Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Keyword Tag Cloud
04/22/2008
Mark Halperin, Al Hunt, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Bob Herbert, Jacob Weisberg, Dick Polman
Live coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary
Keywords:
Live coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary with Mark Halperin of Time magazine, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Al Hunt of Bloomberg News, Bob Herbert of The New York Times, Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com.
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.
I realize I am late on commenting on this show. I enjoyed the discussion, but every time I see Mark Halperin and Al Hunt on together I get kind of turned off by their mutual hyping of each other. It's as if they talk before the show and say I am going to complement you every time I speak. I have lost repect for both of these journalists because of the constant self-promotion.
It's quite funny to listen to some of these journalists, it's as if their Obama's apologists then reporters covering an election , ' Oh I know he said this or did that , but that's not who he actually is..... and how would they know when they all said that Obama is formal even off the record and he's only been in national politics for just a few years, it's as if some of the national press on all levels have been projecting their thoughts of what the next President should think and act , instead of seeing who Obama actually is.
It was refreshing and informative to watch experts opining WITHOUT SPINNING about where we stand in the primary race. Spinning has become omnipresent and easy to recognize and disregard, but that doesn't stop anyone from pushing it at the presumed audience. It was a pleasure to see five experts (including the unfortunate plagiarist now rebuilding her reputation) incising the bs from the campaigns. Thanks, Charlie.
Dear Charlie, After watching this show, several comments were brought to mind. 1. Hillary was 120,000 votes behind Barry (prior to the PA vote) if you counted the two states the DNC robbed of their right to have their votes count. I imagine the DNC will allow them to vote in November. I understand the difference between state and federal rights as laid out in the Constitution, but don't know how a political party has the right to tell a state when they can hold their primary. Do you? Good question.I haven't heard anyone telling the DNC that they overstepped their bounds by discounting the votes to count. 2. You and your panel neglected to wear your Obama for President pins on your lapels but your internal ones were evident. It was not objective but a pro-Obama anti-Hillary rally. I'm sure you will realize this if you review the tape. 3. Neither Barry nor Hillary have the number of delegates to receive the nomination. Period. It will be up to the super-delegates to add their votes to make a decision. I guess you could call it a checks and balance situation similar to the Legislative branch, the Executive branch and the Judicial branch. One creates the laws, one enacts the laws (or vetoes) and the other interprets the laws. I wish the media didn't suggest that Hillary was stealing the nomination from Barry. 4. Barry does well with speeches written by his team. I believe I learned on your show that Ted Sorenson, (JFK's speech writer) writes the speeches. Ted still has it. One of our local radio hosts posted the 3 paragraphs from Barry's "bitter" speech. They were not logical, they were confusing, horrible. He sounded worse than President Bush. I cannot believe the late night comedians haven't picked up on his lack of fluency. Barry has good people around him running the campaign. I doubt he does much of the day-to-day planning etc. He doesn't have the experience nor the time. He's the puppet on the string of the DNC. That alone makes it difficult for me to endorse him. Believe me, I do try. 5. I listen to many of the radio talk shows each day. Both liberal and conservative. I cannot believe the liberals have allowed Barry such leeway. The skit on SNL was too true. How can liberals look at the facts and just ignore them? 6. You are old enough to remember Twilight Zone. Barry's campaign reminds me of the show in which aliens come to earth looking for brave people who will go to their planet where lives of luxuries will await them. The aliens have mesmerized the earth people with their promises. It is at the end that one brave soul who has been able to decode an alien book and calls out to those on the ramp to the ship to "stop." The book is a cookbook: how to cook humans. Barry makes promises of change but when he is pinned down to enumerate said changes, he flumphers, makes mistakes, needs to make clarification, then clarify his clarifications, etc.
