office as to how much help they continue to need because it's not just the taliban. we now are seeing outposts of fighters claiming to be affiliated with isis, so we've got this arc of instability from north africa to south asia, and with he have to pay close attention to it, and we have to build coalitions, something that i did to take on the iranian nuclear program and what i will do as president to make sure that we defeat these terrorist networks. >> senator sanders, nobody knows who your foreign policy advisers are. you haven't given a major foreign policy speech and it doesn't sound all the time that foreign policy is a priority. when you're asked about it you say you're going to crush isis as you said last night and earlier. you have not proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine yet, why? >> that's not quite accurate. i did give a speech at georgetown where i talked about democratic socialism and foreign policy. maybe i shouldn't have combined the two in the same speech because the foreign policy part of it didn't get much attention so let me take this opportunity

to give you a very short speech here. >> sure. >> on the issue. i think while it is true that the secretary and i voted differently on the war in iraq, what is important is that we learn the lesson of the war in iraq, and that lesson is intrinsic to my foreign policy if elected president is the united states cannot do it alone. we cannot be the policemen of the world. we are now spending more, i believe, than the next eight countries on the fence. we have got to work in strong coalition with the major powers of the world and with those muslim countries that are prepared to stand up and take on terrorism. so i would say that the key doctrine of the sanders administration would be, no, we cannot continue to do it alone. we need to work in coalition. >> secretary -- >> if i could just add -- >> 30 seconds, please.

[ applause ] >> a group of national security experts, military intelligence experts, issued a very concerning statement about senator sanders' views on foreign policy and national security pointing out some of the comments he has made on these issues such as inviting iranian troops into syria to try to resolve the conflict there, putting them right on the doorstep of israel, asking saudi arabia and iran to work together when they can't stand each other and are engaged in a proxy battle right at this moment. so i do think questions have been raised and questions have to be answered because when new hampshire voters go on tuesday to cast your vote, you are voting both for a president and a commander in chief, and there is no way to predict what comes in the door of that white house from day to day that can pose a threat to the united states or one of our friends and allies, and i think this is a big part

of the job interview that we are all conducting with the voters here. >> senator, 30 seconds. [ applause ] >> i fully, fully concede that secretary clinton, who was secretary of state for four years, has more experience. that is not arguable in foreign affairs, but experience is not the only point. judgment is, and once again back in 2002 when we both looked at the same evidence about the wisdom of the war in iraq, one of us voted the right way, and one of us didn't. in terms of iran and in terms of saudi arabia, of course they hate each other. that's no great secret, but john kerry, who is i think doing a very good job, has tried to at least get these people in the room together because both of them are being threatened by isis -- >> well, let me just add that,

you know, i have said this before and i'm very proud of it, that when it comes to judgment, having run a hard race against senator obama at the time, he turned to me to be secretary of state, and when it comes to the biggest counterterrorism issues that we faced in this administration, namely whether or not to go after bin laden, i was at that table. i was exercising my judgment to advise the president what to do. on that, on iran, on russia, on china, on a whole raft of issues because i know from my own experience that you've got to be ready on day one. there is just too much unpredictable threat and danger in the world today, you know, to try to just say, wait, i'll get to that when i can. that is just not an acceptable -- >> secretary clinton, at the last democratic debate in charleston, i want to get specific here, senator sanders called for moving as gr aggressively as we can to normalize relations with iran.

your campaign has criticized him for saying that. can you explain why the u.s. shouldn't try to normalize relations with iran in your view? >> absolutely. i did put together the coalition to impose sanctions. i actually started the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement sending some of my closest aides to begin the conversations with the iranians. i'm very pleased we got that nuclear agreement. it puts a lid on the nuclear weapons program. we have to enforce it. there have to be consequences attached to it, but that is not our only problem with iran. we have to figure out how to deal with iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world. they are destabilizing governments in the region. they continue to support hezbollah and hamas in lebanon against israel. a lot of the work that we have to do is going to be incredibly hard. i'm prepared to do that work,

but i believe, just as i did with imposing the sanctions, you have to get action for action. if we were to normalize relations right now, we would remove one of the biggest pieces of leverage we have to try to influence and change iranian behavior. the president doesn't think we should, i certainly don't think we should. i believe we have to take this step by step to try to rein in iranian aggression, their support for terrorism, and the other bad behavior that can come back and haunt us. >> who said i think we should normalize relations with iran tomorrow? i never said that. i think we should move forwards a quickly as we can, and you're right, they are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that but, you know, a number of years ago people were saying normal relationship with cuba? what a bad and silly idea. they're communists, they are our enemy. well, guess what? change has come. so please don't suggest that i think we normalize relations with tehran tomorrow.

