The Candidates Debates

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Polls looking like Obama took round 1. Gallup has it at 50-42 in its three day rolling (with only one day being post-debate).

McCain would've had to win the debate by a landslide to make a difference in the polls, which were already sliding Obama's way.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Here's that reaction to Palin's speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zafLsAtp_Q

here she is looking not so put off when talking about Obama. I mean her book. I mean Obama. Well, no, she's selling a book - by talking about good things about Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhkmZ...eature=related


Why do we put up with PBS as neutral moderators?

are you kidding me? in the video she gives a very fair report of the convention, with nothing at all in her supposedly "dismissive" look.

gwen ifill is a very, very good journalist/reporter.

she is (did you notice?) a black american, and she wrote a book about the emerging new generation of black american politicians. she clearly takes pride in the leadership they are reaching.

gasp! she MUST have an agenda to somehow undermine the republican candidates!

bull hokey.

pbs has been selected by the bi-partisan commission (a commission with BOTH dems and repubs) because they recognize that pbs is indeed neutral, and unlike the purported "fair and balanced" news network, pbs and specifically the news hour staff IS fair and balanced.

much ado about nothing. the thin-skinnedness and paranoia in this matter is way over the top.

[Flacolaco]

So she isn't writing a pro Obama book?

I am confused.

[Mavdog]

I don't know if it is "pro Obama" or not. it is likely a book that is pro-black american acheivement.

does that prove that she cannot be objective in her reporting, or that she cannot be a fair moderator of the vp debate?

again, the video clip from the republican convention did not exhibit any bias or unfair reporting on her part.

gwen ifill has earned a solid reputation, and so far there is nothing that contradicts her professionalism.

[kg_veteran]

I'm not really sold on Malkin's argument in this case, but I have to admit that it is sort of weird to have a journalist who is writing a book about Obama (which appears to talk about him in glowing terms) moderating the debate.

Still and all, I'll wait and watch the debate before declaring her incapable of objectivity. Lehrer did a good job, I thought.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I don't know if it is "pro Obama" or not. it is likely a book that is pro-black american acheivement.

does that prove that she cannot be objective in her reporting, or that she cannot be a fair moderator of the vp debate?

again, the video clip from the republican convention did not exhibit any bias or unfair reporting on her part.

gwen ifill has earned a solid reputation, and so far there is nothing that contradicts her professionalism.

I don't know if she can be impartial or not (or if matters or not, I mean this thing is over anyway)

But what I do know, is that the name of the book is "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and it comes out on Inauguration day. It seems to me like she has something to gain, ideologically and monetarily, from the impending Obama presidency.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I don't know if she can be impartial or not (or if matters or not, I mean this thing is over anyway)

But what I do know, is that the name of the book is "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and it comes out on Inauguration day. It seems to me like she has something to gain, ideologically and monetarily, from the impending Obama presidency.

No question about that.

[chumdawg]

She should recuse herself.

[Silk Smoov]

Once again, race plays a part in this election. The fact that she is black and Obama is black makes it a big deal. So what happens when a white person is a moderator? Did anyone say anything about Rick Warren, who is "CLEARLY" against abortion and some of the stances that Obama believes in????????????? I guess his lack of background in moderating did NOT play a part in him being a moderator?

[DirkFTW]

Obama and Warren are friends. Shocking?

Does Dr. Warren intend to endorse either candidate?
No. First, the law prohibits non-profit 501(c)3 organizations such as churches from making official endorsements. Second, Dr. Warren believes it is inappropriate for pastors to make personal endorsements of political candidates, since pastors must shepherd all the flock, regardless of their political persuasion.
Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama have both been friends of Dr. Warren before they began their run for President. He knows many leaders from both parties, including six of the candidates who ran for the Presidency, but he has never endorsed any candidate.
At the 2006 Saddleback Global Summit on AIDS and the Church, Barack Obama participated as one of 60 speakers. At that annual event the following year, Hillary Clinton appeared in person. John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama and John Edwards joined via video to share their plans for addressing HIV/AIDS if elected to national office.
Link

Plus, Warren was not a moderator. Warren asked both men the exact same questions without either hearing the other's responses or being able to respond. In essence, he was just a voice for a questionnaire. And that questionnaire was voluntarily filled out by both Obama and McCain.

