Ms. Warren and many other politicians support reinstating Glass Steagall to help rebuild the wall between investment banking and commercial banking, while taking into account contemporary issues in the financial sector that were non-existent or irrelevant when Glass Steagall was first introduced in 1933. “By itself, the 21st century Glass Steagall Act will not end too big to fail and implicit government subsidies, but it will make financial institutions smarter and safer, and move us in the right direction,” she added.

Ms. Clinton’s comprehensive Wall Street Reform plan has a lot of positive attributes—many of which Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders agree with—but the dismissal of reinstating Glass Steagall weakens her plan significantly. In her Times op-ed she argued that “we need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just the banks.” Ms. Clinton attempts to debunk the reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act as ineffective, but given the political power of big banks—with the five largest on Wall Street currently holding 45 percent of the nation’s banking assets compared to just 25 percent in 2000—her cautious reforms are insufficient.

Supporting Ms. Warren and Mr. McCain’s 21st century Glass Steagall Act should be a staple of both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders’ Wall Street reforms, but Ms. Clinton is opting for a less aggressive approach, which doesn’t help distance her from Wall Street. Some of the biggest donations to the Clinton Foundation came from Bank of America, CitiGroup and Goldman Sachs. In the second Democratic debate, she fumbled an explanation of her Wall Street ties, going off on a rant about 9/11. Ms. Clinton’s disregard for Glass Steagall is indicative of her unwillingness to actually usher in change on Wall Street by holding banks accountable for their actions. Her vague talking points are just business as usual; political rhetoric from a well-seasoned lawyer who knows what to say to garner as much support as possible.

1. Too-big-to-fail banks are bigger, riskier, and more ungovernable than ever

America’s largest banking institutions are even larger now than they were before the 2008 financial crisis. The nation’s six largest banks issue more than two thirds of all credit cards and more than a third of all mortgages. They control 95 percent of all derivatives and hold more than 40 percent of all US bank deposits.

2. The argument that Glass-Steagall didn’t cause the 2008 financial crisis is wrong.

Hillary Clinton told the Des Moines Register that “a lot of what caused the risk that led to the collapse came from institutions that were not big banks.” This is part of a longstanding pattern, in which she largely absolves the big banks from culpability for the 2008 crisis while emphasizing “shadow banking” in her own Wall Street plan.

Secretary Clinton returned to that theme during Saturday’s debate, pointing an accusing finger at non-bank entities like AIG and Lehman Brothers while giving a pass to Wall Street’s biggest banks for their role in the crisis.

3. Repeal of the Act has not worked as promised.

Given the risks associated with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, what about the benefits? Turns out there aren’t many.

We were told that repealing Glass-Steagall would lead to more efficiency and lower costs, but neither of these promises has come true. No less an expert than John Reed, former CEO of Citigroup, now says those claims were wrong. Reed wrote in a recent op-ed (behind a firewall) that “there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functions – indeed, there may be none at all.”

4. The repeal of Glass-Steagall is further corrupting the culture of banking – if such a thing is possible.

Sanders was right when he said on Saturday night that “the business model of Wall Street is fraud.” The traditional practice of what Sen. Elizabeth Warren calls “boring” banking – opening savings accounts, reviewing loans, and providing other customer services – has largely been supplanted by high-risk gambling and the aggressive hustling of dubious investments to unwary clients.

The level of fraud unearthed since the 2008 crisis is nothing short of breathtaking. (The fact that no senior banking executive has gone to prison for that fraud is, if anything, even more breathtaking.) How did that happen?

Clinton's strongest leads for the nomination are among seniors, women, lower- and middle-income as well as lower-educated Democrats, Easterners (the East being Clinton's current region as U.S. senator from New York), and Southerners (the South being her former region as first lady of Arkansas). Clinton's advantage over Obama among these groups ranges from 22 to 35 points. Clinton also enjoys solid leads among non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Westerners, and pre-seniors (aged 50 to 64).

The Age and Gender Divide

The influence of gender and age in voter preferences between the two leading Democratic candidates -- with Clinton most popular among women and seniors -- is evident when looking at the four major age/gender categories of voters. Clinton has a 30-point lead over Obama among women aged 50 and older, but trails Obama by two percentage points (not a statistically significant margin) among men aged 18 to 49. This is one of the few subgroups among whom Obama comes close to leading Clinton.

Age appears to prevail over gender when it comes to the other two age/gender groups: Clinton has a 21-point lead among older men, compared with a 14-point lead among younger women.

"Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you're in a wealthy nation," Sanders told reporters at the Freddie Gray Empowerment Center. "You would think that you were in a Third World country."

"It is very expensive to be poor," Sanders told the group of pastors. "I didn't see a decent grocery store around here. So what are moms feeding their kids?"

"Of course I'll talk about ISIS. But today what we're talking about is a community in which half of the people don't have jobs. We're talking about a community in which there are hundreds of buildings that are uninhabitable," he said. "We're talking about a community where kids are unable to go to schools that are decent. You wanna ask me about ISIS, we'll talk about ISIS. But what I said, and let me repeat — and you can agree with me or not — what I have said is that obviously ISIS and terrorism are a huge national issue that we've got to address. But so is poverty ... so is unemployment, so is education, so is health care. So is the need to protect working families.

"And I will, I will continue to talk about those issues. Thank you very much."

Only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face any economy - how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information," said Prof. Gary Wolfman of Hillsdale College. "The reason there is so much innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take the risk needed to come up with new products."

Wolfman goes on to point out, "Over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior."

But capitalism doesn't work for the same reason Communism and socialism don't work -- capitalism ignores the fact that life is social. Perhaps more importantly than the existential crisis it creates is the economic crisis it inures.

I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here?" that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. (Yes) There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. (Yes) And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. (All right) It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" (All right) These are words that must be said. (All right)

Now, don't think you have me in a bind today. I'm not talking about communism. What I'm talking about is far beyond communism. (Yeah) My inspiration didn't come from Karl Marx (Speak); my inspiration didn't come from Engels; my inspiration didn't come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn't come from Lenin. Yes, I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago (Well), and I saw that maybe Marx didn't follow Hegel enough. (All right) He took his dialectics, but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism. And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach, and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called "dialectical materialism." (Speak) I have to reject that.

What I'm saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. (Yes) Capitalism forgets that life is social. (Yes, Go ahead) And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. (Speak) [applause] It is found in a higher synthesis (Come on) that combines the truths of both. (Yes) Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. (All right) These are the triple evils that are interrelated.