Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
03/04/2008
Mark Halperin, David Brooks, Al Hunt, Connie Schultz , Errol Louis, Melissa Harris Lacewell
Live coverage of the Primaries
Keywords:
Live coverage of the Vermont, Ohio, Rhode Island & Texas Primaries with Al Hunt, David Brooks, Mark Halperin, Melissa Harris Lacewell, Errol Louis and Connie Schultz.
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.
David Brooks has been dead wrong about most things for the last ten years. His smarmy republicanism is nauseating, and no matter how much he blabs he lacks any authority, as do all of the Bush/Cheney apologists. Why does David Brooks get as much airplay as he does? The man is a dolt.
to oh please, I agree with you, I wish they would stop talking about the uneducated white older women as a voting block, that votes for Hillary, it is offensive. I am a 53 white female, without a college education, and I support barack obama. Does that make me smart? LOL Kathy Mae
loved the crack Mr Brooks made about Clinton's supporters being uneducated. I have watched Brooks on your show since the run up to the war and he has been wrong on just about every important issue since. So maybe he is educated by some measure, but he sure isnt very smart. Then again, I am really poor too so maybe I just cant follow his briliance.
Two things 1)Hubert Humphrey didn't participate in 68's primaries 2)Clinton can't "win" the nomination. That's no longer mathematically possible. To get it, she'd have to steal it. I'm not sure why everyone wouldn't react negatively to that.
Reply to SouthAmerica: So your answers are "no" & "no." The Democrats have never nominated someone who didn't run in the primaries & there is no historical support for your position. I thought so.
Reply to Tmax - I wrote a piece that you might find interesting regarding the Democratic Party and the 2008 election: Divide and Conquer the Ultimate Strategy. By SouthAmerica February 1, 2008 at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/1/722/40380/1013/447486 I started that article saying: Divide and conquer was a successful military strategy long before it became an algorithm design paradigm. Generals observed that it was easier to defeat one army of 50,000 men, followed by another army of 50,000 men than it was to beat a single 100,000 men army. Thus the wise general would attack so as to divide the enemy army into two forces and then mop up one after the other. On January 29, 2008 I wrote another piece that will answer your question â??Here is why the other candidates are afraid of Al Gore at the Democratic Party Conventionâ?? you can read at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/4248/16929/208/445232 Quoting from that article: What should we do to make this election even more exciting and go all the way? Democratic party rules allow anyone to stand for the presidential nomination in the August convention, irrespective of whether they have fought the primaries. If the delegates fail to provide an absolute majority for one candidate, a second round of voting is held, and delegates are free to vote as their conscience dictates. And the Democratic Party can come out of its August Convention with the only candidate that can win the November 2008 election â?? Al Gore. .
Also, gotta luv the fact that every time you come to this link you see Melissa Harris Lacewell's beaming visage staring back at you. She even has kind of a smirk, don't ya think? Also, what's the record for most comments on a show? Are we close here?
Dirk said: "Folks Connie Schultz is a Hillary supporter. They always have one of both." EXACTLY! Everybody has a horse in the race, Folks; you're not going to find anyone who's completely neutral. Linda Sanchez said "She lied to viewers and she lied to Mr. Rose." Explain how she lied, Linda. Was she asked and denied it? You don't know that. In fact, you know nothing of the sort. You accuse someone of lying when you have absolutey no evidence to support it -- except your own unfounded and simple-minded opinion. You like name-calling? Okay. How's this: You're a moron. Wait, I take that back -- I don't want to violate the posting guidelines. So I'll just say "You make moronic statements." And by the way, I'm quite sure Charlie is well aware that she's working on the Obama campaign. So your real beef is with Charlie, not with her. You might as well accuse Charlie of "lying," or some other inappropriate conduct. And thanks for linking me to the PBS guidelines you claim apply. I'll hold my breath while I wait. Ain't politiks fun folks? SouthAmerica, has it EVER happened that the party nominated somebody who didn't particpate in the primaries? That's what you're asking for. Any historical support for your position? Just askin'
Folks Connie Schultz is a Hillary supporter. They always have one of both.
Hillary "A MONSTER" in that she will stop at nothing to win? What is new about that? You might just as well think of Hillary as Lady McBeth the queen of situational ethics where the ends always justifys the means. Winning at any and all costs is Hillarys and Bills mantra, always has been. Coming in second is not an option. The Clintons have always been very clear about the means as demostrated by the success that they have had over the years. Anybody who is fooled by them into thinking otherwise is delusional.
Ryan's correct. PBS is required -- by their written guidelines -- to disclose when a guest is working for a political campaign. It was futher a violation to not disclose it and allow her to comment on the race that her candidate was in. Melissa Harris-Lacewell should not be invited back on the show. She lied to viewers and she lied to Mr. Rose. Charlie Rose knocks himself out to produce quality television over and over and he doesn't need anyone as unprofressional as Melissa Harris-Lacewell dragging his show down.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell says on Democracy Now, "Now what I know from the work that I've done on the Obama campaign is that there are tens of thousands . . ." And people don't see a problem with bringing her on The Charlie Rose Show for a panel? There was no one from Hillary's campaign on and Harris-Lacewell didn't disclose to viewers that she was working on the Obama campaign. People can spin it any way they want but that is in violation of PBS' written ethical code.
Reply to Tmax, I just found 2 more articles asking Al Gore to rescue the Democratic Party and become the nominee. As you can see on the enclosed articles there are other people who also think that Al Gore should be the Democratic Party nominee. I hope the voters keep the game tied all the way to the convention â?? to give a chance for Al Gore to come out of the convention as the Democratic Party nominee. All the Al Gore supporters should keep the pressure on the Democratic Party to draft Al Gore at the convention. It is never too late, and keep in mind: Hope is the last one to die. 1) We are not settling for anything less than Al Gore in November 2008. By SouthAmerica March 6, 2008 Charlie Rose Show http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/03/04/1/live-coverage-of-the-primaries 2) Gore to the Rescue? By Glen Hurowitz March 6, 2008 The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/gore-to-the-rescue_b_90320.html 3) Neither Hillary Nor Obama Would Have a Chance If Al Gore... By Judy Ramsook March 06, 2008 American Chronicle, California http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/54462 .
SouthAmerica, you REALLY need to take a chill pill, Dude. We get it -- you're in love with Al Gore. And "no," I did NOT read any of your recent massive posts. The more you rant, the more you prove my point -- you are unbalanced and irrational. So go waste your vote in November if that's what you must do. I assume your DNA-bound clan will do likewise; but frankly, my Dude, I don't give a damn. Not at this point. Not after who I realized I was dealing with here. Sharon, what on earth did you find "unpleasant" about the show? I enjoyed your take on late night TV and its impact and found that to be very true and very well-stated. Leslie, maybe you "found her comments racist" but that doesn't mean they were -- it just means you "found" they were. I think that says a lot more about you than it does about her. Do yourself a favor and watch the show again. SHE'S JUST REPORTING WHAT SHE'S SEEING AND HEARING. Unless, as I already said, you want to call her a liar (and say she's making it up). And for today's closing comment (rant?): how pissed off am I that I'll be missing Friday's show with Stephen and Lucy Hawking!! PBS' pledge drive(s) have shanghaied normal programming for me and I'm gonna miss one of my all-time idols, not to mention his wife (who ain't half bad lookin' if I do say so myself).