Dear Charlie, After watching this show, several comments were brought to mind. 1. Hillary was 120,000 votes behind Barry (prior to the PA vote) if you counted the two states the DNC robbed of their right to have their votes count. I imagine the DNC will allow them to vote in November. I understand the difference between state and federal rights as laid out in the Constitution, but don't know how a political party has the right to tell a state when they can hold their primary. Do you? Good question.I haven't heard anyone telling the DNC that they overstepped their bounds by discounting the votes to count. 2. You and your panel neglected to wear your Obama for President pins on your lapels but your internal ones were evident. It was not objective but a pro-Obama anti-Hillary rally. I'm sure you will realize this if you review the tape. 3. Neither Barry nor Hillary have the number of delegates to receive the nomination. Period. It will be up to the super-delegates to add their votes to make a decision. I guess you could call it a checks and balance situation similar to the Legislative branch, the Executive branch and the Judicial branch. One creates the laws, one enacts the laws (or vetoes) and the other interprets the laws. I wish the media didn't suggest that Hillary was stealing the nomination from Barry. 4. Barry does well with speeches written by his team. I believe I learned on your show that Ted Sorenson, (JFK's speech writer) writes the speeches. Ted still has it. One of our local radio hosts posted the 3 paragraphs from Barry's "bitter" speech. They were not logical, they were confusing, horrible. He sounded worse than President Bush. I cannot believe the late night comedians haven't picked up on his lack of fluency. Barry has good people around him running the campaign. I doubt he does much of the day-to-day planning etc. He doesn't have the experience nor the time. He's the puppet on the string of the DNC. That alone makes it difficult for me to endorse him. Believe me, I do try. 5. I listen to many of the radio talk shows each day. Both liberal and conservative. I cannot believe the liberals have allowed Barry such leeway. The skit on SNL was too true. How can liberals look at the facts and just ignore them? 6. You are old enough to remember Twilight Zone. Barry's campaign reminds me of the show in which aliens come to earth looking for brave people who will go to their planet where lives of luxuries will await them. The aliens have mesmerized the earth people with their promises. It is at the end that one brave soul who has been able to decode an alien book and calls out to those on the ramp to the ship to "stop." The book is a cookbook: how to cook humans. Barry makes promises of change but when he is pinned down to enumerate said changes, he flumphers, makes mistakes, needs to make clarification, then clarify his clarifications, etc.
Dear Charlie, After watching this show, several comments were brought to mind. 1. Hillary was 120,000 votes behind Barry (prior to the PA vote) if you counted the two states the DNC robbed of their right to have their votes count. I imagine the DNC will allow them to vote in November. I understand the difference between state and federal rights as laid out in the Constitution, but don't know how a political party has the right to tell a state when they can hold their primary. Do you? Good question.I haven't heard anyone telling the DNC that they overstepped their bounds by discounting the votes to count. 2. You and your panel neglected to wear your Obama for President pins on your lapels but your internal ones were evident. It was not objective but a pro-Obama anti-Hillary rally. I'm sure you will realize this if you review the tape. 3. Neither Barry nor Hillary have the number of delegates to receive the nomination. Period. It will be up to the super-delegates to add their votes to make a decision. I guess you could call it a checks and balance situation similar to the Legislative branch, the Executive branch and the Judicial branch. One creates the laws, one enacts the laws (or vetoes) and the other interprets the laws. I wish the media didn't suggest that Hillary was stealing the nomination from Barry. 4. Barry does well with speeches written by his team. I believe I learned on your show that Ted Sorenson, (JFK's speech writer) writes the speeches. Ted still has it. One of our local radio hosts posted the 3 paragraphs from Barry's "bitter" speech. They were not logical, they were confusing, horrible. He sounded worse than President Bush. I cannot believe the late night comedians haven't picked up on his lack of fluency. Barry has good people around him running the campaign. I doubt he does much of the day-to-day planning etc. He doesn't have the experience nor the time. He's the puppet on the string of the DNC. That alone makes it difficult for me to endorse him. Believe me, I do try. 5. I listen to many of the radio talk shows each day. Both liberal and conservative. I cannot believe the liberals have allowed Barry such leeway. The skit on SNL was too true. How can liberals look at the facts and just ignore them? 6. You are old enough to remember Twilight Zone. Barry's campaign reminds me of the show in which aliens come to earth looking for brave people who will go to their planet where lives of luxuries will await them. The aliens have mesmerized the earth people with their promises. It is at the end that one brave soul who has been able to decode an alien book and calls out to those on the ramp to the ship to "stop." The book is a cookbook: how to cook humans. Barry makes promises of change but when he is pinned down to enumerate said changes, he flumphers, makes mistakes, needs to make clarification, then clarify his clarifications, etc.
