Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

If It's The Economy Stupid, Why Isn't Harris Ahead?; Melania Trump Promotes Her New Memoir; Best-Selling Author Malcolm Gladwell Revisits Themes Of First Book. Interview With Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired October 05, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:34]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: It's October and I know the surprise. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. The final day of voting is four weeks from Tuesday, and even without my showing you the latest polling, you already know the state of play. While Vice President Kamala Harris has a slight edge over former President Trump in the popular vote, the seven widely recognized battleground states are within the margin of error, this after a long, strange trip in which nothing has moved the nation from an intractable divide. When it began, there was a lot of talk about a third party factor, but they couldn't find a ticket to meet the moment.

And the fresher face from Florida never got the traction that some had anticipated. So Trump cruised to the nomination without ever having to debate his opponents, and was actually bolstered by four indictments and suffered no setback among Republicans, even after being convicted. The general election field then took shape. Age was immediately a factor. The only thing these candidates could agree on was to debate at the start of summer and not at the end.

It didn't go well for Biden. He yielded to pressure to step aside. Talk of a quick competition yielded to a coronation, the torch quickly passed. Another debate was soon scheduled with a clear Harris victory. And now the race returned to where it first began, a deadlock, which is the biggest surprise of all, that despite a storyline that, if pitched in Hollywood would have been rejected as too fantastical. Nothing has really moved the needle.

Which brings me to October, the longshoremen strike has been suspended, but there's still war in the Middle East, war in Ukraine, the aftermath of a devastating hurricane, and the yet to be determined impact of an 11th hour legal filing by the special counsel. Plenty of time for events we could never forecast to unfold, featuring people whose names we might not even know and maybe even their pets. Anybody remember Kristi Noem's dog? Kristi Noem's goat? Bobby's brain worm?

Bobby and the bear? Bobby and the whale? J.D. Vance and the childless cat ladies? And of course, the unsubstantiated claim of eating dogs and cats in Springfield. You can't make this stuff up. But here's the lesson. Yesterday on my SiriusXM radio program, Professor Allan Lichtman, he, with those 13 keys that allow him to predict the election winner this year, he says it's Harris. Well, here's what he said about an October surprise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALLAN LICHTMAN, CO-FOUNDER OF THE "13 KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE": One of the greatest myths of American politics is the October surprise. I have never changed my prediction in response to an October surprise because the keys gauge the big picture of incumbent governance and strength and don't sway by the events of the campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Right. In 40 years, he's never changed a prediction. And he's called them correctly in nine of the last 10 elections. The October surprise is that there will be noise, but there will be no surprise.

Joining me now, David Urban, the GOP strategist and CNN Senior Political Commentator who advised the Trump campaigns of 2016 and 2020. And the Ragin Cajun James Carville, the legendary Democratic strategist. He ran Bill Clinton's 1992 winning campaign and is the focus of a new CNN film called "Carville, Winning is Everything, Stupid." It premieres tonight at 07:00 p.m.

James, big jobs report yesterday, robust stock market, declining interest rates, tamed inflation, if it's the economy, stupid, why isn't Harris ahead?

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, first of all, you forgot the drop in crime rate, which is really impressive. You know, she's slightly ahead. And it's not the election. These things tend to break one way or the other at the end. So if there's seven swing states, the least likely result is they break four, three.

But I can't stop the commentariat from saying it's going to be neck and it's going to come down to this. I think it will break at the end. I think someone will carry things five, two or six, one. And whoever does that will do well in the House and do well in the Senate. But this is -- this thing is a long way from decided.

SMERCONISH: OK, so you're disagreeing with the commentary. David Urban, do you think somebody's going to emerge? I assume if you do, you believe it's going to be Donald Trump but -- or do you think you'll be having this conversation the Saturday before the Tuesday election and still sitting here saying, who the hell knows?

[09:05:12]

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Listen, far be it for me to disagree with the legendary James Carville, right? I mean, I don't get legendary in my introduction. So --

SMERCONISH: No, you don't. URBAN: -- it's pretty good.

