From what I've read, she's taken the most heat for her response to the question about her foreign policy experience and her response to the question about the $700 billion bailout. Those don't seem like unreasonable questions to me, given that the economy and our national security are frequently 1 and 2 on the list of the most important issues to Americans. -Pop
What I don't get is why the Obama campaign doesn't ask for a replacement to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It would be smart politics. Chances are Joe Biden is going to do really well tomorrow night, so why give the GOP a reason to complain?
It's possible that neither side actually views this as a problem. Is there any indication that this is seen as a problem more widely than this forum?
It's a story tonight on CNN, MSNBC and FOX. I haven't yet watched the networks or PBS, but the story is getting traction. My opinion is that moderators should endeavor to be like Adam Smith's Invisible Hand: You don't even notice the moderator, but they guide the debate to the optimal point. Ms. Ifill has become part of the story, and therefore is a needless distraction. However, I don't think it really matters. This election is over.
My take is that the book is being mis-represented as being pro-Obama. It's not from everything I've seen. There's been a real conflict in the black community between generations - the older group that lived through the civil rights movement of the '60s, and the young generation that didn't. The issues are deep: the younger generation uses the "N" word as a term of endearment, while the older generation thinks the word should be banned or use it an outright insult. The older generation plays the victim card and race card constantly, while the younger generation seems above race. Her book is about this struggle, and Obama does represent a real change for the community. It's fair, and it doesn't mean she's rooting for him to win, though she probably is.
You're confused. It's a book, nothing more. Her entire career will be much more financially affected by how the debate is remembered, and her control of it, than who wins the Presidency. And whether moderated by her, or by a mental patient with hand puppets, Palin's empty head will still appear empty each and every time she speaks. Astounding that the Repugnants have not dumped her yet to minimize the damage before it's too late.
As long as both sides are unhappy with Ifill after the debate is over, I'll take it as a sign that she performed her job correctly. Beyond that she's one of the few journalists I'd trust to moderate a debate even though she might have a financial (or rooting) interest.
And, as Republicans have demonstrated by lowering their alreading embarrassingly low standards and electing Bush twice, you can put your country in imminent danger by doing so. 8 years ago, not even the most strident Democrat could imagine how bad Bush would be. Now, it's generally accepted by both parties that he has lowered the bar beyond ground level. And they're pissed. Palin's incompetence and ignorance has doomed what tiny chance McCain had to make this a contest. He has shown he cannot be trusted to make serious decisions for America.
Everyone likely has a rooting interest. I'm sure Lehrer will vote for a candidate, which indicates he has a preference. Ifill surely has a rooting interest...that's not an issue. Her having a financial interest could be an issue, but I doubt the financial impact for her is very large. Being objective doesn't mean not having a preference. It means not letting that preference dictate how you do your job. From watching Washington Week In Review, she doesn't seem to let political bias affect her analysis. Moderating a debate is simply an extension of analysis...asking questions meant to illuminate the issue of who would make a better President.
I gather that his miniaturization machine is working, and that he has not cured his masturbation addiction. You should try to dislodge him with a finger. barfo
Sorry, dude. I watch Washington Week in Review religiously, and I find it hard to believe anyone sees anything about it as unbiased. Maybe she seems a little calmer than most hosts/hostesses, but she's got a round table full of left leaning talking heads and she's one, too. That these people are only slightly right of Bill Moyers doesn't make them even close to center.
