A few people were asking where a video of February’s New Hampshire Democratic debate could be found and since I was already searching for online access including a full transcript to clear up something that struck me as an important point, i dug in and found both.
While watching the debate and listening to the discussions afterward something was bugging me big time. After sleeping on it, trying to figure if it was as important to others as it seemed to me, I now think it is the fundamental difference in our leading Dem candidates running for the nomination to the US presidency. It was also around the time of the more heated part of the debate.
The word “If”. That’s it. Just that word and what it actually means to each of the leading Dem presidential candidates platform
Here are a few key excerpts that have been needling me:
Sanders on Wall Street and breaking up and ending the economic and political power of Big banks over the people:
I am running for president as a Democrat. And if elected, not only do I hope to bring forth a major change in national priorities, but let me be frank, I do want to see major changes in the Democratic Party
[...]
Let me just say this. Wall Street is perhaps the most powerful economic and political force in this country. You have companies like Goldman Sachs, who just recently paid a settlement fine with the federal government for $5 billion for defrauding investors.
Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. But this is what a rigged economy and a corrupt campaign finance system and a broken criminal justice is about. These guys are so powerful that not one of the executives on Wall Street has been charged with anything after paying, in this case of Goldman Sachs, a $5 billion fine.
Kid gets caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. A Wall Street executive destroys the economy, $5 billion settlement with the government, no criminal record. That is what power is about. That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.
[...]
And, I want to say something, and it may sound harsh, not to you, but to the American people. In a sense, in my view, the business model of Wall Street is fraud.
It's fraud.
I believe that corruption is rampant, and the fact that major bank after major bank has reached multi billion dollar settlements with the United States government when we have a weak regulator system tells me that not only did we have to bail them out once, if we don't start breaking them up, we're going to have to bail them out again, and I do not want to see that happen...
[...]
Clinton:
If I could, let me just say that of course it has to change. It has to change. And that's why I have put forward a plan to do just that. And it's been judged to be the toughest, most effective and comprehensive one.
I have great respect for Senator Sanders's commitment to try to restore Glass-Steagall. But I do not believe that that is enough. And in fact, I don't believe it really addresses a lot of the biggest issues we have.
You know, we now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I've said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk.
[...]
And by the way, President Obama signed that, pushed it through, even though he took donations from Wall Street, because he's a responsible president. So we have a law in place. If the circumstances warrant it, I will certainly use it.
[...]
You know, we can't just fight the last war. We've got to be prepared to stop these guys if they ever try to use their economic power once again, to hurt the economy, and to hurt so many Americans. And my plan, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, a lot of experts who understand what the new challenges might be, have said I am exactly on point, and the Wall Street guys actually know that.
“.. if they pose a systemic risk.”
”.. If the circumstances warrant it..”
“.. if they ever try to use their economic power once again..”
They do pose a systematic risk right now. The circumstances have warranted it for many years. They have never stopped using the economic power.
Democracy is becoming a commodity and we the everyday people can’t afford even the opening price, much less have our voices heard at the volume that money can buy
”..what the challenges might be...” (?)
Here is a link to shortened video clips of the debate available @ msnbc covering a range of topics:
• Bernie on: a political revolution
• immigration reform
• Clinton on immigration, guns, & Climate
• Sanders & Clinton disagree on trade
• Sanders: government should not do the killing
• Clinton: I don’t support TPP as written
• Bernie Sanders: The economy is rigged
• Clinton vs Sanders on single payer universal healthcare
• Clinton’s problem with Sanders’ agenda
• Clinton to Sanders: End your ‘artful smear’
• Sanders defends political background
• Sanders on education, healthcare, and reining in Wall Street
• Clinton & Sanders tackle ‘progressive’
• More on being a progressive
• Clinton, Sanders: Fed must act on Flint water poisoning
• Sanders: Democrats need large voter turnout
# # #
Another link to the full debate with transcript
# # #
just a single word that showed me that one candidate has accepted the terms as they are. The rules have been set in place.
The other candidate recognizes that without challenging the status quo, nothing will change the trajectory that right now is being guided by the most powerful corporate interests this world had ever known.
Instead of just waiting to see if they “pose a systematic risk” that already exists. not fully recognizing that the “circumstances warranting ” action have always been upon the people, and that corporate conglomerates have never stopped “trying to use their economic power” — not even for a high speed high frequency electronic Wall Street gambling moment...
...how about instead we ask ourselves; “what if?” what if we decide not to wait to find out “what the challenges might be”
We already know
Bernie does not need to ask "if" Wall Street "poses a systematic risk" or whether Big Banks will "ever try to use their economic power once again..” nor does he wait to see if "circumstances warrant" doing something about it.
# # #
Update with a few words on electability that has been mentioned in the comments:
Clinton:
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.
[...]
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.