October 1, 2008

Attacked by Drudge and Malkin, Gwen Ifill breaks an ankle.

1. Drudge, Malkin, etc., lay into Ifill -- the chosen moderator for the VP debate -- because she's got a book coming out about the success of various black politicians, notably Barack Obama.

2. Suddenly, we hear that Ifill has tripped at home on a staircase and broken her ankle. Coincidence? Looking for a graceful exit via a clumsy fall?


So far, Ifill is not backing out, and I don't think she should. The campaigns agreed on the moderators, and the McCain campaign agreed on Ifill. I'm sure their desire for a black/female moderator led straight to Ifill. It's pathetic to whine now that they weren't specifically informed about this book, especially since it's not "Why I Love Barack Obama" or some piece of gushing fluff.
Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.
It would be low -- and stupid -- at this point to impugn Ifill.

What do you think of Ifill and her book?
Outrageous! She should be replaced.
Not a big deal, and the McCain campaign should have known.
Bad, but complaining or replacing her will only make it worse.
Not that bad, but she should be replaced to preserve the appearance of neutrality.
pollcode.com free polls


Henry said...

( ) Not that bad, but she should be replaced to preserve the appearance of neutrality.

By whom, exactly?

Anonymous said...

Maybe there is a strategy behind the acceptance of the moderator by the McCain/Palin campaign. It could be a favorable point for Palin if she comes ahead despite the moderator being an Obama (PBUH) cheer leader. One can only hope. I agree, they should have known better, but other than perhaps Jim Lehrer, what other journalist could be found that is not in the tank for The Messiah (PBUH)?

Anonymous said...

When I say, "One can only hope", I'm talking about the campaign having planned this out. I am fairly confident in Palin's abilities as a debater after watching the videos of her gubernatorial campaign debates.

rhhardin said...

I never heard of her, except Imus is calling her a liar at every opportunity.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Neutrality is indeed cruel.

Anonymous said...

rhhardin said...
I never heard of her, except Imus is calling her a liar at every opportunity.

8:34 AM

She's a PBS presenter at The News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

Meade said...

I'm afraid, for Ifill, that it's extremely bad luck to break a leg after being told, prior to a performance, to "break a leg."

It (the leg break) could portend serious misfortune for whoever it is her performance is suppose to benefit.

The Drill SGT said...

I don't think she should have accepted the job if she operated by a reasonable professional code of ethics.

AA, you ought to point out the title of her book, it's not just Who's who in Black Politics, it is going to be released the day The O (PBUH) gets the job. She trashed Palin at the RNC. She wrote a gushie Essence cover story on Obama.

You are the lawyer. 2 exit questions.

1. What financial difference does it make to Ifill if Obama is the President on Jan 20 2009 when her book is released or if he is a failed candidate? a Factor of 5? 10? in her book sales?

2. If she were a jury forewoman, would you ask for a mistrial if you found that the forewoman was going to gain financially if the defendant walked? Shouldn't a moderator be balanced and let folks hear all the evidence, not unlike a Forewoman?

Dark Eden said...

This is completely unacceptable. Ifill is clearly a DNC shill, the fix is completely in on this debate and I am getting very sick of the naked partisanship of our supposedly neutral press corps. The McCain campaign didn't know about her book deal, where she has a financial stake in an Obama win above and beyond her own clearly biased views.

I don't see how anyone can see this as acceptable. If I was in the area I'd try to break in and throw tomatoes at this DNC shill.

"Cruel neutrality" indeed.

TMink said...

"Ifill is not backing out, and I don't think she should."

You are wrong Ann.

Watch this video of her reacting emotionally after Sarah Palin's speech then tell me she is a professional.


Ms. Ifill is clearly deeply hurt by Governor Palin's criticism of Ms. Ifill's candidate and book subject. She is miffed! Maybe she is a consumate professional in other areas, but she is far too emotionally involved with the Obama candidacy to serve as anything other than a cheerleader.

With a little integrity, she would recuse herself.


ricpic said...