I caucused in an urban precinct on Super Tuesday. The caucus turnout for our precinct was around 70 people, when normally turnout is under 10 people. Many of the people in that room were African-Americans, almost all of whom had not caucused in the past. Every African-American in the room voted for Obama - a half dozen people voted for Clinton, and they were all white. Based on what I've seen as a young, white professional living in a neighborhood with a high percentage of African-Americans, I have to agree with Ms. Lacewell. If the superdelegates and/or seating of Michigan and Florida delegates give Sen. Clinton a victory that she did not win in the contested primaries, it will cause African-Americans to be apathetic and stay home in November. I can imagine many of them thinking, here we go again, the white establishment is conspiring to snatch away the the black man's gains. I think Connie Schultz is living in a dreamland if she thinks that hatchet can be buried before the general election.
Dear Mr Obama:--------------------------------------If you want to be called Mr President take the time and watch the movie "The Best Man." It might resolve your dilemma of whether to "swiftboat" Ms Clinton or not.
Again, Melissa Harris Lacewell was on point and fantastic in her articulations. Bravo to her for her honesty. And what about Mr. Buckley who said of himself in 1986: "I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?' I couldn't think of anyone." "The central question that emerges ... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes â?? the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists." (National Review, August 27, 1957). William F.Buckley
Reply to Suzanne, tmax, and djCincy It is last call, and Al Gore should finally jump into the 2008 presidential race at the Democratic Party Convention. After that, the next big Victory for Al Gore â?? would be in November of 2008. Al Gore will be the first US president to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner when he is elected president of the United States. President Carter also received the Nobel Peace Prize, but only many years after he had left the presidency. That would be the first time that a "Nobel Prize" winner would become president of the United States. And considering the massive mess that Al Gore is going to inherit regarding US foreign policy among many other things - a Nobel Peace Prize might come handy for Al Gore in the coming years. When Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize that just added even more prestige to his already distinguished resume. It will be interesting to have a Nobel Peace Prize in charge of the US government. When they draft Al Gore and he is entering the presidential race at the Democratic Party Convention â?? the Democratic Party will have not only an outstanding candidate with all the right credentials, but also a fresh candidate with everything going on his favor and that would help his presidential campaign. In November of 2008 the American people will elect its first president who is a Nobel Prize winner â?? a tremendous credential for a US president to have considering that he will inherit the worst chaos possible in the entire Middle East, and also the United States prestige reaching a new low around the world. Since Al Gore lost the election in 2000, he has been on a mission around the world visiting every corner of earth, and meeting thousands of people to bring to their attention the problems regarding global warming. Today, Al Gore is treated like a rock star around the world, and at the same time he has achieved the status of a Statesman anywhere he goes representing the United States. Al Gore is that special person that the United States needs today to guide the country against the perfect storm that it is just ahead. The next US president it will guide the country during a period of one of the major turning points of US history. In my opinion, today Al Gore is the only politician who is ready and has all the credentials necessary to guide the United States during the perfect storm that is about to hit the United States head on. The United States needs a politician of the caliber of FDR, and today only Al Gore has the potential to become the new FDR of the 21st century. Al Gore is already recognized as a Statesman, and he has prestige and clout, and is respected around the world. Al Gore was against the Iraq War even when George W. Bush was trying to make his case to attack Iraq, and today nobody has a better credential in the United States to end that war than a Nobel Peace Prize winner â?? Al Gore. Finally, under an Al Gore administration the United States has a better chance of doing something about its energy mess - when the US elects Mr. Global Warming for president. Please donâ??t forget that Al Gore can also claim that he was part of Bill Clintonâ??s team that was so successful during the years of the Clinton administration, since most people look back to that period as a period of high job creation in the US economy. In a Nutshell: Al Gore has great credentials, global prestige and clout, all the necessary experience to highly qualify him for the job, and he also has been on a winning streak for a long time, and he is the best democratic candidate the Democratic Party has to represent the party in November of 2008 for the ultimate victory. If the Democratic Party is serious about winning in November 2008 then Al Gore is that person and the ultimate candidate who can give the democrats the guaranteed VICTORY. And now that the United States is descending into a deep recession, here is another point to keep in mind: Al Gore understands better than anyone else how the global economy works today. The latest issue of the magazine "Fast Company" lists the 50 companies that are in the leading edge of innovation - and Al Gore's company Current TV was among these state-of-the-art innovative companies. Al Gore already understands and has practical experience regarding how the world of tomorrow works. .
Reply to djCincy. You said: Well, what frightens me is how much of what I'm reading on this thread sounds like those right-wing-nuts (who are backing McCain, by the way), the kind of overblown, broadbrush, even inflammatory rhetoric one could find listening to Rush Limbaugh. I have been talking with a lot people about the current primaries, and I cant remember having so many people interested in politics, and it does not matter where you go people are talking about this primary season. One thing I know for sure, most democrats and independents are saying that Al Gore is their first choice and they are sorry that he has not entered the race, and people realized that the Democratic Party is running it is experiment having the first woman or first black nominee to represent a major political party at the general election. But most democrats are also aware that we are going to have the first defeat of a woman or a black man in the general election. The Democratic Party experiment it will be the most costly experiment in US political history, since John McCain will be able to nominate various Supreme Court judges that will tilt the Supreme Court completely to the right, and the cost of this Democratic Party experiment is that the Supreme Court it will turn the clock to the 1950s. If you understand what I am saying regarding womens rights and the rights of minorities. And the ironic fact is that the Democratic Party has the best qualified political candidate to become the next president of the United States with a solid mandate and his name is Al Gore. If you want to know why Al Gore should be the next US president then you should read the information on the following forum. If you read the comments on this forum, there are 440 replies so far, then you would understand that there are millions and millions of Americans who would like to vote for Al Gore in November 2008. Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835&perpage=6&pagenumber=74 If Al Gore is not drafted in the convention to become the Democratic Party nominee I am sure that the Democratic Party Is going to be defeated in November 2008. The other important point to keep in mind is that if Al Gore is the Democratic Party nominee then a lot people who would vote for Ralph Nader this time around they would support Al Gore, but if Al Gore is not the nominee then Ralph Nader it will become the 3rd party candidate that millions of unhappy people will vote for. In 2000 I convinced many of my friends and relatives to vote for Ralph Nader, and they are all ready to vote to Nader once again if Al Gore is not the Democratic Party nominee. The Democratic Party has 2 choices 1) Draft Al Gore in the convention, and unite the party behind him, or 2) go with the split party and lose millions of further votes to Ralph Nader. It is very clear to me the Democratic Party has a choice between victory (Al Gore) in November 2008 or defeat. By the way, I made up my mind about Al Gore about 2 years ago, and I have not changed my mind since, and if anything right now I am an Al Gore supporter more than ever, and there are millions and millions of Americans, democrats and independents that were are in the same boat. We are not settling for anything less than Al Gore in November 2008.