we don't, but i would like to see us move forward and hopefully some day that will happen and i would say if i might, madam secretary, and you can correct me if i'm wrong, when you ran against senator obama, you thought him naive, naive because he thought it was a good idea to talk to our enemies. i think those are exactly the people you have to talk to and you have to negotiate with. >> well, senator, let me just correct the record if i can, let me correct the record. >> 30 seconds, madam secretary. >> as i certainly recall, the question was to meet with without conditions, and you're right, i was against that. i was against it then, i would be against it now. >> okay. >> part of diplomacy, the hard work of diplomacy, is trying to extract whatever concessions you can get in giving something the other side wants. of course you've got to try to make peace with and work with those who are your adversaries, but you don't just rush in, open

the door, and say, here i am, let's talk and make a deal. that's not the way it works. >> i think president obama had the right idea, and the bottom line is that, of course, there have to be conditions. but, of course, it doesn't do us any good to not talk with our adversarie adversaries. >> we set the conditions on iran, we worked hard to get them established and enforced, and then we talked. that's the right sequence and that's what i did with the president, so he and i were on the very same page. >> just to set the record straight, i very strongly supported the agreement which makes certain that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. >> as commander in chief, senator sanders, you have got to prioritize potential threats to the united states. three countries, north korea, iran, russia, how would you rank them in order as to threat to -- >> isis, you forgot one. >> i'm talking about these three

countries. how would you orient our national security -- our national defense posture -- >> clearly north korea is a very strange situation because it is such an isolated country run by a handful of dictators or maybe just one who seems to be somewhat paranoid and who has nuclear weapons, and our goal there in my view is to work and lean strongly on china to put as much pressure. china is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for north korea, and i think we have to do everything we can to put pressure on china, so i worry very much about an isolated, paranoid country with atomic bombs. i think clearly we have got to work closely with china to resolve the serious problems we have, and i worry about putin and his military adventurism in the crimea and ukraine.

>> secretary of defense ash carter this week picked one of those three, and he said russia was basically the most important national security threat, so reorienting the defense and the challenges to that. do you agree with his decision? >> no, i don't. i worry very, very much about an isolated country. that's what makes me nervous. russia lives in the world. china lives in the world. north korea is a very, very strange country because it is so isolated, and i do feel that a nation with nuclear weapons, they have got to be dealt with and dealt with effectively. >> secretary clinton, what do you think of secretary of defense ash carter? he's basically putting russia above iran, above north korea as the chief national security challenge right now. >> i haven't talked to secretary carter but here is what i think he's planning. we have a nuclear agreement with

iran, that's an action for action follow on. we have a plan, we will watch them, they will be vigilant. we do have to worry about north korea. they continue to develop their nuclear weapons capability and they are working very hard on their ballistic missile capability, and i know that some of those plans could very well lead to a missile that might reach hawaii, if not the west coast, and we do have to try to get the countries in the region to work with us to do everything we can to confine and constrain them, but what secretary carter is looking at is the constant pressure that russia is putting on our european allies. the way that russia is trying to move the boundaries of the post-world war ii europe, the way he is trying to set european countries against one another, seizing territory, holding it in crimea, beginning to explore whether they could make some inroads in the baltics. we know that they are deeply engaged in supporting assad

because they want to have a place in the middle east. they have a naval base, they have an air base in syria. they want to hang onto that. and i think what secretary carter is seeing, and i'm glad he is, is that we've got to get nato back working for the common defense. we've got to do more to support our partners in nato, and we have to send a very clear message to putin that this kind of belligerence, this kind of testing of boundaries will have to be responded to, and the best way to do that is put more armor in, put more money from the europeans in so they're actually contributing more to their own defense. >> thank you both. rachel. >> secretary clinton, i want to ask you about a national security issue closer to home. there are over 100,000 veterans living in the state of new hampshire. if either one of you are nominated, you will likely face a republican opponent in the general election who wants to privatize or even abolish big

parts of the va. it's a newly popular idea in conservative politics. how will you win the argument on that issue given the problems that have been exposed at the va in the last few years? what's your argument that the va should still exist and should not be privatized? >> well, first of all, i am absolutely against privatizing the va, and i am going to do everything i can to build on the reforms that senator sanders and others in congress have passed to try to fix what's wrong with the va. there are a lot of issues about wait times and services that have to be fixed because our veterans deserve nothing but the best, but you're absolutely right, you know, rachel, this is another part of the koch brothers' agenda. they have actually formed an organization to try to begin to convince americans we should no longer have guaranteed health care, specialized care for our veterans. i will fight that as hard as i can.

