This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

Wales with each post you make it further cements my adoration for you. You always come across well informed and intelligent with your posts (many do in this thread).

ITA, her book is about the emergence of black politicians in America and Obama is just one of many. Her book is available for sale on Jan 20th.

I don't see this as an issue for her moderating the VP debate. She is very professional and does stay on topic. I felt she was an excellent chioce as a moderator.

Sara Palin makes Sara Palin look bad.

I think Palin will do well in a debate. I think she just looks bad in interviews and a strong debate performance is not going to erase that since there is so much emphasis being placed on the fact that the candidates are going through rigorous debate prep.

All McCain needs to do is ask for a replacement moderator. There is no reason for Republicans to smear Gwen Iffil because their candidate's people messed up and didn't do their homework.

If the Democrats had sunk to this level I would say the same about them. I don't care who moderates the debate as long as the same questions are asked of both candidates.

I don't even get why there is a complaint about Ifill only giving Cheney 30 seconds to respond since McCain basically walked all over Jim Lehrer's time limits last Friday and Obama did it once and no one complained about McCain disregarding Lehrer several times. I'm sure some Republicans saw that as assertive on McCain's part and the fact that Democrats expressed an opinion to Ifill does not show any intent on her part since I didn't see where she said she was intentionally trying to be one way or another with Cheney.

I'm done with kindergarten today. That's all folks.

Gwen Ifiil is not responsible for the incompetency of the McCain camp. They agreed to her being the moderator on the 6th of August. Had they done their research prior to accepting her then they would have found out the things that are being said to discredit her now since they aren't things that just happened this week.

One little search on google would have netted a Washingon Times post dated Wednesday, July 23, 2008 with this quote:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/j...ces-blog-anger/

I think it's disgusting that Republicans would rather smear a journalist than admit to the incompetency of McCain's campaign. If McCain does not want her to moderate the debate, then he should say so and ask for a replacement on which both sides can agree instead of making it sound as though Gwen Ifill were some underhanded person who just popped on to the scene last month with the intent of bringing him down and making money over it.

I guess now if you miss a single line from an article amongst millions of lines, thousands of articles, and thousands of papers then you will qualify as "incompetent" by Wales' definition...

Ms. Ifill, should have disclosed her writtings when she was chosen...She is the one at fault here. Not the McCain campaign..

Wales with each post you make it further cements my adoration for you. You always come across well informed and intelligent with your posts (many do in this thread).

Thanks Ryan. I try.

All McCain needs to do is ask for a replacement moderator. There is no reason for Republicans to smear Gwen Iffil because their candidate's people messed up and didn't do their homework.

Hopefully he will.

Who is smearing her? What has been said that would be considered a smear?

Seems that what OBAMA is asking us to do!

How do you suppose former Grand Dragon Wizard Senator Robert Byrd ended up a Democrat?

Simply by the fact that when he was a Grand Dragon Wizard, the entire south was Democrat. It was not until the 1960s when LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill into law -- a signing that he himself admitted would cost the Democratic Party the South for the foreseeable future -- that the South converted to heavily Republican. Since that time, Byrd has admitted the error of his thinking. I might add, since you did not, that my post pointed out that I did not believe Republicans were bigots and that I did not believe that Republicans pandered to bigotry. I also added that bigots would be less inclined to vote Democratic because of Democrats advocacy of civil rights and equal rights for only racial and ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, ect.. Brian, all of that was a very convenient omission on your part.

I guess, you could have pointed out that Republicans as recently as 10 years ago claimed David Duke and nominated him as a Republican for governor in Louisiana, then there was Jessie Helms who made ads showing an anglo getting denied a job because of "preferential hiring" or there was the case of Trent Lott who made ill-conceived remarks about how people now appreciate Strom Thurmond's independent bid for president which was grounded in the seperatist movement. But that would not have been fair, and it would not have been a very accurate portrayal of the Republican Party. Nor was your selective response to my post.

Edited October 1, 200817 yr by Jess

Well....didn't George Stephanopolous (sp?) work for the Clintons? Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am), but didn't he moderate a debate between the Democratic candidates during primary season?

I missed this post earlier but yes he did work for them. He moderated a debate along with Charles Gibson. I don't think his connection to the Clintons was an issue as far as moderating goes. The problem with that debate was the amount of time they spent on what are trivial issues, imo. I should qualify my position on moderators to say that I don't care who moderates as long as the questions are relevant and the moderator actually does his job. For example, I'd have no problem with Bill O'Reilly moderating as long as he was asking relevant questions and maintained the same tone/disposition with each candidate.

Where I have a problem with GS is when he's covering issues pertaining to the Clintons where objectivity is required, since he clearly cannot be objective about them no matter how much he seems to try.

I didn't even know she was writing a book until today. Obama winning or not winning doesn't influence me to buy the book, I'm sure it won't influence many people. However of course there are people who are going to buy it if and/or when Obama wins; the same for those if and/or when he loses.

