Is Campaign Process too Long?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the politics of posturing.</s>REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This war has been based on lies.</s>SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is ridiculous.</s>SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Occasionally, they send Dick Cheney, and that`s hardly diplomatic.</s>SMERCONISH: But did any of the Democratic candidates pull away from the pack? And terrorists continue to target us on our own turf. How what we`re not doing in places like Pakistan affects us here at home. Plus, Paris to prison.</s>PARIS HILTON, HOTEL HEIRESS: I`m definitely scared.</s>SMERCONISH: How the notorious hotel heiress booked a trip from the red carpet to the big house. All this and more tonight.</s>SMERCONISH: Good evening. I`m Michael Smerconish from Philadelphia, in tonight for Glenn Beck. But rest assured, Glenn will be making special appearances throughout the program. We begin with the Democratic primary debate. If you tuned in last night, then you were probably very well-rested for work this morning. For me watching it was like taking an Ambien with a Ny-Quil chaser. And I`m a political junkie! Here`s the point tonight. The debate last evening, like all the other debates so far, was a total snooze and symptomatic of a campaign process that itself needs some analysis. And here`s how I get there. Each debate, Republican and Democratic, has had no winner, no loser, and no blood. No wonder last night`s competition was just a TV appetizer for "The Sopranos`" main course. The only people trying to convince you that the debates have been interesting thus far are the ones who need you to watch. But the fact is, they`re painfully dull. And the problem isn`t merely with the debates: it`s with the entire campaign process. The presidential race is too long. It has too many candidates, too many debates, and it`s too front-end loaded. More debates don`t necessarily mean more substance. How many minutes did each candidate really get last night: 10, 12? And more importantly, how did they use their time? Senator John Edwards launched a two-tiered assault on the front- runners, not for how they voted, but how they didn`t say about their Iraq votes. Senator Obama probably had the best line of the night when he said that John Edwards was 4 1/2 years too late to make that point.</s>JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate, voted. They were among the last people to vote.</s>SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it is important to lead. And I think, John, the fact is, is that I opposed this war from the start, so you`re about 4 1/2 years late on leadership on this issue. And I think it`s important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this.</s>SMERCONISH: Senator Clinton, who sometimes has a problem with speech that sounds shrill, appeared to me to be in command and measured.</s>CLINTON: The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major, and I don`t want anybody in America to be confused.</s>SMERCONISH: Now you`ve seen the highlight reel. That`s it. What else did you expect? As to the big picture, the effect of having so many early primaries, many of them on a single day, is to silence the parlor talk in which each early voter used to have an opportunity to engage future presidential candidates. A virtue of those earlier presidential primaries used to be the up close experience many voters had with the candidates. I worry that today`s one-shot primary election, where more than half of all votes will be cast on February 5, will let the candidates off the hook without submitting them to the kind of strict examination deserving of someone who wants to be the leader of the free world. Superficiality now seems to reign. Twenty-second sound bites, not substantive conversations. You know, Winston Churchill once said that nothing so tests the character of an individual as the running of elections. Well, not this one. I say send the candidates back to Iowa and New Hampshire, where they should be put through the meat grinder. Joining me now for a little Monday morning debate quarterbacking is Democratic strategist and former advisor to Al Gore, Peter Fenn. Also with us is Christine O`Connell, president of the Faith and Flag Alliance. Peter, let me begin with you. Do you agree with my assessment that, with regard to all the debates so far, not just last night, but those that came previous, there`s been no winner, there`s been no loser, and there`s been no blood?</s>PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I tell you, Michael, I thought there was a very clear winner last night, and that was Wolf Blitzer. I thought Wolf Blitzer did a great job. But seriously, I think these things are designed, Michael, not to have a lot of blood on the floor. And in fact, if there is blood on the floor, you usually have a problem, because the candidate that causes the blood from the other candidate is in trouble, as well. So when you have these multi-candidate talk fests and they only get at the most eight, nine, ten minutes out of a two-hour debate, it becomes very difficult.</s>SMERCONISH: Christine, how does -- how does someone distinguish himself or herself from the pack in a debate such as last evening? And did anybody do so, from your perspective?