From the Malkin column:

During the Democratic National Convention, Ifill offered her neutral analysis on NBC News before Michelle Obama's speech: "A lot of people have never seen anything like a Michelle Obama before. She's educated, she's beautiful, she's tall, she tells you what she thinks and they hope that she can tell a story about Barak Obama and about herself."

It's Howdy Doody time.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Althouse you could have offered another choice in the poll:

"This is just standard MSM operating procedure these days."

carosmama said...

Ann, I love ya, but come on now.....

If the moderator had written a glowing article about Sarah Palin for Essence Magazine, and had a book planned for release on 1/20 about her shattering of the glass ceiling, the Obama/Biden campaign would be squealing like a bunch of stuck pigs.

The fact that this crap goes on, and everyone is just expected to yawn and move along, shows just how in the tank the MSM is for Obama.

Peter Hoh said...

Looks like Althouse has found another wedge issue that divides her and the majority of her readers.


Synova said...

The question "replace with who?" (whom??) is a good one.

What I'm looking forward to about the debate is that it doesn't get edited. Someone has to moderate and it will be Biden and not Obama on the stage.

It's not always a bad thing for candidates if the moderator is poor because the audience sees that, too. I just hope Palin is prepared to take after Fred and push back a little if she has to and say she's "not raising hands".

Peter Hoh said...

Carosmama, et al, please explain why the McCain campaign didn't raise any objections when the debate details were being worked out.

Were they clueless or were they looking to play the victim card?

I half expect a press release claiming that no one could have anticipated that Ifill would would have a book coming out about Obama.

Lorelei Leigh said...

If the McCain camp didn't know about this book, then that is their own fault. I'm sure that the smallest amount of research effort would have yielded this information at the time the selection was made. That would have been the proper time to object. It seems a little late to be so concerned about it now.

garage mahal said...

ANOTHER conspiracy!

MadisonMan said...

Great strategy. Condemn the poor moderator beforehand. Lower expectations so Gov. Palin can "win" the "debate" simply by not breaking her leg.

The soft expectations of Gov. Palin are interesting to watch, seeing as they come from the right. Of course she can't hold her own against a meanie alleged Obama plant! She's a woman!

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

It's only a problem if you think that the moderator can be and ought to be neutral.

Let's assume that much. I hate to be gauche, but let's be realistic about this: upwards of 90% of African Americans are supporting Obama, which means that there is a nine in ten chance that Ifill supports Obama. She therefore has a strong partisan interest in Biden coming out of this debate ahead.

Nevertheless, before conservatives get all fired up about that, as Henry said above, who would replace her? Practically the media is in the tank for Obama, so is there really any difference in perception or reality to be gained from replacing someone who can reasonably be assumed from their race to support Obama with someone who can reasonably be assumed from their profession to do the same?

Ifill might actually be the best we can hope for. She has to know that as a black journalist, she will be perceived as being doubly for Obama. She has to know that if there is any appearence that she isn't throwing straight dice, she won't get any benefit of the doubt. Given the incentive of professional journalists - particularly PBS journalists - to maintain the veneer of neutrality, her incentive structure might well be to be particularly scrupulous and careful.

I would point out that it seems exceptionally damaging to social cohesion when you can determine with extremely high probability whether someone is a political enemy based on the color of their skin. Such wonders for racial harmony hath Obama wrought.

George M. Spencer said...

99% of Americans have no idea who Gwen Ifill is.

No one watches her unspeakably boring news show except wisenheimers and extremely elderly people.

If she is condescending, rude, or obviously biased, the common folk of America will see right through her snootiness. Find a clip of her...she's not warm and cuddly. Not like our Sarah!!

All Biden has to do is get sassy to that hard-working mother who is trying as hard as she can in her little house on the prairie. Let him just try!

Check the video...here. Powerful mythic stuff, and that's our Sarah a-settin' on the wagon with that handsome dwarflike Michael Landon.

Or maybe she's Michael Learned, Mrs. Walton. Same hair-do! (And, whoa, she's giving Mr. Walton a bubble bath! Bet they do that in the Yukon, too....)

Unknown said...