With all the problems facing us today it is not enough to select a good president. Anyone will likely be better than the one we have now. The real question is are we(!) ready for a radical change, a change from our age old ways leading into doom, to a new way which opens into a sustainable bright future. A future where we all live together on this unique planet in peace and meaningful prosperity for us all. We need to have the courage to envision a world where we can all enjoy the gift of life in this miraculous universe, surrounded by our fellow humans and all of creation. To dream the dream is not enough, we have to live it, and it needs to include us all. We have to find in us the courage to follow the leader who can inspire us to go in a new direction, the leader who can make clear what is at stake and what is possible and who can bring us together despite our personal preferences and our fear of the new. Hillary could have been this leader. It is past time to get the female to the front and into leadership. She chose however to fight Bill's way, the macho way, the male way. She missed her chance. She chose not to play the role of wise nurturing woman, but of the nag. Obama may not have all the answers, but he is intelligent and is not afraid to listen to counsel of others, including opponents and controversial people, and make informed decisions as they come up. He will make mistakes and will do things not all of us will always like. He is after all human amongst humans. But he has the capacity to speak to all of us, to speak to our hearts and minds. He could be the one leading and encouraging us to go through the unavoidable troubled waters. McCain is not a bad man, but he represents the doomed way of the past. He is not the future. He still fights Vietnam, he has no vision of what is needed for humanity to survive. We will not survive if we stay in the frame of 'us against them', man against nature, good versus evil, fantasies of eternal growth in a limited world. He has no clue about the fundamental changes needed for our very survival. We all need to find the way to a future where each of us has what he needs, where each one can live in respect and peace in a healthy environment with meaningful occupation and supporting relationships. We need to reevaluate ourselves, our lives, our connection to each other and to life itself. Inspiration is needed. Leadership based on past experience is not enough. The future is with the young. We need to find the courage to follow their lead. Their hearts and minds are still open for a glorious future. Old age and experience doesn't make you wise. I hope with the young. Count me amongst them! We need a new future. It starts now!
I really enjoyed the conversation (minor negative comment below.) Don't get to watch the show as often as I would like and, once again, impressed by its quality. I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet in November - we are fortunate to have the quality of this year's candidates. i respect Obama's great intelligence, and his take on social issues. I admire McCain's moral stands over the years and agree with more of his economic view. Also have great regard for Hillary's knowledge, perseverance and broad scope on social questions. Any one of them is a candidate we can be proud of and each would be a great representative. My one negative comment is the constant drumbeat in the conversation about Hillary getting out of the race. Kind of felt there was some ganging up there and would have felt better if there had been one or two more women on the panel. Minor concern.
The guests complain that the candidates only focus and speak about very tactical/process related topics. The irony and hypocrisy of the guests of the show is that they spent a huge chunk of time talking about exactly at....tactical and process topics rather than real issues. It is just too sad to watch. Charlie instead of wasting this resource and show, drop this show format for primaries and just have on 1 or 2 political experts who are not sucked into the daily politics banter (i.e. some retired policy wonks, not Mark Halperin) SIMPLE RULE OF THUMB FOR GUEST SELECTION: Is this person more like Russert/Stephanopolous or Kevin Phillips/Buckley Jr?
If Obama is not communicating- why is he winning? He has won double the amount of states than Hillary Clinton, is leading in popular votes and elected delegate count and she CANNOT catch-up with him. In Pennsylvania, where not long ago she led by 20 points, she prevailed by a single digit 9.2 margin. He has been endorsed by more newspapers than Hillary Clinton whose endorsement by the NYTimes seemed to be rescinded yesterday in a very critical review of her campaign tactics.
Obama is not connecting? What about all the new register votes he has drawn into the political discourse, how about the record crowds who attend his rallies and line-up for hours to hear him and see him? He aloof? The community organizer walking the pavement of the south side of Chicago? His skill as a communicator and orator is far greater than his opponent. Why has Obama comes this far? Exactly because people can relate to what he is saying and because he is speaking the truth unlike triangulating and misrepresenting Mrs. Clinton.
The Liberal-haters on this page are so pathetic. This country has been ruled by ultra-conservatives for 8 years and look where it has gotten us? We are only a shadow of what we were before conservatives disarranged our country and its institutions. Don't vote blindly, illiterate scum.
I have loved the Charlie Rose show for so many years, sometimes I think he should write my "why I'm late for work, or can't concentrate at work" notes, I've been staying up for so many years. I watched the commentary on the Philadelphia primary, and mostly heard what I expected, with one exception. Someone(I'm sorry I don't remember which guest) actually gave Hillary Clinton credit for her preparation, her depth of knowledge on the issues, how she's spoken with intelligence and conviction during the campaign. Because I'm so impressed with that too, just the sheer content she has in her head, compared to Mr. Obama. Well,there just is no comparison. I've thought for some time that I wish the debates were conducted like job interviews. At least when I interview, I ask each candidate the same questions, record the answers, give them hypothetical situations and ask them to tell how they'd conduct themselves in those situations, and ask them to tell about an actual time they've resolved a conflict in the work place previously. The specifics needed to answer these questions would have Mr. Obama stammering, and Hillary would move through them in a breeze. Now before I get too far, I want to say that I am not a fanatic for Hillary, or an enemy of Obama's. I am a democrat, pure and simple, I will vote for whoever the democrats nominate, while never forgetting what has happened to us in these last 8 disasterous years. I was a supporter for John Edwards in the beginning, then I went to Hillary because of how much she knows about specific issues and I don't think we need to be inspired I think we need to be instructed about what it's going to take in actual "sleeves rolled up" commitment and hard work rather than someone trying to make me feel inspired by words without any actions. My last thought and the reason I actually set out to write these comments is that I have actually been embarassed for Charlie Rose these last few months because he is so infatuated by Obama. I think if Charlie would actually watch the tapes of his own shows he would be embarassed, too, at how blatant his bias is for Obama, how easily his anger at Hillary shows, how much he tries to get every guest, even those who are not there to be political commentators, to speak about Obama, and how he interrupts anyone who starts to say anything critical of Obama or complimentary of Hillary. I think someday out in the future when enough time has gone by that he can get a measure of detachment, if he watches himself he will wish he could destroy all record of his adolescent behavior in regard to the admiration for Obama. It's remarkable to me that he doesn't have a clue how it is coming across to his viewers and what it reveals about him. Charlie, the word is not the thing, the word "change" is not actual change, the word "unity" is not in fact, what unity looks like with "skin on". It's okay that you like him and hope he'll win, but it sure looks to me that you are under a spell.
