of our discussion and it has stuck with me ever since. watch this. senator, you criticized the bush administration frequently. but you almost never criticize the republican party itself. other democrats -- >> much to your chagrin. >> well yeah, actually. other democrats you hear them talk about the gop as the party that's been wrong on all the big stuff. creating social security, civil rights, war in iraq. you don't do that.

do you think there is a stark difference between the parties? >> i think there's a difference between the parties. but here's my belief. i'm talking to voters. i think there are a lot of republican voters out there, self-identified, who actually think that what the bush administration has done has been damaging to the country and what i'm interested in is how do we build a working majority for change? and if i start off with the premise that it's only self-identified democrats who i'm speaking to, then i'm not going to get to where we need to go. if i can describe it as not a blanket indictment of the republican party but instead describe it as the republican party having been kidnapped by a incompetent highly ideological subset of the republican party, then that means that i can still reach out to a whole bunch of republican moderates who are hungry for change. >> they did not see you the same way when john mccain calls you a socialist, redistribute the wealth idea.

he calls you soft on social security. that is not an anti-obama script. he is reading from an anti-democrat and anti-liberal script. >> absolutely. >> so you have the opportunity to say john mccain, george bush, you are wrong. you also have the opportunity to say conservatism has been bad for america. but you haven't gone there either. >> yeah. i tell you what. you notice i think we're rinning right now. so maybe i'm doing something right. i know you've been bruising, you know, cruising for a bruisin' for a while looking for a fight out. there i just think people are tired of that kind of back and forth. >> for the record, i'm against bruising. but i've always felt like that was a really important thing to know about barack obama the candidate and how he tried to win and then ultimately how he won the presidency and ended up being really important part of how he approached governing as well once he got into office. even when he was in the transition period as president-elect, he was reaching

out to republicans for advice. when conservative senator joe lieberman bailed on the democratic party and instead endorsed john mccain against barack obama, president-elect barack obama told democrats in the senate to not retaliate against joe lieberman. to let that slide. when republicans started calling the new president name and lining up against everything did he in the first year in office, president obama did go to the republican retreat to try to reason with them. he took direct questions and talked things through with them for an hour and a half on their turf. he tried and tried and tried and he tried because he really sincerely believed that republicans would work with him. and could work with him to do constructive things for the country if he just gave them enough space and enough time and enough decent encouragement to do so. and -- well, barack obama has a consequential and i think a very successful president of the united states.

but that whole first term phenomenon of him waiting for republicans to work with him, it is what gave rise to some of the biggest disappointments of his presidency. in the first sumner office, 2009. democrats hold commanding majorities in the house and senate. nancy pelosi and the house has this strong progressive health reform bill n the senate, they could just pass that. but republicans say, no, they want to be in on it, too. they didn't really. they were taking advantage of the new president wanting to work with republicans and so they used that to stretch out these fake bad faith negotiations for months and months and months and months just as a way of trying to kill health reform altogether. the result was a seriously weakened bill that could barely pass at the last moment and that took all the political capital in washington and then some to drag that thing across the finish line. could have been passed months earlier. they could have passed a fast good bill without the republicans.

could have saved all the drama. they never got any republican votes in the end anyway. but, no. they were trying for republicans and it made everything that much harder. then it was the fiscal commission which was going to take on big structural fiscal issues, remember? and the democrats didn't really want president obama to do. that he said he would do it anyway because he was sure the republicans would be willing to work constructively on this issue. months spent, tons of political capital wasted it turns out. it turns out that republicans were not actually willing to be constructive on that issue after all. >> this law failed by seven votes. when seven republicans who had co-sponsored the bill had co-sponsored the idea, suddenly walked away from their own proposal after i endorsed it. so they make a proposal, sign on to the bill. i say great, good idea. i turn around -- they're gone.