Race has nothing to do with it. But, it's scary that some people still think it does.

[Usually Lurkin]

her presence there, as moderator, is unfair. Whether she acts objectively or not. Rush Limbaugh could probably do a great job being objective, Bill Clinton probably would, too. but there's a reason they'd be a crappy choice for moderator of a debate like this.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Once again, race plays a part in this election. The fact that she is black and Obama is black makes it a big deal. So what happens when a white person is a moderator? Did anyone say anything about Rick Warren, who is "CLEARLY" against abortion and some of the stances that Obama believes in????????????? I guess his lack of background in moderating did NOT play a part in him being a moderator?

See, you're dealing in politics 101 here. Step up to the 501 level. No one is discussing race except you.

As Flac pointed out, she is writing a book centered around Obama and his effect on certain aspects of politics. The book is being released on Inaugration Day.

Are you really saying there's not the slightest possibility of a conflict of interest there? I have no idea if it will effect the debate or not, but it seems imprudent to have her do it, imo.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

her presence there, as moderator, is unfair. Whether she acts objectively or not. Rush Limbaugh could probably do a great job being objective, Bill Clinton probably would, too. but there's a reason they'd be a crappy choice for moderator of a debate like this.

if the moderator acts like a moderator should, acts "objectively", it's somehow "unfair"?

why, will palin not be able to concentrate because ifill is there? will her mere presence cause palin's attention span to be shortened? will ifill's voice trigger some sort of short circuit in palin's mind, rendering her unable to use her motor skills to speak? will ifill be like some sort of krptonite and make all of palin's abilities useless?

or will biden become somehow strengthened in his reasoning? will ifill power biden with an energy by osmosis? perhaps ifill will be capable of transmitting her questions to biden vis telepathic means before they are actually spoken?

should ifill continue to perform her job as well as she has throughout her well regarded career, there is no issue. none at all.

"unfair". too funny.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"unfair". too funny.

what's funny is now you're suddenly in the mood to ignore that audience perception is huge.

[Mavdog]

what? ifill can't moderate because of "audience perception"?

it's evident that a bias clouds your vision and therefore you expect everyone else to think like you do and be incapable of being unbiased.

apparently one of us has a much greater esteem for the public's ability to be fair, listen and understand.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what? ifill can't moderate because of "audience perception"?

it's evident that a bias clouds your vision and therefore you expect everyone else to think like you do and be incapable of being unbiased.

apparently one of us has a much greater esteem for the public's ability to be fair, listen and understand.

Your persona around here is such that accusations of bias don't really help you.
You honestly wouldn't mind if say, Bill OReilly were moderator?

[Mavdog]

frankly, I'm not the one who needs "help" from a "perception" of another person's bias.

if bill o'reilly had ever shown a single instance of a lack of bias, there might be some support. as it is, he never has, so he apparently can't.

it is very interesting to see you judge a person guilty of an offense based on what your expected "perception" tells you.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

frankly, I'm not the one who needs "help" from a "perception" of another person's bias..

"but" "you" "do"

[kg_veteran]

I'm not shocked that a contrarian like Mavdog can't admit what is so patently obvious.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'm not shocked that a contrarian like Mavdog can't admit what is so patently obvious.

Are you shocked, though, that the discussion today (and still, here in this thread) is on such a trivial matter? We're a bit over a month from the election, and what was in the campaign news today? (Besides the breathtaking polls, I mean.) That Ifill has a book coming out, and she is yet moderating the debates?

Can this be a good thing for McCain?

Where does McCain go from here?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Are you shocked, though, that the discussion today (and still, here in this thread) is on such a trivial matter? We're a bit over a month from the election, and what was in the campaign news today? (Besides the breathtaking polls, I mean.) That Ifill has a book coming out, and she is yet moderating the debates?

Can this be a good thing for McCain?