Carol - I dont now about the shooting part. But it is rather tiresome to have stereotypes repeated endlessly. See ya in Nov.
Very interesting comments, everybody be sure that you all our around in November to vote......
No offense taken :) People are so tied to each of these candidates, they are starting to shoot each other in the foot. I am saving my passion for the general election. I have seen my own union president go "Republican" thanks to the influence of Hillary, and Obama supported NCLB (with Ted Kennedy), but at least they both support health care reform.
hey Carol - was kidding on the reading glasses - hope you know I wasnt picking on you. Never take anything on anonymous boards personally anyway. I learned the hard way.
who is 'al hunt' ? and what does he have to do with reality?
my sister says i use the phrase 'i don't get it' a lot these days. maybe so. i blame it lately on this primary (along with the 'where's waldo' thing we call iraq). tell me the goofs who set this up did not know it would get down to being decided by them. how else could it have ended. so... this time clinton takes all but a handful of the counties and wins by 10 points and she gets (maybe) a handful more delegates than obama... who lost by 200000 plus votes! the exact numbers for the delegate distribution depends on your source. it's well... a kinda secret for now. i wonder what we would think of this system if we watched it from a different country point of view. (who gets their results first us or zimbabwe.) the national election will not be playing by these convoluted rules and obama can't win the national against mccain by having a lock on the inner-city black vote. whatever the percentage of white votes he got yesterday he will get less against maccain. some one before me has mentioned the democrats snatching defeat from victory.
So I watched for half. Didnt expect any value and my expectations were met. Like watching the run up to Iraq. I wonder if the media will appologize later like they did when they crammed Bush down our throats as the cool guy and the war on Iraq as a necessity? oops, still waiting for those.
This Democratic Party primary season is fast becoming another exercise in how to snatch defeat from victory. The election cycle was served up on a platter for the Democrats to win the gold. Yet due to the infighting in the party, it once again is going to expose the carnival shell game that is the Democratic Party. Hillary by all accounts was the annoited one before the primary season began. The expected Democratic Party flag bearer. She had eight years to get all her ducks in a row, with the deeply entrenched party organizations in the major states of NY, CA, MA, OH, PA, NV FL, TX and MI. All she lacked was a token opposition. Yet out of left field rides Obama, who throws his hat in the ring. Obama had the backing of the powerful Midwest faction of the Democratic Party known as the Chicago Mayor Daly Machine. Low and behold Obama trounces Hillary in white bread Iowa and now we have a viable contender for all those who have a distaste for the Clinton mystique. The Obama backers think Obama can carry the South for the first time in a (**#$ age and he is a made to order candidate for those upper middle class intellectual Democratic voters/supporters. Now all they have to do is nullify the middle, the Bubba Clinton voter class. However losing isn't in the Clinton lexicon and Hillary ain't goin out until the fat lady sings and or a stake is driven through her heart. So it has become a slug fest that is stripping away the The bright shining hope that the Democratic Party wanted to present to the electorate on election day. Instead the banner is fast becoming frayed and the hope that was offered is beginning to look like more of the same tired old rhetoric of old. The Democrats just want to implement their vision of utopia, more taxes and more government programs, this time around limiting oposition under the banner of reforming the system by eliminating special interests. So how will this all play itself out. Unless Hillary comes to her senses at some point she in a very real way could destroy the Democratic Party by splitting it irrevocabilby. If Hillary wins the nomination in the those smoke filled back rooms the Obama supporters will become disfranchised and leave. On the other hand a good percentage of the Bubba Clinton voter class will take a look at the "elitist" Obama camp and head over to the old familar shoe of John McCain. There is one thing the Democrats are right about, it is time for a change. The Democratic Party is oboslete, those old coalitions no longer fit together and must find like water, their own level. A new political allignment in the US must take place, before America can forge ahead. Otherwise it will be more of the same old, same old.