SMERCONISH: Carville does.

URBAN: Listen, it's pretty good, Michael. But listen, I like to think that maybe I'm the third most knowledgeable person on this panel about Pennsylvania today, between you and Carville and me, so. But I would just say this, Michael. I think that it's going to be tight.

Look, the electorate in Pennsylvania is split. It's a little bit different than when James ran the Wofford campaign back in the day there. And it's changed a lot, right? The Democrats are now. Republicans are now Democrats in Pennsylvania.

It's a crazy place. And I don't think -- you know what I'm out and about. In Pennsylvania, I hear from people that, you know, they're just not ready to commit to Kamala Harris. They haven't seen her enough, heard from her enough. You know, Trump's out there every day like on the hustings and Kamala Harris just hasn't made the -- hasn't made the pitch yet, hasn't asked for the vote out there.

And if she does lose, I think it's because she's kept in bubble wrap on a shelf someplace. They're playing defense, not offense. They're playing like they're, you know, 14 points up, not like they're neck and neck. And so, I think it's going to be close just because of the nature of the electorate.

SMERCONISH: OK, James, is she playing it too safe?

CARVILLE: Well, first of all, I agree with Mr. Urban. People don't know enough about her. They know who she is, they know who Donald Trump is, they know what Donald Trump is, they still want to find out what Harris is. Now this planet's safe. I just heard all of this whining about long form interviews, and you don't have a specific plan.

She's got an 81 page economic plan, OK? She's agreed to do 60 minutes, which is the ultimate long form interview show. Of course, Donald Trump weasels out of the next debate, weasels out of 60 minutes. But we don't think she's specific enough. There's not enough meat on those bones.

She doesn't sit down for long term. What garbage? I mean, look at the facts here, please. And I bet David is right, she's got to fill herself out. And I think that Trump doesn't want her to fill out because she clobbered him in a debate in September. And if he dare stick his head up again, she'll kick it off again.

URBAN: Yes, but you know, Michael --

SMERCONISH: That's why he's legend -- that's why he's legendary.

URBAN: Yes, but James, if you were running this campaign, you'd have her in Juniata County, not Juanita County. You'd have her in Juniata County. You'd have her in these places in Pennsylvania where, you know, James, where these elections are decided, right, that people would -- they need to meet her. They need to see her touch, smell, taste. They need to understand who she is.

They know Donald Trump. They don't know who she is. And that's what they need. And you know what you'd be doing differently in Pennsylvania. You've won in Pennsylvania.

CARVILLE: Well, I mean, first of all, she does have Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Colorado, too. But look, I think she's going to campaign hard in Pennsylvania. You know, I don't like to predict elections, but like I said, I think this thing is going to break, and I feel more comfortable that it'll break Harris's ways or not. But, you know, I can be all -- you know, Mr. Urban, you don't get to be a legend until you're almost 80. You wait, you'll be one one day.

I'd rather be here.

SMERCONISH: I want to -- guys, I want to roll something for you that everybody else is mischaracterizing as an attempt by the former first lady to sell her new book, her new memoir. But David Urban, I see right through it. It's 20 seconds. Let's play it. And then I'm going to make a comment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FORMER FIRST LADY: Individual freedom is a fundamental principle that I safeguard. Without a doubt, there is no room for compromise when it comes to this essential right that all women possess from birth, individual freedom. What does my body, my choice really mean?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: It's not a book commercial, that's a campaign commercial. That is a very clever, I mean, I give it props, David Urban, that's a way of her appealing --

URBAN: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- right to suburban women outside of Philly.

URBAN: I wish we'd have ran, I wish that book promotion would have come out about two, three months ago.

SMERCONISH: But am I right? I mean, you're acknowledging it.

URBAN: Listen, I have no knowledge of that being a coordinated campaign commercial or a book promotion. But I would say, like you said, Michael, very slick, very smart, and it says, look, in the Trump household, we have, you know, we view things maybe a little differently than maybe he's being talked about on the campaign trail.

