Get Ready For an OBJECTIVE Debate... LOL

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

The book summary says this...

In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign

In the Amazon.com promotion for her book, Ifill is described as "drawing on interviews with power brokers," such as Obama and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

In an online video promoting her book, she is enthusiastic about "taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it." It focuses on four people, "one of them Barack Obama of course," she said. "They are changing our politics and changing our nation," she said.

The book is going to be released on inauguration day.

****I think I see a pro-Obama tint to what I read above. If you don't, so be it. But, regardless, there's certainly a conflict of interest.

honestly - i do consider myself objective as i wouldn't vote for obama or mccain ... i think the media is a shitty arena for these people to be judged ...

and i see where you would have concerns however, up until now it appears that she's conducted her job at a high standard from what i can gather and therefore there should not be any reason why she won't on friday ... everyone has biases - you cannot expect these moderators to NOT but you can hold them accountable to their work ... she has a specific job to do on friday - we shall see if she does it ...

having said that - i don't see this being a conflict of interest one bit ...

saveuplife

inmytree wrote:

question: why is Sarah being treated like a delicate flower...?

I'm serious...

please know, I understand your point...When George Snuffmybuttakiss moderated a primary debate, it was obvious he was bias...and people called him out on it...

in this case, I would hope Gwen would be able to act as a fair moderator...but it seems those supporting Palin are working very very very hard to lower expectations...it's as if they know she will do terrible, so they start spinning now...

You are the one saying she will do terrible. I am not. I have no clue how she will fare.

As for the issue raised in this thread, the moderator is bias... period. Should that affect Palin? Yes. But should it affect her enough to lose the debate? No. Hopefully, Gwen will be fair... that's all I'm saying. Personally, if I were the McCain camp, I'd make a request for another moderator. If they say they can't change it... I'd be cool with that and go forward with the debate anyway, but I'd make the request.

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

having said that - i don't see this being a conflict of interest one bit ...

Her book, which covers the Obama campaign in detail, is being released on Inauguration Day. She's also moderating one of the debates. I see a conflict (think demand and sales, if nothing else) right there.

inmytree

saveuplife wrote:

You are the one saying she will do terrible. I am not. I have no clue how she will fare.

As for the issue raised in this thread, the moderator is bias... period. Should that affect Palin? Yes. But should it affect her enough to lose the debate? No. Hopefully, Gwen will be fair... that's all I'm saying. Personally, if I were the McCain camp, I'd make a request for another moderator. If they say they can't change it... I'd be cool with that and go forward with the debate anyway, but I'd make the request.

did you even read my post...?

I said this: "it's as if they know she will do terrible, so they start spinning now..." notice the word "they", which here means: her handlers....

I did not say she would do poorly...

I still would like to know why she is being treated like a delicate flower...

peacocoaNMO

saveuplife wrote:

She's certainly entitled to her opinion on the political race, but IMHO it's another thing to be outward with everything especially when your job is to be objective.

I expect the individual who's job is to not be bias to not be writing a book about one of the candidates during the election season.... Using words like "stunning" ect to describe his campaign.

I'm not racist... race is not an issue here. It's not OK just cause she's black. This would be wrong if it was a white person too.

it doesn't make it ok but i don't think anybody should be surprised when the african-american moderator turns out to be in the tank for the african-american candidate. i don't know who selects the moderators but maybe they should have taken that into consideration.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

Her book, which covers the Obama campaign in detail, is being released on Inauguration Day. She's also moderating one of the debates. I see a conflict (think demand and sales, if nothing else) right there.

is she moderating a debate with obama in it? ... again - has she shown that she cannot be an objective moderator in the past? ... i guarantee you that if she leaned democrat in this election she did so in the last ...

and peacocoaNMO - are you insinuating that an african-american woman will automatically vote for obama because of race and that she cannot do her job as moderator because of that??

jwillmo

saveuplife wrote:

Her book, which covers the Obama campaign in detail, is being released on Inauguration Day. She's also moderating one of the debates. I see a conflict (think demand and sales, if nothing else) right there.