The Democrats have finally got a transcendent candidate and this is what we do to him? It's as sas as sad can be.
That is DISS with two ss, Carol - you have now outted yourself as a needing reading glasses boomer. But how do you know who else is a boomer on here? Are you stereotyping? :-P But you'll excuse me if I am skeptical of your claim of balance. Balance these days in the media seems to akin to not calling Clinton a bad name. Well, aint that special.
It is a dead heat on a merry-go-round. The "bitter clinging" statement finally strips away the Obama veneer and belies the "elitist" intellectual that is backed by some very powerful friends. This is a war in the Democratic Party between the Clinton faction and the Uber Liberal faction. If one recalls it was the Daly, Andrew Cumo faction that were Albert Gore sympatico's in 2000. Where does Obama call home, Chicago you say. Isn't that Daly territory? How interesting that Obama should sweep the Midwest and West. Wisconsin isn't that just north of Chicago? Indiana isn't that in the Chicago orbit?<><><><<><><<>Hillary on the other hand has swept the states where the Democratic Party has well established party organizations going back a century or more in some states. Like NY, PA, OH, CA, NV, MA and TX. It is no surprise that she wins on establishment ground that owe her and Bill favors or let us say good will. Recalling Mr Rendells' participation here. Hillary can never call it a day, as she knows this is her best shot at returning to the White House. Hillary will literally need a stake through her heart to quit, losing isn't a word in her lexicon. <><><><><><> Hillary has very high negatives and has always been seen as less than an honest person by the Conservative faction in the USA. With her Bosnia statement, it just shows everybody how selective her reality and veracity is. As the primary campaign season drags on Obama veneer as a soaring agent of change is becoming frayed. At the end he may wind up looking like another Kerry, Gore or Kennedy politically. The change that Obama wants to implement will be the same tired old Liberal dream agenda of old. Sorry old grandpa McCain is looking better all the time. He would in all probability be the best Democratic Party candidate of them all.
Hi Dis-Connect: Let's see, there's the comment that "baby boomers" caused all the ills in our society, and there's another that states "There's a ring of arrogance, selfish unfounded confidence, bitterness and disrespect in their bones..." But, I think you would have been overall pleased with this show compared to others because, on some level, they did try to present a balanced view of both candidates.
ultraliberal,ultraliberal...loser,loser
What Obama can't explain to the American people Charlie's Gang can't describe... another ultraliberal and his agenda. Journalism is the art of description, comparison and contrast. Why have the Democrat Elites pushed on the electorate another ultraliberal- who will go over the Niagra Falls of American politics- just like Kerry and Gore. Repeat after me...ultraliberal,ultraliberal...loser,loser.
I am not so naïve to think that race does not matter and, clearly, there is some percentage of white voters who will factor that into their voting decision to some extent. And that is denounced, accurately, as racism What gets lost, and is never commented on is the fact that clearly a very significant portion of Obamaâ??s support among African-Americans is also based on race. Clearly 90% of one identity group voting for one candidate consistently is not based on issues, and so to whatever extent there is some racism working against him, there is a very sizable portion working in favor of him. Yet, nobody ever talks about that or denounces that or suggests that his supporters are racist
this show has become sooo pathetic. i have read the comments and it should be obvious to charlie rose that his 'intelligent conversation' has become simply 'the other' fox news.... i think Carol's 'Oh please! ' referring to the he's-just-tired-excuse this fan club gave for obama's poor performance fits as a comment for the pod-people performance of the charlie rose show itself.
These shows have all just become Pep Rallies. I have faith that the American people will do what they always do and vote "centrist". There is nothing about Obama that is remotely "centrist". The stakes are way too high for a President who came from nowhere (does corrupt Chicago count?) to be the new leader of the free world. Obama is a great Orator, but that's about all we have seen. A beautiful and expensive suit that says what people love to hear - the oratory changes with the given crowd. He will be the Democratic candidate as anything else will produce riots in the USA that we have not seen for 40 years, but he will go the way of McGovern in the general election - down in flames.
I didnt see anyone attacking another poster so what are you talking about, Carol? Are you on the right thread? I saw people attacking the guests - I didnt watch since it is the same old crew. Getting kinda boring to hear the echo chamber, frankly.