i think there is where we can enlist the veterans service organizations, the veterans of america, because, yes, let's fix the va, but we will never let it be privatized. >> good. >> and that is a promise. >> senator sanders, you are the congressional leader on veterans issues. you have worked in a bipartisan way with senator john mccain and others on veterans issues. is that the right contour of the fight? >> as the secretary knows, i had the privilege and the honor of chairing the senate committee on veterans affairs, and it is interesting to me, you know, republicans give a lot of speeches about how much they love veterans. i work with the american legion, the vfw, the dav, the vietnam vets and virtually every veterans organization to put together the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation in the modern history of america. that's what i did, and i brought it to the snoor of the senate.

every democrat voted for it. i got two republicans. we ended up with 56 votes and i couldn't get the 60 votes i needed. that is pathetic. this was legislation supported by all of the veterans organizations addressing many of the serious problems that veterans face in health care and in how we deliver benefits to them. so republicans talk a good game about veterans, abobut when it e to put money on the line to protect them, frankly, they were not there. what i did next, rachel, is i had to retreat a little bit, i had to compromise. i did work with john mccain. i did work with jeff miller over in the house, and we put together not the bill that i wanted, but probably the most comprehensive va health care bill in the modern history of this country. secretary clinton is absolutely right, there are people, koch brothers among others, who have a group called concerned veterans of america funded by the koch brothers. koch brothers, by the way, want to destroy social security,

medicare, medicaid, every governmental program passed since the 1930s. yeah, there are people out there who want to privatize it. last point i make, i had a hearing, i had all of the veterans groups in front of me, and i said to them, tell me, when a veteran gets into the va, understanding there are waiting lines and real problems, when a veteran gets into the system, is the quality of care good? without exception what they said good, excellent, very good. we've got to strengthen the va. we do not privatize the va. >> senator sanders, secretary clinton, we're going to take another break. we'll be talking about social security and some of those other issues when we come back. heart! no one burns on my watch! try alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. they work fast and don't taste chalky. mmm...amazing. i have heartburn. alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. ♪

[screaming] ♪ ♪ the bold nissan rogue, with intuitive all wheel drive. because winter needs a hero. now get a $199 per month lease on the 2016 nissan rogue. nissan. innovation that excites. at ally bank, no branches equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like grandkids equals free tech support. oh, look at you, so great to see you! none of this works. come on in. if legalzoom has your back.s, over the last 10 years we've helped one million business owners get started. visit legalzoom today for the legal help you need to start and run your business. legalzoom. legal help is here.

helps preparey themng right for a healthy future. but up to 90% fall short in getting key nutrients ... ...from food alone. let's do more. add one a day men's ... ...complete multivitamin. with vitamin d and magnesium to help support healthy blood pressure. one a day.

all right. we are back. we're going to get into a little bit of election politics, electability a little bit. senator sanders, the iowa democratic party has declared hillary clinton the winner of monday's iowa caucuses, the narrowest of margins. today "the des moines register" has an editorial calling for an audit of the results saying what happened was a debacle, period. the results were too close not to do a complete audit. senator sanders, do you accept the idea that hillary clinton won iowa and -- or do you believe the caucuses are still

an open question? >> well, i agree with the "des moines register" but let's not blow this out of proportion. this is not like a winner-take-all thing. i think where we now stand, correct me if i'm wrong, you have 22 delegates, i have 20 delegates. we need 2,500 delegates to win the nomination. so this is not -- this is not the biggest deal in the world. we think, by the way, based on talking to our precinct captains we may have at least two more delegates. what "the des moines register" said, i think there were half a dozen coin flips. fairly chaotic type situation. at the end of the day no matter how it's recounted, it will break roughly even, and by the way, i love and respect the caucus process in iowa. see, and i don't have to say it because they voted already. and i love new hampshire too because you haven't voted, but, look, i think people are blowing this up out of proportion but i

think we need improvements of the process by which results are determined. >> secretary clinton, will you participate in some sort of audit if that's what the party wants to do. >> whatever they decide to do, that's fine. >> fair enough. good. we move on. we're happy with that. we have more questions. >> senator sanders, in 1964 -- >> oh, word. see, when you are old, then they go back all these years. all right. what do you got? >> in 1964 i heard that the republicans nominated barry goldwater who was a hero of the conservative movement. he was, however, far to the right of most of that party. in 1972 the democrats nominated george mcgovern who was a hero of liberals in the anti-war movement but he was to the left of his party's mainstream. both of those nominees made activists very excited and they both got destroyed in the general election. >> right. >> even democrats who love you worry about your fate in a