Where does McCain go from here?

just because you use the word trivial doesn't make the matter trivial.
The whole point is that this book by the moderator makes it that much harder for the debate to be a good thing for McCain. Where do they go? The first place they should go is where they should have gone weeks ago - make sure everyone knows how much Gwen Ifill will gain if Obama wins.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

just because you use the word trivial doesn't make the matter trivial.
The whole point is that this book by the moderator makes it that much harder for the debate to be a good thing for McCain. Where do they go? The first place they should go is where they should have gone weeks ago - make sure everyone knows how much Gwen Ifill will gain if Obama wins.

Goodness, man. Your side really is out of ideas, isn't it?

[rabbitproof]

This does appear fishy. I would like the American people to have confidence in the debate structure and something like this does detract from that confidence. That said, if the debaters aren't raising questions, who are we to?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Goodness, man. Your side really is out of ideas, isn't it?

didn't you say she should recuse herself? How do you go from that to trivial in your very next post?

[chumdawg]

I think she should recuse herself, as a matter of principle. But I also think the matter is trivial, because I know enough about Ifill to know that it won't make a whit of difference in the debate. I can pretty much guarantee you that no one will be discussing this after tomorrow night.

Evidently some people think it's some huge deal. Jeesh. I know you have doubts about your candidate, but let's get real here.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by jthig32

See, you're dealing in politics 101 here. Step up to the 501 level. No one is discussing race except you.

As Flac pointed out, she is writing a book centered around Obama and his effect on certain aspects of politics. The book is being released on Inaugration Day.

Are you really saying there's not the slightest possibility of a conflict of interest there? I have no idea if it will effect the debate or not, but it seems imprudent to have her do it, imo.

There is no reason to be a silly clown with your jokes above. You have to be the biggest fool in the world if you think race and Obama name is no factor.

The reason race is not brought up here as much, is because alot of people here dont want to show their true colors. I can read this board to see that race and/or his name plays a factor in the reasoning behind candidate picks .

That lady has every right to be a moderator just like Rick Warren was a moderator. Please dont act like you dont know where the white evanglical votes go. It is a proven fact those votes go to the Republican side about 7 to 1. The biggest issue with the Rick Warren moderated interview was the abortion subject. That whole crowd was nothing but white evanglical voters there, and not only could you see it, but they did not even really clap for anything that Obama said, but as soon as McCain spoke, the crowd went wild. So since Rick Warren and that crowd full of white evanglical voters dominated that complete session, was that an unfair advantage for McCain?

Lastly, that lady has already written that book for the most part, so Obama winning or losing has nothing to do with that book. The fact that Obama and other blacks in political office have broken glass ceilings is a good reason to write a book on the subject. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are other examples of this. This lady was chosen as moderator, and I am more than sure that whoever chose her, had a very good reason to choose her.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

There is no reason to be a silly clown with your jokes above. You have to be the biggest fool in the world if you think race and Obama name is no factor.

The reason race is not brought up here as much, is because alot of people here dont want to show their true colors. I can read this board to see that race and/or his name plays a factor in the reasoning behind candidate picks .

That lady has every right to be a moderator just like Rick Warren was a moderator. Please dont act like you dont know where the white evanglical votes go. It is a proven fact those votes go to the Republican side about 7 to 1. The biggest issue with the Rick Warren moderated interview was the abortion subject. That whole crowd was nothing but white evanglical voters there, and not only could you see it, but they did not even really clap for anything that Obama said, but as soon as McCain spoke, the crowd went wild. So since Rick Warren and that crowd full of white evanglical voters dominated that complete session, was that an unfair advantage for McCain?

Lastly, that lady has already written that book for the most part, so Obama winning or losing has nothing to do with that book. The fact that Obama and other blacks in political office have broken glass ceilings is a good reason to write a book on the subject. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are other examples of this. This lady was chosen as moderator, and I am more than sure that whoever chose her, had a very good reason to choose her.

Look Credit, we're discussing a specific subject here, that being whether the choice of moderator has a bit of a conflict of interest. Within this specific topic, race has not been brought up by anyone but you.

As to Warren, see UL's points above. There is nothing more to add on that subject.

Finally, you aren't honestly claiming that whether Obama wins or loses the election will not affect the sales of a book focusing on his effect on politics. Surely you can't be claiming that.