Again, people on this post are attacking each other rather than looking at the cause--the candidates themselves. Race was discussed on this show and 13% of voters admitted race was a factor (3out of 4 of the 13% went for Hillary). That is still a sad commentary. And Obama can get the middle-class vote if his campaign allows him not answer questions truthfully rather than skirt around them. And, to say his comments haven't been hurtful and imply voters "stupid" or "old" for feeling that way is very divisive. I supported Obama in the NYS primary after Edwards dropped out, and I admit to having buyer's remorse even if I still have problems with Hillary. I know I read these comments looking for something to renew my spirit, and instead see what I stated in my comment before--people are turning against each other because we are not jumping for joy for the candidate of their choice. The media (Charlie included) forgives any mistakes Obama makes (he's too tired) and vilifies Hillary for hers. She may not have a chance at winning the nomination, but she has every right as an American candidate to complete the journey.
Not to be inflammatory, but it seemed to me that Charlie's guests last night were too eager to embrace the "Obama can't connect to working class Americans" storyline from the PA primary. I didn't see the first few minutes of the program, but I'm wondering why out and out racism was never referenced - it's tiptoed around, saying "these areas are more white, so they're going to Hillary", but no one ever comes out and says that these "working class" communities are comprised of mostly uneducated white voters who most likely come from several generations of a racist culture. Much like the "Obama/Osama" church sign in SC, which the church goers voted to keep up, even if you did set racism aside, there is a pervasive ignorance and xenophobia in some of these "working class" communities which can't be denied - but why does it need to be embraced? Why are these people's votes being courted so enthusiastically? Are the people who still willfully conflate Obama and Osama, who still believe Saddam was behind September 11th, who still believe they'd rather "have a beer" with a recovering alcoholic - are these the people who are deciding this country's fate? Or are they the ones being manipulated into doing so? Is that why is "intellectual" is still a pejorative in this country? Isn't that how we ended up electing George W. Bush twice? Are these "working class" communities so willfully ignorant that they don't see how that worked out?
I believe one thing has become abundantly clear, we need more than two viable political parties and our winner take all system is a failure. Reading all of the bitter and angry comments from the two sides of the Democratic party (Clinton/Obama) reveals just how different democrats are. Many democrats are older, conservative, and very religious. While many others are on the more liberal side of the spectrum. Though it's not discussed much but Hillary is pro death penalty and Obama against it. They are very different people and appeal to different sides of the party. Personally, I'm more aligned with the Green Party, but to vote for their candidate is simply throwing my vote away in a winner take all political system. No one candidate is right for the entire party, we are simply too big and too dissimilar. My coworkers and I are all union "lunch bucket" democrats and for Obama (probably 80%/20%). I can't relate to blue collar democrats on Clinton's side in states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If I had my wish, the Northwest would secede and we would establish a parliamentary system of government.
Gee, where to begin. I was stunned that six smart people could be so deluded. It's not just the Severe ObamaSwoon Syndrome which would be mainly embarrassing if History weren't on the line (â??The infatuations of the sensual and frivolous part of mankind are amazing; but the infatuations of the learned and sophistical are incomparably more so.â?? --I. Taylor from 1913 Websters). It's that these folks call themselves reporters? Mere I have seen Hillary give remarkable and detailed speeches about Iraq, health care, the Clean Energy Age, education. I can tell you real detail about each of her plans on these and other matters. I make time to find her on CSpan and actually watch a whole speech or town meeting. It is the Press which at one level of 'sophisticalness' or other latches on to the gaffe du jour. Hillary's ability to put the high falutin' vision together with the necessary low falutin' daggone daily hard work to get there is so inspiring in its genius practicality that I often applaud so loud I scare my cat. To hear an *Historian* burble on about how Mr. Obama 'figured out the caucuses' when 15% of Hillary's house-bound older women voters are prevented from having their rightful share of pledged delegates and popular votes because of NO ABSENTEE BALLOTS being allowed is tragically trivial. Huge numbers of Hillary's core group of older women are house-bound by a terrible fear of falling. "I don't dare go out to caucus, honey, I'm off-balance. If I can't be there in my body, I don't count." This is straight up voter suppression, not 'figured-out caucuses.' It is just exactly the kind of grotesque distortion of The Will of the People that superdelegates were designed to take into account. I'll admit I had the advantage of making 2400 volunteer phone calls to talk to actual voters around the country, a sample your experts clearly didn't have, but they sound so far in the self-referential and self-reverential Ether that I get the bends listening to them.
Thank you Doris for reminding everyone about the New Hampshire debate...Obama to Hillary: "you're likeable enough". I say: Enough said. That's all I ever needed to hear to know the real Obama. Axelrod's Brain perhaps?
The conversation concerning the Pennsylvania primary was one of the most insightful and sophisticated discussions of American politics that I have seen on television. Congratulations and thanks to all six participants.
