Charlie Rose

Paige McAdoo, Ph.D.  01/14/2008 04:10 AM Report

Charlie, I watch your show all the time and I agree with the opinions expressed here. That remark of Jonathan Alters's about Senator Clinton and male sexual electricity was way out of bounds. As to electing a president, I see absolutely NOTHING sexy about whether or not the economy runs well or whether I have health insurance! Judging by what is said by these male political pundits, the issue of gender runs much deeper than that of race. All of your male political pundits are very, very to careful not to appear sexist, but in reality they always ARE. For example: Adam Nagourney continually referred to Obama as SENATOR Obama, whereas she was always referred to as MRS. Clinton, rather than as SENATOR Clinton. To define her as Mrs. is to define her solely in terms of her relationship to a man. Whereas Mr. never defines a man in terms of his relationship to a woman. Beside that, that term Mrs. is out dated now--women do not like Mrs. or for that matter Miss. Please drop these old fashioned terms; woman no longer want to be defined solely through their association with men. Maybe the "boys" just can't get over the fact that Senator Clinton is a woman running for president. In short, please replace these male political pundits, or better yet get women political pundits. These tired old male faces need to get a life and grow up. This is probably why they got their predictions all wrong in the first place. You can do better than them.

PHYLLIS SAVAGE  01/10/2008 03:07 PM Report

Please donâ??t take this late contact as a lack of intense reaction to Mondayâ??s appearance of Jonathan Alter. His glib certainty that Clinton had already lost the nomination was bias enough. But his utterly offensive assertion that woman are not electable in the US because of lack of â??sexual electricity on the rope lineâ?? was appalling. What kind of kicks has he been getting on the other side of that rope? How could you decide to feature this quote in your pre-broadcast rather than trampling it on the cutting room floor? I would be more than disappointed to see him on your program again.

Trish Cunningham  01/09/2008 02:06 PM Report

Has it not occurred to the news folks that perhaps the voters that put Bush in office now see what a mistake that was. That all voters are looking for someone that has experience (no matter what race/sex) to fix the mess our county is in. That we do not need another inexperienced, bible thumping, "compassionate" conservative!

Ray Nasser  01/08/2008 11:24 PM Report

I just want to say I watched how Mr. Jonathan Alter was talking none sense about Hilliry Clinton and make his own opinion about favoring Obama. Let tell you were wrong you shouldn't been favoring any candidate the way you talked last night, the media should be a neutral element in this process and not infavoring anyone. We are ready for a woman and afro-american to be president. EUROPIAN aren't better then us, we can do it too.

FYI. France hasn't had a woman president- you probably were talking about England and Germany. Let me remind you that the mayor of BERLIN is GAY and just got relected again. Let follow their step. Thanks. Ray N. Philadelphia, PA.

Abel Rodriguez  01/08/2008 01:54 PM Report

Clinton is a very intelligent, hard working individual that is honestly doing her best. However, she is not really a leader. In fact, she does not really understand leadership. She seems to think that leadership is about having all the answers, but leadership is about moving people. She keeps stating that she will be ready from day one and implies that Obama will not be ready. Obama will not only be ready from day one, he is ready today. He has demonstrated his ability to lead by leading more people to become involved in this process than ever before. That is real leadership; that is how he will change Washington. As Obama gathers the support of the American people, the people in Washington will have to listen. Clinton thinks she will change politics by mastering the system. Obama knows you have to change the system. Ultimately, it is Clinton that is not ready to lead.

