VP Debate Moderator Is Bias

[Gem]

Larkin Wrote:

This is all about getting the base all riled up about bias, about how all those poor little Republicans are victims and everyone hates them and are soooo biased, so that when Palin gets her ass kicked they have a pre-fabricated excuse.

I'm sorry...but all you are doing is blaming the Republicans for not finding out sooner that the moderator was a partisan hack. Pretty pathetic that you are going to allow your dislike for Republicans allow something this patently ridiculous to occur.

McCain might be allowing the Republicans to handle this one for him - that would be a smart move considering all of the shit that has been heaped on the campaign for defending anything that has to do with Sarah Palin.

Again..the bottom line is....this moderator stands to profit financially and personally from one of the debaters beating the other. Moderators are just people, they are allowed to have private opinions about who they would like to win...but when we have moderators who stand to gain monetarily from one side doing well and the other side doing poorly...it should be obvious that that is a step too far.

To not have a problem with that is to admit that you are a partisan hack who hates Republicans or McCain/Palin more than you care for the process of electing our leaders in as fair and unbiased a process as possible.

 

[jillian]

I wonder if this is an excuse to get her not to debate...

At this point I can't see how debating could hurt her though. Expectations are so low, if she tanks everyone will be like "eh", if she does well, people will be impressed.

If she shows up and doesn't drool on her shoes, people will be impressed. I think she wins just by walking in the door.

 

[jillian]

Larkin Wrote:


I'm sorry...but all you are doing is blaming the Republicans for not finding out sooner that the moderator was a partisan hack. Pretty pathetic that you are going to allow your dislike for Republicans allow something this patently ridiculous to occur.

McCain might be allowing the Republicans to handle this one for him - that would be a smart move considering all of the shit that has been heaped on the campaign for defending anything that has to do with Sarah Palin.

Again..the bottom line is....this moderator stands to profit financially and personally from one of the debaters beating the other. Moderators are just people, they are allowed to have private opinions about who they would like to win...but when we have moderators who stand to gain monetarily from one side doing well and the other side doing poorly...it should be obvious that that is a step too far.

To not have a problem with that is to admit that you are a partisan hack who hates Republicans or McCain/Palin more than you care for the process of electing our leaders in as fair and unbiased a process as possible.

Actually, supposedly the book is more an ethinic study rather than a book about Obama. From what I heard, it's about black people living in a world where a black person could finally be nominated by a major party for pres.

I'm not sure why you assume they didn't know about Ifill's book.

Karl Rove has his finger in every pie. I would put money on them absolutely knowing. And, frankly, if they were caught off guard, I'd question the people he has around him.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin Wrote:

I'm sorry...but all you are doing is blaming the Republicans for not finding out sooner that the moderator was a partisan hack. Pretty pathetic that you are going to allow your dislike for Republicans allow something this patently ridiculous to occur.

No, I'm pointing out that they DID know before. You made up some bullshit about how liberals would freak out if McCain did such intrusive things like read the Washington Post or check Amazon.com.

And a partisan hack? You keep saying this bullshit claim, but its not substantiated by the evidence. Shes done debates before. Did you have any problems with her officiating other vice presidential debates? If not, do tell why now she is suddenly a "partisan hack".

Again..the bottom line is....this moderator stands to profit financially and personally from one of the debaters beating the other. Moderators are just people, they are allowed to have private opinions about who they would like to win...but when we have moderators who stand to gain monetarily from one side doing well and the other side doing poorly...it should be obvious that that is a step too far.

To not have a problem with that is to admit that you are a partisan hack who hates Republicans or McCain/Palin more than you care for the process of electing our leaders in as fair and unbiased a process as possible.

Care to tell me why this is coming out 36 hours from the debate, and not before? Oh right...because Republicans are just now finding out about this, right?

I'm pretty sure some of the Republicans read the Washington Post. This is a setup, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[xsited1]

Bottom line...no one with such obvious partisan ties should be moderating a debate and no Obama supporter on earth would allow a moderator who had written a book supporting McCain to moderate this debate.