[09:10:00]

SMERCONISH: A quick final question to James Carville. James, you know that Trump is returning to Butler, Pennsylvania today, scene of that first assassination attempt. He's taking Elon Musk with him. Wise or unwise?

CARVILLE: I don't -- you know, it's fine if that's what he wants to do. I think you have the entirely wrong interpretation of what Mrs. Trump did. I think she can't stand him. And I think it was very intentional. Not only did she put out about how pro-choice she was, she also put out how pro-immigrant it was.

But again, the rule of the commentary, it is every piece of information must be interpreted in the most negative light to the Democrat. I think the interpretation that she's doing this politically is entirely wrong. I think she's trying to cause him all of the misery and angst that she possibly can.

SMERCONISH: Quick response from you, Urban.

URBAN: No, listen, hey, I would just say again, James predicted that Harris is going to break and take Pennsylvania. I'll predict Trump's going to take a Pennsylvania. And then Michael, you, me and James, the legend can go have a cheesesteak, or we can go down to famous Deli and have a breakfast and celebrate the Trump victory of Election Day.

SMERCONISH: I love it. I will love it.

CARVILLE: There's no (inaudible) Philadelphia out there. All right, Mr. Urban.

SMERCONISH: Nice to see -- nice to see both of you. And by the way, be sure to tune into Carville, "Winning is Everything, Stupid." It premieres tonight, 07:00 p.m. Eastern. Here's a taste.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: So 30 years I've been saying publicly what people are saying. Turns out I have enough money, I could just shut up. The fact is, I can't.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Carville," tonight at 07:00 on CNN.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer Today's poll question. How about this one? Does consistency demand that those who objected to James Comey's actions in 2016 ought to feel the same way about Jack Smith in 2024?

My colleague, Elie Honig, frequent guest on this program, CNN senior legal analyst, former federal and state prosecutor, he wrote a piece this week for New York magazine, "Jack Smith's October Cheap Shot." Ellie said this, "Anyone who objected to James Comey's outrageous announcements about the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation on the eve of the 2016 election should feel the same way about Smith's conduct now. What's the distinction? Both violated ordinary procedure to take public steps shortly before an election that plainly would have an impact on that election."

I want to know if you agree with that. Go vote smerconish.com. Continue to hit me up on social media. I will share some reaction during the course of the program. For example, what do we have, Catherine (ph), this has come in already. Michael, the American people deserve to know the truth about the effort Trump went through to overturn the 2020 election right up until Election Day.

Joe Brown, I agree with that premise. I absolutely agree that you deserve to know. And I think the record is pretty darn complete. I am one who doesn't think we learned a heck of a lot new from Smith's publication this week. But does he not have his thumb on the scale in violation of DOJ manual policy, right?

That if it may have an impact on an election, then don't do it, and I'm not talking about the 60 or 90-day rule. I'm talking about the manual that Elie cited in his piece. I didn't like it in 2016 and I don't like it now.

Up ahead, it's been 25 years since Malcolm Gladwell published his groundbreaking first book, "The Tipping Point," and now he's out with a brand new volume, "Revenge of the Tipping Point, Over Stories, Super Spreaders and the Rise of Social Engineering." He's here to discuss the book. And former secretary of State Hillary Clinton joins us live on her new memoir, everything that's going on in the Middle east and the election.

Please make sure that you're signing up for my free newsletter when you are voting on the poll question. Thank you, Scott Stantis, for drawing this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:19]

SMERCONISH: Nobody understands the art of creating a "New York Times" best seller like Malcolm Gladwell. He's written seven of them. He published his first book, the "Tipping Point," back in 2000, an optimistic take on how ideas and behaviors can turn viral and spread across communities. Now with his new book, "Revenge of the Tipping Point, Over Stories, Super Spreaders and the Rise of Social Engineering," he revisits some of themes in his debut work. It's already a bestseller. Malcolm Gladwell joins me now.

Malcolm, tell me about the apathetic prognosticators.