For the first time, ever, watching a Charlie Rose program, I kept my finger on the volume control, turning it off whenever the discussion became too unpleasant. I frequently recommend Charlie's show to friends because I learn so much from it, often from hearing someone's point of view I hadn't considered before (because Charlie brings things out that other interviewers and journalists do not tap into.) There is something magic in the late night hour, when the house is dark and silent except for the glow from the screen and the intimate sound of voices coming from that gorgeous round table... Alas, neither this program, nor some viewer comments I've read here, provided much scope for reflection and learning. Both needed Charlie's firmly guiding hand. And perhaps the guests on the show and we, the viewers, needed 24 hours to digest the upset election results before venturing onto live television, and into print.
Reply to Suzanne. Here is the answer to your last posting. The stage has been set for the Democratic Party to lose the 2008 presidential election. As a matter of fact you donâ??t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out, but today the Democratic Party is in fantasy land, and it is more interested in nominating the first woman or first black man as their candidate to represent the Democratic Party in November 2008 than winning the actual election. Now it is the Democratic Partyâ??s turn to make a gigantic mistake, basically because Americans are in denial and most Americans donâ??t have a clue of what is coming in the pipeline in terms of the biggest international monetary crisis that the world has ever seen. And the United States it will be at the center of this massive international monetary meltdown. The reason that I support Al Gore for president in November of 2008 â?? it is because in my opinion, he is the candidate who is best prepared to confront the perfect storm that it is just ahead of us. He has the best understanding of all the candidates of how the world works today and in the coming years. That understanding he earned by being involved very early with the internet and he recognized the internetâ??s potential before a lot of people. He understands the devastating impact that the new technologies are going to have in the job market and in the creation of new opportunities. We are just in the beginning of a major transformation as never seen before. This is why we need a man such as Al Gore to guide the US economy to the tremendous challenges that are just ahead â?? and we will need a man with outstanding credentials such as Al Gore to help create the solutions and implement it to the new economic world. It is no time for an experiment in US history when the United States has a major mess just ahead including the following among many other things: Over $ 9 trillion dollars in outstanding debt as of 2008, plus an estimated $ 60 trillion dollars in new liabilities that is coming due in the coming years. The US economy never before had such a wave of new senior citizens lining up to collect on the benefits that they think that they earned over their lifetime, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and so onâ?¦. Every year for now on there is an extra 2 million people per year who will turn 65 years old and will collect all these promised benefits. If the next US president gets reelected in 4 years just during their 8-year administration the number of people collecting these benefits it will go from the current 40 million people to almost 60 million people. And to make things even worse â?? meaning in terms of costs â?? the old folks are living longer than ever before increasing the total costs even further. And I am not even mentioning here the revolution that is going on regarding the job market and the restructuring of the global economy. And never mind the costs associated with defense spending and the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan - And furthermore the impact of the sub-prime meltdown on the US economy, and the massive loss of pension money as a result of the latest financial debacle here in the US. The only chance the Democratic Party has to win the November 2008 election it is if the Democratic Party nominates Al Gore at the convention â?? then you will see how fast most people will change their minds when they realize that Al Gore is the best candidate the Democratic Party has today. Al Gore knows that at that point if he is drafted at the convention it is just a matter of time for him to win the election with a landslide and a solid mandate in November 2008. At this point it is not only the Al Gore supporters who want that to happen - there are millions and millions of disillusioned voters including republicans, democrats, and independents. Now, if Hillary or Obama lose the election in November 2008 the price is going to be a Supreme Court extremely conservative - and they would turn the clock back to the 1950's in many issues important for woman and minorities. We would go back in time into the dark ages. If the Democratic Party experiment goes bad in November 2008 - woman and minorities are going to regret for decades to come the mistake they made in 2008. I rest my case. .
Reply to djCincy. You said: Well, what frightens me is how much of what I'm reading on this thread sounds like those right-wing-nuts (who are backing McCain, by the way), the kind of overblown, broadbrush, even inflammatory rhetoric one could find listening to Rush Limbaugh. I have been talking with a lot people about the current primaries, and I cant remember having so many people interested in politics, and it does not matter where you go people are talking about this primary season. One thing I know for sure, most democrats and independents are saying that Al Gore is their first choice and they are sorry that he has not entered the race, and people realized that the Democratic Party is running it is experiment having the first woman or first black nominee to represent a major political party at the general election. But most democrats are also aware that we are going to have the first defeat of a woman or a black man in the general election. The Democratic Party experiment it will be the most costly experiment in US political history, since John McCain will be able to nominate various Supreme Court judges that will tilt the Supreme Court completely to the right, and the cost of this Democratic Party experiment is that the Supreme Court it will turn the clock to the 1950s. If you understand what I am saying regarding womens rights and the rights of minorities. And the ironic fact is that the Democratic Party has the best qualified political candidate to become the next president of the United States with a solid mandate and his name is Al Gore. If you want to know why Al Gore should be the next US president then you should read the information on the following forum. If you read the comments on this forum, there are 440 replies so far, then you would understand that there are millions and millions of Americans who would like to vote for Al Gore in November 2008. Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835&perpage=6&pagenumber=74 If Al Gore is not drafted in the convention to become the Democratic Party nominee I am sure that the Democratic Party Is going to be defeated in November 2008. The other important point to keep in mind is that if Al Gore is the Democratic Party nominee then a lot people who would vote for Ralph Nader this time around they would support Al Gore, but if Al Gore is not the nominee then Ralph Nader it will become the 3rd party candidate that millions of unhappy people will vote for. In 2000 I convinced many of my friends and relatives to vote for Ralph Nader, and they are all ready to vote to Nader once again if Al Gore is not the Democratic Party nominee. The Democratic Party has 2 choices 1) Draft Al Gore in the convention, and unite the party behind him, or 2) go with the split party and lose millions of further votes to Ralph Nader. It is very clear to me the Democratic Party has a choice between victory (Al Gore) in November 2008 or defeat. By the way, I made up my mind about Al Gore about 2 years ago, and I have not changed my mind since, and if anything right now I am an Al Gore supporter more than ever, and there are millions and millions of Americans, democrats and independents that were are in the same boat. We are not settling for anything less than Al Gore in November 2008.
I agree about Ms. Lacewell. I found her comments racist as well regarding blacks feeling disenfranchised if Clinton wins the nomination. That may be true for those who might only vote for a black man for president and have probably never voted before and might never vote again, but people like that lack intelligence. I would say most African Americans do not fall into that category. Many support Clinton and to say that they would not vote for her because their favored candidate Obama, lost, well that diminishes their intelligence. And, yes, it was apparent that Ms. Schultz favors Clinton. Ms. Lacewell clearly favors Obama. Nonetheless, the program was terrific as is the case with Charlie Rose's programs most of the time.
Just wanted to say something else in a separate comment: One thing of note that i took from this show is that pretty much everybody (meaning Mark Halperin, David Brooks, Al Hunt and Melissa Harris Lacewell) seems to think it's Obama's nomination to lose and Hillary is a VERY long shot. Errol Louis didn't say much and I can't recall if he gave his opinion on that. Connie Schultz, of course, would NEVER admit to such an opinion, so she just doesn't count cuz she's way too much of a Hillary shill. That's all before the Texas result was in, of course, but I doubt that would have changed anything much. I'm a little surprised; but then again, if you think about it and crunch the numbers, I can see where they are coming from. We'll see how it all comes out in the wash, but if more and more folks see it that way and start calling for Hillary to step aside, THEN we will most likely see the REAL Hillary in all her self-absorbed power-hungry glory come shining through. Like "Bill Clinton" said on Imus this morning, "She's just warming up."
