Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, if he had said anything else he would have been accused of whining or trying to protect Palin. Not much else he could have done - hence why he isn't making a stink about it.
Of course, anyone with a brain understands that having a moderator who stands to make money and improve her career off of the success of one of the debatees and the failure of the other does not make for a very professional debate.
I agree this one's down right blatant. Ifll should have never agreed to do this debate.Yes, if he had said anything else he would have been accused of whining or trying to protect Palin. Not much else he could have done - hence why he isn't making a stink about it.
Of course, anyone with a brain understands that having a moderator who stands to make money and improve her career off of the success of one of the debatees and the failure of the other does not make for a very professional debate.
It may make for a professional debate.
The book creates a conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean she won't be fair as a moderator.
Of course now we have added more drama to the situation. If Palin does well, some on the left will claim that the pressure the evil Right put on Ifill caused her to "go easy" on Palin. If Palin does poorly, some on the right will claim that the evil Left put a partisan in the moderator position which meant it could never be a fair debate from the get go.
Elvis Wrote:
I agree...now that so many have been made aware of her book, Ifill will probably make sure that she handles the debate as professionally as humanly. It doesn't mean it should have happened however.
Of course now we have added more drama to the situation. If Palin does well, some on the left will claim that the pressure the evil Right put on Ifill caused her to "go easy" on Palin. If Palin does poorly, some on the right will claim that the evil Left put a partisan in the moderator position which meant it could never be a fair debate from the get go.
Hence, why I have said from the beginning...no one with Ifill's background should have been put in this position.
I agree it doesn't mean she couldn't be fair. But that doesn't mean we should give her the chance to prove her ability to be fair during the only VP debate.
There are plenty of people who could moderate a debate. Why we needed to chose one who stands to gain from one side winning seems like a very foolish decision to me.