Lois  01/08/2008 01:05 PM Report

I'm pretty peeved right now, how the media has ganged up on Hillary. Edwards and Obama has just lost my vote!!!! They have been ganging up on Hillary and it will cost them votes in the long run. You know Charlie, you are a guiding light but lately, you have gotten your male gonads in a twist and suffocated your objectivity. Obama is naive naive if he think he's going to go to Washington and change the power structure. Just because he's an educated and eloquent speaker doesn't necessary make him a wise man. After all he did receive the help of a speech writer...let us run the writer for president! We have given men 43 tries to get it right...why not try a woman? Hillary is a great senator.. with a brillant mind and a fighter for women, children and elders. I have looked at Obama unimpressive voting record in the Senate. He talks about change in broad terms...He has defined what he plan to change...he doesn't really address racism or discrimination...he doesn't address education or health care...what about our children...and their safety? Obama is in-the middle-kind of guy that stands for nothing in particular. He says children seeing his black kids playing on the white house lawn is going to change how they think about each other and themselves...sound like a Disney movie to me! What is going to change children's perception of themselves and the world is an improved education and health care system... parents that are paid decent wages, safer neighborhoods; and a government and parents that give a dang! I'm an African-American woman with family and friends in Chicago, and have never heard anyone speak of this guy grassroot service until his famous speech at the Democratic Convention! Obviously his grassroot work on behalf of the common man/woman isn't well-known. He and his wife are opportunist...She served on the Wal-Mart Board and resigned only after the bad publicity...then there is the controversy of their procurement of land in Illinois. Oprah may back him...but has Oprah done her homework? My judgment is just as good or maybe even better than Oprah's. Look at her missteps...she first supported James Frey then after Smokin Gun pointed out the discrepancies...steadfastly, she went ahead on the Larry King show and said it didn't matter that there were untruths (paraphasing) in the book and touted its value because it changed lives....then it begin to change her life...and she felt the heat from it...she quickly invited Frey back to her show and the hostess became an attack dog...and ridiculed the man...making herself seem like a victim of the writer and the publishing company! Why didn't her staff do their job? She have enough money to hire a research team.... Surely her staff should have known Jan Adams was not a board certified plastic surgeon up to his knees in lawsuits before bringing him on her show...Oprah pulled the book, "The Education of Little Tree" only after the bad publicity...come on... If anyone, Oprah should know change is challenging...Oprah Leadership Academy is another misstep? It was what Oprah wanted...she didn't take their cultural into consideration. Who did the background check on the dormitory employee that abused the girls? Why didn't Oprah know that the woman had pedophile tendencies after all she's been talking to this parasites for dang near 25 years? Oprah is swayed by how things look and sound...she's a surface person who is trying to lure us to vote for a man...just because she's mesmerized by his image. Lastly,I recall Oprah and her man Stedman saying on her show boxer Holyfield was a champion that they could get behind...Holyfield is a man that admitted to fathering two more children out of wedlock in the same year that his second wife gave birth. So much for Oprah's judgement and yours. And for John Edwards the former Washington insider who could not carry his on State...forget about it!

Marcia Meoli  01/08/2008 12:51 PM Report

I am afraid that I have to agree with the concerns expressed above. Unless I missed it, you have yet to even interview Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.

By the way, where was Madeline Albright? I believe that I saw her as the listed guest for Monday. Another woman, fading into the oblivion? That reminds me of the female actress in the film "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead". As you and other men sat around the table discussing it on 11/30/07, someone mentioned that she did a good job and then someone wondered why she was not invited to your program. You had no answer.

What is going on?

Marcia Meoli,

Holland, Michigan

Judith Gabriel  01/08/2008 02:13 AM Report

Dear Mr. Rose,

I am an avid fan of your show. I listened all weekend and Mon. and Tues.and tonight to the news, including your quests, to the following: "Hilary cannot change her message from experience to change." It is as if human beings only had one dimension. Why can't she or Mitt Romney for that matter say that they also want change. We all want change from George Bush. "Hillary's campaign is looking past not forward." Charlie, even you said that. Then people were saying you can't talk about change and experience. Why in the world not? In the beginning Hillary may have talked about the nineties, but then she moved on to specific ways that she intends to implement change. Why not emphasize that. She's right--saying that you are going to change without giving a clue about how you intend to do it is the cheapest political trick in town. "She acted as if she were the inevitable candidate." No, the media talked as though she were the inevitable candidate and you ruined her chances just as you did Howard Dean's. When she said she couldn't even think of not winning, everyone jumped on her as though she thought she was the "inevitable" candidate. Well, if any of you have done any motivational training at all, you'd know that when you have a goal, the idea is to think of yourself as the winner. You cannot entertain for a moment that you will lose. (Talk about the Bible, hmmmm, I think Jesus said that if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains.) I heard her say it. She basically was saying she had no time to think of losing. She was working so damn hard to win, why would she waste energy on thinking of losing. That's one sure way to lose. Ask any Olympic diver if, as they approach the board, they are thinking of a mistake they might make. Heck no, they are thinking of executing the perfect dive. That's how they win. It's like you guys live in a vacumn and then ascribe your own limitations to everyone else, dragging us all down with those limitations.

"Her showing emotion made her look weak." Well, she can't cut a break. First, it's "Who is Hillary really?" "She's cold." "She doesn't connect with the crowds." I hear people say that in a knee-jerk reaction, and I can't help but wonder they really thought that or did they hear a member of the media say that a billion times. Then when, probably, out of sheer exhaustion, she shows some emotion and her true feelings, everyone wants to jump on her. I'm sick of it. Sure maybe she allowed herself to be vulnerable because you all have been saying how cold she is. Maybe she knew that would benefit her. So what? Isn't that what you were calling for? Didn't you want to know Hillary?

I think that the media tries to pick the candidates for us. Your job ought to be to present these people to us, to interview them, to let THEM present their ideas, and then to let us make up our minds. I hate the way you make it seem as though the election is over after two states vote. What about the other 48? Stop the predictions. Why would anyone vote? You've chosen the candidtate. Hell the rest of us can stay home, and I think that's what a lot of people do. They think, Ok, it's over. This is not democracy.

By the way, who knows Obama or Edwards or anyone for that matter. What is this thing about knowing someone. Who knew Ronnie Reagan or Jack Kennedy? Their friends and family did. They are doing a job. I don't want to have a beer with any of them. I want someone who is smart, savy, educated, experienced, and knows where they are going and has a plan to get there. Only you guys want to know what brand toilet paper they use, and then turn it around when that's all the kind of junk you give us, and say that's what we want.

