Charlie Rose

airportengineer  04/09/2011 07:22 AM Report

John harwood is another libterd want-a-be reporter that has no clue how to report the news without his personal opinions getting in his way.

FBI  08/07/2008 02:49 PM Report

FBI already knows Mr Adam Owusu

jaden  05/17/2008 01:35 AM Report

Hillary Clinton has been a good senator and would be a powerful Senate Majority Leader. She is needed there more than she is needed in the White House. I don't understand why women (of which I am one) want a woman in the White House at all costs. Breaking the ceiling barrier for women is extemely important, but the condition of our country is more important right now. Hillary is a force to be reckoned with and will do more for America as a Senate leader.

Gerard  05/14/2008 02:59 PM Report

While discussing Barack Obama's possible Vice-Presidential candidates on last night's show, I was somewhat surprised to not hear the Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius' name. She is a two term Governor of a populist state, with proven executive skills and a woman; a Hillary foil for Obama. She gave a skilled and intelligent speech as the democratic party's rejoinder to the last State of the Union speech.

TABS  05/14/2008 05:26 AM Report

Mr Harwood has been drinking the Kool Aid in the water kooler at the NY Times. Such a mishmash of convoluted conclusions as ever to be represented as an accurate appraisal of the political landscape is typical of a close ended society. "Advantage Democrats" in the general, hardly. That was yesterdays smart thinking, today the Democrats are on the verge of snatching defeat from victory. Hillary has high negatives as being a self serving, win at all costs, situational ethics politician. Obama is perceived as a Liberal extremist with no experience, who thinks he knows better than the people he wants to represent. As such Hillary is exactly right Obama is too rarefied of a bird to carry the swing states that are needed for victory in the general. McCain wins by default as the Dems can't unify the Party.

Karen  05/14/2008 03:36 AM Report

Right in front of your faces.... the solution to the Dem's dilemma, is Hillary Clinton, yet the men on your show discuss the inability of the current "nominee" to attract the white male demographic as if HRC is invisible. And, in the lame list of Obama's charismatic assets...."he plays basketball" ???? Please.

Typical, white men "analyzing" the problem, when a brilliant solution (HRC) is on offer, ready to work extremely hard and the best choice to defeat McCain this fall. You guys are so afraid of a woman in power. Wake up, it is 2008.

Gcanno  05/14/2008 03:27 AM Report

Grace manages to attack rich people,poor people,black people,Men,and uneducated people- all because her candidate isn't looking like She's going to be the nominee.She fails to see that the big draw among young people is,Obama is not an insider, and states the main problem is Washington doesn't work. Will he be successful, i don't know, but Hillary was just as much a part of the Washington insider circle she attacks. At the end of the day empires always implode due to the arrogance and greed, that somehow seems to be a product of the same type of Ivy League School that produced you!.Being more than one of the aformentioned categories you denegrated. Take note,these two parties have been running this country into the ground for the last thirty-years. The founders of this country revolted against such of the same injustices. Don't believe it can't happen again, after all there's more of us than their is of you!!!!

Andy   05/14/2008 03:12 AM Report

When is this show going to reflect the diversity that this election represents? Having two white men comment on Democratic chances for the general on the night of the WV primary is beyond comprehension. And this show is representative of the larger set of guests who have been commenting on a historic election in which a white woman and a black man are competing for the Democratic nomination. Is there no part of the media that is going to move to the next level of representation and is going to reflect those who rarely see themselves among the political and media elite?

Alice  05/14/2008 01:26 AM Report

Hillary lost for one reason only: FOREIGN POLICY. The media is hell bent on not discussing it, but that's the truth. She put her eggs in the neocon basket and she lost. She failed to sense the awakening in this country. McCain will definitely get a large chunk of the jewish vote and he'll get the racist vote. But Obama will get a huge chunk of the republican and independent vote. Basically those frequent photo opportunities with Lieberman will come to haunt him. This country is in no mood for more wars and the public knows they have been taken to the cleaners. Note the 3 republican seats that were lost in the most unlikely districts. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is a sure way to lose the election no matter how you spin your 'global warming' tune.

Albert Hirsch  05/14/2008 12:06 AM Report

Your political commentators who think that Obama stands to win vs. John McCain because of his popularity surge fail to comprehend the staying power of racial prejudice (the deeply felt, not easily dislodged, sense that blacks are inherently inferior to whites or else that they, given the power, will turn on whites in in order (vegegefully) to dominate them. Assume (opimistically!) that no more than 25 percent of voters remain infected with such prejudices or fears. [perfectly consistent with an Obama popularity surge!\ Next, assume that there remains a substantial (say 40%) minority that will not accept Democartic Party political, economic, and social ideals regardless of current "issues" or specified Obama calls for "change".. With these (optimistic for Obama) assumptions, Obama loses 48 % to 52% to McCain. With less optimistic assumptions, McCain wins by a "landslide"!

RE Mant  05/14/2008 12:05 AM Report

No matter who the next president is the nation's problems require solution, not compromise, so I don't think the ability to listen amounts to very much and indeed is unsettling.

Grace  05/13/2008 11:37 PM Report

For the record, - white, Ivy League, Jewish woman here- I would vote for McCain and never Obama - having never voted Republican - because Obama KNOWS NOTHING and truly unless McCain gets a Morman, Romney, thank you, I'm with McCain because I figure he can do no worse than Bush - but Obama, could destroy the whole thing.

He has no record - he can gets a bunch of "upper- echelon" voters who will not be effected by any President - unless they blow up the world and are busy drinking- they are Waspy rich Americans and he has gotten "African Americans" to vote for him because he's black. Change?????

Obama means nothing to me. He's done nothing, he says nothing, and stands for a slogan - Change? Please if HIllary was a Man all you make pretend authorities would be all over her.

Obama will lose to McCain - because Hillary stands for something to alot of people and Obama stands for nothing, but some hyped up "rhetoric." How dare you compare him to the Kennedys - they stood for something - could you imagine if they had campaigned on "change." change what, a dollar bill?????

No body can say, except Wright, what or who Obama is and Obama quickly turned his back on his preacher of 20 years so we'll never know who he knows. Who will Obama turn on next at that big 'ole table he's going to have - he's a bottom feeder.

He's going to hear us????? Please, he's going to be begging for advice - but does he have a clue? Obama can't change anything, because he doesn't know how Washington works from the inside. It's like screaming at the wind. Like someone saying they're going to change Hollywood whose never been an "insider" in Hollywood. Change? You need power within the system, unless you're a dictator like Bush, to find change.

Bloomberg is a billionaire and Arnold's a movie star, please.

Men, men, men, blah, blah, blah. You'll get the president you deserve. I figure some man's bound to screw it up and get us all blown up eventually - so someone that can win on a slogan.....hope fully he'll know not to press the wrong button. That's the worse that can happen... everything else basically is, if you're rich you're safe, if not god bless.

What's Obama going to do for all those "poor, uneducated, "hard-working" blacks who are voting for him based on his race? Like Bush with those poor suckers that fell for the "abortion" game, these African Americans are going to be taken care of how? Just like the "hard-working, uneducated" whites. Change? Change what?