Gwen Ifill - VP Debate Moderator

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2008
Gwen Ifill - VP Debate Moderator
106
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 1:15am

Debate moderators were chosen in August.   If McCain camp had a problem with Ifill as moderator, they've had a looooong time to object.   No, Ifill will be one of many excuses they can use when Palin bombs.


Re: Gwen Ifill's book, one needs to look no further than the conservative Washington Times, which published an article about said book on JULY 23rd, long before either potential Veep had been selected. I do not know when Ifill was chosen to moderate this debate, but the fact of the matter is that any idiot in McCain's camp could have googled Gwen Ifill and received this information and had they thought it a "conflict of interest" requested another moderator two months ago.


To those saying the debate has been "fixed", well - um - the debate hasn't even taken place yet.  Hmmm, apparently you don't have much confidence in Sarah Palin.  You shoul dbe cheering her on instead of preparing for failure.


tsk tsk


 




 


 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-22-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 1:59pm

>>> I think some people are presuming that Ifill kept her book a secret; presuming that the book is an endorsement of Obama; presuming that she will in some way moderate to the advantage of Biden vs. Palen;

Her book is an endorsement of Obama, but that aside, she should be replaced simply because she has a financial interest in the outcome of the election.

>>> and presuming that other moderators like Schieffer and Brokaw are totally impartial. In Schieffer's book, he admits he's played golf with George Bush a couple of times and his brother was a business partner with George Bush. Does that make him likely to be more partial to McCain due to his relationship with the Republican party? Does Tom Brokaw's relationship with the McCain campaign make him more partial to McCain? We just don't know, but we'll just have to trust.

I don't know either, but if there's a possibility, then they should be recused as well. Surely there are no shortage of people competent enough to ask a few relevant questions?

>>> IMHO, Ifill should be replaced with someone else so as to assure Republicans that Palin isn't being disadvantaged in any way, but it is sort of late in the game for that.

I agree with both points. It's been suggested that Lehrer be brought back...could work.

>>> Andrea Mitchell was interviewing Fahrenkopf (former Republican National Committee chairman) of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and he said that he saw no problem with Ifill due to her outstanding credentials and history.

Actually, it could go either way...she could lean toward Biden or be so overly sensitive towards her current predicament that she cuts Palin some slack. But whatever happens, a lot of people will be scrutinizing her VERY closely.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:00pm
January 20th is just another day, means nothing, was just the most convenient date to release this book.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:01pm

This is why Senators make really bad presidential candidates. What they have done is participated in a huge process of law making. Some of what they attempted was successful. Some was not. All of it mattered in some way. (Even the bad stuff.) There are some specifics, however, even if some of them were unsuccessful:

Obama voted:
against the war.
against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
for an expansion of the States Children's Health Insurance Program
for raising the minimum wage
for the ethics reform bill (greater transparency in the legislative process)
for stem cell research
against a Constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning
against the Bush tax cuts
for ban on detainee torture
against the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador of the UN.

Biden voted:
against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
for an expansion of the States Children's Health Insurance Program
for an amendment that would accept the recommendations of the 9/11 commission
for raising the minimum wage
for the ethics reform bill (greater transparency in the legislative process)
for stem cell research
against a Constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning
against the Bush tax cuts
against confirmation of Samuel Alito (I thought he did a marvelous job during these hearings -- though he was longwinded.)
for ban on detainee torture
against the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador of the UN.

I think these "guys" are excellent orators (even with Biden's gaffes). They're tough without losing their cool. They inspire me, and I really relate to their world views.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-22-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:02pm

>>> Why wasn't it the campaign's responsibility to make sure the debate was fair? They negotiated the terms of the debate, including approving Ifill. If they're now saying it was unfair, they should have done a better job looking into Ifill's recent work. And apparently that wouldn't have been hard. It wasn't a secret.

Again, it's not their job to vet Iffil, it's the responsibility of the Debate Committee to ensure a fair and impartial debate and for Iffil, herself, to disclose any potential conflicts.

>>> Note that I'm not saying they were wholly responsible. Ifill shirked her responsibility as well.

She's most at fault.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:06pm

>>my belief is that when the first black president is elected and a book about blacks in politics, including Obama comes out on January 20, 2009 (does the date ring a bell for you?), it's going to be a hit.

Fair enough, and it's one of the reasons that I believe that Ifill should have made the disclosure. The perception of bias is a problem. But the fact is that it's your belief that she could financially benefit. We won't know until it happens.

For the record, I don't think it was a coincidence at all that the book is being released on inauguration day. But the authors of the books really have no say on these matters. This was a decision made by the publisher. I doubt that Ifill could change that.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:07pm

>>Her book is an endorsement of Obama.

There is absolutely no evidence of this.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:09pm

>>Again, it's not their job to vet Iffil

All I'm saying is that since McCain okayed Ifill without doing the research, he cannot complain now. If the book had been a secret, he would have a case. But the book was being publicized long before Ifill was chosen. He dropped the ball, and he can't complain now.

And you are free to continue to disagree.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-22-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:25pm

>>Her book is an endorsement of Obama.

>>> There is absolutely no evidence of this.

Yeah, there kind of is...(from a description of her book:) "Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign"..."introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power"...doesn't sound very negative or dispassionate, does it?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:28pm


With all due respect, neither of us knows that for sure because the book isn't finished or available for us to read at this time.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-22-2008
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 2:28pm

>>> All I'm saying is that since McCain okayed Ifill without doing the research, he cannot complain now. If the book had been a secret, he would have a case. But the book was being publicized long before Ifill was chosen. He dropped the ball, and he can't complain now.

And for the umpteenth time...it was the responsibility of the Debate Committee to do the research...and for Iffil to answer their vetting questions honestly. She did not.

>>> And you are free to continue to disagree.

Thanks...with such obvioiusly unethical behavior on the part of Iffil I think I will.

Pages