I'm not saying it will definitely affect the debate, but it is clearly a potential conflict of interest, and the majority of people involved int his thread have agreed.

[Usually Lurkin]

Advanced peek at Ifill's questionlist
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001643.html

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Are you shocked, though, that the discussion today (and still, here in this thread) is on such a trivial matter? We're a bit over a month from the election, and what was in the campaign news today? (Besides the breathtaking polls, I mean.) That Ifill has a book coming out, and she is yet moderating the debates?

Can this be a good thing for McCain?

Where does McCain go from here?

The question about Ifill's bias is one of many issues being discussed in the media (and on this message board). FWIW, I said above (and still maintain) that I will wait and see how she does before I rip into her.

Your attempt to cast McCain supporters as "out of ideas" falls flat.

Also, FWIW, I believe that McCain tried to defuse this particular issue yesterday by saying that Ifill would do a professional job.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Your attempt to cast McCain supporters as "out of ideas" falls flat.

What I meant was to case the McCain campaign as out of ideas. I'm pretty sure that is revealing itself to be quite true. (No, I'm not counting wild political gambits as "ideas" in this sense.)

I'm wondering, this afternoon, which side has more to lose tonight. I thought McCain had more to lose in the first debate, and I think that probably is how it played out. Evidently he at the least played to a draw in the debate, and yet he still seems to have taken a nosedive in the polls. A poor performance by him in the first debate may have all but shut the door on him.

In this debate, I'm thinking Obama has more to lose. I'm not sure that Biden can simply debate Palin to a draw, without Obama seeing a dropoff in the polls. Perhaps part of the reason for Obama's present lead in the polls is that voters are "speculating" to some extent. In other words, perhaps they are anticipating an ugly Palin defeat and already forming judgments accordingly.

I expect Biden to perform well tonight, but I think he needs a clear victory if the Obama ticket wants to keep up its momentum. As for the McCain ticket, well, there doesn't seem to be a lot left to lose at this point. Maybe Palin ought to go into the debate tonight like a wounded tiger, throw caution to the wind, and let the chips fall where they may.

[kg_veteran]

The reason (IMO) that Obama has seen his lead in the polls increase is simple. When the economy is in trouble, the party in the White House gets blamed. I don't think it's really any more complex than that.

Although I am vocally opposed to the bailout, if something doesn't happen relatively soon, I think Obama is going to sail to an easy victory.

As for the debate tonight, I agree with your analysis. Biden has to win handily, or it potentially has a negative impact on their campaign. And I don't think he'll win handily. Of course, does it really matter? The media will tell us he did.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Look Credit, we're discussing a specific subject here, that being whether the choice of moderator has a bit of a conflict of interest. Within this specific topic, race has not been brought up by anyone but you.

As to Warren, see UL's points above. There is nothing more to add on that subject.

Finally, you aren't honestly claiming that whether Obama wins or loses the election will not affect the sales of a book focusing on his effect on politics. Surely you can't be claiming that.

I'm not saying it will definitely affect the debate, but it is clearly a potential conflict of interest, and the majority of people involved int his thread have agreed.

See, once again you let your bitc* side come out again. I thought you had grew up, and also accepted your role as a moderator serious, but there you go again with that mess again. Stop the mess about not bringing up race. Last time I checked, the remarks were about the lady and her book about "BLACK" leaders. So, since Obama is black and she is black it became a bigger issue with fairness on top of her writing a book. See, you are quick to excuse Rick Warren for some reason?????? I wonder why??? I had no problem with it BUT it was very clear to me that debate/interview was clearly one sided for McCain, and the crowd was very much Pro-McCain. Did anyone bring that up, or did anyone say anything about the biggest topic of that time being Abortion? Abortion was the biggest topic, and "Clearly" we knew where Rick Warren told on that topic. Did McCain stand to gain in from of Rick Warren and all those white evanglical audience? Yes, he did.

