Posted by Guest (Post 163517)

How racist can you be? Ifill was picked last year before Obama was even the candidate. Her book was already in the works. She hasn't even written the chapter on Obama yet. It goes back over forty years. She was selected by both parties because of her impartial background. You would never question a whilte moderator who was writing a book about politics. Anything to try and slant things your way. Why don't you just say what is really bothering you about her.

Posted by Guest (Post 163525)

Bucco - I am sorry you took offense at my post. I am saying I don't think this would be an issue if she were white. She has been interviewed today and McCain has even said he doesn't see a problem, yet this link starts to question her integrity.

Posted by Guest (Post 163539)

Then toss me into the same "pot" because I too am against a national debate moderator with probable conflict of interest, and the moderator should have the common sense to recuse herself. If this person were a mediator in a disputed matter, recusal would be the only ethical thing to do in such a circumstance. This debate - an obvious dispute on issues - is no different.

I had no idea whether this particular moderator was white, black, yellow, brown or pin-stripe, nor did it even enter my mind. That has nothing to do with it. This moderator from here on out will be looked as being an opportunist who is using this forum to promote her self interest (namely, an upcoming book which has now been highly referenced) for increased sales. Recusal may (or may not) result in fewer book sales, but recusal is the ethical thing to do. The debate will be stained by having a moderator with perceived bias, and that does neither candidate any good.

But, ethics is becoming so old-fashioned....

So, if expecting people, regardless of ethnicity, to act ethically is racist, I guess I can be called the "R" name as well.

Posted by Guest (Post 163598)

rekop, your point is well taken but it cuts both ways....the The Commission on Presidential Debates should also have been aware of the potential conflict for the same reason. I don't know how anyone can watch Ifill's reaction to the Palin's convention speech and say she is objective. She couldn't control her disdain on camera. She is too much in the Obama tank to be objective.

That being said, Sarah will do just fine knowing where Ifill is coming from.

Posted by Guest (Post 163625)

Where is Ifill coming from? She should recuse herself? OMG! Have you all gone over the edge! The bar is set so low for Palin already, for her to look bad she'd really have to do something stupid. She's been coddled and pampered and prepped like no other candidate in history. If you were honest, you'd admit that no one would be good enough or fair enough to please any of the Republicans. Brings to mind that old saying "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Let's the oinks begin! :duck:

Posted by Guest (Post 163361)

Don't expect a fair, impartial moderator for the debate. Gwen Ifill, the moderator chosen by the Commission of Debates, is in the tank for Obama. She has a pro-Obama book coming out about the time of the inaugaration and an Obama win would help sales. Three words occur to me, conflict of interest. Can you imagine the democratic left's outcry if Sean Hannity was selected as the moderator.

The link attached is from a conservative commentator. If you will scroll down the page there is a video of the "impartial" Gwen Ifill's reaction to Sarah Palin's convention speech. Nothing like video where the camera will not conceal the truth from the lying eyes of those that would try to spin this one. UNBELIEVABLE.

Tim Russert, we miss you.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/30...ank-for-obama/

Posted by Guest (Post 163446)

The expectation of how Gov. Palin will do Friday night will be mighty low after her "performance" with Katie Couric. Here is the exact exchange for one question:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
(What in the world did she say?)