what happened? >> this happened to president obama time and time again in the first term. the things he wanted to get done in washington that he couldn't get done, time and time again, was because he believed republicans wanted to work with him on these things. but they really, really truly, truly did not. >> i genuinely believe that speaker boehner and a number of house republicans, folks like paul ryan really do want to get a serious immigration reform bill done. >> no, they do not. they don't want to get an immigration reform bill done. and it was good electoral politics for candidate barack obama to pledge to work with republicans and to refuse to criticize republicans as a group. it really helped his electoral chances. he did win because he would described republicans or conservatives as somehow unreasonable, unwilling to work constructively to better the country.

he would never describe them as anadversary. it turns out, they're an unreasonable adversary. they have have been throughout his presidency. to the point of disowning their own policies when president obama got too close to adopting them. i mean they are really, really not interested in being friends or colleagues with him as a democratic president. they want to do nothing with him. and if he wants to do something by definition, that means they don't want to do it. they see him as an enemy. they treat him as an enemy. and it turns out the person most likely to be nominated by the democratic party to succeed president obama president obama, she thinks of them as the enemy, too. >> governor chafee, franklin roosevelt said i ask you to judge me by the enemies i made. which enemy are you most proud snf. >> i guess the coal lobby. i want to work with the coal lobby.

but in my time in the senate, tried to bring them to the table so we could address carbon dioxide. i'm proud to be at odds with the coal lobby. >> governor o'malley? >> the national rifle association. >> secretary clinton? >> well, in addition to the nra, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the iranians, probably the republicans. >> the republicans. big smile. badge of honor to have the republicans as an enemy. this is a stark and important contrast with the way that our current president talks about republicans. and however you feel about the similarities and differences in the policy positions, this is a really stark signal about a very different approach to government. >> if you look at the republicans versus the democrats

whether it comes to economic policy, there is no comparison. >> thank you. >> the economy does better when you have a democrat in the white house and that's why we need to have a democrat in the white house in january 2017. there is such a difference between everything you're hearing here on this stage and what we hear from the republicans who have -- it's always the republicans or their sympathizers who say you can't have paid leave. you can't provide health care. they don't mind having big government to interfere with a woman's right to choose and to try to take down planned parenthood. they're fine with big government when it comes to that. i'm sick of it! you know, we can do these things. we should not be paralyzed. we should not be paralyzed by the republicans and their constant refrain big government this and that except for what they want to impose on the american people. i know we can afford it because we're going to make the wealthy pay for it. that is the way to get it done. i certainly am not campaigning to become president because my last name is clinton.

i'm campaigning because i think i have the right combination of what the country needs at this point and i think i can take the fight to the republicans because we cannot afford a republican to succeed barack obama as president of the united states. >> this is not the same approach to republicans that was taken by candidate barack obama or president barack obama. so now this is an interesting thing to move forward with, right? is there anything about presidential history that tells fuss this is likely to work as a campaign tactic? is there a chance it will scare people to hear this kind of rhetoric about the fight that needs to happen and that needs to be won? is it likely to work as a governing principle? is it likely to scare people and likely to work as a governing principle? is it all of the above? i don't know. it's going to be a big change. watch this space. does your makeup remover take it all off? every kiss-proof, cry-proof, stay-proof look? neutrogena® makeup remover does.

it erases 99% of your most stubborn makeup with one towelette. need any more proof than that? neutrogena.

republican presidential candidate jeb bush said last year when deciding whether or not to run for president he would not get in the race unless he could run joyfully. i can be a joyful candidate? jeb bush does not appear to be running with a whole lot of joy in his heart now that he's sitting at single digits in the polls. there is one republican candidate that makes him look happy in contrast, a man enjoying himself less than jeb bush and doing so in a really exhibitionist way and that story is ahead tonight with lots more. stay ahead.

everythieven the pizza.the nfl, get the new monster toppings pizza, just $12. and don't forget the pepsi. add knots for $5 more. better ingredients. better pizza. better football. papa john's. in february of this year a man named randy fitswater and his wife were at home in west virginia just outside charleston

when they looked out their window and they saw this. he said the noise was so loud and the explosion was so big he was sure a full size jet line her crashed into the ground across the river from their house. he learned whether they got through to 911 that it had actually been a train derailment, an oil train derailment. a train with 107 tanker cars carrying crude oil had been flung off the tracks, 27 cars rerailed, 15 ruptured. only one person was injured in that huge explosion but 1,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes for days while that oil train fire burned itself out. the fire was too big and too hot to put out for days. they had to let it burn. that oil train derailment in west virginia was the latest a string of disasters like that across the country. a string of oil train apocalyptic crashes led the federal government to crackdown on things like oil train speed and beefed up standards for the tanker cars transporting the oil.