general election, and i know you have today head-to-head polling numbers against republican front-runners right now, but do you have a general election strategy that is different than the way you're running right now to try to get the nomination? >> well, you know, general election is different than a primary and caucus process, but let me just say this, in terms of where we are right now, as you have mentioned, rachel, in a number of national and state, including new hampshire -- for example, the last poll i saw, there may have been a new one, last one i saw here in new hampshire, a battleground state, had me defeated trump by 19. the secretary defeating him by 1. there were also pretty large margins in iowa and wisconsin. these are polls, polls go up, polls go down, but here is why i think i will be if nominated the strongest candidate. democrats win when there is a large voter turnout. when people are excited, when working people, middle-class people, and young people are prepared to engage in the

political process. republicans win when people are demoralized and you have a small voter turnout, which by the way is why they love voter suppression. i believe that our campaign up to now has shown that we can create an enormous amount of enthusiasm from working people, from young people, who will get involved in the political process and which will drive us to a very large voter turnout. if there is a large voter turnout, not only do we retain the white house, but i think we regain the senate. we win governors' chairs up and down the line. so i believe if you want to retain the white house, if you want to see democrats do well across the board, i think our campaign is the one that creates the large voter turnout and helps us win. >> secretary clinton, your campaign and surrogates and people who have endorsed you have suggested that or even said

that if senator sanders is the nominee, that democrats will suffer nationwide and the chances will go down of democrats holding onto the white house. with him here standing next to you, can you tell us whether or not you believe he would win the general election if he were nominated? >> i can only tell you what i believe, and that is that i am the strongest candidate to take it to the republicans and win in november, and i say that with great respect for the campaign that senator sanders has been running. i personally am thrilled at the numbers of people, and particularly young people, who are coming to support your campaign. i hope that i will be able to earn their support. they may not support me now, but i support them and we'll work together, but what i'm concerned about is the views of many democrats who know their states, who know how hard it is to win a

general election. and it also will put whoever the nominee is into the spotlight. i've been vetted. there's hardly anything you don't know about me, and i think it's fair to say that whoever is in that position, senator sanders or anyone else who might have run, will face the most withering onslaught. so i think that i am the person who can do all aspects of the job. i think i'm the person best prepared to take the case to the republicans, and i think that at the end of the day it's not so much electability. it is who the american people can believe can keep them safe, can get the economy moving again, can get incomes rising, can build on the progressive accomplishments of president obama, and i think that the coalition that president obama put together to win twice is a

coalition that i can put together and add to and that's what i'm prepared. >> thank you both. we're staying on this issue. we're staying on this topic. secretary clinton, just like there are some democrats that question senator sanders' ability in the general election, many democratic voters our reporters have been running into in iowa and new hampshire, they tell our reporters over and over again, they're worried about the e-mail issue, not because they don't believe your explanation, but because it is a drip, drip, because the cloud is hanging over your head and it will impact the general election. they see your numbers right now, and they think it's the e-mail issue as to why you're not polling very well. so can you reassure these democrats that somehow the e-mail issue isn't going to blow up your candidacy if you're the nominee? >> absolutely i can. you know, before it was e-mails, it was benghazi, and the republicans were stirring up so much controversy about that, and i testified for 11 hours, answered their questions.

they basically said, yeah, didn't get her, we tried. that was all a political ploy. now, we had a development in the e-mail matter today when it came out that secretary powell and close aides to former secretary rice used private e-mail accounts, and now you have these people in the government who are doing the same thing to secretary powell and secretary rice's aides they've been doing to me, which is that i never sent or received any classified material. they are retroactively classifying it. i agree completely with secretary powell who said today, this is an absurdity, so i think the american people will know it's an absurdity. i have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever. >> all right, madam secretary, though, there is an open fbi investigation into this matter about how you may have handled classified material.

are you 100% confident that nothing is going to come of this fbi investigation? >> i am 100% confident. this is a security review that was requested. it is being carried out. it will be resolved, but i have to add, if there's going to be a security review about me, there's going to have to be security reviews about a lot of other people, including republican officeholders because we've got this absurd situation of retroactive classifications. honest to goodness, this beggars the imagination. i have absolutely no concerns about it, but we've got to get to the bottom of what's really going on here, and i hope that will happen. >> senator sanders, you famously at the first debate said you didn't give a darn about her e-mails -- >> well, close. >> it's a family hour still. after 11:00 i'll say it the other way. you mostly have refrained from commenting on it but recently