Agreed. Most people would call that common sense.

 

[Gem]

Larkinn Wrote:

Care to tell me why this is coming out 36 hours from the debate, and not before? Oh right...because Republicans are just now finding out about this, right?

I'm pretty sure some of the Republicans read the Washington Post. This is a setup, nothing more, nothing less.

I am loving watching the Left excuse and excuse and excuse this obvious example of inappropriate partisanship. First it was McCain's fault because he knew, then the McCain campaign said the didn't know, then it was their fault because they should be doing thorough background checks on everyone they talk to, then its Rove's fault because hes behind the choice of a left-wing shill chosen to moderate, then its Republicans fault for not keeping close track to who is being chosen to moderate debates weeks before the debate has begun...lol.

Its all a plot, its all a conspiracy...its all the evil Republicans...its all the wicked, evil Right..

It can't simply be wrong. Right or Left, Republican or Democrat, its JUST PLAIN WRONG.

It is wrong to allow someone who stands to profit financially from the success of one of the debaters and the failure of the other to be put in charge of running and moderating that debate.

Those who would rather point their fingers at the "evil" OTHERS rather than simply stating that truth...are sad partisans. You can scream that you aren't all you want...but when you would actually support a moderator who stands to gain from the outcome of the debate...you've crossed a line that illustrates clearly that you are more interested in "your guy" winning than you are about the debate being run fairly.


Jillian Wrote:

Actually, supposedly the book is more an ethinic study rather than a book about Obama.

Here is some of the books official promo work from Random House:

"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 and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power. … Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Sen. Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the 'black enough' conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history."

It is absolutely a study....a study of how Obama's STUNNING campaign has FORGED A NEW PATH...to political power. Come on, Jillian..."The Age Of Obama" is a book that is going to be released on the inauguration of the first African-American president...and it isn't partisan? Give me a break...it is a book about his candidacy and its impact on this nation...and it will sell remarkably better if he WINS than if he LOSES.

Ifill wants Obama to win...and she is working on a book that stands to make her a lot of money if he does. She has no place moderating this debate...she should continue her successful career in political commentary in her current venue, where she can be partisan and biased - like so many others on the left AND the right.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

WASHINGTON - The Fox News Channel - a network that claims to be "fair and balanced" - has been snubbed by the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls who have refused to participate in a series of political debates it is organising.Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made clear they will not take part in a debate, co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute. Last week, John Edwards, another senior Democratic hopeful, said he would not take part.

The decision leaves the event's organisers with a hole in their line-up, though so far the debate is still scheduled to go ahead in Detroit on 23 September. More importantly, the decision underlines the visceral hatred felt by many Democrats and liberals towards Fox News and its slogan: "We report, You decide".

A spokesman for Mr Obama, who is a member of the CBC, said the Illinois senator was not intending to snub the CBC Institute and that he would participate in another debate it was co-sponsoring with the CNN channel. "CNN seemed like a more appropriate host," Mr Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, said.

Democrat Candidates Boycott 'Fair and Balanced' Fox News | CommonDreams.org

heh

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn Wrote:

I am loving watching the Left excuse and excuse and excuse this obvious example of inappropriate partisanship. First it was McCain's fault because he knew, then the McCain campaign said the didn't know, then it was their fault because they should be doing thorough background checks on everyone they talk to, then its Rove's fault because hes behind the choice of a left-wing shill chosen to moderate, then its Republicans fault for not keeping close track to who is being chosen to moderate debates weeks before the debate has begun...lol.

If you are going to scream and bitch about partisanship, the least you can do is avoid lying while talking about it. A "thorough background check" is worlds away from "reading the Washington Post".

If she had hid it, it would be a different story. She didn't. It was out there for everyone to see.

Its all a plot, its all a conspiracy...its all the evil Republicans...its all the wicked, evil Right..