but this crash in west virginia turns out this was not about speed or the rail cars. turns out this one was caused by something more galling. the federal railroad administration released the findings of their investigation into that mt. carbon, west virginia derailment. and what they found was that what happened there was caused by the railroad tracks. it wasn't some mysterious problem. it wasn't some unforeseeable freak thing. it was something the railroad knew about. csx owns the tracks. they hired a contractor to inspect the raldz. the good news, i guess, is that contractor did detect something being wrong in the rails there. twice. not once but twice that contractor detected a flaw in the rail in the specific spot where that derailment happened. the contractor hired to inspect the rails said she did see a problem during an inspection in december last year then they saw it in the same spot again a month later in january of this year. oh, good. you can see the problem.

except in both instances, even though the inspector noticed there was something wrong, the inspector never got out of his vehicle to check it out. he decided to let it slide without any further investigation. and then one month later at that exact spot on the tracks -- boom. the exact same place where it -- oh, it looked like there was a fault here. probably some trouble. there following month, jae, probably trouble. there but nothing worth doing anything about. that exact same place. boom. so federal officials just went to mt. carbon to announce their findings, announce that essentially this was incompetence that caused this disaster. and a statement responding to the rail agency's findings, csx said they fully complied with all regulations. the committee is committed to continuously improving our ability to detect and correct rail defects before they can cause an incident. but in mt. carbon, the feds said if this is how the company's in charge are going to handle the

task of keeping oil trains from blowing up, well then maybe the companies can't be trusted to handle this all on their own. so the feds have now announced in the wake of this debacle, there will be new rules. whether conservatives complain about regulations, this is what they're complaining about. this is what they hate. but this is kind of the reason that we have regulations. federal railroad administrator sarah fineberg said what this broken rail incident shows us is that we need to insert ourselves and put some pretty high standards in place. standards don't even need to be that high. if you detect a problem on the tracks, maybe get out of your cab and look at it! i mean this really was just simple negligence and incompetence but it resulted in a firestorm that burned for four days. they will issue a safety advisory now and doing better inspections and stronger training and may change how they replace rails after which will are progress and good things.

but here's the amazing part of the story. for having not fixed this flawed rail, for having detected that flaw twice and ignored it for having caused through negligence a giant fireball and evacuation of 1,000 people, for all that, under the old rules they were operating, csx and the contractor were both fined in this case. a grand total of $25,000. $25,000 which at least csx will presumably find in a couch cushion at company headquarters. it has been a really heartening development that federal government is getting tougher with companies that operate the bomb trains, the ones bringing fireballs to a town near you. but for a crash like this one caused by negligence like this stays at something like $25,000, prepare for more really terrible fireworks all year long.

we now know that this gigantic oil train explosion was caused by a defect on the tracks. specifically a broken rail that had been detected twice by a contractor hired by the rail company but even though it was detected twice it was never fixed. and then it caused this terrible accident in this terrible xbloegs. we know this thanks to an investigation by the federal railroad administration. joining us now is sarah fineberg, the acting administrator. great to you have here. thanks for being here. >> thank you for having me. good to see you. >> let me ask you first about the fine in this case. is it true that company in charge of the tracks and the contractor in charge of checking them, they only got fined $25,000 for this disaster? >> that's right. $25,000 each. that's actually the limit of our statutory authority for failure to identify and mitigate a defect like this. >> and as you're taking these new steps to try to improve track safety, you're taking multiple steps to make oil trains a safer thing, specifically looking at the