I have a solution. She should write a book on all the strides that white politicians have made in the past few years to balance it out. I'm really proud of all the progress we whites have made, and someone should write a book about that. That'll solve the conflict.

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

is she moderating a debate with obama in it? ... again - has she shown that she cannot be an objective moderator in the past? ... i guarantee you that if she leaned democrat in this election she did so in the last ...

No, she's moderating a debate for Obama's VP candidate. That's still a conflict, even though Obama's not directly involved... his "ticket" is, so his chance at presidency is.

Yes, some say there have been situations in the past that she has shown a Democratic bias... like when she wouldn't let Cheney respond to Edwards on Halliburton. Personally, I didn't think that was that bad though.

peacocoaNMO

polaris wrote:

is she moderating a debate with obama in it? ... again - has she shown that she cannot be an objective moderator in the past? ... i guarantee you that if she leaned democrat in this election she did so in the last ...

and peacocoaNMO - are you insinuating that an african-american woman will automatically vote for obama because of race and that she cannot do her job as moderator because of that??

i'm just saying it shouldn't be any great surprise. the numbers are what they are. at least 90% of african-americans are voting obama. the people who decide on moderators should have asked her if there was any reason why she couldn't be objective. that might have been a good time to mention her book.

mammasan

saveuplife wrote:

He didn't know that she was writing a pro-Obama book.

Please people. Those of you who are Obama supporters need to be honest.... should someone who is writing a book on one of the candidates in a two-party race be considered an objective debate moderator? I think you know the answer. If roles were reversed you know you would be freaking out. But they are not, so you don't think it's a big deal.

You think you have the better candidate... OK... prove it on a "LEVEL" playing field.

While it does look a bit suspicious the book is not strictly about Obama but about black politicians and the opportunities Obama has created for them. That being said she has been writing the book for a few months now, she started prior to being asked to moderate the debate, and the McCain campaign was OK with her selection. I also don't buy the fact that the McCain campaign didn't know. They probably where aware but felt that it would not interfere with her being able to be objective. Gwen Ifill is a good journalist and even conservatives like Joe Scarsborrough stated this morning that her personal beliefs will not interfere with her duties as moderator. The McCain campaign are only trying to make issue of this now because their campaign is seriously struggling. They know that a poor performance by Palin will likely be the death nail to the campaign and are struggling to find an excuse for it, if she does perform poorly. If it is true that they didn't know then what does that say about their research.

I do have to say though that if Gwen had written a book on Bush the media would be making a lot more noise about this.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

No, she's moderating a debate for Obama's VP candidate. That's still a conflict, even though Obama's not directly involved... his "ticket" is, so his chance at presidency is.

Yes, some say there have been situations in the past that she has shown a Democratic bias... like when she wouldn't let Cheney respond to Edwards on Halliburton. Personally, I didn't think that was that bad though.

again - there is no actual proof that she is pro-obama ... it's only inferred based on a book about african-americans in politics and the fact she herself is african-american ...

who is "some say"? ... by all accounts the cheney / edwards debate was moderated appropriately ... he had 30 seconds - those are the rules ...

ultimately, she has a job to do - it will be evident if she doesn't do it ... and at this stage - i'm guessing she will actually work in favour of the GOP campaign because if she tanks - (like inmytree says) they will just blame her ...

tybird

I wonder if Biden will talk about how Winston Churchill lead the U.S. during the Second World War???

Or maybe he will bring up FDR's Marshall Plan???

Or will he discuss Wilson going on the T.V. to tell the country about the end of the First World War???

saveuplife

mammasan wrote:

I do have to say though that if Gwen had written a book on Bush the media would be making a lot more noise about this.

As for your original point, I don't necessarily agree. We have another month before the election.... that's a lot of time. Look at what has occurred in the past three weeks for proof. So, I don't think McCain is too concerned with his numbers right now. That said, he certainly needs to bring them up by election day.