Well you can choose to believe that they are incredible morons if you'd like and somehow missed this. I believe that, despite my distaste for many of them, most are actually quite intelligent. So, what I have left is that they did it by design.

It is wrong to allow someone who stands to profit financially from the success of one of the debaters and the failure of the other to be put in charge of running and moderating that debate.

And of course the "wrongness" only manifested itself 36 hours previous to the debate. Not enough time for someone else to have been chosen. What a striking coincidence.

Those who would rather point their fingers at the "evil" OTHERS rather than simply stating that truth...are sad partisans. You can scream that you aren't all you want...but when you would actually support a moderator who stands to gain from the outcome of the debate...you've crossed a line that illustrates clearly that you are more interested in "your guy" winning than you are about the debate being run fairly.

Considering the VP debate is worth absolutely nothing, no I don't care that much. Considering the fact that, unless you really believe the McCain campaign and Republicans are so stupid that they missed an article in the Washington Post that they deserve this mess, I don't care that much. Considering the fact that, as I said, as much as I dislike McCain he isn't a bumbling idiot, and they didn't miss the article.

 

[Larkinn]

Democrat Candidates Boycott 'Fair and Balanced' Fox News | CommonDreams.org

heh

And McCain was going to boycott NBC until it was revealed that Brokaw would moderate the debate.

heh.

 

[Modbert]

And McCain was going to boycott NBC until it was revealed that Brokaw would moderate the debate.

heh.

I pointed that out in my other thread.

It's amazing how quickly people forget the facts in this case huh Larkinn?

 

[rayboyusmc]

I'm sorry...but all you are doing is blaming the Republicans for not finding out sooner that the moderator was a partisan hack.

She's is writing a book on Obama and race. How the hell does that maker her a partisan hack. I have seen her before in debates. She is boring but fair and knowlegable.

Did you bitch when Sean Hannity pretended to to interview Palin?

Do you even have an idea of the women's credentials?

She is female, Palin is female.

She is black, Obama is black.

Get a life.

 

[Andrew2382]

lol shes a woman palins a woman

that is what you are going by.

Hell we should have had Condeleza Rice do the debate then. She would have been fair.

THE WOMAN HAS A CONFLICT ON INTREST, SHE MAKES MONEY IF OBAMA WINS.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Gem]

rayboy wrote:

Did you bitch when Sean Hannity pretended to to interview Palin?

Umm, no...why would I? That was an interview...not the one and only debate between the two vice-presidential nominees. Its hard to take you seriously when you post idiocy like this, lol.

Do you even have an idea of the women's credentials?

Absolutely...she seems to do very well at what she does. I'm not insulting her career choices. I'm not angry that she supports Obama. I'm not upset that some felt she had difficulty covering the RNC without letting her personal opinions and feelings interfere with her job...

What I take issue with is that she stands to benefit financially and personally from an Obama/Biden victory. And that brings into question whether or not she can fairly run a debate - when she is aware that a Biden success would mean a better chance of an Obama victory...more book sales, book tours, speaking tours, press, etc. etc. etc.

She is female, Palin is female.

I'm glad you can see that. Your vision isn't impaired then, just your judgement?

She is black, Obama is black.

Again...vision seems to be ok...this is just a comprehension difficulty with you.

Get a life.

I have a great one, thanks. It includes being able to understand that the issue at hand has nothing to do with the moderators gender or race...but rather with her interest in having one of the debaters win.

If she were an Indian man writing a book on Obama changing the world of politics I would feel the same.

 

[elvis]

I pointed that out in my other thread.

It's amazing how quickly people forget the facts in this case huh Larkinn?

Who did McCain think was going to moderate the NBC debate, if not Brokaw?

 

[knotsmith]

The GOP said they were concerned and didn't know about Ifill's pro Obama book. This doesn't make sense for professional strategists to say. I didn't know about her book until today but I knew that Ifill was biased as a news person; from her join-ins on Washington Week to her short segment from the GOB Pailin speech. That was not responsible journalism complete with the visible disappointment in facial expression.