track safety improvements, is that potential fine, are those potential penalties also going to go up? is that even under consideration? >> well, the congress would probably have to step in on that. but what we've said is we have a zero tolerance policy for these crude routes. so whether it's track, whether it's the way you are operating the train, we're taking everything that could happen on these crude routes incredibly seriously. in this case, as you said, we're putting out a safety advisory urging railroads to do closer inspections. if there's evidence or indication of a defect or a flaw, they need to be getting out of vehicle and doing a hand inspection. we've also urged better training for the inspectors who would be detecting the flaws. we've taken, you know, more than two dozen actions at this point to improve safety on these krut crude routes. this was one accident and one investigation but we'll justin to do more as we go along. >> is what's happening overall here, this is not first conversation we've had about oil train safety and not first time

we've covered it. and it's a concern to so many communities aren't country whether or not they're anywhere near oiled fields because so many towns have oil trains rumbling through, past schools and main streets. >> right. >> is what's happening here that we're getting a slight reorientation in terms of who is responsible for safety, it fields like the companies that make money off shipping the stuff have been in charge of voluntarilily keeping this stuff safe in the past but your federal government is now increasingly stepping in so say you're not doing enough on your own. we have to make you do it. >> we're certainly being very aggressive. you know, moving this kind of quantity of crude across the country is a relatively new phenomenon. it was with the discovery of the buck in crude and moving it to the coast from north dakota that we so massively increased the quantity that was moving. so i wouldn't go so far as to say the railroads have been regulating themselves. we've been on the field for a

long time. but we are being incredibly aggressive to make sure we're doing everything it we can to keep all of the communities safe. >> is our infrastructure around this issue, our infrastructure around rail, is it safe enough, modern enough, upgraded enough to sustain the level of oil train traffic, so-called bomb trains? is our infrastructure good enough to sustain as much traffic as we got or do we actually need in order to be safe a big overhaul of this rail infrastructure that we got all over the country? >> well, look, i think anyone who didn't argue that we need to overhaul our infrastructure across the country not just rail but every form of infrastructure would be crazy. we clearly need a huge infrastructure package and we need a big bill to move throughout congress n term of rail specifically, the railroads are responsible for that rail infrastructure. in fact, they're investing billions of dollars every year. it is enough?

you know, it depends on the amount of tonnage that is moving. it depends on the kind of track and what kind of product you're moving on it. but they certainly need to be doing more and we'll be urging them to do more. >> sarah fineberg, acting administrator of the federal railroad administration. really appreciate you being here tonight. thank you. >> great to be with you. >> we have these esoteric fights about regulation and the role of government and whether or not business needs to be free to use the invisible hand of capitalism to make everything safe and fine. somebody like the federal railroad administration is the sharpened of the stick in terms of finding out what need to be done by government because it won't be done by industry. there is the stuff it come dn to in real life, real safety, real people's back yards. we'll be right back. you get used to sweaty odors in your car

you think it smells fine, but your passengers smell this... eliminate odors you've gone noseblind to for up to 30 days with the febreze car vent clip break out the febreze, and [inhale/exhale mnemonic] breathe happy.

we have these about it but this is the stuff that it come downes to in real life, in real safety, we have an update on our earlier story about how much money senator bernie sanders has raised since last night's democratic debate. s from the senator himself in los angeles tonight. >> just as the results of last night's debate, i am told that we have raised $2 million. [ cheers and applause ] >> $2 million since last night's debate. the campaign says in contributions of roughly 30 bucks or so on average. at the top of the show this hour we knew it was $1.4 million raised since the debate. now senator sanders says it's not $1.4 million, it 's $250 million.

it's no wonder -- $2 million. no wonder he sounds so happy but also he looks very happy. this is senator bernie sanders backstage at the ellen show for an appearance with ellen degeneres that will air tomorrow. the show posted this bout sound and music but with this much happy maybe no sound track required. we take away your stuffy nose. you keep the peace. we calm your congestion and pain. you rally the team. we give you relief from your cough. you give them a case of the giggles. tylenol® cold helps relieve even your worst cold & flu symptoms. so you can give them everything you've got. tylenol®

everythieven the pizza.the nfl, get the new monster toppings pizza, just $12. and don't forget the pepsi. add knots for $5 more. better ingredients. better pizza. better football. papa john's.

