Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/06/2012 01:36 AM Report

“She connects him to other people.”

Charlie asks, who has the higher emotional intelligence and she says Michelle at parties.

If I am with people from dawn to dusk my emotional intelligence is going to be exhausted by the time I go to a party. Let's be fair.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/06/2012 01:29 AM Report

“I've been covering the Obamas for five years for the New York Times, and one of the things that I've learned about the Obamas is that they've spent their entire relationship asking two questions and really debating them back and forth between each other.

One: How much change is really possible within the political system?

And two: Is political life even livable?”

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=144324472

Answers: not much, not livable and the Gabby Giffords story she told makes the case.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/06/2012 01:23 AM Report

'He did not do well as an author so he ran for office.'

Ha!

The president reported income of $5.5M in 2009 on his tax returns, most of it from Dreams from My Father and Audacity of Hope, his two bestselling books that have continued to be popular, proving that in contrast to the track record of presidential accounts, Obama can both write and has something to say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/18/barack-obama-tax-returns-books

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/06/2012 01:08 AM Report

'She is not happy with Scott Brown winning and sends a message to the White House.'

Yes, Scott Brown winning was a huge slap in the face especially if you take the time to watch Teddy Kennedy's endorsement of candidate Obama.

tabs  01/18/2012 01:46 PM Report

Ms Kantor presented in her interview a very compassionate and empathetic view of the Obamas. One has previously stated in "Why Obama Will Never Be A Lincoln" that

"It was only when BO met his Michelle that he was accepted for who he was and given the comfort and stability of a home. That he found love."

When one finds love in a persons life one knows the portrait of that person is not only complete but accurate as well. Going back to the subject of being an Interrogator the most important thing Mr Rose expressed in the interview was that he did not believe that anyone could know what another person is feeling. This is not exactly true, while understanding why a person is feeling what they are feeling is not always readily apparent to the exact letter, what they are feeling usually is if one is paying attention to that facet of awareness. The mechanism of that facet of awareness is that in any situation one should give credence and honor to ones emotions as being a barometer of the situation. Then one should start to wonder why one is feeling what one is feeling and there imagination comes into play, what image or words comes to mind is your answer as to roughly why. Here one must remember that ones imagination is ones point of access to the Deep Blue of one subconscious brain and deep down in those depths on a genetic level all human beings are connected. The trick Mr Rose is to be able to separate out all the noise, distractions and preconceptions of the visceral world.

Globoman  01/18/2012 08:54 AM Report

Silly. She barely deserves any airtime. Is she really a NYtimes reporter? Seemed like Charlie didn't have much patience for her either. Is Michelle "channeling" Barack? Yeah, I wonder... like, wow, like, that's really interesting... Thanks Charlie for interjecting Michelle's interview. Helps ground it with some fact.

jpauldavid67  01/17/2012 08:05 PM Report

Re. The Obamas. Silly tabloid journalism. I failed to see what the author's point was. I was struck by how many times she said, "What my reporting showed...". Was her reporting unbiased, heresay, relevant? I appreciated how Charlie diplomatically and indirectly asked her the same. Almost as silly as when Tina Brown was on the show plugging her book about Diana, Princess of Wales. Keep it serious, Charlie.

Gelles  01/17/2012 04:03 AM Report

Improvised nuclear-weapon terrorism (and or nuclear accident or limited nuclear war) are what has recently been defined as "black swan" events -- unexpected -- but devastating in their effect.

In his speech on Jan 12 last week at Duke Univ., General Martin Dempsey (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the top military adviser to the White House,) explained to the American people the unclassified "American Grand Strategy in an Age of Austerity."

He mentioned black swan events and Iran's and North Korea's nuclear bomb and program threats to American cities and areas where millions of us live. He did not claim the risks we face are low or amenable to defenses.

Many of us assume we cannot afford the price effect on oil as fuel that a limited war to end Iran's programs might entail. Others see such war as immoral and unnecessary.

Hawks see war now as necessary to give force to the global need to curb nuclear proliferation.

No doubt, in the long run, far more than a brief war now will be necessary to prevent an ultimate nuclear holocaust that kills all civilized life on earth. But the hawk position is not refuted by that truth.

The unlikely series of events that kept Hitler from having war-winning weapons ahead of his enemies is now forgotten. We made the bomb first. Now any nation can do it if that nation wants the weapon and its enemies do not crush its illicit intentions.

It would be foolish to wait until only nuclear weapons can prevent their not-to-be-tolerated proliferation. Proliferation can be stopped with bunker-busting "safe" bombs today. You would not see need of playing it "safe" today by being a hawk in current circumstances.

Incidentally, the hawk position on austerity is that we cannot afford it. A grand strategy of wise diplomacy and profound determination to prevail over the paradox of austerity (and thrift) will permit this nation to lead its friendly partners into a promised land of fair trade and peaceful co-existence.

anne4444  01/15/2012 04:50 PM Report

Sounds odd, but true:

All animal and human being have equal right on the planet earth. It is the time for us to wake up for the benefit of our own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUqYw7VVHs&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ZLe0_1noE

REMant  01/15/2012 03:10 PM Report

Okay, thoughts and feelings are hearsay evidence, esp when not in the presence of the defendant. But it's motive we are interested in determining. It can't just be ignored, as Charlie being a good cross-examiner has just amply shown.