She must have written it several months ago since it was noted she had in July. The publishers probably set the release date. IA with you since I know I'm not going to buy the book regardless of election outcome. I could see myself skimming through it at the bookstore though, since I am interested in what Colin Powell's comments about politics.

I don't know what criteris is used by the FEC for selection of debate moderators. I don't know whether or not any type of disclosure is required by moderators. Regardless, it is up to the candidates to do thorough research before they accept a moderator. So far I haven't heard that the McCain campaign has complained or taken issue. If Republicans have an issue they should bring it to McCain's attention.

To say there is nothing wrong with it...is a bigger reach..IMO!

She has more influence over the debate that any one person except for the candidates themselves. I don't believe I ever said she could influence the entire election.

My point has been that, her having a vested interest in Obama/Biden while also moderating the debate is unethical..

I still find the argument about this being unethical to be senseless, she's entitled to her opinions, but doesn't mean she's going to be biased it a debate.

According to whom or what?

I think being the author of a book supporting a candidate in this election, kind of cuts into her "fairness" credibility coming into this particular debate!

To anyone who has watched her anchor or moderate. Where is your proof that she's biased?

Simply by the fact that when he was a Grand Dragon Wizard, the entire south was Democrat. It was not until the 1960s when LBJ signed the Civil Rights bill into law -- a signing that he himself admitted would cost the Democratic Party the South for the foreseeable future -- that the South converted to heavily Republican. Since that time, Byrd has admitted the error of his thinking. I might add, since you did not, that my post pointed out that I did not believe Republicans were bigots and that I did not believe that Republicans pandered to bigotry. I also added that bigots would be less inclined to vote Democratic because of Democrats advocacy of civil rights and equal rights for only racial and ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, ect.. Brian, all of that was a very convenient omission on your part.

I guess, you could have pointed out that Republicans as recently as 10 years ago claimed David Duke and nominated him as a Republican for governor in Louisiana, then there was Jessie Helms who made ads showing an anglo getting denied a job because of "preferential hiring" or there was the case of Trent Lott who made ill-conceived remarks about how people now appreciate Strom Thurmond's independent bid for president which was grounded in the seperatist movement. But that would not have been fair, and it would not have been a very accurate portrayal of the Republican Party. Nor was your selective response to my post.

Or you could have pointed to Rep. Michele Bachmann reading conservative talking points into the record yesterday that blamed the Wall Street crisis on minorites.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/10758/bach...ean-im-a-racist

But you're right.

To anyone who has watched her anchor or moderate. Where is your proof that she's biased?

I echo the same sentiment.

This whole "outrage" is ridiculous.

Or you could have pointed to Rep. Michele Bachmann reading conservative talking points into the record yesterday that blamed the Wall Street crisis on minorites.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/10758/bach...ean-im-a-racist

But you're right.

You know that really pisses me off to blame minorities for the crisis on Wall Street. Sheri on the View went off on it a little bit yesterday.

Or you could have pointed to Rep. Michele Bachmann reading conservative talking points into the record yesterday that blamed the Wall Street crisis on minorites.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/10758/bach...ean-im-a-racist

But you're right.

That doesn't surprise me coming from Bachmann. I really hope she loses her seat in November, she's far too extreme to be in Congress.

Edited October 1, 200817 yr by ReddFoxx

I still find the argument about this being unethical to be senseless, she's entitled to her opinions, but doesn't mean she's going to be biased it a debate.

Well if you believe in your logic, then I think Sean Hannity should moderate the next debate.. Sean has his opinions, but it doesn't mean that he will be unfair to one candidate or the other...right??

To anyone who has watched her anchor or moderate. Where is your proof that she's biased?

Umm...she has authored an entire damn book supporting one of the candidates! (not an article or editorial, but an entire book!)

Also, she was applauded by Democrats for being "snippy" with Cheney during a debate in 2004. I posted a link a few posts back...

And for all of those that say it was up to the McCain camp to discover this information (as if it were her prerogative to keep it "hidden")...Do you honestly believe that the McCain would have agreed to sign her on...knowing she has written a pro-Obama book?

Edited October 1, 200817 yr by Casey008

So because she wrote a book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," and because some democrats applauded her "being snippy" with Cheney, that means she is in the tank for Obama?

Now I haven't read a synopsis for this book, but does she come out and actually endorse Obama? Does she say people should vote for him?

Secondly, Sean Hannity shouldn't moderate a debate because he is a political commentator, he isn't a news reporter nor is he someone who is obligated to show neutrality. Neither should any political commentator.

Well if you believe in your logic, then I think Sean Hannity should moderate the next debate.. Sean has his opinions, but it doesn't mean that he will be unfair to one candidate or the other...right??

Gwen Ifill is a journalist, Sean Hannity is a political pundit and political pundits don't moderate debates. No comparison.

Umm...she has authored a damn book supporting one of the candidates!

Also, she was applauded by Democrats for being "snippy" with Cheney during a debate in 2004. I posted a link a few posts back...

And again, I say so what? None of this means she is going to bring her political ideology into her moderating style.