For what it is worth, I think we should have two moderators for the Vice Presidential debate tonight (wishful thinking):
1. Al Gore
2. Dan Quale
Their respective experience as past Vice President's would lead to some very interesting and quite possibly entertaining questions and answers. They could make both Palin and Biden look either very strong or very weak, but in any event would probably result in some excellent, (well, ok, very interesting), TV for all of us.
Considering how scripted the format will be, this really is not even close to being a true debate.
What do all of you folks think.....Am I on to something here?

AVB-AMG

Sounds like it could be a good Saturday Night Live skit. Both are Fools.

Actually, I disagree with you on this. Both are well-educated and bright guys. I completely disagree with almost everything Gore has ever done, and think he is an incredible liar and hypocrite, but I don't think he is a fool.

To carry the "prior VP" concept a bit further, wouldn't it actually be interesting to have some of the prior VP's at some sort of panel discussion, to talk about their perspectives on historical events? If you could keep present-day politics and partisanship out of it, it could be fascinating. Sort of the idea of just having a beer with some of these guys. ;)

For what it is worth, I think we should have two moderators for the Vice Presidential debate tonight (wishful thinking):
1. Al Gore
2. Dan Quale
Their respective experience as past Vice President's would lead to some very interesting and quite possibly entertaining questions and answers. They could make both Palin and Biden look either very strong or very weak, but in any event would probably result in some excellent, (well, ok, very interesting), TV for all of us.
Considering how scripted the format will be, this really is not even close to being a true debate.
What do all of you folks think.....Am I on to something here?

To carry the "prior VP" concept a bit further, wouldn't it actually be interesting to have some of the prior VP's at some sort of panel discussion, to talk about their perspectives on historical events? If you could keep present-day politics and partisanship out of it, it could be fascinating. Sort of the idea of just having a beer with some of these guys.

I LOVE both of those ideas. As to Ifill's bias, her background, writings and statements make it clear that she is incredibly biased and in the tank for Obama. How well she conceals that bias will be plain to see later tonight.

I love it when you side step a question with another questions. Let's deal with what i ask you. If after that you want to bring up O'Reilly then go ahead but any rational person wouldn't put the two of them in the same league for any reason.

imo...She's a seasoned journalist and i highly doubt that her motive for writing the book nor her presidential preference will play any role in her ability to moderate a nationally televised debate. Both candidates still have to answer the same questions.

I'm sorry but I get MLB's point 100%. Had this person been anyway pro-McCain, they would not have been allowed to host the debate. Talking about "character" in politics or news is just silly. Take a look at our current government, media and financial institutions. I go back, again, to this person not mentioning she printed a book which was pro-Obama while being vetted.

If it was known then why was she selected? it's then a known conflict of interest - totally not allowed in a courtroom - why is bias in the newsmedia almost totally untouchable?

Well, as it turned out just about everyone thought the questions were fair. However, a different moderator should have been chosen to remove any question of impropriety.

Frankly, I thought she let Palin off the hook a couple of times when she did not answer the question and instead went off on a subject she was more comfortable with.

She probably was afraid that this would appear like she was being tough on Palin, so she let it go. In the end, the "liberal" moderator helped the "conservative" candidate. These things happen a lot.

#1 She was selected because she is a well respected person

#2 A Judge or a juror was not required as a moderator as this was not a court of law

#3 The was no indication the she would be biased