The president's wife has rarely come up in the media the last 3-4 years. I still have no idea whether she has an "attitude" or not. IMHO political wives are not a bunch I would want to have anything to do with anyway. But I don't blame Michelle for being miffed at ppl who take potshots at her. Still, I don't have the feeling that she's the "liberal" in the piece, and I imagine one could sit down with her and work out a workable plan for this country in an afternoon. I don't know whether I could say that about her spouse.

chawlybygolly  01/15/2012 09:33 AM Report

Michelle Obama has been an Excellent First Lady. Not only, dressing and conducting herself Very Ladylike, taking on the cause of obesity and the poor, inexcusable American diets of children; is Obviously Exactly what a First Lady should be addressing.

Laura Bush was also very classy and ladylike; and addressed education and specifically, Reading; which is a Noble cause but not such a 'Urgent' issue as is Obese Children in the hands of Lazy, Stupid Adults.

Hillary Clinton was a Complete Failure as a First Lady. She was more like a First Bitch; but she's making up for it now, as Secretary of State. (it's about time)

ShalomFreedman  01/15/2012 05:41 AM Report

The two previous comments are on the Jodi Kantor segment. But this comment is on the Iranian segment. I was once again surprised by both David Ignatius and Gary Sick. They both have at various times talked about an Iranian readiness for negotiations. After ten years don't they realize that Iran is just stringing everyone along, playing the same game it has played in lyring about its nuclear program from the beginning? The Iranians are determined to attain a nuclear capability. Apparently there are those who would rather deceive themselves about what is so clear than face the reality. The reality is not pretty. And the options for stopping Iran are not pretty either. The U.S. has backtracked a bit on the sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank. It is doubtful that even those would have stopped Iran.

It would be wonderful if there were covert operations on a scale not yet imagined which would be able to derail the program. With all its magnificent array of resources the U.S. and its allies have shown little ingenuity and daring in significantly derailing the program.

Ellen_Dibble  01/14/2012 11:07 AM Report

As to the first comment on this thread, I'm wondering how the cause I most see Michelle Obama acting on is obesity, not exactly racist or sexist.

As to Michelle Obama saying that she doesn't read books about herself and how can anyone know how she feels, apparently Jodi Kantor is not setting forth, at least in interviews, that our feelings are onion-like, many-layered, and what gets aired at the dinner table one night, maybe with children, maybe with staff, is not necessarily what starts to bubble up and take shape from deeper in the awareness later on. Feelings can be kaleidoscopic. Now you channel this; now you channel that.

As to how can anyone be an "equal partner" in the White House, this is no mystery to me, although I could be wrong. I've read bits of Barack Obama's books, and seen enough to assume, maybe rightly, that the sense of family that Michelle brings -- complete with mother-in-law, complete with Chicago roots, complete with American Afro-American traditional rootedness -- must be incredibly important to our president. One wonders how he held up so well on the campaign trail without that. I'm thinking Abraham Lincoln maybe could have used that kind of family-by-marriage; he seemed so alone. Yet he managed.

jlo999  01/14/2012 08:49 AM Report

My general feeling is that Michelle Obama, accustomed to that Feminist pedestal, is unable to accept any criticism. Like Eric Holder, when criticized, she immediately invokes “the race card.” Moreover, the fact that so many in the media like Soledad O’Brien vigorously defend her, indicates the existence of a Leftist Media who believe that Michelle is beyond reproach.

The fact that she and her husband are professional activists contradicts her assertion that she is not an “angry black woman, “ for by definition, being an activist is the same as being an angry protestor. Being angry is her specialty. For example, during the last presidential campaign Michelle travelled the country trying to whip up angry sentiment amongst voters. Moreover, the fact that she sat in Rev. Wright’s church indicates that not only is she angry, but that even her religious experiences revolve around anger.

I find it odd that the media does not point out that Michelle Obama, unlike other First-Ladies, has restricted herself to causes involving race and gender, and Leftism. Michelle’s angry activism includes: AWIS (Mary Hopkins Is not angry?) , international women’s rights, teaming up with abortion-rights activists, promoting LGBT… the list goes on and on. That a First-Lady would not would not work to better the lives of all Americans, independent of their political or sexual orientation shows how angry this woman really is. I predict that Michelle Obama’s legacy will be to have transformed the role of First-Lady from serving the country, toward serving herself.

Michelle has spoken publicly about her SAT scores not being of the caliber for Ivy League School. I would like for Michelle to make those scores public.

Women like Michelle Obama are one dimensional because they confine themselves to 1-D issues viewed from a 1-D perspective.

She is unable to recognize the role of people different from herself. Her husband sends men to their deaths while gripping about not receiving enough diversity and affirmative action. While she promotes Feminist and LGBT causes, she and her husband refuse to recognize men who have died serving their country as white or heterosexual. There is a fundamental bias in her angry perspective.

Kantor is partly right: Michelle and Barrack are not just Transformative Intellectuals, they are Angry Transformativ Intellectuals.