</s>CHRISTINE O`CONNELL, PRESIDENT, FAITH AND FLAG ALLIANCE: I absolutely think somebody distinguished themselves, herself, and that was Hillary. But first, let me say I think they all were appealing to the vegetarians in the Democratic Party, because this debate had no meat. But I will agree with you that Hillary came off very eloquent, and if there was a winner, I would say it was Hillary. But you have to pay careful attention to what she did. She was very crafty in her message. She played to both sides. She appealed to the primary and the general audience. And I`ll give you a specific example. When asked if the candidates supported English as the official language, Hillary was the only one who appeared to defend her position and clarify her position. But she did it in a deceptive way. She said that the distinction between the national language and the official language would mean that, if we made English the official language, we couldn`t do things like print ballots in foreign languages. Well, wait, that sounds OK, but are we for printing ballots in foreign languages? And let me explain why. To be able to vote, you must be a citizen. To become a citizen, you must pass an English proficiency test. Now, that is something Hillary is not for. So she had a very...</s>SMERCONISH: All right. My eyes are glazing over already, and all we`re doing is a debate recap at this point, with no disrespect to you. I want to ask Peter. Peter, how do you handle the issue of Bill Clinton? Not only if you`re Hillary, but if you`re one of the other candidates? Because you know, his name came up in the Republican debate, and now he comes up and he dominates the Democratic debate, as well.</s>FENN: Well, I think Bill Clinton is an awfully popular figure amongst Democratic primary voters. And I thought that the way Hillary handled her husband -- her husband`s administration was the right way to go, in that she complemented him. She talked about how they tried to go after Osama bin Laden. Look, I think these things come down to who shows leadership, who`s cool under pressure, who is likable. And in that sense, you know, the conclusion that`s out today is correct, which is that -- that Hillary was likable. She was in command. Barack, a little bit, was as well. But, you know, one of the things, to go to your point, Michael, what we should probably have are debates on a single issue. In other words, an hour and a half on Iraq...</s>SMERCONISH: I mean, it`s a great idea.</s>FENN: ... an hour and a half on health care, an hour and a half on education.</s>SMERCONISH: One of -- one of my personal points of frustration -- and Christine, we`ll see what your reaction is to this, is the lack of dialogue. And I`m going to talk about this later tonight, relative to Pakistan and Musharraf. Last night is the first debate where the name Musharraf was even uttered. I can`t believe there`s not some public discourse about the country and our relationship with the country where bin Laden is presumed to be hiding.</s>O`CONNELL: Just about every -- just like every issue that they talked about last night, the candidates responded to public opinion and lack of substance. Again, we praised Hillary for talking about her husband. But let`s think about what she said in a practical application. She said if she became president, she would send her husband around the globe as a good will ambassador. Well, isn`t that exactly what he`s already doing? And when he does that, he commands a six-figure price tag per speaking engagement. Is he going to give that up, to be on a government payroll?</s>SMERCONISH: That`s a good question, Christine. Peter, do we get to a point in this campaign where they are presented, the Clintons, as a two-fer? And I guess there`s some pun intended there.</s>FENN: I think not. I mean, I think clearly, you kind of know what you`re getting with Clinton in terms of his skills. But Christine raises a very important point. The president has said that he will be done with -- he`s made as much money as he`ll never need. He will not take another nickel for giving a speech, will not be sitting on boards making money. So that when his wife is in the White House, that`s it, no-go. And I think that was a very smart thing for him to say.</s>O`CONNELL: So that`s the condition, if you elect -- is that an ultimatum? Is that a bribe? Is that -- if you elect my wife as president, I`ll give up these ridiculous speaking fees?</s>FENN: Stop making money. No, his point is...</s>O`CONNELL: If he believes that, why doesn`t he start now?</s>FENN: He said -- he said that. So anyway, but look...</s>O`CONNELL: But why doesn`t he start now?</s>FENN: Here`s the point about the Clintons. You have someone in Bill Clinton who is an extraordinarily gifted public speaker, an extraordinarily gifted diplomat, an extraordinarily gifted fighter for AIDS prevention out there. Why not use him?</s>SMERCONISH: He`s the best campaigner -- he`s the best campaigner in the field on either side of the aisle. And, Christine, I think even you would have to acknowledge that. Christine, thank you. And Peter, thank you, as well. We appreciate you being here. Coming up, we`ll change gears from the Democrats to the Republicans. Big debate tomorrow night. And one of the main issues will likely be immigration. I`ll tell you why it`s an issue that`s splitting the Republican Party. Plus, the latest terror bust is a reminder that radical extremists still want us dead. So why is no one talking about terrorist breeding grounds like Pakistan? We will. And it`s day one in Paris Hilton`s jail sentence. Will she learn from her time in the cell or just go back to her partying ways? I`ll have all the latest details, so stick around.