you called it a very serious issue, and then the other day you said, well, she's getting slapped with the e-mail controversy. how are you feeling about these darn e-mails now? >> i'm feeling exactly the way i felt at the first debate. there's a process under way. i will not politicize it. >> okay. >> senator, thank you. [ applause ] >> and by the way, if i may, the secretary probably doesn't know that there's not a day that goes by when i am not asked to attack her on that issue, and i have refrained from doing that and i will continue to refrain from doing that. >> senator sanders, thank you. [ applause ] senator, in december one of your campaign staffers was fired from your campaign for taking voter data essentially from the clinton campaign. you apologized for that when the incident was made public. your campaign has criticized for its operatives essentially impersonating culinary union

members wearing union pins in nevada and the nashua telegraph has complained recently you falsely implied in an advertisement that they had endorsed you when they did not. none of these issues obviously is the end of the world, but they all are of a piece. are you in some sense losing control of your campaign? >> not losing control of our campaign. you know, we have hired a whole lot of people in a rapid way, and i am familiar with the first two instances, and they are unacceptable, and we have apologized and dealt with that. in terms of the last one, as i understand it, we did not suggest that we had the endorsement of a newspaper. newspapers who make endorsements also say positive things about other candidates, and to the best of my knowledge, that is what we did. so we never said, never said a newspaper endorsed us that did not. what we did say was blah, blah,

blah was said by the newspaper. >> just to follow up on that, the title of the ad in question was endorsement. >> that was only for -- that was not to be on television. that's an important point. that was just something -- as the secretary knows, you put titles on ads and you send them out but there was no word in that ad, none, that said that those newspapers had endorsed us. >> secretary clinton, do you want 30 seconds on this issue? >> no. >> with that, we will take a break. we'll be right back. this is sheldon whose long day setting up the news starts with minor arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news. text mom. i'll be right back. be good. boys have been really good today.

send. let's get mark his own cell phone. nice. send. brad could use a new bike. send. [siri:] message. you decide. they're your kids. why are you guys texting grandma? it was him. it was him. keep your family connected. app-connect. on the newly redesigned passat. from volkswagen. this highly sought-after device from progressive can be yours for... twenty grand? -no! we are giving it away for just 3 easy payments of $4.99 plus tax! the lines are blowing up! we've got deborah from poughkeepsie. flo: yeah, no, it's flo. you guys realize anyone can use the "name your price" tool for free on progressive.com, right? [ laughing nervously ] ♪ [ pickles whines ] i know, it's like they're always on television. what? working on my feet all day gave min my lower back but now, i step on this machine and get my number which matches my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts.

now i get immediate relief from my foot pain. my lower back pain. find a machine at drscholls.com

welcome back to the university of new hampshire and the democratic candidates' debate. on the issue of the death penalty, here in new hampshire the one person who is on death row is there for killing a police officer. it's a crime that has caused anguish in this state both among death penalty opponents and death penalty supporters. the last time i had the chance to talk with you on this issue on the death penalty, you said that capital punishment has a place in a very few federal cases, but you also said you would breathe a sigh of relief if the supreme court abolished the death penalty nationwide. tonight do you still support capital punishment even if you do so reluctantly? >> yes, i do, and, you know,

what i hope the supreme court will do is make it absolutely clear that any state that continues capital punishment either must meet the highest standards of evidentiary proof of effective assistance of counsel or they cannot continue it because that to me is the real dividing line. i have much more confidence in the federal system, and i do reserve it for particularly heinous crimes in the federal system like terrorism. i have strong feelings about that. i thought it was appropriate after a very thorough trial that timothy mcveigh receive the death penalty for blowing up the federal building in oklahoma city killing 168 people, including 19 children in a daycare center. so i do for very limited

particularly heinous crimes believe it is an appropriate punishment, but i deeply disagree with the way that too many states still are implementing it, so if it were possible to separate out the federal from the state system by the supreme court, that would, i think, be an appropriate outcome. >> senator sanders, you have singled out the death penalty and secretary clinton's support for the death penalty as being difficult for a progressive. >> all of us know we have seen in recent years horrible, horrible, horrible crimes and it's hard to imagine how people can do -- kill 168 people in oklahoma city or do the boston marathon bombing, but this is what i believe and for a couple of reasons. number one, too many innocent people, including minorities,

african-americans, have been executed when they were not guilty. that's number one. so we have to be very careful about making sure about that. but second of all and maybe a deeper reason, of course there are barbaric acts out there, but in a world of so much violence and killing, i just don't believe that government itself should be part of the killing. so when somebody commits -- [ applause ] when somebody commits any of these terrible crimes that we have seen, you lock them up, and you toss away the key. they're never going to get out, but i just don't want to see government be part of killing. that's all. [ applause ] >> on another issue related to the proper role of government and in this case specifically the role of government between the federal government and the states, i want to talk for a moment about the issue of flint, michigan. on the flint lead poisoning disaster you have both been highly critical of governor rick

