Charlie Rose

James David  09/25/2008 03:01 PM Report

Irrespective of what many have said and still say, I both like and admire Senator Clinton. The United States (in particular, the Democratic Party) has missed a great opportunity in not nominating her for the Oval Office, and has, I believe, instead decided to gamble with a man who - whilst a symbol of tranformation and political acumen - does not have nearly the same reserves of strength and wisdom.

Joshua Jones   03/18/2008 10:20 PM Report

Listening to presentations and interviews, I think it revealing of the interviewee's credibility and security to count the use of the word, 'obviously', where the counts are inversely proportional to my favorable opinion. Senator Clinton used 'obviously' frequently enough to make me notice it as a crutch. Surely she has had access to 'experience' in Washington, over and above what Senator Obama has had. But USE of experience, not the raw quantity of it, is what concerns me in choosing another person to represent my interests. I will vote Democratic this election, both because McCain would be a pawn of dogma (i.e., Christian conservatism, BAD), and also because I believe Social Democracy is the direction in which industrialized societies gravitate. Although there may be some value to Hillary's 'riding the fence', Obama is more genuine, more independently minded, and more considerate of the issues that concern the majority of American citizens than Hillary. In my opinion. Obama has my vote. Not irrevocably, but repeatedly confirmed. This interview confirms once more.

mohanreddymutyala  03/18/2008 09:26 PM Report

who is the first citizen of the country

they will whole responsible for entir country.

Mary Elizabeth Nordstrom  02/20/2008 11:05 PM Report

Barack Obama's New Hampshire speech writer who got him to promise the day before the primary that he would reopen the paper mills is probably what upset the predicted New Hampshire vote, not Hillary's emotional moment. Long before we moved to North Carolina for 34 years, we lived in central New Hampshire that was plagued by the polluted Pemigewasset River that runs past where the paper mills flourished. New Hampshire Representatives to the General Court, as it was called, worked hard to get the rivers cleaned up so that paint would stay on the houses downwind of the river and the river itself can now contribute to the tourism industry. The latter is one of New Hampshire's largest industries that can be further developed. Not only can you keep the car windows open when driving along the Pemigewasset these days, you can enjoy the boating. Since the weather was all right on NH Primary day, probably everyone over 50 years of age who heard that speech in Rochester on TV made sure to get out and vote against him. We heard it in Maine although hidden in a laundry list of promises.

It is a LONG river and New Hampshire people have LONG memories.

Mary Elizabeth Nordstrom  02/20/2008 11:05 PM Report

Barack Obama's New Hampshire speech writer who got him to promise the day before the primary that he would reopen the paper mills is probably what upset the predicted New Hampshire vote, not Hillary's emotional moment. Long before we moved to North Carolina for 34 years, we lived in central New Hampshire that was plagued by the polluted Pemigewasset River that runs past where the paper mills flourished. New Hampshire Representatives to the General Court, as it was called, worked hard to get the rivers cleaned up so that paint would stay on the houses downwind of the river and the river itself can now contribute to the tourism industry. The latter is one of New Hampshire's largest industries that can be further developed. Not only can you keep the car windows open when driving along the Pemigewasset these days, you can enjoy the boating. Since the weather was all right on NH Primary day, probably everyone over 50 years of age who heard that speech in Rochester on TV made sure to get out and vote against him. We heard it in Maine although hidden in a laundry list of promises.

It is a LONG river and New Hampshire people have LONG memories.

Carrol Ann  02/11/2008 11:47 PM Report

Since when did the liar(s) get off Scott free and the lied to become the one(s) to be held accountable? For God's sake, all this Hillary bashing over her vote for the war. What about bashing the guy that lied to us in order to go to war and continued to lie to us nine-hundred and something times to keep us there! Hillary should not apologize, Bush and his cronies should be impeached. They lied, many of us believed. I am not apologizing because I believed. Eyes off Bush and eyes on Hillary! I say eyes on Bush and impeach the autocratic criminal.

ron thomas  02/06/2008 11:04 PM Report

This interview shows how tough this woman would be as President. She makes Bush look like a puffed up wimp (which he is anyway).

You are looking at the first woman President in the history of the U.S..... thank God (or the voters).

Ryan Gibbs  11/19/2007 06:08 PM Report

I can't disagree that I like Obama's message. It is truly refreshing...But that being said I think this country is still not at a point where racial ideologies won't have people on both sides of the isle voting against the color of someone's skin.

But if the democratic party puts out Edwards as the choice because they fear Hilary's baggage and though they won't say, they fear her gender, they will lose. Edwards is just beatable by Giuliani. And I am sorry but what the republican's represent in my mind is just bad business on all fronts. They couldn't manage Iraq properly, they couldn't manage the growth of the middle-class, they couldn't manage immigration. And what do we really have to show for 8 years of republican reign? There is going to have to be some hard choices made in the next 8 years and to me only Clinton has what it takes to do it. Iraq is far from over, Afghanistan is in need of more NATO, which means American, troops for security and to work that border with Pakistan, the Israeli/Palestine conflict has to be solved in some fashion, and there's 10 other fires from Pakistan to Russia that are ablaze. And the home-front is too with immigration, health care costs, the shrinking middle-class (and how it fits into a market-based economy), energy and resource issues, and the list goes on. Is the choice clear? Not even close. But I am just looking at it realistically.

Jim Beam  08/30/2007 04:10 AM Report

I wonder, since so many are in agreement that Hillary is too uptight to admit a mistake, if it really was a mistake, and not a reasonable conclusion based on crappy data, would Obama perhaps benefit from making a mistake, and then admitting it? Perhaps his problem is he hasn't made enough mistakes. That's why so many consider him to be inexperienced. Battle scars make you look distinguished. Character flaws are fashionable.

Joshua  08/01/2007 02:09 AM Report

Watching this clip convinces me even more that Hillary Clinton and her presidential candidacy represents more of the same kind of political maneuvering and pandering (to use Ryan's language) that is so typical of the Clintons. Her answers (and the way in which she neglects to answer some of Charlie's questions about her vote to authorize the Iraq war) reveals that she did not have the foresight to envision the many possible ways in which the war could implode (as is currently happening). She continues to blame Bush and his administration for not being forthright with the necessary and accurate intelligence before the war began. She can't admit that she was wrong. Being able to admit when you've made a mistake is something that I think every president (and person for that matter) needs to be able to do. Trying to sugarcoat a bad decision is arroganct and ignorant in my humble opinion.

Why is it that other people, who had the same exact intelligence, did not think that going to war was a good idea? Barack Obama is one of the few voices who opposed the war from the beginning:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/newleadership&source=SEM-rRegardless

Clinton not only panders to primary voters, but she panders to anyone who will give her money (think PACs and lobbyists here). I'm tired of politicians who seem to be stuck in the past and who find themselves caught in the middle of paying back corporate backers who finance their elections vs. representing the hardworking middle class voters who seek change on a variety of fronts (healthcare, education, jobs, etc.). Barack Obama truly represents change. He does not employ empty rhetoric that panders to voters or is uses it to get a cheap applause or sound bite. He understands the issues, is intelligent, charismatic, is not tied to PACs or lobbyists and their money and influence (e.g., Hillary never answers questions regarding who's donating to her campaigns), and he's exactly what the country needs right now. If Barack doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote for the Independent candidate--regardless of who he/she is. I would never waste my vote on Hillary--period.

Joshua

Ryan Gibbs  07/31/2007 12:28 AM Report

watching this makes you understand how Senator Clinton is truly above the other candidates on both sides of the aisle. Now whether that means she is just best trained to walk that middle ground is the kind of risks we take when we vote for, in the end, 2 candidates..But this is just a good insight to her from back in 2003..Mr. Rose needs to get her back on after the primaries if (almost when) she wins..She won't have to pander to primary voters anymore and we can see more of this women..