Marco Rubio schools Charlie Rose

That is how this clip is promoted most places, parts of it are everywhere. Most clips are half this length. The first portion is interesting I think by the two women doing what the CNBC debate moderators did. The exact same thing. They cannot help themselves. Their questions are typical attack questions. Statements as questions. Questions that include statements. The "people say... and the newspaper prints..." form. And they do say, and they do print. There is nothing inappropriate with the question, the point is they are always framed as if approaching a Republican with a ten foot pole and poking it, contrasting so sharply with any other guest, take randomly, say, Roman Polanski, and compare. Notice also Rubio ignores the first woman's question and answers something else, what he wants to talk about.

She repeated Bush's failed attack and repeated a local paper agrees. Is it a fair question? He answers he's not going to attack anyone.

Other female voice, like a squeaky cartoon mouse, "But did you make that a personal attack against Jeb Bush?"

See? That is all these people are capable of. It's childishly ridiculous. Obvious and plain to all. So commonly unhelpful the portion is snipped off for being too incidental. This part doesn't contribute to the point at hand, this first part only shows PBS limitation, it shows PBS is capable only of this, it cannot be anything else, PBS doesn't even know what you're talking about, it does not compute, "What is this bit about us fish being wet? Why do you discuss strange ideas like that with nonsensical foreign words?" So they just clip it out in favor of the good part, the juicy part, Rose not comprehending Hillary's pant suit is on fire and spawning brushfires as she passes. It doesn't matter what Rubio says, Rose is impenetrable. His mind will refuse what that horrible Rubio face is saying, a million mental fibers spring forth and overwhelm the invading virus to engulf and expel it.

So the two women's questions combined are a mess, in the exact same way the debate is a mess. In miniature. So common it's usually snipped out of the video when presented. Then Charlie Rose messily wedges his way into the mess, the mansplainy way wavering, "We-e-e-e-ll you did call Hillary Clinton a liar."

Rubio restates what all conservatives say repeatedly as if chipping at granite with copper tools. They are asking about the previous night debate. Rose's greeting to Rubio included the debate. Rose's first question is debate-related the ladies' two debate-like questions are debate-related. Rubio's answer is debate-related. Rose, being liberal in possession of a fluid liberal mind reaches here and there pouring, pooling, it flows to the low spots and collects there he cannot stay on the debate. His mind flowed to Clinton. Rubio said he intends not to attack rather to tell voters what he is about, and Rose's mind pours beyond the debate, he cannot focus. Rubio said he won't be critical of other candidates. He attacked my candidate. Attack Rubio. "We-e-e-e-ll. (repeats) Well, you did call Hillary Clinton a liar... Senator. You called Hillary Clinton a liar." Rose repeats.

Rose is gravely offended by that and it shows on his face and that is good.

Imagine greeting a guest angrily, Welcome to PBS.

Skip to 1:25 for Rubio delivering the goods. He holds forth solidly undistracted throughout while Rose persistently interrupts, as liberals do when they're hearing something they don't like hearing, they shut it out, resist, vocalize their resistance sentence by sentence, they see where the sentence is going and STOP it as psychological defense and Rose cannot help himself as liberal debate moderators cannot help themselves either, as no liberal can help them self. They don't interview, they interrogate, they poke and jab, but with eye protection and ear protection and helmet and hazmat suit because none of the three PBS panel can accept the words coming out of Rubio's mouth. Their ears cannot hear it. Their brains will not process it as real data. This face on the screen is not even a person. It's foreign material, too dangerous to accept honestly, thus Roses' pure resistance.

"You know CIA was changing their assessment during that time ... zone.

If you're calling her a liar, that she perpetuated a lie, then why would she do that? What was her motive?

So you are saying that Hillary Clinton LIED because she wanted to help Barack Obama with his reelection campaign

Do you deny the CIA was sending different information as they assessed it, that they provided different information to the leaders of our government?

Without violating

David Petraeus..."

Sputters to an end with conservative point of view delivered excellently unheard and unprocessed by the PBS panel. 100% rejected.

This interview fits precisely the template of that CNBC debate. Considered a template, this video is Banksy sprayed across every conversation of my present day life. Everybody I know is liberal and this is how they think and speak.

For your pleasure: Charlie Rose Pushes Back Against Rubio's False Claim that "Hillary Clinton Lied About Benghazi." To whomever, thank you for uploading this to YouTube, bless your heart, you're helpful.