Granted. Except this time, in this election 1. a black man is running for President and 2. she just wrote a book on black political history.
Should it matter? Nope. Was it entirely predictable it would be spun, hard and negatively? Yep.
Answer me this: do you really doubt McCain/Palin’s handlers had exactly this scenario planned when they heard Gwen Ifill’s name proposed? Because I don’t. They’ve run a sleazy campaign from the start, reliant on lies and character assassination. I think they figured, hey, Palin’s our weak link in debates, easy to spin Ifill as biased, built-in damage control for a risky debate, maintain juuusst enough distance for deniability and–hey, thanks! Sure, we’d love to have Gwen!
Without the book–which presents zero financial conflict of interest, IMO–it would have been different. But Ifill’s book will come out, post-election. And that specific book, combined with this specific election, were a no-brainer formula for convenient controversy.
Wow! You could have just been a really dumb shit head and remained relatively anonymous. Instead you jumped up yelled at turned the spotlight on yourself. Whew, that’s powerful dumb.
Just to recap, in the matter of mere minutes you
express some agreement with my position, yet still unnecessarily, crassly, stupidly, and childishly insult me…
read a JOKE I made, complete with “eeky” little emoticon for the faint of humor and the truly dumb, then…
accuse me of “crass stupidity” for the joke, which even if you didn’t get it, wasn’t crass
:smack:WHEW!!! That some powerful dumb you got there, son.
It’s called “preemptive capitulation”. They know she may choke, so they’re paving the way to blame it on the moderator, or the wind, or anything other than their candidate.
I’m not trying to be snarky, but I just don’t get your distinction here. You’re saying that Ifill might be inclined to throw the debate because an Obama win means more money in her pocket. I’m saying that Brokaw might similarly be inclined to throw the upcoming debate because a McCain win means more money in his pocket. I really don’t see why Ifill has a conflict of interest but Brokaw doesn’t.
You may well be right. Palin appeared on the scene pretty late, and was hailed for quite a while as the miracle worker who’d salvage the campaign. I don’t like how cynical I’ve become, because I’m not sure it even mattered who was tapped for Veep with this neoRovian crew. I believe the campaign handlers McCain chose automatically troll for anything that can be spun or outright lied into an advantage. Agreeing to a debate moderator required some thought on their part. I think Gwen Ifill was a gimme for them, a card they tucked up their sleeve to play at leisure because all debates are spun like frisbees, no matter who’s in them.
I just can’t quite believe this controversy wasn’t planned and timed quite precisely to go off right before the debate. Realistically, it’s too late for Ifill to withdraw but they’ve managed to impugn her integrity, and therefore the validity of the debate. Again, I just think those in charge of choosing moderators could and should have anticipated the possibility.
Mind, I could be flat out wrong, wrong, wrong about this whole thing. Wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last.
Good Lord, I really feel for Gwen Ifill tonight. From what I’ve seen, she’s a top-notch journalist; sharp and savvy, with great integrity and analysis of complex issues. She came on up with her double minority status by good work.
There is just no way the McCain campaign didn’t know about her book when they approved of her as moderator. If it was an issue, it should have come up long ago, unless it’s nasty politics. Who’s doing the handwaving here? It’s a sad smokescreen, and, part of a pattern of late. Pretty lame high school level pattern.
I can see asking her step down because of the percieved bias, but, I really don’t want her to be subject to smokescreen bullying. I haven’t seen this brought up here, but,you know, Ms Ifill has had to wear a percieved bias by her skin color, before this book even came up. As a seasoned journalist (magellan, perhaps you are just not familiar with her work), I’d think that she has already figured in the perception bias based on her physical appearance, and has worked extra hard to ameliorate that by conducting the debates with integrity.
I’d hate to see that skill thrown away by a last minute ploy. I trust that she is savvy enough to decide if stepping down is wise. She’s not a grandstander. But, if it means cancelling the debate, no way. McCain may think the “bias” card will play well, but there’s a whole other sector of the population that will see through it,( if it’s supposed to be Palin damage control) if not say, “Poor Sarah couldn’t handle a(nother?) smart Lady.”
Yet another dogpile on one of the few conservatives on this board. Fantastic, do you feel good now?
You all would be whining like a 6 month old baby if some perceived conservative was the moderator. Just admit that the timing is bad. And it is bad maybe even for the Democrats.
Fox and other conservative news sites will dissect every question from the moderator now. Bad timing on the book and allowing it to be published right now.
More germane: how can a moderator “throw” a debate in any sense? This isn’t “The Apprentice.” The nation will not be on breathless tenterhooks afterward, waiting for Ifill to declare a winner.