snyder of michigan and how the state in michigan both caused the lead poisoning problem and has not acted fast enough to fix it. you have both been outspoken on that. the fact is michigan has not fixed it. there is no door-to-door delivery of clean water in flint even today, not a single lead pipe has been replaced in flint even today. if the state is failing, would you, secretary clinton, would you as president order a federal response to get it right over and above the wishes of the state? >> absolutely. absolutely. you know, rachel, you and i have talked about this before. i thank you for going to flint to hold that town hall. i will be in flint at the mayor's invitation on sunday to get an in-depth briefing about what is and is not happening. this is an emergency. every day that goes by that these people, particularly the children, are not tested so we can know what steps must be taken to try to remediate the effects of the poisoning that they have been living with, is a

day lost in a child's life, and i know from the work that i have done over so many years, lead, the toxic nature of lead can affect your brain development, your body development, your behavior. so i absolutely believe that what is being done is not sufficient. we need to be absolutely clear about everything that should be done from today to tomorrow into the future to try to remedy the terrible burden that the people of flint are bearing, and that includes fixing their pipes. it includes guaranteeing whatever health care and educational embellishments they may need going forward, and i think the federal government has ways where it can bill the state of michigan if michigan won't do it. there have to be ways we can begin to move and then make them pay for it and hold them accountable. >> senator sanders, there are

thing the federal government could be doing? president obama could be ordering done right now in flint, michigan, that are not being done that you as president would do? >> absolutely. i think the secretary described the situation appropriately. you know, i don't go around asking for governor's resignations every day. in fact, i think i never have in my life, but i did ask for the resignation of governor snyder because his irresponsibility was so outrageous. what we are talking about are children being poisoned. that's what we're talking about. we don't know, no one knows for sure because they haven't even done the appropriate studies, but there's no question that kids' intellectual development may have been impacted. we don't know how many thousands. the idea that there has not been a dramatic response is beyond comprehension, and when you have one of the, i think, significant public health crises of recent

years, of course the federal government comes in and of course the federal government says you're not going to be poisoning little kids and impacting their entire lives. last point on this, and i suspect the secretary agrees, one wonders if this were a white suburban community what kind of response there would have been. [ applause ] flint, michigan, is a core community. it is disproportionately african-american and minority, and what has happened there is absolutely unacceptable. >> senator, thank you. >> secretary clinton, let me turn to the issue of trade. in the '90s you supported nafta but you opposed to when you ran for president in 2008. as secretary of state you supported tpp and then -- which of course is that trade agreement with a lot of asian countries, but you now oppose it as you make your second bid for president. if elected should democrats expect once you're in office you

will then become supportive of these trade agreements again? >> you know, chuck, i have only had responsibility for voting for trade agreements as a senator, and i voted against a multinational trade agreement when i was a senator. the cafta agreement. because i did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of america, of our incomes, and i opposed it. i did hope that the tpp negotiated by this administration would put to rest a lot of the concerns that many people have expressed about trade agreements, and i said that i was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that i was looking for. i waited until it had actually been negotiated because i did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. once i saw what the outcome was, i opposed it. now, i have a very clear view about this. we have to trade with the rest of the world.

we are 5% of the world's population. we have to trade with the other 95%, and trade has to be reciprocal. that's the way the global economy works, but we have failed to provide the basic safety net support that american workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy. so it's not just what's in the trade agreement that i'm interested in. i did help to renegotiate the trade agreement that we inherited from president bush with korea. we got the uaw on board because of changes we made. so there are changes that i believe would make a real difference if they could be achieved, but i do not currently support it as it is written. >> senator sanders, i know you want to respond on this. you have never supported a trade deal since you have been in congress. >> absolutely right. >> if you do that as president -- if you do that as president, how are you not essentially letting china, who will do all of these deals

around the world, how are you going to prevent china from essentially setting the rules of trade for the world? >> chuck, chuck, i believe in trade, but i do not believe in unfettered free trade. i believe in fair trade which works for the middle class and working families of this country and not just large, multinational corporations. i was not only in opposition to nafta, and this is an area where the secretary and i have disagreements. i was not only in opposition to nafta, i was on the picket line in opposition to nafta because i understood -- i don't think this is really rocket science. we heard all of the people tell us how many great jobs would be created. i didn't believe that for a second because i understood what the function of nafta, cafta are with china and the tpp is, it's to say to american workers, hey, you are now competing against people in vietnam who make 56

