You can skirt the issue if you want, but her impartiality is the very question. I didn’t say she was impartial. My point is that this book presents a bias into the equation. I think you’d grant that she’d want to sell as many of these books as possible, right? So, are you of the opinion that Obama winning won’t increase book sales? If so, I disagree. He will be an even more popular figure—more of a celebrity—if he wins. And that sells books. I think Ifill putting his name in the title is an acknowledgment from her of that being the case.
So, let’s see if I understand you: sales of the book will be equal whether Obama wins or loses. Is that your position?
Well, you’ve been shown to be incorrect. So, I ask you again to move it back to GD.
And I will ask you the same question I just asked luci. Is it your opinion that sales of the book will be equal whether Obama wins or loses. Is that your position?
Just went to Drudge. Here’s the main headline on the page: “VP DEBATE MODERATOR RELEASING ‘AGE OF OBAMA’ BOOK ON INAUGURATION DAY.”
But even thought the Number 1 website has this issue as the main piece, there’s no debate, Tom? Come on.
I’ll post what I posted in the GD thread on this same topic:
The book doesn’t seem like a pro-Obama slobberfest (although it’s hard to say, since it is not due to be released until January 2009). The Amazon.com summary of the book says (in part):
Sounds more like an examination of racial progress and politics in America than like an endorsement of Obama. And even Republicans have said it is a good sign that a black man can be the presidential nominee of a major political party. So (absent further information) I’m not seeing anything overtly partisan here.
ETA: BTW, I don’t trust WND to do anything but lie and distort the truth. It’s like people coming in here and posting Daily Kos articles as though they were ex cathedra pronouncements from the Pope.
Didn’t the McCain campaign agree to having her as moderator? I assume the book wasn’t written since that decision was made.
No, what this means is that the Republicans have found their latest talking point. It will go something like this:
Gwen Ifill, despite her long and distinguished career, is completely and utterly biased in favour of Obama. Therefore the debate will be unfair and biased, more evidence of the mainstream media (MSM) bias. There is bias everywhere. (By the way, did you know she’s BLACK too! :eek:)
This means, no matter what happens and how Palin performs (or falls on her face) it can all be blamed on the bias of Ifill. They will try to shift the focus from a hopeless VP candidate to a corrupt and biased moderator. If they can keep the Ifill bias story in the news, then perhaps the hopeless Palin story will fade away.
Snide…and yet oh so funny and potentially true. You have a gift, luci.*
*Is it too late to return it?
Yeah, they’re all out to get you. It’s not that you’re a stupid fuck posting a bullshit talking point as a debate. The mods are against you, man.
Well, I’ll be a maverick (if McCain will excuse my abuse of his trademark) amongst liberals and say that yes, ideally I’d prefer the moderators of the debates have no connection whatsoever to either campaign. I don’t like that there’s any perceived bias leaning one way or the other; this includes both Ifill’s writing a book focusing on the Obama Effect as well as Brokaw’s extremely disappointing (what the fuck happened to him? he used to be my favorite of the anchors) water-carrying for McCain such as last week’s MTP, when he ended a debate between McCain/Obama spokespeople with a nonsequitur about poll results showing a preference for McCain as Commander in Chief – results that turned out to be weeks out of date anyway. Honestly, I’d rather neither of them were moderators just to avoid the inevitable whining. Though only one of them has actually shown bias against a candidate, and it wasn’t Ifill.
That said, the right always screams about bias no matter how tenuous the connection. That’s how they fog up the room, it’s their favorite offensive strategy – crying WolfBlitzer about that scurvy librul media and so on. It’s hard to know what to take seriously at this point, and after eight years of the media bending over for the administration, I find it difficult to feel much sympathy. Hell, according to the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz, they’re still bending over backwards to avoid Republican whining about allegedly piling on fightin’ barracuda pitbull – whoops, I mean poor defenseless sexism victim Sarah Palin. (The adjectives depend on which meme the righties are pushing at any given moment.)
In summary: I think both Ifill and Brokaw can do unbiased jobs. I think it’s a shame that it’s apparently difficult to find moderators whose objectivity can’t be questioned, but in today’s climate I think both sides will cry bias! no matter who ends up moderating.
If she puts the screws on to help Obama win the Oval Office, the Republicans can complain about media bias.
If she is fair and even handed, the Republicans can complain about media bias.
If she over compensates and toss softballs at Palin, the Republicans can complain about media bias.
Heck, they can have their talking points written and ready to go before the debate even starts.
Well, obviously the fact that she’s one of them pointy-headed intellectuals who wrote a book predisposes her to look down her nose at Palin.
True. That’s why my give-a-damn-atron is busted, even if the wolf has actually shown up this time.
This is absolutely true. Every part of each debate is the subject of intense negotiation between the two campaigns. If Ifill is a moderator it’s because McCain found her acceptable. One would assume, though without inside information, that that wouldn’t have happened unless they believed she would be good at the job and not biased in her questioning and timekeeping.
Really, this is sort of a non-starter for anyone who seriously pays attention to the wonky side of things. But it’s likely an early excuse-machine for Palin should she get nuked tomorrow night.
Since Magiver has actually posted the questions you should have posted without your silly inflammatory rhetoric and since you have already been insulting to other posters in this thread, making it a poor match for GD, I’ll leave this one here. You can ask the Pit mods to close it if you wish.
I doubt that the election’s outcome will have any affect on book sales. It is pretty clearly a wonk book that will not be snatched up by Obama lovers simply because he is mentioned in the title. And the fact that Ms. Ifill has not made a secret of her book means that she will be under closer scrutiny to behave properly. Bring back your shock and horror when you have evidence that one moderator or another is actively colluding with one campaign staff or another (sharing specific questions ahead of time, for example).
(And I never said that the issue could not be debated; I pointed out that you posted a rant in GD instead of posting a debate and that instead of simply ignoring the hecklers in the bleachers and waiting for substantive replies, you immediately engaged them at their level, further distancing the thread’s tone from one of debate.)
OP, I think you should treat this the same way you did the events of early 2004, when Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself from a case involving VP Cheyney.
I know. Being black and writing about black politicians isn’t the same as hunting ducks together.
But if you don’t get enough exercise hand waving, maybe making mountains out of molehills will work.
Hence poisoning the well yourself.
Discussion happens all the time in the Pit. But it still gives us leeway to call you a douche when it fits.
???
I could possibly see Gwen doing a full disclosure thing IF Obama were one of the candidate’s in “her” debate–but he’s not.
Jim Lehrer has likely interviewed both McCain and Obama at some point–should he have not moderated?
The book is NOT about Obama–it’s about the evolving black political structure, post-Civil Rights Era, if I read the blurb from Amazon correctly. Y’all insist that Obama is black, and glory be! He’s in a book about black politicians–who’d a-thunk it? Why, it’s almost as if he was elected to a state senate seat, then a US senate seat and is now running for President–no, no story there; no need to include him in that sort of book. What was she thinking?
Do you pick over the news to glean what scraps you can to inflate into controversy?Both sides agreed to the debates, the mods and the formats. What do you think is going to happen? Gwen nodding and winking to Biden as she freezes Palin out?
To me, this OP speaks to the severe anxiety the GOP has re Palin. If you had Mitt or Rudy in your corner, you wouldn’t be mindfucking non-issues to death.
You asked a question; it was answered; you labeled the answer “hand waving”. Exactly what response would you have not considered “hand waving”?
“Ay, we Democrats are struck by the searing light of Truth! Our nefarious plans uncovered, we submit to the will of magellan01, who justly is our superior! Please have mercy, O revealer of bias!”