Amen to that, Corliss. You are a white, older woman -- I am a white older man. And I too have had to "[do\ that all my life." I'm tired of having to choose between two candidates who have nothing to offer but the same old song. Which is no choice at all. It's like choosing between whether you want to be shot in the head or stabbed in the heart. Either way, you've got no chance. Now that I've seen the show, I really have to wonder why Heather and Renee have problems with Ms. Harris Lacewell, and especially Heather. Could there ever be more of a shill for Hillary than Connie Schultz? I didn't hear you whining about THAT! And Renee, pay attention, will ya? They cut to a split screen w/ Melissa and Connie because Connie was responding directly to what Melissa had just said. Duh!! Just as earlier on, they had ALSO cut to a split screen w/ Melissa and Connie because Melissa was responding directly to what Connie had just said. Double Duh!! You people need to take your bias somewhere else and stick it someplace else. What's yer problem -- you can't handle a good old cat fight? And what about the split screens with Connie and Mark? You didn't seem to have a problem with THAT. And folks, Ms. Harris Lacewell wasn't advocating a "black out" or calling for one. She merely said that's what she was hearing on talk shows and reading on the internet. That's just passing information on -- unless you want to call her a liar. AGAIN -- NO WONDER THIS COUNTRY IS A MESS!!!!!!! Some of you folks can't get beyond your own petty agendas to see what's best for the Country. In case you forgot, it's YOUR Country too. NOW, on a less editorial note, we should all be aware that the loss of Ohio and Texas isn't exactly a "bad loss" for Obama. As these folks on the show noted, he was way behind Hillary in both states until very recently. Charlie tried to spin it that some polls had him ahead in the past few days, but that's probably just not so. What's undisputed is that she had a big lead in both states not so long ago. So I guess he did pretty good cuz he made it pretty close in both states. And as far as Mark being anti-Obama, he may be. But he clearly feels Obama is the much safer bet to win the nomination and that if Hillary does win it, it will be via the super delegates and she can't do that AND keep the party unified. That's what he said folks. Big Bill in Idaho, keep up the good stuff; you are truly funny. For awhile there you really had me goin' -- I thought you were serious. Silly me.
Fool America Once=GWB Shame on You Fool America Twice=OHB I don't think so Its about substance and thats why I have and why I will always vote for Hillary. I want results not popularity. Barack Obama has always been the republican frontrunner, he is a divider and the change he is referring to tells me he's a Hillary Hater... Mrs. Clinton is an exemplary woman, wife, mother and first lady. She by virtue of her public image maintains integrity over vanity. This country and the world needs Hillary NOW, so Barack use your wisdom and step down. Go HRC!
I am amazed to hear commentators repeatedly say that the two democratic candidates are interchangeable to the voters as far as the general election is concerned (except for the black vote). I, for one, no longer have any trust in the Party system. As far as I am concerned - both parties took us into this war and have become EXTREMELY DYSFUNCTIONAL. I am a white, older woman and will vote for no other candidate than Senator Obama in the general election - for no other reason than that I have never seen someone more born to lead in my adult lifetime and I believe that he believes in himself. He makes sense to me on many levels. There has been a vacancy in the "leader" position for quite some time now. I give him credit for taking on the Democratic machine. I give him credit for wanting to try to take on all the mess that lays before the next generation. Senator Clinton appears to me to be only interested in winning. I no longer trust her and I used to admire her. This election has revealed sides of Mrs. Clinton that I can no longer support to represent me. My husband feels even stronger about this than I do. I would add that if the Super-delegates rob this election because of political affiliates, there may be an emergence of a 3rd party that can be competitive with the two that currently exist- and that might not be a bad thing considering how spit things are. It might cost the democrats this election, but may be better in the long run. I am through voting for someone I have to settle for. I have done that all my life.
AL GORE AS AN INDEPENDENT. WORKS FOR ME! DEMOCRATS SHOULDN'T BE ANY MORE OFFENDED THAN WITH RALPH NADER.
Better apportion the delegates on popular vote, and let the chips cascade. Right into McCains lap. Despite Shrubs applause.
"...what other recourse do we as a people have ? Would they prefer riots, boycotts, or a peaceful stay at home vote." What other recourse? Back the Democratic ticket, whoever the candidate is, to make changes to the current politics of this country. Threatening violence or boycott is immature, a vote for the Republican Party, and throwing the power of your vote away. Al Gore won the popular vote when he ran for President, yet GWBush won the election. It was a great disappointment to many of us, but you have to move on to the bigger picture. It sounds like the Black community, if they in fact feel like this, do not care about this country. If they can live with another Republican and the current situation here, then I guess they can go ahead and not vote. Perhaps it won't matter, and Dems will carry on without them. It is a very revealing attitude here, and one that is very separatist in thinking. United we stand; divided we fall are words to consider here. Although I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, I would reluctantly vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. I'm not confident that he has what it takes to run this country with his idealistic approach, but if he's the only Democrat, I'm voting for him. Honestly, I'm disappointed in the DNC for putting either of these candidates forth. I think they could have come up with someone better able to unite the Dem Party and win the election. Both candidates are just too controversial.
to Tmax, Your comment about our government's history for the people by the people, only really was meant for the anglo white male property owners. I have been reading a lot of history lately about American history. I am currently reading "Seizing Destiny" by Richard Kluger. Excellent book, I highly recomend. We have a very violent, racist and sexist culture for a reason. This country started out it's tender roots deep into racism and sexism. These dark realities that no one wants to talk about have shaped our culture and is what still drives our foreign policy. I am 52 white and female. My most passionate issue in my life has been the black white issue of this country. I figure that by taking responsibility on that huge issue, then solving any of our country's deep problems will be possible. I want to be a part of history an active part to change direction, to move beyond our past, and finally, finally get to have a black president. And for those of you who say I should not vote for someone just because of their color or gender, I am not. That was not my priority for choosing a nominee. But I am also not going to dismiss the fact that it is exciting to me, to be a part of history, helping to elect not only a rising star, full of promise, talent and unique abilities, but a black man too. So there it is. Next time maybe a woman will come along that I will like, maybe Barbara Boxer will run. I like her, I do not like Hilary anymore, now that she has shown who she really is, and what she represents. Kathy Mae
Fruitfull......quick synopsis... Melissa and Errol shined... Mark and David didnt damage their reputation. Al remembered to take his meds. and well Connie...err posh-posh fits. Well Charlie hows it feel to have the night off?
To all who are decrying, celebrating, or simply describing some deep divide in the Democratic party, please remember that those who chat on venues such as this, or who care enough to watch the in-depth coverage Charlie Rose offers, are very very few and far between. The divide you sense comes from the disprportionately loud voices of small numbers of people. Those who feel most strongly (and therefore will say the most rash things when disappointed) will stay up a bit later to watch the post-primary discussions. The "rank and file" are happy they have 2 great candidates and sorry they have to vote for only one. Remember how a few weeks ago, we were hearing that the conservatives simply wouldn't stand for McCain as their candidate, and Crazy Ann Coulter was going to campaign for Senator Clinton if McCain was the nominee? Well, what frightens me is how much of what I'm reading on this thread sounds like those right-wing-nuts (who are backing McCain, by the way), the kind of overblown, broadbrush, even inflammatory rhetoric one could find listening to Rush Limbaugh. Whatever the Dems do, let's hope they don't become . . . that!! I'm confident they won't (especially when I see many of these comments are from the same people, who are apparently obsessing--come on, folks, take a walk, put your feet up, have a beer, it's gonna be okay...)
How Could They Fk This Up -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GW practically handed them the country on a silver platter. All they had to do is nominate a canidate to run against any Republican and they would have won. But no they have gone and fked it up as usual. Obama not being able to put Hillary away and giving her a 3rd resurrection from the grave of also ran for President is going to tear the Democratic party apart. Not only that but Hillarys and Obamas hands are going to make Lady McBeths' hands look clean by comparison. That fact is not going to play well in Peoria. The Democrats are now entering Death Match territory. Only if Obama can put Hillary away in Pennsylvania will the Democrats have a chanch in the general election. If neither canidate emerges heads above the other after Pensylvania and the final primaries the issue of Floridia and Michigan not being able to seat their delegates at the Convention will take the whole issue into the courts. If that happens the American people will have had enough of the Democrats and their squabbling and view it as more of the same old broken system. The new politics will be the same old politics and the Democrats including Obama will be viewed as damaged goods. If Hillary should win through legal maneuvering or soliciting Super Delegates behind closed doors when Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, Obamas troops will go home forever turned off to politics. They will then associate the political system as being completely corrupt. If Obama should win many of the older Dems might turn to the neo-Liberal oldster McCain. Either way McCain now has the advantage in the general election. McCain will be viewed as the safe play, a known commodity. A grandpa you can trust.
Mr Rose 4 AM in my market is past my bedtime.
Reply to T-max - The Democratic Party can get the prize for being a stupid party, since they have a candidate who could win the November 2008 election with a strong mandate - Al Gore. This Democratic Party mistake can be compared with the following: you are going to participate on the Kentucky Derby and you have 3 choices to enter the race: 1) a very inexperience young black stallion, or 2) a very attractive blond mare, but you already have decided to leave your superstar horse on the barn the on day of the race - Secretariat. (In this case Al Gore.) Al Gore is my first choice, and I am not settling for any less than Al Gore. Or the Democratic Party gives us Al Gore in the general election or my family and friends are voting for Ralph Nader. You can bet on that.
Not only were Ms. Lacewell's comments racist and offensive, but what was with the cutaway to her while Connie Schultz was speaking? I don't think I have seen that kind of cutaway on your show before. Lacewell was completely disrespectful of Ms. Schultz. Please don't invite her back, and maybe take another look at your camera person as well.
How can people keep harping on the experience issue, Barack clearly has more legislative experience than Hilary does. Older age does not make one automatically more able to make right choices On Day One, nor does life experience in years necessarily translate into sound wisdom. Her being Vetted does not qualify her to claim better judgement. She has not proved she makes better decisions, or have better Solutions. She keeps saying Barack's only experience is a speech he made in the Democratic primary in '04. What a bald faced lie! Why don't the media point these things out. Have they totally fallen for Hilary's criticism of them and her poor me tactics, and are now scared of her, and on the run? Why are they not pointing out the truth. How many more lies is the media going to let her get away with? Bring up Hilary's tainted past, as she tries to manufacture doubt and lies about Barack Obama. Point out her own plagiarizing, back room tactics, and flip flopping politics, as she falsely accuses him of the things she has so much Experience in doing. Point out his Experience, in the House and Senate, more years than hers. Point out his many accomplishments, the bills he has worked on and passed. Point out that he has been Vetted in his life, as she has. Her Vetting includes her husbands infidelities, her own admission, that seems to me to incriminate something about her. Fool me once shame on you Bill, fool me twice, and numerous times, shame on me. Barack has been through 4 campaigns now as a black man in this country, how more vetted can you get than that? The people in Congress have deep respect for his unique talent and gifts, why throw those gifts away on a woman who will do anything to win? Do we want someone like that in the White House? A manipulator, an conniver, a liar. This is the only time in my life I have ever voted in a primary and I have never voted for someone that I like. I feel Barack is the only choice that has the will and talent to be able to bring people together, to bridge the divide in this country and in the world. Hilary wants to fight everyone, the republicans, who will never agree with her or her policies, as well as any world leader that has views she unwilling to hear or have empathy for. Our social mandated programs are already in crisis and she expects another one will fly? This country is not innocent in it's affairs in the world or in the history of our own country. What high moral ground can we stand on to force anyone else to live up to? We talk to leaders in China, Russia, etc who is above fault that can play God and choose who is worthy to talk or not, or who is bad enough to bomb or not. Hilary represents the old guard, that is why she has military people as supporters, they are supporting the status quo. People are afraid of change, the unknown is scary. The status quo is the comfortable way, the easy way, but not necessarily the best way. Hilary is willing to sabotage the hope, of so many millions, that change will actually happen for once. She is now stealing Barack's message of Hope and Yes We Can, in her speech last night she said Yes We Will. Well Barack should steal it back and say Yes We Can and We Will. In the past she has accused him of stealing her ideas, because his were working and hers were not. He did not steal her ideas, in his book, written well before this campaign started, you can see that those ideas are his own, you can see his intellect and willingness to listen, to have understanding and empathy for the other side. He gets advice from people he admires, with high ideals, not politically safe ideas, but ideas that have a chance to bridge the divide in this country. People like me, non-party, 52 year old white female will feel disengaged again in the process if she does not stop. Please stop her, go away Hilary, we don't want or need more of your negative, false and misleading tactics. Kathy Mae
Jay Don't sweat it. Happens all the time. You're right, you can't change the country on the backs of just minority votes, but that's not what I was saying. I was pointing out that the fact that the democratic party has never recruited an African American candidate to run for a state house or for a senate seat in a blue state or put one up for a major cabinet post has an infuriating quality in the context of the "our votes don't matter in the primary"/"the country is more sexist than it is racist" stuff coming out of the Clinton campaign.
Very sorry. It's Dirk. How can I edit my comment?
Dick, here is my response to your comment. Yes, this country desperately needs to change. However, one canâ??t change the country by using wills and powers of the minortitiesâ?? only. Thatâ??s what she was leading to. Thatâ??s my concern. Donâ??t forget, a winner takes all and there is no proportional bonus in the general election.
