Lovely, Fair & Balanced debate
 

I think they should let Rush or Sean moderate the next one. They will be as unbiased that this woman.

The book has been a known factor for months, so I'm not sure what the big deal is," :dunno:

:iagree:

She is pro and will be fair.

Are you kidding? She has a book which premise revolved around Obama getting elected. If Obama does not win her entire book and the theme is lost. That will directly effect what she earns.

Human nature suggests that she will consciously or unconsciously favor the Omama ticket.

She should remove herself as the moderator immediately so as not to taint the debate and she should have never been chosen in the first place.

Why you can't see this is beyond me. If the tables were reversed Democrats would be screaming.

So let's see now....LabGuy

In the book, (which by the way no one has even read yet) Ifill takes a look at the black political movement's beginnings during the Civil Rights movement that gave way "to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s,".

Ifill discussed the book in a interview with The Washington Post on September 4, well before the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the debate moderators.

The McCain campaign said it had not seen Ifill's Post interview, or been aware of her book, until Tuesday. McCain told CNN's Juan Carlos Lopez that the situation concerned him but that he was sure Ifill would be professional.

Now; with that information and the approval of your candidate don't you think you need to relax. At least give your candidate the props for making his own decision as to weather he approves of her or not.

You do trust the experience and decision making of Mr. McCain don't you?

That is fine, can Bill O'Reilly mod the next one.

Quick...You've lived in the Bay Area too long.

The title of the book is "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," Not much of a Breakthrough if Obama loses now is it...

She admits that she did not disclose the book to the debate commission and she is financially tied to the outcome of the election.

McCain did about the only thing he can do this late in the game...Hope that the focus is on this issue will force Gwen Ifill will go out of her way to be neutral.

That does not make it right.

Ah my friend, You assume that because of the things you mentioned that she won't be fair and impartial. In doing so you call into question her character.

Where's the evidence in her character that she would be not impartial?
You have none.

Why not give her the benefit of the doubt? Then make your decision based on her performance.

In your opinion is O'Reilly fair?

Are you guys for real where talking about Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, Joe is a smooth life long politician and Sarah is a small time governor.

Joe should win this hands down and does not need any help.

The topic was about the moderator, not the subjects.

While I'm sure Ifill will do her best to be fair in the debate, there is no doubt she is in the tank for Obama.

http://www.essence.com/news_entertai...americanfamily

The Obamas: Portrait of an American Family
Gwen Ifill

Soon we will vote for our next president, and for the first time in history, one of the two candidates is a Black man. For a year, Essence pursued an interview with the entire Obama family to no avail. Finally, this summer ESSENCE became the only Black media outlet allowed a glimpse into the lives of Barack, Michelle and their two girls, Malia and Sasha, when we were invited to their South Side Chicago home. Weeks later, veteran political journalist Gwen Ifill was with the family as they campaigned in a small mostly White western town, and she flew with them to a Black church in the urban Midwest.

Barack Obama is sitting in the back of his rented luxury campaign bus with its granite counters and two flat-screen TVs. The Illinois senator's arms are wrapped around his wife, Michelle, whom he doesn't get to see much these days. At this very moment he is, of all things, singing.

I've just asked them how their lives have changed since he won the Democratic presidential nomination. There have definitely been changes, especially for Michelle Obama, who used to pride herself on campaigning by day and rushing home to her daughters each night. Now she is spending more of her days and nights on the road, but seldom in the same place as her husband. And when their daughters Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7 get to see their dad, they likely have to share him with thousands of adoring strangers. "Daddy's gone a lot," Sasha notes. "We don't see him that much."

But on this Fourth of July, everyone is together. Even though there are at least a half-dozen aides and family members on the bus with us, it feels intimate back here. Michelle and Barack are curled up on the beige couch, while the children are reading and coloring a few feet away. Michelle folds her long legs to her chin and leans into her husband as he explains the reality of their lives. When he pauses, she finishes his sentences.

Their ease with each other recalls the day several weeks earlier when ESSENCE arrived to photograph the Obamas at their large Georgian Revivial home on Chicago's South Side. Barack stood on the lawn playfully teasing his wife as she posed for our cameras. Now, as then, his customary public caution melts away when he is with his family. Under relentless media scrutiny, Barack Obama says his family is going the extra mile to "maintain this little island of normalcy in the midst of all this swirl of activity."

But family snapshots of this sort are rare, as are moments when the Obamas can just chill. "Michelle has done a heroic job of managing the house, the family and still finding time to campaign and be out on the road," he says, after directing staff members to turn off the television, which was tuned to Fox News Channel. "I'm always marveling at everything that she can do."

And then he sings.

"I'm every woman," he croons. She cringes. He laughs. "That's Michelle. It's like, Chaka Khan! Chaka Khan!"

The point is that the moderator can be fair and has no need to act otherwise.

What does O'Reilly have to do with it?
Is he moderating the debate?

Then why did you post about Biden?

I rarely see the connection and/or relevance to your posts. :confused:

Point is Democrats would not allow O'Reilly to moderate a debate regardless of his ability to be fair.

Double standard.

More so the problem is she intentionally didn't tell the committee that she wrote the book, which ironically comes out JAN 20th the same day the new Pres would be sworn in.

What I don't get is why everyone does not see a problem with this arrangement. It deifies all common sense.

What kind of "Breakthrough" would it be if Obama loses the election? How silly would it be to release a book on the Day McCain is sworn in with the title "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," ?

The only thing I can figure is Gwen and her publisher think Obama is going to win and that might be the case. That said, if McCain wins Gwen and the publisher lose big time and that alone should constitute a conflict of interest.

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

Now that it's over please point out "this persons" bias towards Obama with the questions she asked.

Her controversy did in fact influence the tone of the debate. I also thought she went easy on Palin in a few instances.

Quick...The goal should be neutrality for a single moderator or have two one from each party asking the candidates the question for fairness.

Fact is she should have been honest about her potential to profit from the outcome and someone else should have been chosen.

OK smart arse :)

I never said she would be, said she could be and that had a person not mislead a committee she probably would not have been doing the debate. That said, I thought the moderator did a great job. But I hope you enjoyed trying to get a jab in ;)

My apologizes sir;

Wasn't trying to be as you described. Just honestly asking a question.

#1 Specify what tone she used.

#2 Nobody in the world is neutral about anything.

#3 Point out where she lied about her potential to profit from the outcome
of a book that hasn't been released

I believe I'm going to start calling you rubberman.
You love to stretch information to fit your own set of facts...... :rofl:

I am truly surprised by your stance on this matter.

#1 Her tone or performance does not change the fact that she should not have been chosen as the moderator of the ONLY VP debate to avoid any POSSIBLE conflict of interest.

#2 Having a personal opinion as a journalist is different than having a conflict of interest.

#3 She lied by omission by failing to disclose her conflict of interest.

Lastly, Her book had not been released yet but the title has and the book was set to be released on inauguration day when Obama was sworn into office...Thus the title of her soon to be released book.

BTW...Name calling does not suit you well. I suspect you know you've lost the argument.

Ok you're right "I've lost the argument"
But you gotta admit "Rubberman does fit"...... :rofl:

I'm rubber and you're glue...Anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

:nanana: