Well, well, Ms. Ifill has written book,* The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama*, which features black politicians. Good for her. Sounds like a book that could be very interesting.
But this raises an obvious question: should she recuse herself, or should she be removed from moderating the debate? I say absolutely. It seems to me that she has a financial interest in Obama winning. And that a moderator, she, at the very least, should be able to present an air of non-bias. I’m amazed that this is even a possibility.
Thoughts? Or should I say, let the hand-waving begin.
Are you serious? She’s going to ask questions. You think she will ask *biased * questions? And nobody will catch on to her crafty plan to make Mooseolini look stupid? I’m pretty sure you would, and the ever vigilant crew over at WorldNut. You’d spot that biased question right away, I’m sure, a question crafted only to make her look bad.
So, how would she go about asking a question that would make her look good?.
Maggie, bro, she’s not a judge in a trial. She’s not deciding the election. She’s moderating a debate. She’s not doing anything in secret, she’s doing it right out there in front of God and everybody. What are you afraid of. that she won’t be fair? If she isn’t fair, I’m sure you’ll be able to spot it for us and let us know. Are you worried that she will ask unfair questions in such a way that nobody will be able to tell?
Wow, I’m really impressed. I would have thought two for two hand waves would have been good to display my prescience, but it’s 3 for 2! You guys are the best!!!
Liaison? Please. Brokaw was doing one of two things. Probably both. One, trying to ensure some fairness in the coverage, which had proven to be heavily skewed. Two, he was trying to retain the air of impartiality that he has tried to keep for so long. You could see him cringe during the convention when Olberman would bounce a heavy-handed question to him and Matthews.
I was going to write a longer post, but this doesn’t deserve it. You’ve chosen a flimsy and silly rationale for arguing she’s not impartial, and the book is not touting Obama, it’s a discussion of an obvious issue.
I like the substitution of “WMD” for “WND,” though. Seems apt.
So, I read the article at WND (cute typo in the OP, btw ) and their primary concerns/criticisms seem to be that 1) Gwen Ifill told Dick Cheney that he only had 30 seconds for his response during an exchange in the 2004 VP debate; 2) she had a “dismissive look” on her face once in regards to Sarah Palin, and 3) she is not pimping out her book on the debate website.
The Cheney thing seems totally bogus to me, as does the “dismissive look”. It seems appropriate to me for the debate website to leave off mention of Ifill’s upcoming book, because frankly it would seem promotional for them to mention it.
Ifill has always seemed like one of the most fair and honest journalists working today, from what I’ve seen of her work. I can’t see how anyone who saw her moderate the VP debate in 2004, or has seen any of the rest of her work, could think she’s going to come in swinging for the Democrats.
Frankly if I were the Reps I’d not call for Ifill to recuse herself.
She’ll either over compensate and toss softballs at Palin or she’ll be fair and even handed or she’ll put the screws on to help Obama win the Oval Office.
All of the above are a win for the Palin team.
Softballs are good of course.
Even handed is fair.
Screws they can cry bloody murder at the unfairness of it all. Mind you we have already seen the campaign doing exactly that as regards the media and Palin so this plays right into their hands. They’d love nothing better probably than a provable indictment of the evil liberal media machine abusing their poor candidate.
Indeed, even if it is softballs and Palin still strikes out this leaves them a prime opening for conspiracy theories and claims of bias.
I’d say this is perfect for them.
For my part I have always been impressed with Gewn Ifill and I suspect she will be carefully neutral for this. She is a smart lady and a consummate professional.
The fact that she her book is coming out should be on the site. Full disclosure, and all that. And it should be mentioned the night of the debate, ideally by her or someone who may introduce her. Forget any incidents that may have occurred, she has a book coming out that, if Obama wins, will likely do better.
I intentionally didn’t put it in the pit because I want an actual debate, which is actually occurring. I asked for “thoughts” and added the handwaving line as a joke. I ask you to place it back in GD, since their IS a debate.
There is no debate until you provide something more than “handwaving” that OMG! She wrote a book about Obama!
Her book is going to sell regardless who wins the election because even if Obama loses, the same people are going to be interested in how he got as far as he did.
I have seen no debate, only snide remarks–beginning with the OP.
You pretty much asked whether or not people consider the theoretical impact an Obama presidency would have on Ifill’s future book sales relevant to her ability to moderate a debate impartially. When people answer that it’s irrelevant, you can’t just disregard their points as “hand-waving” and smugly look down on them for confirming your predictions. Questions of relevance are directly on point.
For my own part, I’ll say that the book seems likely to be much affected by the outcome of the election. Win or lose, Barack Obama’s campaign is watershed event in the history of black politicians in the US, and it’s not like interest in the issue will suddenly evaporate if he falls short. Especially as the book seems to be merely using him as the most prominent example, among many, of the current generation of black politicians, a trend that will be relevant to the American political scene in years to come, regardless of what happens in November.
So, basically, I don’t see a financial motive for Ifill to be anything other than impartial. Even the WND article is surprisingly moderate in its reservations about Ifill.
Gwen Ifil knows whats going to happen to her book, no matter what. It will end up as a special thank you gift during Pledge Week.
“And if you pledge just two bus tokens and an unused stick of gum, we’ll send you this lovely book by Gwen Ifil and this CD of Garrison Keillor singing Cole Porter…”
Those first responses were not the stuff of debate, so I treated them for what they were. Discussion had begun after that. Reading what have revealed that to you.
I can when its those two clowns. And a few others who are as painfully predictable.
Wait. The first sentences of these two paragraphs contradict each other, don’t they?Did you omit a “doesn’t” from the first one? Assuming so, which from the rest of your work seems to be the case, I don’t think you can say that 1) Obama is the main draw of the book and 2) if he wins, he will be more of a draw, especially considering the lag between the election and the book coming out if he loses.
) and their primary concerns/criticisms seem to be that 1) Gwen Ifill told Dick Cheney that he only had 30 seconds for his response during an exchange in the 2004 VP debate; 2) she had a “dismissive look” on her face once in regards to Sarah Palin, and 3) she is not pimping out her book on the debate website.