McCain said he didn't think it was anything to worry about, that she would be professional.

However, even if Ifill is neutral and professional (which was in question in her last moderator role), it raises questions about the debate process, which raises questions about larger and larger scopes of influence at work -- a system of bias beyond what is already documented by studies such as Pew's; all of which adds to a momentum in thought and resultant action by viewers and even questions from non-viewers who hear about the selection for moderator. The effect is subtle but can be large.

I respect Leher. I watch the show and I can honestly say I've never heard anything in the way of bias. He's a professional. He deserved the selection.

 

[WillowTree]

Actually, supposedly the book is more an ethinic study rather than a book about Obama. From what I heard, it's about black people living in a world where a black person could finally be nominated by a major party for pres.

I'm not sure why you assume they didn't know about Ifill's book.

Karl Rove has his finger in every pie. I would put money on them absolutely knowing. And, frankly, if they were caught off guard, I'd question the people he has around him.

Because he said so, and unlike you, I don't believe he was lying.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The McCain camp is claiming it didn't know about Gwen Ifill's book prior to agreeing to her as moderator for the VP debate:

I confirmed for us here on GretaWire: the McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill's book (I think I told them when I made my efforts - emails about midnight - to find out!) I am stunned....the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair - in law, this would create a mistrial.

If that's true, it just shows the McCain campaign's incompetence. The debate moderators were agreed to on August 6. Ifill's book was reported in the Associated Press two weeks earlier:

"We have an awkward history about how to talk about race in the nation and in newsrooms," says Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent for PBS' "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" and author of "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," slated for publication early next year.

Judd Legum: Ifill Book Public Weeks Before McCain Agreed To Have Her Moderate VP Debate

There is no evidence that the book will be favorable to the Democratic nominee. Ifill, the host of "Washington Week," told The Post she is focusing on Obama and three other up-and-coming politicians, such as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Newark Mayor Cory Booker. She said she started the book when it looked unlikely that Obama would win the Democratic nomination.

"The book has been out there and discussed for months," said PBS spokeswoman Anne Bell. "It's a non-issue."

Queried about it, John McCain expressed confidence in Ifill.

"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional," McCain told Fox News's Carl Cameron.

On the World Net site, the "Deal of the Day" is a $4.95 offer for what is described as the "Obama blockbuster: 'Anatomy of Deceit.'" The Web site says the book "reveals" that "his brand of change is a hostile attack on the Judeo-Christian values and freedoms most Americans hold dear."

I guess you would prefer the latter author.

Ifill's Book is no Secret | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

I guess they vetted her as well as they vetted Palin.

 

[Larkinn]

Because he said so, and unlike you, I don't believe he was lying.

So you believe he was stupid?

 

[N4mddissent]

If the McCain campaign did not know about the book before they approved her, then they have no one else to blame. They are informed about the moderators and have time to decide and research them. There were articles announcing the name of the book. There was a time magazine article which talked about her writing the book. Both of these were before they agreed. If they wanted to complain, why are they just discovering this. The book has been available for pre-order on Amazon for weeks. And as Keith Olbermann said, since Palin reads all the magazines and newspapers she may have even read the article. Each party has the responsibility to do the research and vet moderators. The information about her book was available. Whether they knew and agreed anyway or didn't act responsibly and get all the information (which was available), complaining now is just shows a lack of leadership and accountability. What happens when this happens at the top? Seems similar to perhaps not properly investigating and gathering all the intelligence and so committing troops to a war on incorrect assumptions. Then saying wait a minute we didn't know.

 

[del]

So you believe he was stupid?

she didn't tell the debate commission about the book, so i'd say no.

My Way News - VP debate moderator's impartiality questioned

"The host of PBS'"Washington Week" and senior correspondent on "The NewsHour" said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book. The commission had no immediate comment when contacted by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for John McCain's campaign did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages."