VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book

[jackschmittusa]

The people who have a problem with this can only start from 1 of 2 positions.

A) The book is really no surprise to the McCain group and made no difference in their approval of her as moderator. And if this is the case, it is a non-issue; barely a footnote to the debate.

B) The book is a surprise to the McCain people because they, as a group, were too incompetent to consider Googling her name (which would have turned up the book) before they approved her for moderator.

So, in light of these options, would those who have a problem with this please tell us whether they fall into the category of creating an issue out of nothing, or admitting that McCain and company are a bunch of bumbling boobs?

 

[Thump553]

In the original link, there is a link to video of Ifill reporting from the floor of the GOP convention after Palin gave her acceptance speech. The article pointed out there were viewer complaints that she showed her anti-Palin bias by various frowns, facial gestures, etc. during her reporting. I watched the video-twice-and all I can say is there are some people that are hypersensitive and see "liberal media bias" everywhere. She gave a positive, upbeat commentary about how Palin energized the room-and no negative facial gestures.

Ifill's book has been in the works for months, heavily publicized. She is a very mild mannered, even-keeled reporter who frankly, is so laid back her main attribute is boring the viewer. If the Barracuda can't handle her, how in the world is she going to properly represent the USA in the big league worlds of national and international politics?

Personally I think the right wing pundits are grasping at this as an excuse if Palin does poorly, or it is yet another attempt to "push against the referees."

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The people who have a problem with this can only start from 1 of 2 positions.
A) The book is really no surprise to the McCain group and made no difference in their approval of her as moderator. And if this is the case, it is a non-issue; barely a footnote to the debate.
B) The book is a surprise to the McCain people because they, as a group, were too incompetent to consider Googling her name (which would have turned up the book) before they approved her for moderator.
So, in light of these options, would those who have a problem with this please tell us whether they fall into the category of creating an issue out of nothing, or admitting that McCain and company are a bunch of bumbling boobs?

Why can't they be both?

 

[Sacrilege]

As has been stated before by many members here.... all Blacks are pro-Obama.

They cannot be trusted in positions of power. :Q

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Inexcusible. She needs to be kicked out that position. Nobody can argue with this. She is clearly very pro obama and should not be mediating a debate.

Generally I think very highly of your opinions here as being thoughtful and well reasoned. Sadly I have to say this is the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have seen you write. I expect it out of the PJ crowd, but...

To the Ignorencia:
The book is about the transformation happening in modern black political leaders (such as Obama, Ford, even Steele) as products and decedents of the civil rights era. All the traditional black political leaders were part of, connected to, or mimicked the civil rights era leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, etc.
Their politics, rhetoric, goals and broader appeal are very different than their forebearers, and Obama's candidacy is the pinnacle of this transformation.

Iffil has talked about these issues in various places before, such as on Washington Week, News Hour, and as a commentator on MTP. This is a historically analytical book, not an advocacy book.

Gwen Iffil is an esteemed journalist in the true meaning of the word and a true professional. She is highly respected, seasoned to the presidential debates, and has been very deliberate in her career not to express her own political opinions. I have seen several times in WW Q&A sessions where she is asked by audience members for her own opinions and recommendations on candidates, and she has been deliberate to turn the Q around and have them discuss their preferences and opinions instead of her own.

The idea that she will risk destroying her career and reputation to somehow subtlety and successfully skew the questions of the VP debate to engineer an Obama victory to sell books is simply unbridled stupidity. Of all the things the that have been said this elections, I find this one of the most highly offensive. Fuck you, she's staying. The press shouldn't let themselves be bullied and maligned by the McCain campaign or its supporters just b/c Palin has been a floundering idiot, McCain has been spastic, inconsistant, dishonest and nasty, and the campaigns poll #'s have been falling like Wall St banks. Stop scapegoating all your failures.

Not to mention VP debates have never even mattered. Quayle got destroyed by Benson and Bush still won. If Palin fails its her own fucking fault for being ignorant and unprepared, and more McCain's for even putting her there rather than someone can hack it. What does that say about the strength of a ticket that can't even fight and win against limp wristed "journalists" like Couric and Gibson? Grow a fucking spine and an intellect, the world is rough. All this whining and crying and calling unfair by the GOP makes them look like the biggest bunch of pussies to run for office. If you can't win against them you have no place in the white house.

 

[yuppiejr]

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

Isn't there some legal and ethical problems with having a debate moderator who is favoriting either candidate, especially when they stand to profit? I hope they bring in Jim Lehrer, and change the format to one like the first Presidential debate.

I can't wait for this debate when the slack jawed Obambots run for cover as their horseshit VP choice is destroyed by a working class soccer Mom. Let them play every dirty trick they can come up with, it will only make the victory that much sweeter. The bravado around this debate doesn't cover the stink of Dem-fear...

May the best candidate win.

 

[IronWing]

WND calls someone biased and anyone pays attention? Weird.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
I can't wait for this debate when the slack jawed Obambots run for cover as their horseshit VP choice is destroyed by a working class soccer Mom. Let them play every dirty trick they can come up with, it will only make the victory that much sweeter. The bravado around this debate doesn't cover the stink of Dem-fear...

May the best candidate win.

I thought you favored McCain/Palin...

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Inexcusible. She needs to be kicked out that position. Nobody can argue with this. She is clearly very pro obama and should not be mediating a debate.

Generally I think very highly of your opinions here as being thoughtful and well reasoned. Sadly I have to say this is the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have seen you write. I expect it out of the PJ crowd, but...

To the Ignorencia:
The book is about the transformation happening in modern black political leaders (such as Obama, Ford, even Steele) as products and decedents of the civil rights era. All the traditional black political leaders were part of, connected to, or mimicked the civil rights era leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, etc.
Their politics, rhetoric, goals and broader appeal are very different than their forebearers, and Obama's candidacy is the pinnacle of this transformation.

Iffil has talked about these issues in various places before, such as on Washington Week, News Hour, and as a commentator on MTP. This is a historically analytical book, not an advocacy book.

Gwen Iffil is an esteemed journalist in the true meaning of the word and a true professional. She is highly respected, seasoned to the presidential debates, and has been very deliberate in her career not to express her own political opinions. I have seen several times in WW Q&A sessions where she is asked by audience members for her own opinions and recommendations on candidates, and she has been deliberate to turn the Q around and have them discuss their preferences and opinions instead of her own.

The idea that she will risk destroying her career and reputation to somehow subtlety and successfully skew the questions of the VP debate to engineer an Obama victory to sell books is simply unbridled stupidity. Of all the things the that have been said this elections, I find this one of the most highly offensive. Fuck you, she's staying. The press shouldn't let themselves be bullied and maligned by the McCain campaign or its supporters just b/c Palin has been a floundering idiot, McCain has been spastic, inconsistant, dishonest and nasty, and the campaigns poll #'s have been falling like Wall St banks. Stop scapegoating all your failures.

Not to mention VP debates have never even mattered. Quayle got destroyed by Benson and Bush still won. If Palin fails its her own fucking fault for being ignorant and unprepared, and more McCain's for even putting her there rather than someone can hack it. What does that say about the strength of a ticket that can't even fight and win against limp wristed "journalists" like Couric and Gibson? Grow a fucking spine and an intellect, the world is rough. All this whining and crying and calling unfair by the GOP makes them look like the biggest bunch of pussies to run for office. If you can't win against them you have no place in the white house.

Does this mean you're voting for Obama?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Inexcusible. She needs to be kicked out that position. Nobody can argue with this. She is clearly very pro obama and should not be mediating a debate.

Generally I think very highly of your opinions here as being thoughtful and well reasoned. Sadly I have to say this is the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have seen you write. I expect it out of the PJ crowd, but...

To the Ignorencia:
The book is about the transformation happening in modern black political leaders (such as Obama, Ford, even Steele) as products and decedents of the civil rights era. All the traditional black political leaders were part of, connected to, or mimicked the civil rights era leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, etc.
Their politics, rhetoric, goals and broader appeal are very different than their forebearers, and Obama's candidacy is the pinnacle of this transformation.

Iffil has talked about these issues in various places before, such as on Washington Week, News Hour, and as a commentator on MTP. This is a historically analytical book, not an advocacy book.

Gwen Iffil is an esteemed journalist in the true meaning of the word and a true professional. She is highly respected, seasoned to the presidential debates, and has been very deliberate in her career not to express her own political opinions. I have seen several times in WW Q&A sessions where she is asked by audience members for her own opinions and recommendations on candidates, and she has been deliberate to turn the Q around and have them discuss their preferences and opinions instead of her own.

The idea that she will risk destroying her career and reputation to somehow subtlety and successfully skew the questions of the VP debate to engineer an Obama victory to sell books is simply unbridled stupidity. Of all the things the that have been said this elections, I find this one of the most highly offensive. Fuck you, she's staying. The press shouldn't let themselves be bullied and maligned by the McCain campaign or its supporters just b/c Palin has been a floundering idiot, McCain has been spastic, inconsistant, dishonest and nasty, and the campaigns poll #'s have been falling like Wall St banks. Stop scapegoating all your failures.