Appreciate your show Charlie Rose. Tonight's panel was good, especially historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's remarks. I'm sending notice to CNN's "Pennsylvania Primary" producers to review this show for a sense of sanity. All of the pundits on their show were off the mark and drunk on Hillary's lead in 1 state over Obama. When talking heads summarize what 1,035,317 voters have really done into a general demographic statement, it downplays each of us who use our citizen's right to vote. Kudos to your show. I'm truly amazed about what others wrote as comments on your site. It seems like they do this kind of thing alot. There's a ring of arrogance, selfish unfounded confidence, bitterness and disrespect in their bones. Guess the TV, computer video games, violent movies as their babysitter created some weirdos. Still time to learn and appreciate art & culture. Best to All.
Obama comes off cold because he is trying to appeal to every American. He should. This election has more at stake than Iraq and health care. We really need to start taking a look at the way we, as a culture, influence the world. The time for nit-picking and name-calling is beyond archaic. Don't forget to vote in local elections. "Change" IS the catchword for 2008. All we need to decide now is: What kind of change will we make?
Why are all you old people so bitter? Don't you know that you what kind of damage you've done already? Look what kind of planet you are leaving us with-- You should step aside and retire your bigotry and tyranny. We live in a new generation now, one which is trying to fix what you baby boomers have destroyed. Let us elect a president who can actually relate to the issues at hand, instead of shoving one of your out-of-touch candidates to us again. With that said, please make Hillary get out of the race. She and all the rest of the baby boomers are tone deaf right now.
I can't remember a time when voters were so strongly for one candidate over another, that even Democratic voters are blasting one another. I know I was supporting Obama against Hillary when Edwards dropped out until I felt he was not honest with his own baggage. (I still have a problem with Hillary) I was more surprised that Doris did not bring up the fact that conventions in the past did not have a candidate in-waiting, and many fights broke on the floor and out behind the scenes. (Or am I having a Hillary moment here?) I can still remember Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley covering these conventions and running around finding delegates who were still undecided. Or, finding delegates who were changing their votes. How exciting those conventions were! Now it's some type of mortal sin if a candidate is not selected before the convention. For once, it was refreshing to hear a group on the Charlie Rose Show say that Obama has problems connecting to middle class voters, and some recognized that Obama is condescending. They all agreed that Obama was responsible for this loss. The panelists also pointed out that Obama did not handle the last debate well, but you all excused him of being tired. Oh please! (at least they didn't blame ABC) Charlie even wants him to take a few days off so he can better handle Hillary. Seems to me that Hillary may have been tired too, but came across pretty sharp. But with Obama there is always a good excuse when he screws up. The panelists were even ready to concede that Obama is going to have a harder time with middle class Americans when he goes up against McCain. And, McCain may get the votes of the big states that Obama couldn't win. They agreed that the Times got it wrong in today's editorial because this campaign was not "down or dirty", just politics as usual. The best line of the night.."The NYTimes has buyer's remorse". They cannot do enough to put more Obama pics on the front page and run anti-Hillary headlines. Yet they endorsed her in the New York primary. So once again the Dems are giving us a candidate that may not be able to win the election thanks to the stupidity of both candidates. However, they made a scarier prediction that any winner will leave the White House with an even bigger mess than it is now.
SO DO WE WAIT TO BE TOLD WHO WON BY PINHEADS--NO---ROLL ON --100YRS WAR--CORPORATE PROFITS WALL STREET AND MONEY--THE PERMIENTATIONS OF GREED DRIVE--- THE BUS--AND WE ARE ALL STRAPPED IN--- FOR ROAD OF LIES---MCCAIN--IS NOT THE HEIR APPARENT TO REAL FOLKS--WHO SEE DANGERS--LIKE ---DEER IN HEADLIGHTS
the philly guy was the only one i thought lasered in on the real the truths: 1)obama was revealed as an elistist.we all are to varying degrees at various times.some actually make a great living at it. 2)obama is not going to be able to win the general election because he doesn't/can't relate 3)hillary is very good relating and especially in small groups al hunt led the handwringing but still assured us that obama would be nominated. hope al just officially joins the obama campaign. NOBODY MENTIONED THAT OBAMA SPENT 3TIMES AS MUCH AS HILLARY,and still couldn't win.nor the fact is that obama can not win the necessary votes to win the monination. ps charlie rose actually used my line about obama using the adlai stevenson playbook,but i won't be at the table soon.
Agree with Martina, there's little objectivity where Obama and CR are concerned. Hillary's acuity won me over up until her Bosnia fantasy that has literally scared me screaming away from her. That was too unstable for a casual converation let alone a presidential stump speach for crying out loud. In KS they will vote for McCain so I can vote for Nader with impunity.