Let’s fantasize for a moment that she *is *maliciously biased and *does *ask “unfair questions” (presuming, in the context of this fantasy, the existence of such a thing), wouldn’t that be a golden opportunity for skilled candidate to demonstrate his or her dexterity and composure under pressure, and to truly shine?
Your first assertion is without foundation. Some few (loud) lefties would probably be upset if a clearly Right wing moderator had been employed. The majority of posters of all political persuasions would probably figure that as long as the Obama campaign was good with the choice and there had not been any evidence of past excessive partisanship, then there would have been nothing about which to complain.
The timing (if there is seriously a problem) is only bad if we decide that the McCain organization was either/both duplicitous or stupid.
Ms. Ifill has been working on a book for many months.
In July, her book was announced, along with its intended publication date, to anyone who would listen.
Fully a month later, the McCain organization accepts Ms. Ifill as the moderator for the VP debates with no qualms.
A couple of weeks after that, Governor Palin is selcted as the Vice-Presidential candidate (so, at least six weeks after the book was announced and two weeks after the moderators had been agreed upon).
Then, Governor Palin, having been mostly hidden from the media for three weeks, seriously stumbles on some really soft questions from Katie Couric.
Within a couple of days, just before the debate, some bloggers “alert” Drudge to this serious problem that has been hidden from the McCain organization despite it being public knowledge for four weeks prior to the selection of the debate moderators and ten weeks prior to its “discovery.”
Bad timing? In a way, I guess.
Bad timing “allowing” the book to be published on the release date that has been on the public record long before the two campaigns had even agreed on the formats for the debates? That is just silly.
:rolleyes:Based on the caliber of thinking you’ve demonstrated thus far, I’m not surprised in the least that you’ve arrived at that assessment. But you go right on simply stating nonsense and assuming it has merit. My advice to you is to stay on these boards where you have the protection of the politically like-minded masses whose protection you now seek, and confuse with being right. An appeal to the masses is a particularly pathetic fallacy employed by the weak-minded. Which, just to be clear, would be you. Now if you have any substance to bring, bring it. Otherwise I’ll have to write you off as just another punk.
I’ll be here.
But just our of curiosity. By what measure do you consider, what you now admit was a joke, to be crass? Do you think there’s something inherently crass about being Muslim? Please, do explain…
And do you consider your unoriginal, sophomoric stupidity about pissing to be crass? Just trying to see if you understand the meaning of the word. By all means, look it up. Maybe you’ll learn something and the night will have a small upside for you.
You’re really a fucking tool, and you’re not worth my time.
But of course your stupid crass joke was obviously just that. No one missed that you were trying to make a joke. Sad that you think you’re so clever that maybe someone did. You’re far more obvious than you realize. Your punches are clumsy, and easily seen coming.
Joking about Obama being a Muslim is stupid–very, very stupid. And not funny. Of course there’s nothing crass about being Muslim. It’s even more stupid of you to try to twist things that way.
Please note I didn’t make up the pissing on your face joke, that was someone else. It is crass, but in your case also totally apropos. You’re an asshole. A raging, grade-A asshole, and not worth my time.
Am I the only one that sees this as a sign of American intellectualism? Presumably she was chosen for her understanding of politics. It seems reasonable that she may well write a book about her subject of expertise one day. Does anyone really believe she won’t be able to ask a few questions in a straightforward manner? And how did “wrote a book about black politicians” turn into “is clearly a way biased left wing wingnut”, anyway?
Yet, you keep responding. Even just below. So you either have no control over your fingers or you are a liar. Possibly both, I guess.
You still haven’t shown why or how it is “crass”. Which is what you said twice. So, you’re full of shit to and can’t back up your assertions. No surprise there. Let’s move on:
So you accused me of being crass, but have been unable to back up your claim. Yet you were the one that was crass. Twice. And I didn’t say you made it up. In fact, I pointed out that you were “unoriginal”—in addition to being sophomoric and stupid. Please check if you don’t believe me.
Again, based on the intellectual rigor you’ve displayed so far, you’ll have to forgive me for not going with you on this. But let’s recap, shall we:
You expressed some agreement with my unpopular position, yet in the same post felt the need to insult me (unoriginally) out of the blue and said that a joke I made was crass. I asked you to show how or why and you’ve been unable to do so, and you seem to have moved away from that descriptor. Now you call me an asshole, when I’ve just defended myself against your uncalled-for insults and unsubstantiated, dumbass claims. I’d ask you to substantiate that claim, as well, but I wouldn’t want to force you into a lie by having you come back to spew more weakness. After all, you’ve said twice now that I’m not worth your time.