Not to mention VP debates have never even mattered. Quayle got destroyed by Benson and Bush still won. If Palin fails its her own fucking fault for being ignorant and unprepared, and more McCain's for even putting her there rather than someone can hack it. What does that say about the strength of a ticket that can't even fight and win against limp wristed "journalists" like Couric and Gibson? Grow a fucking spine and an intellect, the world is rough. All this whining and crying and calling unfair by the GOP makes them look like the biggest bunch of pussies to run for office. If you can't win against them you have no place in the white house.

Does this mean you're voting for Obama?

It means I know who she is and not a paranoid conspiracy imagining flaming idiot w/o a lick of strategic thinking ability. Interpret that how you wish

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Inexcusible. She needs to be kicked out that position. Nobody can argue with this. She is clearly very pro obama and should not be mediating a debate.

Generally I think very highly of your opinions here as being thoughtful and well reasoned. Sadly I have to say this is the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have seen you write. I expect it out of the PJ crowd, but...

To the Ignorencia:
The book is about the transformation happening in modern black political leaders (such as Obama, Ford, even Steele) as products and decedents of the civil rights era. All the traditional black political leaders were part of, connected to, or mimicked the civil rights era leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, etc.
Their politics, rhetoric, goals and broader appeal are very different than their forebearers, and Obama's candidacy is the pinnacle of this transformation.

Iffil has talked about these issues in various places before, such as on Washington Week, News Hour, and as a commentator on MTP. This is a historically analytical book, not an advocacy book.

Gwen Iffil is an esteemed journalist in the true meaning of the word and a true professional. She is highly respected, seasoned to the presidential debates, and has been very deliberate in her career not to express her own political opinions. I have seen several times in WW Q&A sessions where she is asked by audience members for her own opinions and recommendations on candidates, and she has been deliberate to turn the Q around and have them discuss their preferences and opinions instead of her own.

The idea that she will risk destroying her career and reputation to somehow subtlety and successfully skew the questions of the VP debate to engineer an Obama victory to sell books is simply unbridled stupidity. Of all the things the that have been said this elections, I find this one of the most highly offensive. Fuck you, she's staying. The press shouldn't let themselves be bullied and maligned by the McCain campaign or its supporters just b/c Palin has been a floundering idiot, McCain has been spastic, inconsistant, dishonest and nasty, and the campaigns poll #'s have been falling like Wall St banks. Stop scapegoating all your failures.

Not to mention VP debates have never even mattered. Quayle got destroyed by Benson and Bush still won. If Palin fails its her own fucking fault for being ignorant and unprepared, and more McCain's for even putting her there rather than someone can hack it. What does that say about the strength of a ticket that can't even fight and win against limp wristed "journalists" like Couric and Gibson? Grow a fucking spine and an intellect, the world is rough. All this whining and crying and calling unfair by the GOP makes them look like the biggest bunch of pussies to run for office. If you can't win against them you have no place in the white house.

Does this mean you're voting for Obama?

It means I know who she is and not a paranoid conspiracy imagining flaming idiot w/o a lick of strategic thinking ability. Interpret that how you wish

So you're voting for McCain then?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Inexcusible. She needs to be kicked out that position. Nobody can argue with this. She is clearly very pro obama and should not be mediating a debate.

Generally I think very highly of your opinions here as being thoughtful and well reasoned. Sadly I have to say this is the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have seen you write. I expect it out of the PJ crowd, but...

To the Ignorencia:
The book is about the transformation happening in modern black political leaders (such as Obama, Ford, even Steele) as products and decedents of the civil rights era. All the traditional black political leaders were part of, connected to, or mimicked the civil rights era leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, etc.
Their politics, rhetoric, goals and broader appeal are very different than their forebearers, and Obama's candidacy is the pinnacle of this transformation.

Iffil has talked about these issues in various places before, such as on Washington Week, News Hour, and as a commentator on MTP. This is a historically analytical book, not an advocacy book.

Gwen Iffil is an esteemed journalist in the true meaning of the word and a true professional. She is highly respected, seasoned to the presidential debates, and has been very deliberate in her career not to express her own political opinions. I have seen several times in WW Q&A sessions where she is asked by audience members for her own opinions and recommendations on candidates, and she has been deliberate to turn the Q around and have them discuss their preferences and opinions instead of her own.

The idea that she will risk destroying her career and reputation to somehow subtlety and successfully skew the questions of the VP debate to engineer an Obama victory to sell books is simply unbridled stupidity. Of all the things the that have been said this elections, I find this one of the most highly offensive. Fuck you, she's staying. The press shouldn't let themselves be bullied and maligned by the McCain campaign or its supporters just b/c Palin has been a floundering idiot, McCain has been spastic, inconsistant, dishonest and nasty, and the campaigns poll #'s have been falling like Wall St banks. Stop scapegoating all your failures.

Not to mention VP debates have never even mattered. Quayle got destroyed by Benson and Bush still won. If Palin fails its her own fucking fault for being ignorant and unprepared, and more McCain's for even putting her there rather than someone can hack it. What does that say about the strength of a ticket that can't even fight and win against limp wristed "journalists" like Couric and Gibson? Grow a fucking spine and an intellect, the world is rough. All this whining and crying and calling unfair by the GOP makes them look like the biggest bunch of pussies to run for office. If you can't win against them you have no place in the white house.

Does this mean you're voting for Obama?

It means I know who she is and not a paranoid conspiracy imagining flaming idiot w/o a lick of strategic thinking ability. Interpret that how you wish

So you're voting for McCain then?

I think you are trying to be too tricky for yourself

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

If Obama approves of it, like McCain did with this moderator, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

Limbaugh doesn't need to moderate a debate, he already knows everything.

Your analogy is terrible, by the way. SOME people are capable of setting aside their prejudices, and Limbaugh isn't one of them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: abaez
Didn't the McCain camp approve this moderator when it was still being setup? What's the problem?

Did they know at the time that she was writing a book about Obama?

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

i would have no problem with that if by then you also manage to acquire a brain

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: abaez
Didn't the McCain camp approve this moderator when it was still being setup? What's the problem?

Did they know at the time that she was writing a book about Obama?

Yes...it had been announced more than 2 months prior to her selection.

BTW, the book isn't about Obama, he's in the title because he's the most recent and currently most famous and successful of the black politicians

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

Limbaugh doesn't need to moderate a debate, he already knows everything.

Your analogy is terrible, by the way. SOME people are capable of setting aside their prejudices, and Limbaugh isn't one of them.

I see, but because Ifill is a lefty, she obviously DOES have that ability? Got it.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

i would have no problem with that if by then you also manage to acquire a brain

You first.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: abaez

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

If Obama approves of it, like McCain did with this moderator, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

QFT! :thumbsup:

At the end of the day, either she is a very acceptable moderator, or McCain and Palin are so incompetent that they don't deserve another choice (hoist by their own petard as it were...). There truly isn't a 3rd option here...

 

[Genx87]

Non issue for me. Here is the deal first she was fine in 04 when Cheney was smacking Edwards around like a rag doll. Second if she is viewed as not being impartial and going after Palin it will only hurt the Obama campaign. People will backlash against the campaign because she went after Palin while she is writing a book.

I expect her to be like she was in 04. Ask questions and dont interject her own opinion. In fact I would say of the debates in 04. I remember her being the least confrontational. Basically ask questions and let the debaters respond.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
Suspicion: McCain camp signed off on Ms. Ifill knowing that if needed later in the event of a bad showing by Gov. Palin, her book could be used as "proof" that she was biased.

Reality: People are capable of putting aside their personal preferences to do a job in a neutral fashion.

Oh stop right now with your comprehensive logic! :|

Sweet, so you guys wont mind when Rush Limbaugh moderates the next presidential debate then?

He wouldn't be physically able to as he lost most of his hearing due to his addiction to Oxcy Contin.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Non issue for me. Here is the deal first she was fine in 04 when Cheney was smacking Edwards around like a rag doll. Second if she is viewed as not being impartial and going after Palin it will only hurt the Obama campaign. People will backlash against the campaign because she went after Palin while she is writing a book.

I expect her to be like she was in 04. Ask questions and dont interject her own opinion. In fact I would say of the debates in 04. I remember her being the least confrontational. Basically ask questions and let the debaters respond.

I agree for the most part. However, there was atleast one occasion during that '04 debate that she got a bit snippy.

Meh, it's not like they were going to be able to get anyone unbiased anyway so only time will tell how well she moderates this one. If she blows it, she'll have lost the last of her "nonpartisan" reputation. But if she pulls it off without showing her obvious preference then I think her rep will be just fine. Time will tell how "professional" she will be.

 

[StageLeft]

Skullduggery of mccain's campaign aside, the fact of the matter is that she is plainly inappropriate as moderator for this. It is absurd to think otherwise.