With the exception of the panelist from Pennsylvania, the panel epitomizes the elitist stereotype. It is laughable--their efforts to minimize a significant victory while trying to baby Obama along. It is laughable that they criticized the candidates for not discussing issues, when it is the press that has reduced this race to a popularity contest. Charlie's obvious bias against Senator Clinton is abiding and blatant. Except for a few cursory comments about Hillary, the program (once again) degenerated into the Obama pep club. The American press has elevated him far above his current abilities and tried to bully Clinton out of the race. It has been unbelievably stilted and unprofessional. Thankfully, Pennsylvania did not recognize Obama's annointment and dealt with the press' smoke sceens quite deftly. Hopefully, the people will decide this race and not the pundits who, as this rarified group clearly demonstrates, are intoxicated by their own hot air.
Why hasn't Hillary's Bosnia exaggeration been seen as a sicko, pathalogical deviancy that is crucially important to prevent from entering the presidency (again). We've had enough crazy warmongering jingoism. Hillary verbalizing nuking Iran just recently. She's a loose canon. Smart but total lack of wisdom (like her husband). And quite frankly a tad unstable (Bosnia?)
Doris went on about Obama's fantastical campaign organization - how he has put this amazing thing together and has know how - the money he's gotten, etc. This is ridiculous. He has David Axelrod - see NY Times article re Axelrod, Obama's Narrator. He has Dashle, Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, Richardson, Rockafeller, etc etc etc. He isn't a very "different" kind of candidate. And he hasn't had to do a thing. He's been handed everything. That's the way he likes it. Lots of praise for very little substance. Lots of credit for things he's got nothing to do with. MLK, JFK, Jefferson, Devall Patrick. Hillary's policies and tweaks them to call his own. That's why they aren't very different from hers. He steals, he plagairzes and he repeats famous peoples words and pretends he is half who they are. As Mark Halperin said, he never lifted a finger to do anything about Health Care after his mother died. He's never lifted a finger to do ANYTHING in all of his equal opportunity life. He's had the chance. All he did was write a book about himself so he could get some money. You people are so stupid and simple minded. Anyone with half a brain who really looks at this guy and his past can see that he's done NOTHING. Without the quarter million dollars (his campaign tried to say it was only 26K at the start but found the lie would be discovered) - without the 250,000 from Rezko he wouldn't be where he is. He loves other people getting him where he's going. He doesn' thave to do a thing. This is all about the black like me vote. If he wasn't black - Geraldine was RIGHT - he'd be nowhere. And in PA the gap would be 50%. Can we all start talking about the black like me vote? It's ok for people to vote only based on their race? But we can't call it racism? Or, more correctly, WRONG REASON. Crying out loud. What fools.
Obama life has been a series of experiences uniquely suited to lead us in a changing world. Our world is complex, multicultural, and changing... just as his life has been. And he has a great many programs, plans, specifics, etc. Go to his website, listen to his speeches and debate videos. Did you know he plans no income tax on senior citizens earning less than $50,000 per year. Now that is just common sense. Taxing poor old people is not what a strong, wealthy country should be doing. What Obama does lack, that Hillary has in abundance, is the hubris both Clintons took to the White House in 1992. She thinks experience is so very important because she and Bill didn't have it back then. More importantly, they had the arrogance to think that being right on the issues was all it took (actually, Bill knew better). Hillary has always thought being right on the issues meant the ends would justify the means. Let us not forget which Clinton made the initial move to bring Dick Morris into the Clinton camp to win in 1996.... Hillary. He was a win at any cost politico if there ever was one. Haven't we had enough of that type of attitude with George Bush and Dick Cheney. And for those who think a Hillary presidency would be like having Bill back, compare his campaign in 1992 to her's in 2008. Different as night and day. Obama...yes we can!!!!
But are the ppl to whom Obama doesn't relate, black or white?
Well Charlie, we all know who you're voting for. I'm also beginning to think your hearing is going - because you have gotten to talking very LOUDLY to those on your show. Like the cannot hear you. We can. Doris Kearns appears to be going foggy as well. Saying Obama should have gone to Europe, blah blah blah, - what for? A photo op? That would give him experience!? Or "the appearance" of experience. Which is all he is about. Phony inexperienced and young with questionable judgment. We should blindly trust this guy. She's loosing it. Everyone's trying COACH THE BOY. Why should we hire a President who needs TRAINING on even presenting ideas? Because he doesn't really have any. He reads everything important from a teleprompter. Hasn't focused on programs? Obama needs to "get past speeches and come up with programs". WHAT THE HECK!??! If he doesn't have these now - what have people been voting for him based on? His rock star, glitz obama marketing team. It's ridiculous he's where he is WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. You people who like him are so freaking duped. "Believers" with nothing to believe in but an empty, marketed American Idol product. And you think you're intellectuals. Wow. God Bless America is right.