MALCOLM GLADWELL, AUTHOR, "REVENGE OF THE TIPPING POINT": The apathetic prognosticators, meaning what? The people who sit out who try to see the future without taking a side? Is that what you mean?

SMERCONISH: Am I catching you cold? I'm talking about the book where you discuss the group of five or more of the popular boys who photographed themselves lying around in various stages --

GLADWELL: Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

SMERCONISH: -- back in your high school days.

GLADWELL: Yes, that was a -- there's a chapter in the book where I talk about a high school that had a monoculture. It was a high school in a very wealthy suburban town where everyone had the same ambitions and focus on achievement. And I was contrasting that to -- I was talking about how dangerous that can be and contrasting that to the kind of high schools that I imagine you went to and I went to where there were these -- where there were a multiplicity of very different social groups, each of whom had a particular approach to schooling or athletics or fitting in. And how valuable, how oddly valuable that is, because that allows everyone -- every student who goes to that high school to find a community that they belong to. And how dangerous it can be to have a high school where everyone is forced into the same box.

[09:20:13]

And what happened in the high school that I talk about in that chapter is a tragedy unfolds. They have a suicide epidemic, which they can't shake. And it was a function of their lack of social diversity.

SMERCONISH: So, you made me appreciate my high school lunchroom and also the Greek fraternity system in which I spent my undergraduate years, because in each, there were cliques. There were -- I'm going to date myself, but there were jocks and there were nerds, and there were pod heads and there were, you know, techies, votechies (ph) or greasers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And what you argue in the book is there was a level of protection that actually came from that sort of differentiation that is missing today.

GLADWELL: Yes. Yes. So the basic idea here is that epidemics like a monoculture, where you have a culture where there aren't -- where there's one set of values and one dominant group. It's very easy for a contagious idea, contagious behavior, to race unchecked through the entire population, where you have, what your high school mind had, lots of different cliques and groups that are separated. It's very difficult for one idea to dominate the whole culture.

And I think what's happened is that in certain parts of America, we've fallen in love with the idea that every kid ought to be -- ought to share the same values and be focused on the same goals. So in this town I talk about, it's a town of upper middle class professionals. Every parent wanted their kid to go to an elite school, to do really well in school, to be a sports star, to be happy and successful and dress really well and be attractive. And, you know, the pressure that put on the population was such that they became susceptible to this suicide outbreak.

And I think it's, you know, sometimes when we talk about the benefits of diversity, we focus way too narrowly and we, you know, we talk exclusively in terms of ethnic diversity. And we forget there are broader benefits to all kinds of diversity. And that creating a society that has a home for all kinds of people with very different perspectives is part of what makes a society safe. Diversity is safety, it's not the opposite. I think sometimes people think of diversity as scary, and that's not what happens when you look at teenage life.

SMERCONISH: Said differently. Sometimes it's OK to be an apathetic prognosticator.

GLADWELL: Exactly.

SMERCONISH: Malcolm, the book is terrific. All your books are terrific. Thank you, so much for being here.

GLADWELL: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. And I want to remind you to go to my website at smerconish.com. Vote on today's poll question. Does consistency demand that those who objected to James Comey's actions in 2016 ought to feel the same way about Jack Smith in the 2024 cycle?

And Secretary Clinton is here live. We'll get the former secretary of state's take on the Middle East, the election and her musical inspiration in naming her new memoir. Make sure you're subscribing to the newsletter at smeronish.com, get exclusive editorial cartoons. Rob Rogers drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:28:14]

SMERCONISH: And you can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Why not follow me on X, formally known as Twitter.

Robin says, there is nothing October could surprise us with that will hurt Trump. I think that's true. I mean, I think, Robin, I think that you're right. I think that he's locked in somewhere in the 45 percent or 46 percent range because so many things -- I said to Kasie Hunt here on CNN just yesterday, I was doing a hit with her and she brought up the Access Hollywood grab them tape from 2016. And I said, I think that tape represents, like the 9th or 11th time that I said, well, he'll never survive this politically.

And of course, he survived all of this and much, much more. One more, real quick, another social media reaction, what do we have?

