VP Debate RIGGED!
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 10-01-2008 - 6:29am |
The moderator for Thursday's VP debate is an unabashed Obama supporter who has written a book promoting him:
VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are 'forging a bold new path to political power'
Posted: September 30, 2008
8:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Gwen Ifill
The moderator of Thursday's vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office that aims to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."
Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.
Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."
(Story continues below)
02) Type the numeric height and width into the corresponding fields.
03) Hit UPDATE to save this html file to the creative.
04) Upload your Flash ad .SWF and an image alternate .gif or .jpg as component files, if you have one. (note that If no gif alternate is uploaded and the user does not have the plugin version required to display the ad the system will FORCE the install.)
05) Type or paste the complete file name of the .SWF into the "Extra HTML" field and the complete file name of the image alternate into the "Extra Text" field, if you uploaded one,
06) Hit UPDATE again to save your changes.
07) Preview the ad, it should display and click properly.
Note - If you scroll down you can change various variables: the plugin version that allows for valid delivery (it should be the version number the ad was designed in or higher), the wmode (it can be changed to transparent if the ad is designed to inherit the sites background), the clickTAG capitalization (ClickTAG and ClickTag are common alternates) or even adding multiple click strings.
-->
-->
-->
"Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.
Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney." She explained that wasn't her intent.
But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.
Some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. According to Getler, some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate.
At that time she said, "I assume there will always be critics and just shut out the noise. It is surprisingly easy."
Ifill, who also works with her network's "NewsHour," is making preparations to moderate this week's debate between the two candidates for vice president, Palin and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden.. She told BlackAmericaWeb.com she thinks debates "are the best opportunity most voters have to see the candidates speaking to issues."
She said she is concerned only about getting straight answers from candidates.
"You do your best to get candidates to answer your question. But I also trust the viewers to understand when questions are not answered and reach their own conclusions," Ifill told BlackAmericaWeb.
"Four years ago, when neither John Edwards nor Dick Cheney proved capable of answering a question about the domestic epidemic of AIDS among African-American women, viewers flooded me with reaction," she said.
She said she will make her own decisions about what questions to ask, adding "the big questions matter."
In the Amazon.com promotion for her book, Ifill is described as "drawing on interviews with power brokers," such as Obama and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In an online video promoting her book, she is enthusiastic about "taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it."
It focuses on four people, "one of them Barack Obama of course," she said.
"They are changing our politics and changing our nation," she said.
On Amazon.com, Ifill is praised for her "incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama."
"Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history," the review says.
She told AP her view of Obama: "I still don't know if he'll be a good president."
She also describes how she met him at the 2004 Democratic convention and since then has interviewed the Illinois senator and his family.
She also boasted that by the time of the debate, "I'll be a complete expert on both" Palin and Biden.
The debate will be held at Washington University in St. Louis, which has posted information about the evening's events online.
Ifill's profile there describes her as a longtime correspondent and moderator for national news programs and includes her service as moderator of the 2004 debate between Edwards and Cheney.
However, there's no mention of her upcoming book. Nor does the website for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is organizing the meetings of the candidates, mention her book.

Pages
>>Right...but an unwillingness to examine available evidence with an unbiased eye tends to bog down legitimate debate.
>>> Do tell me where I have not examined "available evidence with an unbiased eye." First of all, what is your proof of my bias? Secondly, where is your evidence? I have asked for it over and over again, but you simply say that it's "obvious." That's not evidence.
The descriptions of Iffil's book have been provided in part and in whole several times in this thread and others. That you have determined copy specifically written to entice viewers and hype the content to be "unbiased" and "true" demonstrates your inability to examine the evidence with an "unbiased" eye.
>>> And really, you are more than welcome to your opinion. I'm merely asking how you came to this opinion. And thus far what you have offered is "it's obvious," "look into how books are published," and "any evidence I could give you would be anecdotal."
I'll have to assume that you're being deliberately obtuse. For someone who purports to be a journalist, that you are unable to comprehend the dynamics of topical book sales is staggering. It seems to be quite obvious to everyone except you.
>>> I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or claiming ignorance. It happens to everyone, and I've been known to even change my mind because of a well-placed argument.
< We'll have to see, won't we?
>>> Actually, I've already done so in this an other threads today. Caught me! *smile*
Sorry, I haven't been following your postings.
>>Why would you have a lot at stake?
>>> When journalists are decried as biased, simply because of someone's opinion, it breeds the possibility of marring the profession -- not because of one incidence, but many. It has become standard opinion that journalists cannot be objective in their reporting (or while moderating a debate). When a journalist (Ifill in this case) does not do what she is supposed to do (disclose that she is writing a book that features Obama), it naturally creates doubt in the public mind. When the media is unfairly charged with bias, it naturally creates doubt in the public mind.
Fear not...I already presume that the media is biased, based on...well...seeing them be biased, and haven't seen anything from your postings, at least on this issue, to change that perception.
>>> I meant to address this: If a reporter said the same thing, she would be called on the carpet by her editor. Trend reporting is very dangerous and not very responsible (even if it is popular).
Many. many reporters have said exactly the same thing I have this very day...just google "Iffle" and "financial interest."
>>> It's not enough to infer.
Inferences made based on observable data occur every day.
>>> I can infer the opposite based on the little bit of information that we actually have. To say that a person has a reason to swing a debate, based on very little (or no) evidence, is really unfair.