As for the point quoted, you are dead on. If roles were reversed, the media would be going crazy. My favorite part of this is that cnn.com and msnbc.com aren't even covering the story. Then go to foxnews.com and it's the biggest story there. I know fox is righty central, but for the other news sites to not even cover it is silly.

mammasan

tybird wrote:

I wonder if Biden will talk about how Winston Churchill lead the U.S. during the Second World War???

Or maybe he will bring up FDR's Marshall Plan???

Or will he discuss Wilson going on the T.V. to tell the country about the end of the First World War???

Those are fantastic. This will probably be the most mind numbing debate of them all.

mammasan

saveuplife wrote:

As for your original point, I don't necessarily agree. We have another month before the election.... that's a lot of time. Look at what has occurred in the past three weeks for proof. So, I don't think McCain is too concerned with his numbers right now. That said, he certainly needs to bring them up by election day.

As for the point quoted, you are dead on. If roles were reversed, the media would be going crazy. My favorite part of this is that cnn.com and msnbc.com aren't even covering the story. Then go to foxnews.com and it's the biggest story there. I know fox is righty central, but for the other news sites to not even cover it is silly.

I have to disagree. McCain is slipping and a Palin failure in the debates will only make matter worse and his campaign knows it. As I stated I can't imagine the McCain campaign not knowing about Ifill's upcoming book, not that it should matter because the book is not an endorsement on Obama but a book about how Obama popularity has paved a path for future black politicians. They are looking for ways to excuse a poor performance.

Now if her book was a glowing endorsement of Obama then I would say there was a conflict of interest and that she should step down as moderator but from all I have heard about the book it does not appear to be that way. Like I said even conservatives like Scarsborrough didn't think that herw riting of the book would be a conflict of interest. his only gripe, and one that I agree with, is how the media is generally down playing this but would be reacting differently if the book involved McCain or Bush.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

As for your original point, I don't necessarily agree. We have another month before the election.... that's a lot of time. Look at what has occurred in the past three weeks for proof. So, I don't think McCain is too concerned with his numbers right now. That said, he certainly needs to bring them up by election day.

As for the point quoted, you are dead on. If roles were reversed, the media would be going crazy. My favorite part of this is that cnn.com and msnbc.com aren't even covering the story. Then go to foxnews.com and it's the biggest story there. I know fox is righty central, but for the other news sites to not even cover it is silly.

like i said - the media is a horrible arena to look to for reason ...

sarah palin is a disgrace to the executive office - and the media are saying nothing ... you can skirt around that all you like but the real story is that she is STILL not doing press conferences because she is NOT qualified ...

Strangest Tribe

If I was McCain this is who I'd want to moderate the debate.

Think about it, a black woman Obama supporter.... that places Palin in a position to win big.

As an Obama supporter i'm hoping Gwen stays impartial or cracks down on Biden otherwise Palin will continue to get "victim" votes, which at this point that's what the McCain camp wants.... they want Palin to appear to be the victim of liberal media.... That's how they plan on getting a lot of votes because we all know Sarah Palin is dumber than a box of rocks.

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

like i said - the media is a horrible arena to look to for reason ...

sarah palin is a disgrace to the executive office - and the media are saying nothing ... you can skirt around that all you like but the real story is that she is STILL not doing press conferences because she is NOT qualified ...

First, She's not a disgrace at all. Sarah Palin is just as qualified as Obama, if not more so. She may not be as good of a debator (although we don't know that yet) or interviewer. But, the job of a President is not to debate or do interviews. It's to guide and lead the country through the executive branch. We've had this discussion before. There's no need to go back and forth.

Second, she's not running for President. She's running for VP. I know the Dem talking point.... "well she's a heartbeat away". Obama's not a heartbeat away, he's there and has less executive experience then Palin who's running for VP not President. I know the follow-up, well "McCain is old and may die during his time in office". Honestly, could Obama die while in office? Think about that for a second. Then we have Biden who's also old and a gaffe waiting to happen. It's all just a run-around.