Bottom line is Smith should have filed his case years ago rather than try -- right. It's not so much Smith, right? I think that Jack Smith moved quickly. I think that Merrick Garland and DOJ did not. Why, having witnessed all the events of January 6, and I get the value of the congressional investigation, but having seen what transpired and all that was already in the public domain, why did it take two and a half years for Donald Trump to be indicted? That's a legitimate question.

Still to come, this is going to be exciting. Roll the prompter. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on the situation in the Middle East, Jack Smith's court filing against Trump and her new memoir, don't forget to vote on today's poll question at smerconish.com. Does consistency demand that those who objected to James Comey's actions in 2016 against the backdrop of that election ought to feel the same way about Jack Smith right now? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter for which Jack Ohman sketched this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:34:28]

SMERCONISH: My guest hardly requires an introduction. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first woman to be nominated for presidency by a major political party, and in 2016 was the winner of the National Popular Vote. She served as first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state. Today, playing the role of wife, mother, and grandmother. Her latest book, "Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love, and Liberty."

Welcome, Madam Secretary. First, we'll do the news of the day, then we'll get into your new book. I'm holding in my hand today's "New York Times" page one, above the fold story, where the headline says, "U.S. Presence in Mideast Spurs Debate at Pentagon."

[09:35:07]

And here's the lead of the story. As the Israeli offensive in Lebanon expands to include ground incursions and intensifying airstrikes, senior Pentagon officials are discussing whether the enhanced U.S. military presence in the region is containing a widening war, as they had hoped, or is it inflaming it.

And I wonder your perspective. As former secretary of state, does our presence make matters more or less safe for the region and for the United States?

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE (on the phone): You know, Michael, this is one of those questions that I think is especially hard to answer with any, you know, definitive way because -- it's a good question to ask.

I think, obviously, we have to wonder whether beating up our presence in the Middle East does in some way contribute to a widening conflict. Or is it necessary both to protect our forces and our bases?

Let's remember, we have a very large presence already. Apart from what is going on now with respect to Hezbollah, and Lebanon, and Hamas, and Gaza, and Iran, we've had a large presence with large bases for many years. And so, some of this has to be thought of as defensive protection for American security interest.

So, I think, it's always good to protect our citizens, protect our forces, help to defend Israel, and try to deescalate the situation through diplomacy backed up by potential force. But I think it's always good to be asking these hard questions.

SMERCONISH: Do you think that all options should be on the table for the Israelis now with an anticipated response toward Iran, including the oil fields, including trying to take out the burgeoning Iran nuclear program? Or should they be cautioned as President Biden has said, against such conduct?

CLINTON: Well, you always have to ask, what next? I mean, if you're going to target facilities like oil production platforms what next? Well, one thing we know is that it would have serious repercussions globally with respect to oil supply that would go far beyond the Middle East, which would destabilize the global economy. So, honestly, I think caution is called for.

The Israelis have a right to retaliate for the attack on their territory. Everyone who looks at the situation that they are in understands that. They have a right to defend themselves against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, other Iranian proxies, as well as Iran itself.

But I think it's important to be really careful about what it is you're attempting to achieve. And so, I am on the cautious side here when it comes to retaliation. Because if we take out oil platforms that actually expands the impact of the conflict far beyond the region.

SMERCONISH: Madam Secretary, I have an election related question. Given what you experienced with Jim Comey's election eve announcements back in 2016, I'm wondering if you see any problem with the DOJ filing this 165-page detailed memo that lays out their full case against Donald Trump just a month before this election.

CLINTON: Well, I think the situation is completely different. And this is in the context of an ongoing criminal procedure that the special counsel has brought against Donald Trump many, many months before the run-up to the election. And so, this is part of an ongoing trial.

So, in many ways, it was frankly motivated by the orders of the judge in this trial who has, it appears to me, been extremely favorable toward Trump in the rulings over the course of the months that it has been before her. So, I think that there is nothing out of the ordinary.

