snort Of course they would. It just wouldn’t be quite so obvious to quite so many people.
You know, I don’t get it. What’s your goal here, anyway? Ifill has proven herself an extremely capable, fair moderator. Even if she did agree to recuse herself, it’s not like they’re going to cancel the debate or let Sean Hannity moderate. They’ll just substitute Jim Lehrer or Brokaw or someone equally talented and fair. There’s no net win for you there. Sorry.
Do you believe she IS biased, or that the APPEARANCE of bias is the problem?
I believe this is a fundamentally stupid argument, that’s the problem. I think she is aware of this issue and I don’t believe she’ll deliberately try to screw up the debate - the Vice Presidential debate - with the hope that it will increase her book sales at the expense of her journalistic reputation.
Honky, please. <hand snap and neck wriggle>
C’mon on, we all know that this sistah’s gonna do Brother O a solid. Anyone got the 411 on if Biden can speak jive? Fo schizzle my nisel!
Slap! …
And so the abused spouse (the news media) is slapped around again by the right, just to make sure she stays in line.
I promise, I promise, I’m not biased!
You are writing a book about Obama, you liberal-loving whore!
Slap!
But I’m not biased! You’ll see! I’ll prove it to you! I’ll be nice and felicitous to all your lies and propaganda and demagoguery! Remember how I made Gore look like a bore and a liar and Kerry look like a coward?
I’ll be watching you!
I just read on Drudge, via Greta VanSustern, that McCain did not know about the book. Though details are thin at this point.
I just included the WND mention because that was the only place I found it last night. And it doesn’t matter if it’s not an Obama Slobberfest. The point is that the author of the book benefits financially if he wins, and she’s moderating a debate that can affect that outcome.
Are you privy to the details of her contract with Doubleday?
What’s bullshit, tough guy? The FACTS are that she’s moderating a debate and she has a financial interest in Obama winning.
We have seen no evidence that she has any financial interst in Obama winning, but even if she did, you have not shown that would have any ability to fix the debate.
I wasn’t a member than. I forget the details of that particular instance, but I do recall Scalia has recused himself from cases in the past. It’s the right thing to do. As they say, it’s not just bias that should be avoided, but the appearance of bias.
Dipshit. The FACT is that she has a book out with Obama’s name on it. Your INFERENCE is that she has a financial interest in him winning, one that is not backed up by the summary of the book.
Post Number 6 was the first one. There are more after that.
Ifill is her maiden name. Her married name is Caesar.
Forget that I’m a conservative and I want McCain to win. Do you not think that is important that a moderator for this election be 1) fair and 2) appear unbiased? And that a moderator having a financial interest in the outcome undercuts that?
The only reason there might be an appearance of bias would be the result of the right’s pushing a bullshit inference regarding any “financial interest.”
You have not shown that Ifill is unfair or biased. You have not shown that she has a finacial interest in the outcome. You have not shown that she would have any ability rig the debate in one side’s favor without anybody noticing. Ifill is not a judge. She’s not an official scorekeeper. She’s just asking questions. She will be asking the same questions to both sides. There’s no story here. This is desperate righties looking for an excuse to pull a pathetically unready candidate from a debate.
I think she is biased. But I wouldn’t have said boo if it weren’t for the book. I think any moderator has a bias one way or another. The important thing is that we not know what it is. And certainly that that they not have a stake in the debate more than any other American. So now we have the book, which gives her a vested interest in Obama winning. AND the fact that she didn’t turn down moderating the debate, which shows how much she values both unbias and the appearance of unbias.
That ship has sailed. This is highly unprofessional. Particularly if someone wishes to be viewed at the pinnacle of those with journalistic integrity. Do you think Russert would have done this? Do you think Brokaw would have? Stephanopolous? And everyone knows where he stands!
She wrote a book. The more books she sells the more money she makes. If you have evidence that her contract deviates from that norm, feel free to present. Do you even think that to be the case?
I would add, even if she were to donate 100% of the sales of this book to a charity, she still has a financial interest in the books outcome. The more successful this one is, the better the deal she can make on the next one.
Well, then, either the book is not relevant or McCain has (again) shown his ineptitude at vetting people. Which is it?