Are we sure it was a simple trip on the stairs? Where was Tonya Harding at the time?

Jim Hu said...

Ifill is also the host of Washington Week in Review on PBS. I think she's generally a pretty good reporter who tries to be neutral... but often fails in the typical establishment way of just not seeing the ways in which the bias is there. The bias is in selective omission, not in Matthews/Olby cheerleading/attacking. For example, I recall being struck by how WWR didn't even mention the story about Sandy Berger's document stuffing the week it broke.

I think she should stay but disclose the book deal at the start of the debate.

Salamandyr said...

Any reaction by the Republican party other than "lie down and think of England" will be interpreted in the worst possible light, so they're stuck with her.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Democrats would never accept this. Republicans don't have a choice. It's just the world we live in. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

MadisonMan said...

wurly, Palin is being made to look weak already by Republicans who attack Ifill as a plant.

Let Gov. Palin do her thing without all the interference from handlers and spin-meisters who think they know better, for God's sake.

MarkW said...

If the McCain camp didn't know about this book, then that is their own fault.

NO -- it is Ifill's fault. SHE should have disclosed this if only to be able to say now, "I informed the McCain/Palin campaign of my book deal and they did not object." A sense of professional ethics demanded no less.

Obama will probably win. Hell, I may even still vote for him. But my opinion of our press corps will end up permanently altered, I think. Before this election I would have said that patterns of voting and political contributions made it clear that most journalists favored Democrats, but that most seemed to be making a good faith effort at professional neutrality and fairness. That no longer seems to be the case.

X said...

It would be low -- and stupid -- at this point to impugn Ifill.

In my business, as required by law, I would have to disclose in writing and get a signed acknowledgement from my customers, such a conflict of interest.

Simon said...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
"Democrats would never accept this."

No need to speculate about that - they've already proved it. They all pulled out of a debate hosted by Fox News.

carosmama said...

Peter, I don't know what the McCain campaign knows, or knew, and I don't care. That's not the point.

The point is, moderators are supposed to at least give an *appearance* of being above the fray (ala Lehrer), and there is NO WAY IN HELL that Rush Limbaugh would get to moderate a debate, so anyone shilling for the other side shouldn't be, either.

But, it's just business as usual with the media.

And Republicans on the debate commission that continue to bend over and take it to stay "above the fray" can bite me, too. The Democrats will happily smile and screw them every time. Why Ifill is even in this position to begin with is ridiculous.

McCain might, at some point in the next 5 weeks, get his head out of his behind and realize that the MSM are *NOT* his friends anymore. They stopped loving him the second they realized he was the nominee.

bleeper said...

Impugn Ifill? She does that just by showing up and opening her socialist mouth.

Her hatred of this country is unconcealed. Go away - move to a socialist utopia then report on how your beloved communism really works.

Paddy O said...

Don't have her back out. Add Hugh Hewitt as co-moderator.

I remember when he co-hosted a great PBS show with Patt Morrison, now on NPR. Did a great, great job. Kind of had the Hannity and Colmes thing going except for being more intelligent, balanced, and interesting.

It's not the fact she's moderating, it's the fact she claims to be objective and unbiased. That's simply a lie. Not a surprising one, but still such a strong distortion that already she, not the candidates, becomes the main figure to watch.

Exactly the opposite of Jim Lehrer. The media needs to admit it's own biases and everyone would be the better.

Paddy O said...


The last one, at least.

Richard Dolan said...

The moderator of these "debates" is beside the point. People will decide for themselves whether both candidates were treating fairly, and anyone even considering a vote for McCain-Palin is well aware that neither the MSM in general nor Ifill in particular is pulling for Team McCain.

There is nothing to stop Palin from pointing out bias or unfairness if it occurs. And if it does, I think it will help Palin much more than it will anyone else. She would have done herself a favor if she had pushed back a bit during the Gibson interview.

Lorelei Leigh said...

That said, if she won't, then Palin should go through with it, because she would be made to look weak if she didn't.

Is there a threat that she won't debate? That would be a fatal mistake. She has to show and she has to do well.