[09:40:00]

There's no violation of Department of Justice laws and regulations, as I understand them, in filing a further explanation of the charges in an ongoing case.

SMERCONISH: Well, thank you for that. Madam Secretary, you are here because we had an earlier discussion on your new memoir, which, you know, I thoroughly enjoyed, "Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love, and Liberty."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: So, I have one note. As they say in Hollywood, or the literary world, I've got one note on the book. It does not involve a matter of substance. It has to do with the book title. Are you ready?

CLINTON: Yes.

SMERCONISH: I too love Joni Mitchell and I love that song.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JONI MITCHELL, ARTIST (singing): Well, something's lost, but something's gained in living every day. I've looked at life from both sides now, from win and lose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Something lost, something gained, makes perfect sense. But wouldn't it have been better if you'd gone with from both sides now, I've looked at life from both sides now? It's a serious question and I want to know if you considered it.

CLINTON: Well, I did. And as you know, because you have nicely read the book, which I appreciate, in the first chapter I talk about what "Both Sides Now" has meant to me and why that song has been like in the soundtrack of my life, from my early 20s until today, and how when I saw Joni Mitchell singing it at the Grammys last year, I was so touched.

And the "Both Sides Now" is indeed the song that sums up the kind of different stages of my life. I've looked at life, I've looked at love from both sides now. And in my sort of reflections something has been lost, something has been gained. It's kind of the overview of a long life.

SMERCONISH: I keep watching on a loop. I think it's at Newport where she's singing it in 2022 and just brings the whole house down with emotion. It's hard for me to watch her sing it, I'm not quite sure why, without feeling emotional about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITCHELL (singing): I recall I really don't know life. I really don't know life at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Well, first of all, the song itself is so meaningful for those of us who love it, like you and me.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

CLINTON: But also, after her cerebral aneurysm and her withdrawal from -- at doing anything because of her health, the fact that she came back on the stage first at Newport, then memorably at the Grammys about a year or so later. And she was encouraged to do that by another singer, a young singer, Brandi Carlile, who also loved her music and what those songs meant to her.

And so, she sought her out. She got to know her. And I think encouraged her to get back on the stage which really meant a lot to me.

SMERCONISH: There are two chapters in the book that I think need to be read in tandem. One of them is, one is silver, the other is gold. And the other is the kids are not all right. And what occurred to me as I read the book is every experience that you had in Park Ridge and thereafter is one not being duplicated by our kids today.

I'm worried about them. You're worried about them. Who were the Park Ridge girls? I think that will help explain.

CLINTON: Well, I write in that chapter, one is silver, one is gold, which is from an old Brownie, a girl scout song that my friends and I learned when we joined Brownies and became girl scouts.

I have a group of friends that literally I've known since grade school, high school. They've been with me along my journey. I've been there for them through all of life's ups and downs. They've looked at life from both sides too.

And so, I want to write about friendship. I want to write about friendship and family and why it's important to really think about what our kids need to have the best lives that they can possibly have.

And as you rightly point out, Michael, in the book, I write about how I don't think our kids are all right. Because I think they've become addicted to social media. I think the phones in their pockets or their purses have a huge impact on how they spend their time, whether they interact with other people.

And now we know that very often kids are affected by anxiety or depression or, you know, all kinds of problems that are at least connected to, if not caused by, this addiction to the screen.

[09:45:09]

SMERCONISH: So, I was happy to see you cite the work of Robert Putnam. "Bowling Alone" made an impact on me. The discussion of social capital of the sort that I'm sure the Rodhams enjoyed in Park Ridge, right, participation, belonging, volunteerism, that is so missing today.

You cite Johnathan Haidt. You cite Jean Twenge. Here's what disappoints me. And it's not about you, Madam Secretary. I'm shocked that no person, no Republican, no Democrat is championing this issue.

The social science is so clear. The political science is so clear. Our fabric has frayed as a nation. Our kids are disconnected. Too much time behind closed doors on devices and not enough time replicating the experience of their parents and grandparents.

So, what do we do about it? What do we do about it for your grandkids?