Melisa Harris Lacewell was absolutely on point - her comments are honest and true. And I applaud her for not compromising herself with a banal analysis. Barack Obama and Black America, and yes we are tied together, has given non-Blacks a pass on the issue of race in order to further a vision of progress through unity. Race is a huge elephant in the room that effects perception and analysis â?? unspoken. Obviously folks must be aware that even the SNL skits on the debate MUST use the Venezuelan comedian in Black face to portray Barack Obama, who then says nothing of substance during these skits. Has it gone unnoticed that the coverage of the elections, the debates, the primaries are limited to those who can afford cable television? Do folks think we do not see this, or realize that it is a measured insult? We, Black people, do feel our hurts, our contributions, our issues and our pride in Barack Obama and how he has conducted himself. My hero, and my example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr who lead the nation through the most important progressive revolution was 26 when he led the bus boycott, 28 when he became the leader of SCLC, 35 when he won the Nobel Peace Prize and only 39 when he was assassinated and â?? said look to the "content of their character"- Barack Obama has passed that test and that is why he is so persuasive, and compelling. Perhaps the Nation does not deserve Barack Obama who engages a conversation and offers a dialogue, whose attributes are claming, who promises to stay the course, who since 1985 has demonstrated in his legislative and community work a commitment to the Nation, who has not lifted his voice to estrange voters from voting their choice. But since some people looking and wanting â??bloodâ??, the knock out punch and/or the kill â?? perhaps they should vote for the other candidates that offer that experience, that example and future. As a group Black people are deeper than most Americans realize we take on everyoneâ??s struggle but be aware our history is tied to whatever we do and whoever the surrogate happens to be and now it is Barack Obama; and he is fabulous, elegant, seamlessly intelligent, beautifully strong, clearly open and marvelously skilled and able â?? he a pleasure to observe. The real questions remain why with all of Hillary Clintonâ??s advantages she is not having an â??easyâ?? time of it; and why Barack is such an attractive alternative. Hillary says she is a woman, vote for me; we in New York voted for her as U.S. Senator knowing she had NEVER won or run a political office and that her aim was always the White House â?? this experience talk is overplayed. The Hispanics say we are a power block, as Hispanics, do not ignore us - we have history, issues and expectations; Richardson received significant votes in Texas because he is Hispanic. The Jews are clear about concerns for Israel and it security. Every gorup in the Nation has their issue, their make or break need. Barack Obama has said: â??well, we have to work out our issuesâ??, period. Hillary is playing to win; she is a tried and true political warrior. Ms. Lacewell, who is not running for President and is Black is saying for me: I am letting you know we, Black People, are watching this very closely and we, Black people â?? the children of slavery-, can deliver the White House to John McCain, donâ??t fool yourself, we do have choices, and we will exercise them.
Dirk and Darlene are on the right track. I don't know how anyone with an I.Q. above 72 could vote for Hillary. She is SUCH a phony and represents nothing more than more of the same crap we've had forever in this supposed "government of the people, by the people and for the people." Yea, that's what it was SUPPOSED to be. But it ain't what it turned out to be. Money talks and BS walks. And guess what -- do we not now have taxation without representation? Wake up people! If we don't get some meaningful change in this country soon (like RIGHT NOW!) we are right back where we started. I have no idea if Obama is gonna be good or gawd-awful, but at least we have a CHANCE for change with him. Unfortunately, Hillary's campaign continues and so I will have to continue to listen to her shrill cacophony of lies and dirty tricks ad nauseum. Obviously, it's working. So again I say, no wonder this country is such a mess! I suppose we deserve what we get because we are too stoopid (or scared) to see what's in front of our faces. Gawd, I'm glad I'm old!! WHEN IS THIS VIDEO GONNA BE UP ON THE SITE!!!??!!!!! I couldn't see the show because of the PBS pledge drives and the gawd-awful programming they put on instead!!!!!!!
I, am truly sorry that so many people were offended by Ms. Lacefield comments by a black-out, by black voters. I really don't understand why some people feel that we as Afro-Americans lack the intelligence and politcal austuteness to understand the political process. If one candidate wins the most states, popular votes and has the most pledged delagates and is denied access to an earned office, what other recourse do we as a people have ? Would they prefer riots, boycotts, or a peaceful stay at home vote. Do they really expect us to rally around a hand -picked candidate of their choice? It is not a pleasant situation for any of us, but if some else has a better solution, I'm all for it. One must remember that knowlege is power and sometimes the truth is painful.
So let me see if I understand some of you. It's ok for Clinton to run an ad that artificially darkens Senator Obama's skin, and ok for a supporter of hers [PA Gov Ed Rendell\ o proclaim his constituents too racist to vote for Obama, and ok for Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro to play the female victimization card on every radio and or cable show within reach - making a slew of attacks on African Americans in the process but its not ok for an African American supporter of Obama to be upset by any of that or to count to two [the total number of African Americans in high office\ and wonder why they're being left out when the party recruits candidates to run for those offices? Could one of you please tell me what would be a legitimate cause for getting more than a little upset?
I was also disturbed by Ms. Lacewell's comments. I have been impressed by Obama, but have still decided for Clinton thusfar. After hearing Ms. Lacewell's commits and observing her demeanor on the show, I wonder if the "change" offered by the Obama supporters is one of deception and racial revenge. If Obama is the leader of choice, I would support the Democratic ticket, but only if the Obama supporters are ready to build a future of healing and unity of the nation. We are much more than any one race or culture and I feel the canary popped out of the cat's mounth.
Comment by SouthAmerica on Wednesday, Mar 5 at 03:31 AM: "My family and friends, about 10 to 12 people still are hoping to vote for Al Gore in November 2008 if he is the Democratic Party nominee â?? If he is not then we are voting for Ralph Nader. At this point the only way the Democratic Party is going to win in November 2008 it is if the Democratic Party nominates Al Gore for the general election." You just destroyed your own credibility there, my friend. Regardless of who the nominee is, it's going to be a close race in November. So you folks are going to waste your precious votes on Ralph Nader just to make a point? Yea, that makes a lot of sense. Why not just go out and shoot yourself in the foot? No wonder this country is such a mess.
I am an Asian american, a minority in this country. After hearing and watching hilarious comments by Melissa Harris Lacewell, I decided not to support Obama whatever happens. I seriously don't like and can't accept their attitude.
Melissa Harris Lacewell is campaigning for Barack Obama and should not have been allowed on the show. I do not mean from her comments on tonight's show that she's campaigning, she told Amy Goodman's audience on Democracy Now that she had been campaigning for Obama. Google it. She has two appearances. The first time she doesn't mention she's part of her campaign. When she's on the second time she declares to Gloria Steinem that she has been campaigning for Obama. For that reason, Melissa Harris Lacewell should not be allowed on the program unless others who campaign for candidates are allowed on. She is not an observer, she is part of the campaign. Here's her direct quote: "Now, what I know from the work that Iâ??ve done on the Obama campaign is that there are tens of thousands of extremely hard-working white men and women, as well as black men and women, as well as actually a huge multiracial and interethnic coalition of people working for Barack Obama." Here is the link http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics Again, she works for the campaign. She is not an observer, she has a vested interest and Mr. Rose should not have invited her own.
South America, Well, I certainly agree that it would be wonderful to see Al Gore as President of this country...but it's never going to happen. I did go to a website awhile ago to see about drafting him to run, out of curiosity. I don't think he wants to run again. If you remember, he lacked the "charisma" needed to win. GWBush was more charming. Sound familiar to todays situation? Somehow, charming seems to win the "minds" of the voters. The bottom line is this: do we want 4 more years of Republican rule, or do we want to back a Democrat? I choose to back the Democratic nominee, and if it's Obama, then so be it. We HAVE to defeat the Republicans for the sake of this country. It's bigger than just wanting Al Gore.