There is evidence, previously presented, that she has done it before. But to the original point...there wouldn't need to be a discussion, let alone a concern, if she had been honest in the beginning. Her lack of ethics have created the issue.
Ya gotta love wnt, the weekly world news of online news.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>The descriptions of Iffil's book have been provided in part and in whole several times in this thread and others. That you have determined copy specifically written to entice viewers and hype the content to be "unbiased" and "true" demonstrates your inability to examine the evidence with an "unbiased" eye.
To my understanding I am the only poster who posted a description of her book. We simply disagree with what is biased and what is not. There is no reason to say that I have not examined the evidence with an unbiased eye simply because you disagree with me. It's enough for you to say that you disagree.
>>I'll have to assume that you're being deliberately obtuse. For someone who purports to be a journalist, that you are unable to comprehend the dynamics of topical book sales is staggering. It seems to be quite obvious to everyone except you.
Assume away then. *smile* You have provided not one shred of information about the "dynamics of topical book sales." Nothing. I didn't want to assume anything about your abilities to provide that information, so I asked for it instead. It's clear that you don't want to share whatever details you do have.
>>Fear not...I already presume that the media is biased, based on...well...seeing them be biased, and haven't seen anything from your postings, at least on this issue, to change that perception.
Not fearing a thing. It's clear what your take is on the media. I find it inaccurate on the whole and really kind of sad, but I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just sharing my point of view.
I truly have enjoyed the debate. You've given me a lot to think about today.
Laura
>>Many. many reporters have said exactly the same thing I have this very day...just google "Iffle" and "financial interest."
Will do. If they have, I'd say that they are absolutely wrong in doing so.
>>Inferences made based on observable data occur every day.
But you've shared no observable data.
>>There is evidence, previously presented, that she has done it before.
Oh, you mean the Cheney debate? I asked some questions about that in an earlier post. I'm not making the same inference that you are with that debate. I'm sincerely interested in hearing what you felt was biased about that debate.
>> But to the original point...there wouldn't need to be a discussion, let alone a concern, if she had been honest in the beginning. Her lack of ethics have created the issue.
Yup. That's certainly a point that we agree upon.
Laura
>>The descriptions of Iffil's book have been provided in part and in whole several times in this thread and others. That you have determined copy specifically written to entice viewers and hype the content to be "unbiased" and "true" demonstrates your inability to examine the evidence with an "unbiased" eye.
>>> To my understanding I am the only poster who posted a description of her book. We simply disagree with what is biased and what is not. There is no reason to say that I have not examined the evidence with an unbiased eye simply because you disagree with me. It's enough for you to say that you disagree.
You're mistaken about the posting of the descriptions, and yes, a perception of bias is a matter of opinion, but sometime certain examples are so obvious that the denial itself seems a matter of bias. That is my opinion of your perception in this case.
>>I'll have to assume that you're being deliberately obtuse. For someone who purports to be a journalist, that you are unable to comprehend the dynamics of topical book sales is staggering. It seems to be quite obvious to everyone except you.
>>> Assume away then. *smile* You have provided not one shred of information about the "dynamics of topical book sales." Nothing. I didn't want to assume anything about your abilities to provide that information, so I asked for it instead. It's clear that you don't want to share whatever details you do have.
As I said, it's a phenomenon that is pretty well understood by most people and this issue in particular has been discussed ad nauseum in news programs and on the net. If you're interested, you're certainly free to examine in the reports and get a little more informed about the "phenomenon."
>>Fear not...I already presume that the media is biased, based on...well...seeing them be biased, and haven't seen anything from your postings, at least on this issue, to change that perception.
>>> Not fearing a thing. It's clear what your take is on the media. I find it inaccurate on the whole and really kind of sad, but I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just sharing my point of view.
I respect that. I wouldn't want to have my profession disparaged either...but I think the evidence on the media is in...well in.
>>> I truly have enjoyed the debate. You've given me a lot to think about today.
Thanks for sharing.
>>I respect that. I wouldn't want to have my profession disparaged either...but I think the evidence on the media is in...well in.
That's just downright depressing to hear. Seriously.
Laura
>>Many. many reporters have said exactly the same thing I have this very day...just google "Iffle" and "financial interest."
>>> Will do. If they have, I'd say that they are absolutely wrong in doing so.
Then there are a LOT of "absolutely wrong" reporters out there.
>>Inferences made based on observable data occur every day.
>>> But you've shared no observable data.
As I said, no one runs around asking people why they purchased a particular book, but one can see trends in sales of say, a book about "John Edwards," selling like hotcakes when he and his "activities" are topical, and not selling as well when they are not. According to your theory, the book should sell equally well whether the subject is topical or not...but most people understand that's simply not the case.
>>There is evidence, previously presented, that she has done it before.
>>> Oh, you mean the Cheney debate? I asked some questions about that in an earlier post. I'm not making the same inference that you are with that debate. I'm sincerely interested in hearing what you felt was biased about that debate.
The bias was specified in the cite. I agree with that assessment.
>> But to the original point...there wouldn't need to be a discussion, let alone a concern, if she had been honest in the beginning. Her lack of ethics have created the issue.
>>> Yup. That's certainly a point that we agree upon.
Excellent...one down!
>>I thought it was common knowledge
It's certainly a common opinion. There's been a ton of research out there to show otherwise, but it's a battle I'm not willing to face at the moment.
Laura
Pages