CLINTON: Well, Michael, there are people who are championing it, but it's been a long and difficult road to get anything done. Actually, we can look at the state of California, the state of on New York. I think some other states have also taken action, but we need national action.

And sadly, our Congress has been dysfunctional when it comes to addressing these threats to our children. So, you're absolutely right. This should be at the top of every legislative, political agenda.

There should be a lot one of things done. We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave, you know, platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs. That they shouldn't be judged for the content that is posted.

But we now know that that was an overly simple view. That if the platforms, whether it's Facebook, or Twitter, X, or Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don't moderate and monitor the content we lose total control.

And it's not just the social and psychological effects, it's real harm. It's, you know, child porn, and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.

So, I couldn't agree with you more. We need to remove the immunity from liability and we need to have guardrails. We need regulation.

We've conducted this big experiment on ourselves, and particularly our kids. And I think the evidence is in that we've got to do more. Take phones out of schools. I'm so happy to see schools beginning to do that where the kids turn their phone in when they walk in the door.

And guess what, Michael? It won't surprise you because you're on this. Kids are paying better attention in class. They are talking to each other in the lunch room. Things that used to be part of your daily life when you were a child in school.

SMERCONISH: So, someone once said -- final thought for Secretary Clinton, someone once said it takes a village. The way I like to express that is, we need to mingle. And what you've said about Section 230 is correct from a policy standpoint, but somehow everybody has got to get back, involved, joining in their community. Final thought to you as the author of "Something Lost, Something Gained."

CLINTON: Well, Michael, this book is really about life, and love, and liberty. I talk about my own personal life, and some of the lessons that I've learned, the experiences that I've had. But I also, obviously, talk about the threats to our democracy, to our freedom, to our liberty.

Because, I think, if you're going to be an involved citizen you have to pay attention to what's going on. And we have to be focused on this election. We have to understand what's at stake. But finally, add to what you said, we've got to get back to being a community again.

You know, having people interact with each other, find common ground together. So, hopefully the election will turn out the right way. The fever will be broken. And we can go back to trying to put our families and our communities on the right track.

SMERCONISH: Good luck with the book. Thank you for coming back.

CLINTON: Thanks a lot, Michael. Good to talk to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Does consistency demand that those who objected to James Comey's actions in 2016 should feel the same about Jack Smith's actions in this cycle?

By the way, you just heard Secretary Clinton offer her answer to today's poll question. Be sure to sign up for my newsletter while you're there. You'll get -- you'll get illustrations from some of the legends like Steve Breen who drew this.

And by the way, this is really important. If you enjoy my weekly editorial cartoons, buy the book that will contain all of them drawn for the 2024 election cycle. Go to Smerconish.com, 100 percent of all profits I'm donating to the Children's Crisis Treatment Center.

[09:50:05]

You only have until Monday. And you can only purchase the book of the editorial cartoons at Smerconish.com. Go do it right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: OK. There's the result so far on this question. Wow, 31,000 plus have voted. Does consistency demand that if you objected to Comey you ought to be objecting to Jack Smith?

[09:55:00]

Seventy-five percent say, no. Agreeing with Secretary Clinton, I should note. Social media reaction, real quick. What do we have? Here it is.

So, Michael has gone full MAGA. Look at the ridiculous question he's asking.

Hold on, hold on. Here's my colleague, Elie Honig. He's more articulate than I on this issue. Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST/FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: What Jack Smith has done here is filed a 165-page opus that includes information that, first of all, has not been tested through the rules of evidence that Jack Smith actually concedes. Some of this would never be admissible at trial.

Here Jack Smith said, first of all, Judge, I want to file a brief that's four times the normal maximum. Instead of the normal 45 pages, I want 180. And second of all, I need to go first.

Judge Chutkan even said that's an unusual request. But then she granted it. So, I don't think that Jack Smith's conduct here has been consistent with DOJ's policy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: That is not a MAGA position. That's Elie just applying common sense and his prosecutorial experience.

All right. I wish I had more time. Go buy a book at Smerconish.com. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)