Suzanne, if you read the 2 threads that I mentioned here from the Daily Kos then you will understand why the Democratic Party is divided beyond any possible repair before November 2008. And the Democratic Party is going to be defeated in November 2008 if Obama or Hillary are the nominees. There is only one solution to unite the Democratic Party at this point and give the party a chance for victory in November 2008. It is to draft Al Gore and I am sure that he can win in November with a strong mandate. If the Democratic Party want to win the election in November 2008 then they should go with Al Gore. But if they want to lose that election then they go with the damaged candidates.
. My family and friends, about 10 to 12 people still are hoping to vote for Al Gore in November 2008 if he is the Democratic Party nominee â?? If he is not then we are voting for Ralph Nader. At this point the only way the Democratic Party is going to win in November 2008 it is if the Democratic Party nominates Al Gore for the general election. These 3 threads gives you the reasons in a nutshell: Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835 Mon Feb 25, 2008 Democratic Party â?? Case Study on how to lose an election. - by SouthAmerica http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/25/4407/92992/165/463589 The Democratic Party and the Impossible Dream. â?? by SouthAmerica http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/22/24656/1097/5/461715 .
So, what that woman is saying is that Black people are so stupid and angry that if Obama didn't get the nomination, they would stay home and not vote....and reap what the Republican party will sow for their future? Would they start a riot as well? That would be the most short-sighted behaviour possible, and would only hurt them and all of us. As a Democrat, I support Hillary, but if Obama wins the nomination I will have to vote for him. That's what an informed, intelligent person does.
Can't believe CR show still invites Mark Halperin. It can not get more anti-obama than him. MSNBC was forced to fire their guy for making a comment against Chelsy but MH uses the P world against obama with impunity. Let's press Hillary on her taxes! SHOW ME THE TAX RETURN!
I was disturbed by the insistence of Ms.Lacewell's suggestion that African Americans would stay home if Clinton were to be the nominee. I am a Clinton Supporter but, if Obama wins should I feel disenfranchised and should I stay home? Of-course not! At that point, I have one choice, and that is to support the Democratic Nominee, understanding that if I stay home, I am practically voting for the Republican candidate. Obama does not have the experience that Mrs. Clinton has, he is a charming candidate, but this is not a contest on trying to select the best talk show host. However, even though this is how I feel, I would vote for the democratic nominee, even if the nominee is Obama. Any one staying home simply becouse Clinton won the nomination and not Obama is being racist just like tonight, Melissa's comments were racist. Since when can she speak for the entire African American population....her comments were childish....in a way, she was saying....hey...if you do not vote "MY" way, i.e. for the African American guy, I will simply not continue to play with you! - Shame on you. If I recall well, we are Democrats, Democrats vote for the Democratic Nominee, reagardless of their color or sex. Melissa, I was offended, even though I am a white guy..
On Connie Schultz and her comment about Obama supporters attacking hatefully and stating that she has not seen this from Hillary's supporters - NOT - these women have followed her lead! We have been attacked by Hillary maniacs on every blog on every website - and after the insults they say - if Hillary doesn't win they will vote for McCain (that's intelligent)! It has been unbelievable, it is the Obama people that are level headed and, although they don't like Hillary's insinuating that we are all deluded and drinking kool-aid, continue to say they would support her if Obama lost, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. If this continues (she and her radical female followers have personally attacked half of the democratic party + incoming independents), I cannot see how this can be fixed - the republicans are loving this.
i was dissapointed by the use of SCARE tactics that Melissa Harris used tonight by saying that "if Clinton is elected, African Americans will Simply Stay home and do not vote at all" - How can she say that ALL African Americans think like that? I am a Clinton supporter and will always be. However, I am not a Democrat as well and if Obama gets the nomination, I am not going to stay home or vote for Mc Cain. I am going to vote for the Democratic Nomine. Furthermore, I am also scared that we (DEmocrats) will do what we have proben to be so good at doing, electing the wrong candidate. Clinton is much more experienced than Obama. Obama is charming, well spoken, etc. but this is not a personality contest. Clinton not only is more experienced but will beat McCain. McCain, on the other hand, will cream Obama in November....NO question abouit it. Look, McCain is a seasoned war veteran that has twice the experience tat Obama has. However, this comment is mainly to stress my dissapoinment with the way in which Melissa reported that the Obama supporters HATE Clinton. Why report something like that, specially when she is wrong. While it is great to be so emotional and passionate about our suopport for our candidate....well, Mrs. Clinton has never done anything to elisit HATE from any one. Is Melissa saying that African Americans will stay home if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, simply because she is white and "their" black candidate lost the nomination? Tonight, Melissa appeared to me to be using George W. Bush's scare tactics. Respectfully: William Hunter - D-Chicago
I am a White Feminist 64-Yr-old woman & if Hillary is the Dem's nominee I WILL JOIN JANET IN NOT VOTING FOR the 1st time in my life! I've gone on her website & said I'm so disappointed in her as a woman who wants to FIGHT not nurture as she's always said she's done w/ BIG Advocacy for Children, SCHIP law, & all kinds of "It Takes a Village..." crap. She's just trying 2 B Commander-in-Chief so much! If she wasn't a complete Co-Dependent for Bill or his Enabler (Sex addict he proved himself to be)I might be for her if she'd rid herself of the bad baggage of the 8 yrs. of Clinton administration & just stand for herself, not the old cronies like Harold Ickes who messed up the 1st try for Health Care Insurance plan as she went traveling the country nodding her head like a "bobble-head doll" doing her Listening Campaign. I have lost all respect I once had for her & recommend HIGHLY the book FOR LOVE OF POLITICS by Sally Bedell Smith on the White House Yrs. of the Clintons. Just finished it myself. They Sold the Lincoln Bedroom for Fundraisers, she's indebted very much to all kinds of big givers, esp. the Chinese guy who tried to be sick in the hospital to avoid arrest early in 2007's LONG campaign. I'm registered Independent but have to go change to a PARTY to vote in my state Primary(a NON-Progressive state)& I will vote for Obama as I have hopes of CHANGE in this awfully Partisan country. I'd be for Independent candidates if they were NOT the Ever-ready Bunny Ralph Nader! I like the fact that he causes some old idealism that I felt in my late '60's protests against Nixon. I do not want McCain, & DO THINK lots of progressive democrats white,black or beige, WILL NOT VOTE in the Fall IF the HILLARY FIGHTER CANDIDATE is my only choice! Her berating voice saying, "SHAME on YOU, Barack Obama" got chills up my spine as I thought how many men/women would think of the mothers who used to scold them that way. I've been a mother like that, & don't blame my kids for not liking me that much! So, HILLARY is a very polarizing person who I hope the Superdelegates dispense with in the convention lead-up. I've registered Independent for over 15 years, & I'm not going to vote for the LEAST BAD candidate anymore. I DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH, but in early indoctrination from parents, DID vote for Goldwater! God, I was a Teenage Republican like Hillary! I've told my children I think of being a Teenage Republican as I would think of myself as a TEEN-AGE WEREWOLF!!!!!! So, Liberal you may call me...but I'm also sadly now a Hillary Hater...& never tho't I'd be that way as I worked FOR ALL WOMEN candidates just to get some kind of parity for taking the political BLAME for being in Congress. Oh God, I do worry about my innocent, dear, little grandchildren as we face a very dreary future, I'm Afraid.