cents an hour minimum wage. i don't want american workers to compete against people making 56 cents an hour. i don't want companies shutting down in america, throwing people out on the street, moving to china, and bringing their products back into this country. so do i believe in trade? of course i believe in trade. but the current trade agreements over the last 30 years were written by corporate america for corporate america, resulted in the loss of millions of decent paying jobs. 60,000 factories in america lost since 2001. millions of decent paying jobs, and also a downward spiral, a race to the bottom where employers say, hey, you don't want to take a cut in pay? we're going to china. workers today are working longer hours for lower wages. trade is one of the reasons for that. >> all right. thank you, both. we're going to sneak in one more break here and when we come back, we'll try to squeeze in as many questions as we can before we end this thing.

we'll be right back. rking on mye me pain here. in my knees. but now, i step on this machine and get my number which matches my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts. now i get immediate relief from my foot pain. my knee pain. find a machine at drscholls.com (vo) making the most out of every mile. that's why i got a subaru impreza. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. at ally bank, no branches equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like social media equals anti-social. hey guys, i want you to meet my fiancée, denise. hey. good to meet you dennis.

get fast-acting, long-lasting relief from heartburn with it neutralizes stomach acid and is the only product that forms a protective barrier that helps keep stomach acid in the stomach where it belongs. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief. try gaviscon®.

all right. welcome back here in the final minutes. >> homestretch. >> the homestretch of this only-democratic debate in the final week before the primary. let me start with you, secretary clinton, on this question. obviously president obama got a lot of ambitious stuff done in his first year and a half. you're going to have to make choices, and there's a lot of heavy lifts and he made choices. he did health care and it came at the expense arguably of immigration reform. so there are three big lifts you have talked about, immigration,

gun reform, climate change. what do you do first because you know the first one is the one you have the best shot at getting done. >> well, i don't accept that premise, chuck. i think we have so much business we have to do. we've talked a lot tonight about what we're against. we're against income inequality, against the abuses of powerful interests, against a lot of things. i'm for a lot of things. i don't want to just stop bad things from happening. i want to start good things from happening, and i believe if i'm so fortunate as to get the knowledge nation i wi nomination i will begin to work immediately at putting together an agenda, beginning to talk with members of congress and others about how we can push forward. i want to have half a billion more solar panels deployed the first four years. i want to have enough clean energy to power every home the next four years. i want us to keep working on the affordable care act, to get not only to 100% coverage but bring down the costs of prescription drugs and out of pocket costs.

i want to move forward on paid family leave, on early childhood education. i want us to do more for small businesses. small businesses have to create most of the jobs, and we're not creating and growing small businesses. i think if you have a smart agen agenda, you pick the committees that you know have to begin to work on these various pieces because that's the way congress is set up. you go through different committees and you really make a big push in the beginning. immigration reform, economic revitalization with manufacturing, with infrastructure. we put it out there and we begin to work on an ambitious big, bold agenda that will actually produce some results that i want to see for our country. >> but senator sanders, you still got to do something first. as you know, history shows what you pick first is your best shot at getting, and how you prioritize things, immigration reform, for instance, fell by the wayside in the first term --

>> i am absolutely supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and a path towards citizenship for 11 million people today who are living in the shadows. all right. we've got to do that. but you miss -- when you looked at the issues, you missed two of the most important, and that is you're not going to accomplish what has to be done for working families and the middle class unless there is campaign finance reform. so long as big money interests control the united states congress, it is going to be very hard to do what has to be done for working families. so let me be very clear, no nominee of mine if i am elected president to the united states supreme court will get that nomination unless he or she is loud and clear and says they will vote to overturn citizens united. second point, second point is that the only way we make change

in terms of health care, in terms of dealing with a broken criminal justice system which today allows us to have more people in jail than any other country, largely african-american and latino, the only way we create millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure will have a tax system that says to the wealthy that they are going to pay their fair share is when millions of people become involved in the political process. no, you just can't negotiate with mitch mcconnell. mitch is going to have to look out the window and see a whole lot of people saying, mitch, stop representing the billionaire class, start listening to working families. and as president, that's what i will work hard on. >> thank you. rachel? >> secretary clinton, republicans, particularly in campaign years, often talk about which departments of government, which agencies of government they would get rid of if they