Did you guys ever think that the Republicans may really want Barack Obama to be President? So it takes him four years to find his way through the Washington maze, and the Powers-that-Be can frustrate his every move. We've been there with Jimmy Carter, for whom I voted twice, but saw his inability to work in the Washington establishment and his naive relationship with the Shah of Iran. We saw how the military treated him. He was an idealist who couldn't get anything done. And had he been a true idealist and outsider, he would have made it a mandate for car companies to increase their cafe' standards. I drove a Datsun in 1975 that got 40 miles to the gallon. Now Howard Dean was an idealist, experienced, and a hard-assed straight-shooter, and none of you guys could stand that. That's exactly what we needed, and he had experience running a state.

My point is that all this taking small points and beating them to death in the most unrealistic and tortured terms does absolutely nothing in terms of information about the stance that candidates take on issues. It is one thing to make observations, but I'm tired of the pronouncements about Hillary's laugh, about her clapping, etc. You might observe, for example, that Hillary might have been stronger had she not decided to take money from lobbiests. She then could have taken the wind out of Edwards and Obama's sails, touted her experience in working to make changes in many areas, her readiness to govern, and her uniqueness as a woman candidate, without scarcasm or this over-opinionated gossip. She had too many men advising her and too many men reporting on her. And I say all of this without her being my first pick or even my eventual choice. It's just we need a better, a fairer way to present people.

I agree with Hillary in that you can talk in broad sweeping terms about things but how about how you are going to achieve them. Now it's the big"We" are going to change the country. Does Obama have a plan as to how to do this? Is he starting the Peace Corps again? Does he have a local grassroots organization ready to whip into action upon his election that will mobilize all the gangs on the streets to clean up things and babysit single Moms and take care of the elderly.

Of all people, the media ought to understand the language of the demagogue. It stirs us up, but doesn't necessarily benefit us in the long run.

I agree with Bill Richardson. Whatever happened to experience, and I totally disagree that experience is backward looking. You folks need to go visit some native people's where they extol wisdom Wisdom can only be gotten from experience. Hillary, perhaps, should have said it that way--that she has had experience dealing with these issues such as health care and failed. From that failure she's learned and can now come back with a better strategy to fight the Powers-that-Be. That doesn't make her looking towards the past, that makes her looking towards the future with the experience of past actions, gaining knowledge and wisdom along the way.

It scared me immediately when early in the campaign, Obama said he wanted to forget Vietnam--to get past it. If Bush had not forgotten Vietnam, perhaps we would not be in Iraq. Anyone who doesn't know history like Bush, or who wants to ignore it, scares the hell out of me.

I don't dislike Obama. I may vote for him, yet. He's smart and charming. I just hate the way the media manipulates all of us. In the beginning it was Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, when I wanted to hear about Joe Biden. I think we need to forget about polls and let people make up their own minds. People are hungry for information so we read and view the media. Instead we all get brainwashed to vote the way the media wants us to. That stinks and ought to stop. What we need is a return to free air-time for candidates to present their ideas. Smaller debates, and true debates,( who thought of that question "What is your favorite Bible quotation." I think I would have quoted the Bagavad Gita just to show how stupid that question is. Joe Biden gave the best answer and then Chris Matthews comes on and says, "Duh, I don't get what Biden said." That shows Chris Matthews doesn't know the Bible, so why ask the candidates about it.) between a few of the candidates at a time. Mix it up over the months,keep your opinions to yourselves, and forget the polls. Interview voters if you want, but keep your opinions to yourselves. The fact that you are already predicting who the nominee is stinks. Let the people vote and you all be silent except for the facts.

I haven't heard any of the pundits urging people to vote their minds no matter what they hear them say. That's because their intention is to skew the election the way they'd like to see it go. That's sad.

All that said, your format in interviewing people live is still the most informative, and I am so glad you are on the air. My only wish is that you would let them answer the question you ask instead of asking it and then answering it as well, and interrupt them less. Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Ruth Heielbach  01/08/2008 01:07 AM Report

Hi Charlie,

Always loved your show until recently as you and your guests

revealed your collective, I must say it, sexism bias, in relation

to Hillary Clinton's race for the white house..

The latest was tonight 1/7/08.

It happened while you all were discussing the historical significance of Obama's race for the White House. Your focus was on race. On and on you all went with not

one word about the historical significance of a woman running for President. Surely, many women and perhaps men, both black and white, recogonized how you were easily

able to ignore what you were doing placing race as historically significant without acknowledging women as the most historically oppressed. You talked of votes for Obama as feeling good. What about feeling good for a vote for a woman.

I am not suggesting a contest for feeling good. I am talking about you making sure that the context of the show's dialog includes the other way of feeling good....voting for a woman,

either black or white. Stop filtering out the status of the woman in this election.

Ruth Heidelbach

Beltsville, Md 20705