WOW! How can the Democrats salvage this mess? ANGER IS THEIR MOST INEVITABLE PRODUCT! AND AMONGST THEMSELVES. REPUBLICANS HAVE TO BE DROOLING.
Clinton even relatively trustworthy needs some audacious documenting. Ask the pharmeceutical lobby. She's for sale. As they all are. She'll sellout to Blackwater et al to SUSTAIN Iraq rather than end it. As already cited below there's not a nichols difference between McCain and Clinton re Iraq. Indeed, GOD HELP US!
I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT HANS THINKS THAT THE OBAMA SUPPORTERS WERE GIVING A GREAT ANALYSIS OF THE CAMPAIGN. WAS I WATCHING THE SAME SHOW? I AM IN SAN ANTONIO TEXAS. OBAMA IS LOSING IN BEXAR COUNTY, WHERE SAN ANTONIO IS, 42.28% TO HILLARY'S 56.62%. THIS IS WITH 75% OF THE PRECINTS COUNTED. OVERALL, FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, WITH ALMOST 70% OF THE PRECINCTS COUNTED, HILLARY IS WINNING 51% TO 47%. LOOKING COUNTY BY COUNTY, OBAMA I DOING VERY WELL IN HARRIS AND FORT BEND, WHICH IS THE HOUSTON AREA, AND IN TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTIES, WHICH ARE THE AUSTIN AREA. OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN AREAS, HE IS NOT DOING WELL AT ALL. DOES THAT MEAN THAT NONE OF US, OVER 50% IN TEXAS AT THIS TIME, THAT ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY, HAVE A SAY SO? HERE IS A LITTLE TIDBIT FOR MR. ROSE AND HIS PANELISTS: I MADE MANY CALLS IN MY PRECINT FOR THE CAUCAUS TONITE, AND HAD MANY PEOPLE TELL ME THAT THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA IF HILLARY IS NOT NOMINATED, BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRUST HIM. THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT HIM THAT THEY ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH AND IN MANY CASES THEY CAN'T REALLY PUT THEIR FINGER ON IT. THAT IS SOMETHING I AM GOING TO SUGGEST HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN EXPLOIT!
She and McCain negate each other. Both too jingo. Alternative for me is a-pox-on-both-their houses by a PROTEST VOTE FOR NADER. Indifferent to winner with those two (Clinton, McCain). Except McCain makes my skin crawl. Hero my ass. Napalmed Vietnamese on 22 bomb runs and HEROICALLY shot down bombing a civillian power plant. He, his family (parents and children) epitomize the M of the M-I-O complex (100 yrs in Iraq?). But Hillary is an established venal whore, lobby-owned and totally neutralized versus big corporate money (the real govt). ANOTHER LOOOONG FOUR-TO-EIGHT YEARS. GOD HELP US!
So the Afro-Centrist sre holding the Democrat Party hostage unless they shortcut the voting process by kicking Sen. Clinton out of this close race. What undemocratic tactic will they use if the general election is also clos?
I'm sorry did I miss something???? Did someone die and declare Mark f'en Halprin God????? "Inevitable conclusion"??????? Why bother with the campaign and "election" process why don't we all let's just anoint by "journalist" proxy and urban youth calling for HIllary to drop out of the race, our next President of the United States??????? "INEVITABLE CONCLUSION"????? Did I hear correctly? Inevitably it will be the best candidate for the job of our President and that "sirs" and young angry black woman is Madame HIllary f'en Clinton. How dare someone with only a Time (read establishment) Magazine credential have the audacity to assume that he knows anything about the future. Or how it will "go." Everyone in the country, unlike many of Charlie's guests and I assume Charlie himself as he let's them pontificate their trash on his show, is NOT FOR OBAMA! Get it?????? They are not for Obama and they are SMART, INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS WHO DON'T, UNLIKE OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS, NEED NO OPRAH, THANK YOU, TELLING THEM HOW TO VOTE, LIKE HILLARY THEY ACTUALLY THINK FOR THEMSELVES. STOP LETTING THESE "PUNDITS" TELL US WHAT IS INEVITABLE. IF IT WAS SO INEVITABLE WHY DO WE BOTHER HAVING 50 STATES GO THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS. AND I'M SORRY, JUST BECAUSE "THE PEOPLE" WANT OBAMA, SUPER DELEGATES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO VOTE THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE. IF THEY WERE MEANT TO JUST VOTE THE POPULARITY THEN WHY IMBUE THEM WITH THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES????? Really, Charlie, unbiased journalism, as much as I enjoy your "company" does not seem to be the stock and trade when it comes to Hillary Clinton. You want "change" - how about a woman??? Sorry all you uptight boy/men in journalistic suits, get with it. Another cocky, pompous man supported by the rich and elite of the country, is exactly what we've had for the past eight years and that my seemingly psychic pundits, is exactly who Obama will prove to be and from where all his millions of dollars are coming. They're certainly not coming from those poor kids calling into "urban radio" for HIllary to make way for their King. GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A BIT OF CREDIT THAT THEY HAVE LEARNED HOW TO SEE BEHIND FALSITY HAVING ENDURED THE LIES OF BUSH, AND KNOW HOW TO SPOT A REAL FAKE WHEN THEY SEE IT. IT'S NOT HER "STRATEGY" THAT HILLARY'S SUPPORTERS ARE REACTING TOO, IT'S HER HUMANITY. AND IT RINGS CLEAR AS A BELL, WHERE HIS ....NOT SO SURE. AMBITION, YES. THE REAL DEAL, NO.
Listen, I am a Black 43 year old woman and if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will not vote for her. There is and will be a huge group calling for a Black-out regarding voting in the Democratic party, if the super delegates elect Clinton and eveyone will either vote independent or not vote at all. After her behavior, Clinton does not deserve my vote. For the first time in my life, I would not vote!
I was disturbed by the insistence of Ms.Lacewell's suggestion that African Americans would stay home if Clinton were to be the nominee. I am a woman and if Obama wins should I feel disenfranchised and should I stay home? Her comments were racist and I was offended. I do not feel Obama is qualified to run for president. He just doesn't have either the experience or real ideas for change, despite his claims. Universal health care IS change and radical. I see Obama as the centrist, which is why he has won states that are often red states. Hillary has won the traditional liberal states because she has more progressive ideas despite the rhetoric. And if the last writer thinks Ms. Schultz was pro-Hillary, I think Ms. Lacewell sounded like she was Obama's campaign manager.
One of the things that I really love about the show is the lack of overt partisanship, particularly with the episodes featuring panels. Although tonite's panelists certainly have their respective preferences, they always rise above them and are able to analyze objectively the political issues before them -- in tonite's case, the primaries. I was disappointed, however, that Ms. Schultz was unable to do so and indeed seemed to be overtly campaigning for Ms. Clinton rather than providing the helpful and insightful commentary that makes the show so special. I thought that her input detracted from the analysis offered by the other panelists and made tonite's episode sub par. Please don't let your election panelist episodes turn into a version of CrossFire.
Why is it that the press, RNC and Sen. John McCain, who categorized himself a war criminal on 60 Minutes for napalming Vietnamese children, considers himself smart/ethical/wise/compassionate enough to be a leader of the free world?
any comments vis-a-vis the canadian/clinton dirty flip-flop appreciated.