were elected president. the epa, the department of education, the commerce department, oops. is there a department of government that you would get rid of or is there a whole new one you would create? >> the answer to both of those is no. i'm interested in making what we have work better. i want to streamline programs that are duplicative and redundant. i want to have a top to bottom review about what works and doesn't work and be absolutely clear. we're getting rid of what doesn't work. i have had the opportunity to run a big agency. i was very flattered when henry kissinger said i ran the state department better than anybody had run it in a long time. so i have an idea about what it's going to take to make our government work more efficiently, and when you put together a budget, you have to make a lot of hard decisions, but i think it's not appropriate to say i'm going to get rid of this, get rid of that until you have a very good process that

gives you the information about what to do. but i want to add something else, you know, because, look, we have so much work to do in our country, and i think it's the greatest work that americans will be called to do, and, of course we have to have people in every community involved in it. we have to have the political voice, the political grassroots speaking up and speaking out about what we have to try to accomplish in washington. but we also need to have a very clear set of goals that we are going to achieve, and we need to level with the american people about what they are, what they will cost, what will be expected of our citizenry. so i see as president having a constant dialogue with americans. here is what we're trying to get done, here is why i need your help, here is why you may think comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship isn't something you care about, but i'm telling you it will help fix

the labor market, it will bring people out of the shadows, it will raise wages. you have to make all those connections so you have people with you every step of the way. that's what i want to do. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> before we go, we want to ask you each one of these. secretary clinton, you have made it clear when you look at senator sanders, do you not see a president -- >> i never said that. >> but do you see a vice president? >> look -- >> would you unite the party by trying to pick senator sanders as your running mate? >> i'm certainly going to unite the party but i'm not getting ahead of myself. i think that would be a little presumptuous. if i'm so fortunate to be the nominee, first person i will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done will be senator sanders. [ applause ] >> senator, would you consider the secretary? >> i agree with what the secretary said. we shouldn't be getting ahead of ourselves, and as i have said many times, you know, sometimes

in these campaigns things get a little bit out of hand. i happen to respect the secretary very much. i hope it's mutual, and on our worst days i think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any republican candidate for president. [ cheers and applause ] >> that's true. that's true. >> closing statement? secretary clinton, closing statements. you are first. >> first, thanks to msnbc and thanks to all of you for holding this debate before the new hampshire primary. i am going to campaign as hard as i can between now and tuesday to earn your votes in that primary, and i hear some talk that people are trying to decide do they vote with their heart, do they vote with their head?

i'm asking you to bring both your heart and your head to vote with you on tuesday because we have a lot of work that can only come because your heart is moved. you know, we didn't get to talk about the continuing struggles that americans face with racism, with sexism, with discrimination against the lgbt community, with new americans, with people with disabilities. yes, we have income inequality, we have other forms of inequality we need to stand up against and absolutely diminish from our society. so i have been moved by my heart ever since i was a young woman about the age of a lot of senator sanders' supporters worrying about what i could do to make a difference for my country, and i will bring that heart with me, but i will also tell you, we've got to get our heads together to come up with the best answers to solve the problems so that people can have real differences in their lives that will make them better for now and into the future. >> thank you, madam secretary. [ applause ]

>> go ahead, senator sanders. >> my dad came to this country at the age of 17 for poland. didn't have any money, couldn't speak english. he died pretty young, and i think it would have been beyond his wildest dreams to see his son up here on the stage today running for president. i love this country, and my dad loved this country, and he was the most proud american because of what it gave him in terms of raising his family even though we never had much money. but today in america we are the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people, that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical leave. we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. we are seeing millions of families unable to send their

kids to college in the united states of america. i'm running for president because i believe it is just too late for establishment politics and establishment economics. i do believe we need a political revolution where millions of people stand up and say loudly and clearly that our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors. thank you, all. [ applause ] >> well, there you have it. i promise you, rachel and i have a lot more questions, but we just don't have any more time. unless we could convince them to do a third hour but i don't think so. our debate coverage -- post-debate coverage will continue in a moment. we want to thank all of you for being here and we want to thank the two candidates for taking part in this important event. >> we also want to thank our host, the university of new hampshire, and the people of new hampshire. you guys get to vote in just five days. we can't wait to see how it turns out. don't screw it up.

>> we'll see you in a few minutes. thank you. [ applause ] a reporter under attack. >> [ bleep ]. get the [ bleep ] -- >> a referee goes down on the mat. >> he headbutted me in the left temple and it was lights out. >> and the next thing you know, we hear somebody yell, "it's going the wrong way." >> a falling tower sends a cameraman and others running for cover. a police officer faces an out-of-control chimp. >> are you kidding me? this chimp's going ape on my car. >> they're on the job facing unbelievable situations. >> and all of a sudden, i just feel the blast of water hit me. and that was it. >> from bizarre --