Lastly, the point of this thread is not to discuss qualifications/experience. It was to talk about the moderator and her bias.

digster

saveuplife wrote:

As for your original point, I don't necessarily agree. We have another month before the election.... that's a lot of time. Look at what has occurred in the past three weeks for proof. So, I don't think McCain is too concerned with his numbers right now. That said, he certainly needs to bring them up by election day.

As for the point quoted, you are dead on. If roles were reversed, the media would be going crazy. My favorite part of this is that cnn.com and msnbc.com aren't even covering the story. Then go to foxnews.com and it's the biggest story there. I know fox is righty central, but for the other news sites to not even cover it is silly.

I disagree entirely with you top statement. There is ONLY a month before the election, and McCain's poll numbers have been slipping steadily for the last week-and-a-half. He's not stupid, he sees the writing on the wall; everyday we're talking about the tanking economy is a day that is on Obama's strong point, and it's a day we're not talking about foreign policy, pigs with lipstick, etc. McCain is very concerned about his poll numbers, and to say his camp had "no idea" about Gwen's book is ridiculous. These people are vetted almost as harshly as the candidates themselves, and I believe both candidates' camps have to agree. It didn't come up before when it wasn't a problem before; McCain was taking a dip in the polls. Now, McCain gets a chance to play the Big Bad Liberal Media card once again, since it's worked so well for, I don't know, the last thirty years, and can now set the bar so low for Palin that all she has to do is show up and manage to string one coherent word after the other and she will win the debate. This is purely political.

That being said, she should not be moderating the debate. Even if she is even-handed (which she was in the last VP debate), it opens the entire process up to criticism that is unnecessary. The debate needs to be about the issues, not the moderator. In conclusion, this hurts Obama's camp more than McCain's because now they can spin it that Palin's failings are not due to her inability to be VP; it's all the moderator's fault because "she's in the tank" for Obama. Gwen's not going to be able to be anything but even-handed because she's going to be under a microscope. But every time Palin screws up, as it has been for the past few weeks, it will be the Liberal Media's doing, not her own.

I swear, the media has been made out to be fools time and time again by both the Obama and McCain campaign and they fall for it every single time. When are these people going to grow some brains or guts?

mammasan

digster wrote:

I disagree entirely with you top statement. There is ONLY a month before the election, and McCain's poll numbers have been slipping steadily for the last week-and-a-half. He's not stupid, he sees the writing on the wall; everyday we're talking about the tanking economy is a day that is on Obama's strong point, and it's a day we're not talking about foreign policy, pigs with lipstick, etc. McCain is very concerned about his poll numbers, and to say his camp had "no idea" about Gwen's book is ridiculous. These people are vetted almost as harshly as the candidates themselves, and I believe both candidates' camps have to agree. It didn't come up before when it wasn't a problem before; McCain was taking a dip in the polls. Now, McCain gets a chance to play the Big Bad Liberal Media card once again, since it's worked so well for, I don't know, the last thirty years, and can now set the bar so low for Palin that all she has to do is show up and manage to string one coherent word after the other and she will win the debate. This is purely political.

That being said, she should not be moderating the debate. Even if she is even-handed (which she was in the last VP debate), it opens the entire process up to criticism that is unnecessary. The debate needs to be about the issues, not the moderator. In conclusion, this hurts Obama's camp more than McCain's because now they can spin it that Palin's failings are not due to her inability to be VP; it's all the moderator's fault because "she's in the tank" for Obama. Gwen's not going to be able to be anything but even-handed because she's going to be under a microscope. But every time Palin screws up, as it has been for the past few weeks, it will be the Liberal Media's doing, not her own.

I swear, the media has been made out to be fools time and time again by both the Obama and McCain campaign and they fall for it every single time. When are these people going to grow some brains or guts?

Very well said. I also agree that she should step down as moderator not because she can't be objective but because she is tainted now and no matter how well she performers at her duties there will be a lingering doubt.