Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
03/03/2008
Harold Ickes
A conversation with Harold Ickes
Keywords:
A conversation with Harold Ickes, a political strategist working on Hillary Clinton's campaign in the 2008 presidential election.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
OK fashionistas. The Ickes interview gives clear reason to vote for Hilary. If she appoints Mr. Ickes as Secretary of State, he will have adversarial foreigners begging for mercy with the brown sportcoat, light pink shirt, and yellow tie.
This interview is all we need to know about why Hillary Clinton is NOT more qualified than Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee. Harold Ickes is a loser who can't even knock Charlie Rose's softball questions out of the park. Rose notes that Ickes has been in presidential politics since he was supporting that loser, Eugene McCarthy. I'm not sure if Ickes supported Carter, but if he did that still only gives him 3 wins in 40 years. That's EXPERIENCE you can keep. Ickes practically dismisses Obama's candidacy to a civil rights movement. Rose asks him about the "3 a.m." ad which was stupid on its face. If a president can't see trouble coming and has to be notified at 3 a.m. he needs to be fired. In any case, Obama has clearly shown better judgment than Hillary. Ickes complains that Hillary is likable in private. Well, isn't that special. But presidential politics isn't about "private moments" as we learned with Al Gore. You have to appeal to the PUBLIC! Finally, on McCain's position in Iraq, the stiff Ickes can't even combat Rose's assertion that we have troops all over the world including Korea and Germany. NEWSFLASH to Rose and Ickes: U.S. troops aren't in constant danger in other posts throughout the world like they are in Iraq. Bottom line here, folks, Ickes is a loser and if he's Hillary's last best hope, she's a loser as well.
Mr Ickes interview was hard to watch and his positions completely delusional. Hillary Clinton is the most vetted and therefore the most qualified and electable? The republicans want nothing more than to run against the Clintons. We can't go back to more of the same.
Mr. Ickes said it well. Hillary is so clearly more qualified it's ridiculous to waste money on an opponent who admits he has A.D.D. and if you listen to him in a debate it's very irritating that his hands try to move faster than his brain can. He uses his hands rudely to interrupt others and to raise his hand for attention like he's in grade school and wants to be called on. Controlling your hands is one of the first rules of being a polished speaker and he gets an F in that category. Obama said he would've become a junkie had some external force not done something free for him.(affirmative action) That is not a history to be admired at all. By the way, what is his position on affirmative action? At the time he got his free fancy education there were 58 million other americans more economically needy than he was. Anyone know?
In responses to Mr. Ickes argument that Hillary has been thoroughly vetted: Why has she not submitted her financial statement as her opponent has? Him hawing around that issue is a long standing issue, and one that should have been addressed when such a hypocritical statement is made.
What bothers me most about the comments of Ickes about Hillary Clinton's "easy reelection" to the Senate is how he ignored her underhanded way of conducting that campaign. Hillary Clinton refused to do any debates with Jonathon Tasini, the highly intelligent, articulate former president of the National Writers Union, who challenged her reelection. Instead of facing off with him on the issues, she froze him out completely. Yet now, when she feels the momentum has moved against her to Obama, she cries about how she needs more debates, more opportunities to engage with him. Hillary is all about the same old, self-serving, stale form of politicking--the win at all costs, the-don't-give-your-rival-a-chance if you have the upper hand approach. I truly cannot imagine Obama refusing to do an honest debate with a rival. I think he has the inner confidence to publicly engage his challengers, if he has an advantage. I think he's more about fair play than either of the Clintons.