so don't trust your smile to any regular toothpaste. improved crest 3d white brilliance removes 5 times more stains than the red box. try the whole collection for a smile that gets you noticed. the more i see of washington, the more unhappy i am of how things are dysfunctional and don't work. i'm a huge proponent of term limits. i would throw everybody out, myself included. i'm serious. >> "i would throw everybody out, myself included." senator rand paul of kentucky hates being a senator and he wants to throw himself out of that job, which is a strange way to campaign to hold on to that job. >> you know what you have now? you have a minuscule, a tiny,

tiny impotent and inconsequential congress and i'm embarrassed that i'm even part of it. we observe nothing. we do nothing. >> so send me back! [ laughter ] rand paul is simultaneously running for president and running for reelection to the senate. part of the pressure on him from republicans to drop the presidential bid and focus on the senate is because he's been campaigning for president in part by talking about how much he hates his senate job. and that's an awkward way to keep that job. senator paul to be fair has bad numbers which make that race look like a waste of time and money and effort. he gets 3% nationwide in the latest fox poll, 1% in connecticut and 1% in pennsylvania and polls that just came out in those two states he's at 2% in nevada. 4% in south carolina which counts as a boon for him. 4% is above his average these days. is those bad numbers are part of

the reason that some republicans are pushing him to give up on the presidential bid, focus on the senate reelection effort instead. he is still in both races, though. and yesterday as the criminal trial started in iowa over the bribery scandal in his dad's last presidential campaign, this is the case where the head of one of rand paul's super pacs had to resign from the super pac in order to face these federal charges, yesterday rand paul decided to maybe distract from all that a little bit by mounting a rand paul presidential campaign stunt in which he live streamed a day on the presidential campaign trail with rand paul. and it turns out, that is kind of a small, sad place to be. >> joe banana tweets "talk about hair style. rand, that looks like a bucket of french grease on his head." now that is mean and i want to see your hair, joe, if you've got any." another tweet "rand paul's hair

looks like ramen noodles." hmm. i guess that's an insult and i'll just accept it. oh, gosh, donald trump -- who put donald trump in this thing? donald trump tweets "watching rand paul for the entire day? i would sail that would be one of the lowest-ranked shows in history." well, we'll just see, won't we, donald? >> senator rand paul reading mean tweets during the miserable live stream of his presidential campaign day yesterday. and partly it was miserable because he seems miserable. partly it was miserable because, as his day was streamed on a web site called ustream, it emerged that after a full day of behind-the-scenes access, he still has only 148 total followers on ustream. but mostly it was miserable because this kind of just is what misery looks like, i'm guessing, from a candidate. and fair warning, there is a little swear here.

>> they also tell me because i'm just doing what i'm told riding around iowa looking at corn fields and answering silly questions that i'm now supposed to answer the top googled questions about me. the first question is how tall is rand paul? and it's 5'8", but i look a lot taller on tv. the next question is how old is rand paul? the answer -- the real answer i guess is 52, but i sometimes feel about 10 to 20 to maybe 30 to 40 to 50 years older after a day of this. the third question, most popular question from google is "is rand paul still running for president?" and i don't know, i wouldn't be doing this dumb ass live streaming if i weren't so yes i still am running for president. get over it. "where's rand paul in the polls." this is not live? we can't edit this, right? >> no, this is live, we all heard you just say you feel like you're 102 when you're doing this with your life these days.

this is your life, senator, we can all see you. honestly though we're starting to feel bad about it at a human level. that does it for us tonight. at level. "first look" is up next. it's thursday, october 15th. right now on "first look," with his estranged wife at his bedside former two-time nba champion lamar odom may have suffered brain damage as he fights for his life at a las vegas hospital. fresh off her debate performance hillary clinton gains a key union endorsement while donald trump responds in force by hitting the airwaves along with his children. dozens killed in the past week as israelis and palestinians clash in the most violent confrontations in years. and a geopolitical game of chess between russia gets more complicated. a homeland security computer glitch backs up travelers and champions of the hard courts and