Get Ready For an OBJECTIVE Debate... LOL

digster

mammasan wrote:

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.

Can she by now? I mean, they've been preparing questions for weeks, and I don't think they're going to be able to find an entirely new moderator that both camps are going to be able to agree upon. It would have been better had this happened a week ago.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you; could the McCain campaign have been so politically astute and devious that they made sure this information got out to the public the day before the debate? Think about it; it's a win-win situation for them. It's too late to change the moderator, so Palin goes in with a double handicap; she has enormous expectations that she's going to do absolutely terribly and to top it off she's dealing with a moderator in the tank for the other side! It's genius when you think about it; if Palin does well, McCain will be able to say that she succeeded "in spite of the Big Bad Liberal Media trying to put the 'little people' down", and if she falls flat on her face, it's all the moderator's fault, who was an Obama-nut from the start. If I was running a sleazy presidential campaign, that's exactly what I would do. I also find it hard to believe that anything in politics happens by accident.

EDIT: I just noticed Strangest Tribe said exactly what I said above in many less words.

meistereder

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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.

Bingo. This is WHY the McCain camp agreed to it. It arms them with one of two things: (i) if Palin does OK (which I believe she will), they will be able to say that despite the biased moderator, Palin hit it out of the park; (ii) if she stumbles, it will be because teh moderator gave her "gotcha" questions meant to stump her, is treating her unfairly, etc.

Either way, Palin wins.

carolinabeerguy

I agree that it's unfair to have an obviously biased moderator but she already moderated the Cheney-Edwards debate in 2004 and was considered biased back then. Was this forgotten?

Also, does the McCain campaign not have access to Google to run a quick search on her prior to approving her as moderator. Even a little research would have turned up the fact that she wrote a book.

There was an article in the Washington Post on September 4th that covered the book and the fact that she was going to moderate the VP debate. This should not be news. It has been covered and I'm finding it hard to believe that nobody on the McCain team reads the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303319.html?hpid=artslot

blackredyellow

saveuplife wrote:

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 didn't look on msnbc.com, but I've had MSNBC on most of the morning, and it was discussed on Morning Joe, and on every segment talking about the debate that I've seen.

saveuplife wrote:

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

Either the campaign is lying about not knowing, or they didn't do any research whatsoever. The latter wouldn't surprise me in the least.

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???

I'm curious as to why you feel so strongly against Biden. I could take him or leave him, but I've noticed your posts before being very negative towards him.

meistereder

adam42381 wrote:

I agree that it's unfair to have an obviously biased moderator but she already moderated the Cheney-Edwards debate in 2004 and was considered biased back then. Was this forgotten?

Also, does the McCain campaign not have access to Google to run a quick search on her prior to approving her as moderator. Even a little research would have turned up the fact that she wrote a book.

There was an article in the Washington Post on September 4th that covered the book and the fact that she was going to moderate the VP debate. This should not be news. It has been covered and I'm finding it hard to believe that nobody on the McCain team reads the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303319.html?hpid=artslot

Of course the McCain camp knew. They want this moderator. It helps them.

dharma69

saveuplife wrote:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645

Come on,... are you kidding me?

Pleeeeeaaaseeeee.

This is a joke. It's hard to believe she's going to be a "good" debate moderator.

As a moderator she'll do fine and I sincerely doubt that the McCain clan was clueless as to who Iffle is. People do have the ability to remain objective despite their preferences. And I hate to break it to you but EVERYONE who moderates EVERY debate has a preference and bias. Professionals and those with common sense can keep it in check. It's not like it's Keith Olbermann pulling moderator duties.

Are we already trying to find a reason to rationalize Palin's next sub-par performance? Uh huh.

And we're making more of this story than it's worth.

And it has been covered on MSNBC.

digster

This fake outrage is pretty fun to watch.

It kind of takes a bit of wind out of the sails when you find out that the book is available for sale on amazon.com, and apparently has been for weeks now:

http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Politics-Race-Age-Obama/dp/038552501X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222873788&sr=8-3

That damn Liberal Media, trying to slide one by the McCain camp again!

mammasan

digster wrote:

Can she by now? I mean, they've been preparing questions for weeks, and I don't think they're going to be able to find an entirely new moderator that both camps are going to be able to agree upon. It would have been better had this happened a week ago.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you; could the McCain campaign have been so politically astute and devious that they made sure this information got out to the public the day before the debate? Think about it; it's a win-win situation for them. It's too late to change the moderator, so Palin goes in with a double handicap; she has enormous expectations that she's going to do absolutely terribly and to top it off she's dealing with a moderator in the tank for the other side! It's genius when you think about it; if Palin does well, McCain will be able to say that she succeeded "in spite of the Big Bad Liberal Media trying to put the 'little people' down", and if she falls flat on her face, it's all the moderator's fault, who was an Obama-nut from the start. If I was running a sleazy presidential campaign, that's exactly what I would do. I also find it hard to believe that anything in politics happens by accident.

EDIT: I just noticed Strangest Tribe said exactly what I said above in many less words.

I can definitely see the McCain campaign bring this to light the day before the debate in order to create a handicap. I'm no fan of either candidate but the McCain campaign has by far been running the dirtier campaign. He and his managers know that he is struggling. The economy is killing him and his little stunt last week didn't pan out as well as he expected. Every day Palin is looking worse. He needs something to help him turn this around. Gwen really needs to be on her A game tomorrow. In fact if I where her I would come down a little harder on Biden just to remove any doubt.

jwillmo

saveuplife wrote:

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.