You should have left "Black" out of your statement when you were talking about the book and Obama and that lady. You introduced race in the topic, and then I defended that she could moderate in fairness, and also the same thing could have been said about Rick Warren and the audience for that debate/interview. Once again you introduced race in this part of the conversation. You should have thought about there are rising black political leaders in both parties, and left this non-sense to those silly writers who brought this issue up, but no you decided to bring this silly mess up here.

[DirkFTW]

Silk, does it bother you at all that Ifill did not disclose her book to the Commission on Presidential Debates when she was being considered as a moderator? Looks like she hid something from them that had to have taken her a lot of time to write.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The reason (IMO) that Obama has seen his lead in the polls increase is simple. When the economy is in trouble, the party in the White House gets blamed. I don't think it's really any more complex than that.

Although I am vocally opposed to the bailout, if something doesn't happen relatively soon, I think Obama is going to sail to an easy victory.

As for the debate tonight, I agree with your analysis. Biden has to win handily, or it potentially has a negative impact on their campaign. And I don't think he'll win handily. Of course, does it really matter? The media will tell us he did.

I agree about why Obama is seems to be increasing the lead. But, on the other hand we all know what it takes to swing the votes seemingly back towards McCain. I have seen it time and time again from the Bush Administration. I expect a big scare coming out about National security real soon. I expect the media to be all over the so called National security risks going up, so natually I have never felt that the media learned towards the Democrats more than the Republicans. All Biden has to do tonight is stick to the task of attacking McCain, it has nothing to do with Palin. Palin will destroy herself if need be, but an attack by Biden on her, will cause her to do what she does best, and that is deflect and play blameless, and that touches on the sensitive side of most people.

This economy is in horrible shape and the war costs in money and loss of life to so many soliders have drained the American people. I am tired of it and my heart hurts for our soldiers. I just want them to come home safely, and as quickly as possible.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Silk, does it bother you at all that Ifill did not disclose her book to the Commission on Presidential Debates when she was being considered as a moderator? Looks like she hid something from them that had to have taken her a lot of time to write.

Did you read this part:

Although Malkin raised the topic of Ifill’s impartiality the day before the debate, the PBS journalist said that Time magazine noted she was writing a book in August, and that it has been available for pre-sale on Amazon.com. The book also is mentioned in a Sept. 4 interview she gave the Washington Post.

Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.

“Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?” said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, “I don’t know what it is. I find it curious.”

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

This economy is in horrible shape and the war costs in money and loss of life to so many soliders have drained the American people. I am tired of it and my heart hurts for our soldiers. I just want them to come home safely, and as quickly as possible.

What about Afghanistan?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Did you read this part:

Yea I read the whole article. But I find it odd that she didn't disclose it to the Commission. You don't?

EDIT: I have no idea who Lou Cannon is or what his book was about or if he disclosed it to the Commission.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

What about Afghanistan?

We just need to take our real intelligence and bomb Bin Laden on Friday and get it over with and move all our troops home from there as well. Its not like we dont know where he is. The problem is that we cant get Bush to do it, because of all his family business with Bin Laden family. Like they say. Kill the head and the rest will follow.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Yea I read the whole article. But I find it odd that she didn't disclose it to the Commission. You don't?

EDIT: I have no idea who Lou Cannon is or what his book was about or if he disclosed it to the Commission.

Did you not read the whole story like you said. It was already disclosed to the public in August and early September. Why bring it up again? I am more than sure the Commission was well aware of it even w/o her mentioning it again. If I saw a fellow getting their as* beat on T.V, I dont have to ask that person about the fight.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

You should have left "Black" out of your statement when you were talking about the book and Obama and that lady. You introduced race in the topic, and then I defended that she could moderate in fairness, and also the same thing could have been said about Rick Warren and the audience for that debate/interview. Once again you introduced race in this part of the conversation. You should have thought about there are rising black political leaders in both parties, and left this non-sense to those silly writers who brought this issue up, but no you decided to bring this silly mess up here.

I have not used the term "black" at any point in this conversation. Not once. You introduced race into this conversation. Everyone else was discussing the fact that she is writing a book about Obama, and the potential conflict of interest.

I'm completely uninterested in this topic at this point, but you're embarassing yourself by claiming that I used race as a point of argument at any point in this thread.

And try to be a little less sensitive.