She's not a disgrace because she's "inexperienced", she's a disgrace because she's a moron, plain and simple. Inexperience is the nice way the ball-less Democrats are putting it so as not to sound sexist, but it's pretty clear from the way she's being handled she's just simply a moron. For fuck's sake, she couldn't name one Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade, and she could conceivably give a lifetime appointment to somebody to that very body she knows shit about. C'mon, Brown v. Board of Education, that's shit you learn in high school! Bush v Gore for Crimeny's sake. And a journalism degree from the University of Idaho? Speaking as a journalism major myself, those are pretty laughable credentials. Shit, even Bush graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

So yeah, I can see why you'd want to steer the conversation to some perceived bias of the moderator, rather than the acutal fucking nominee.

I agree with the previous poster who said that this is all so, on the chance she doesn't completely look like an idiot in the debate, the ticket can claim some sort of small victory. I actually have heard she's pretty good at debating, so I'm interested to see it. But this idea that somehow a moderator who wrote a book is somehow going to skewer the debate to Biden's favor is ridiculous.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

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.

1. she's a crappy interviewee because she can't answer a single question - do you think her response to couric about foreign policy about russia was just nerves!???

2. she's not qualified to be VP period - this is not a left talking point ... many conservatives have come out and said the exact same thing ... but having said that - you should be comfortable with her as prez just as one who votes dem should be comfortable with biden as prez

3. yes - you're right there ... i apologize

mammasan

I just checked the Christian Science Monitor, a pretty conservative but fairly un-baised news source, website and they have no mention of Ifill's book either.

dharma69

jwillmo wrote:

I actually have heard she's pretty good at debating, so I'm interested to see it.

She's probably a fantastic debater, I don't doubt that at all. But it helps to have some breadth of knowledge about the subjects that you're debating. Which is the crux of her problem, isn't it?

digster

mammasan wrote:

I can definitely see the McCain campaign bring this to light the day before the debate in order to create a handicap. I'm no fan of either candidate but the McCain campaign has by far been running the dirtier campaign. He and his managers know that he is struggling. The economy is killing him and his little stunt last week didn't pan out as well as he expected. Every day Palin is looking worse. He needs something to help him turn this around. Gwen really needs to be on her A game tomorrow. In fact if I where her I would come down a little harder on Biden just to remove any doubt.

I've been doing a bit of research on this, and the fact that..

1. She's mentioned the book in numerous interviews for the past few months.
2. She's been selling the book online for at least a month.

...makes it absolutely ridiculous to assert that the McCain campaign knew nothing about this book. McCain's camp is able to find some obscure vote that Obama made eight years ago about early childhood sex education and turn it into an advertisement, and I'm supposed to believe that someone on their staff didn't do a first page Google search for the VP debate moderator? This is the kind of stuff that annoys me, that campaigns, Republican and Democrat alike, say something with the assumption that people are too stupid to see that it's obviously ludicrous. Why even bother saying they didn't know about it when all it would take is a third grader with access to a computer for two minutes to point out that there's no way they didn't know about it? I'll never understand that logic.

jimed14

the McCain camp has been "working the refs" for a long time now ... it's right out of Bush's playbook ...

whine enough about the media, and people will believe it ...

call someone elite over and over again, and people will believe it ...

tell people you're a maverick long enough, and people will believe it ...

tell people global warming is not man made and ...... ahhh, NOT SO FAST SARAH.

jwillmo

dharma69 wrote:

She's probably a fantastic debater, I don't doubt that at all. But it helps to have some breadth of knowledge about the subjects that you're debating. Which is the crux of her problem, isn't it?

Of course. And debating over war and economy is going to be a lot different than debating over moose, salmon and oil. I really would love to see a Rocky-style montage of the kind of info/talking point cramming she's getting right now. It must be like preparing your ten-year-old child to take the LSAT.

Anon

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.

Waaaaaaaaa waaaaaa wa. Its so sad to see a grown Republican cry.

digster

saveuplife wrote:

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

I didn't know you had claimed this. Come on. It took me forty-five seconds to find interviews and book sales for this new book. You're telling me the McCain camp didn't commit to forty-five seconds of vetting for the moderator of the most anticipated VP debate in recent history?

jimed14

dharma69 wrote:

She's probably a fantastic debater, I don't doubt that at all. But it helps to have some breadth of knowledge about the subjects that you're debating. Which is the crux of her problem, isn't it?

but the key here ... she doesn't have to get up and tell you why to vote for her (and McCain), she will get up there and tell you why NOT to vote for Obama and Biden with some snappy one liners ... with this 2 minute format (2 mins/2 mins/30 secs/30secs), there isn't enough time for her to dig too big of a hole.

She will rally the base yet again with some funny quips I'm sure. While I really am pulling for a huge meltdown, I bet she does fine, which means, people will renew their love for her.

sweetpotato

i'm not sure what anyone's opinion of the moderator has to do with the quality of the debate. they will both be asked the same questions and allowed the same amount of time to answer.

gwen ifill is very smart and very well informed. which, i'm sure, must scare palin supporters, who are used to her only having to deal with fellow hockeymomwannabees and guys who wanna pork her (except for charlie gibson and katie couric, who i don't think fall into either category).

jimed14

sweetpotato wrote:

i'm not sure what anyone's opinion of the moderator has to do with the quality of the debate. they will both be asked the same questions and allowed the same amount of time to answer.

gwen ifill is very smart and very well informed. which, i'm sure, must scare palin supporters, who are used to her only having to deal with fellow hockeymomwannabees and guys who wanna pork her (except for charlie gibson and katie couric, who i don't think fall into either category).

it's the McCain campaign's only hope .... distract and divide ... get the vote to 50-50 based on anything but the issues, and maybe they'll have a chance ...