MarkW - I agree that Ifill should have disclosed her book at the outset, and it's unfortunate that she didn't (if that is indeed the case). However, if the McCain camp is operating under the assumption that the media is in the tank for Obama, then they should have been looking into all of these people carefully.

I believe that even an uncareful search would have yielded this information. There is no excuse for them not doing the leg work on this, rather than just relying on the press members feeling a duty to disclose such information.

Zach said...

NO -- it is Ifill's fault. SHE should have disclosed this if only to be able to say now, "I informed the McCain/Palin campaign of my book deal and they did not object."

Exactly. It may or may not be a big deal, but it's Ifill's job to make sure it isn't a big deal by letting the interested parties know about potentially relevant information.

MadisonMan said...

there is NO WAY IN HELL that Rush Limbaugh would get to moderate a debate

I wonder if RL could moderate given his hearing impairment. If he did, I would find it interesting from a technical standpoint, especially if there was a lot of back and forth between moderator and candidates.

Maybe I overestimate the amount of hearing loss though.

Paddy O said...

This is also another reason why journalism isn't really a profession.

There's no code of ethics, besides 'trust us'.

What if doctors or lawyers had that same leeway? What if the only recourse for appeal was to write a letter to an ombudsman who works for the firm or the hospital employing these?

There's no accountability to those who say they hold other accountable. Which is a dangerous situation, really.

Unknown said...

Ifill moderated one of the debates in 2000, Bush v. Gore...or was it 2004?

I wonder if there was so much whining back then?

George M. Spencer said...

Ifill is a member of Metropolitan AME Church in D.C., which speaks highly of her.

What of Sen. Biden? Is he a believer?

(She moderated a 2004 debate. Cheney kept calling her "Gwen." I guess the media's keeping her in the vice-presidential debate ghetto.)

George said...

I like Ifill, but he extreme liberalism is no surprise. Remember they agreed to her before Palin was picked and the debate became a much greater deal.

Actually, I see her as a bit of a Get Out of Jail card for Palin, if she's brassy enough to pull it. Should a question go over the line--like, say, Bernie Shaw's rape question of Dukakis--she can use the book the and throw it right back in her face. Something along the lines of:

"Gwen, do you really think that is a serious question or are you just looking for a gotcha moment for your book on the Age of Obama?"

I'm Full of Soup said...

This is more good news for McCain's campaign. Let's face it, in the next 4 weeks he must belittle and disparage his combined opponents which include the MSM, Pelosi and Company and Obama. That should be easy to do.

Keep hammering home Fannie Mae's egregious salaries to Dem and why the media did not report.

Keep hammering Aryres, Wright and Rezko and asky why the MSM essentially ignored it.

Keep hammering Pelosi & Ccompany who propped up Fannie Mae, etc and why the MSM did uncover it and report it.

And explain how McCain will fix these problems. Sounds simple to me.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Had one typo. It should have read:

"Keep hammering Pelosi & Ccompany who propped up Fannie Mae, etc and why the MSM did NOT uncover it and report it."

bleeper said...

Rush lost his hearing due to his willful addiction to painkillers. He then got cochlear implants. He says he is drug-free now, but like his "formerly nicotine stained fingers" riff, said as he puffs on a Cuban cigar, I doubt his honesty on any addition topic. He has no credibility.

Martin Gale said...

This revelation doesn't necessarily mean that Gwen Ifill supports Barack Obama, but just to be safe they should switch to Keith Olbermann.

I'm Full of Soup said...


Dan Rather was caught misleading the public about forged documents.

Does Rather have any credibility to you?

Anonymous said...

Why do they use MSM news anchors as moderators anyway?

Daryl said...

especially since it's not "Why I Love Barack Obama" or some piece of gushing fluff.

How do you know that? We haven't seen the text of the book, even though it's probably already been written.

She has previously written puff pieces about Obama. She only stands to make money on her stupid book if he wins the election.

Anonymous said...

I suggest a compromise. Keep Gwen Ifill as moderator for the VP debate tomorrow evening, but replace the moderator of the next Presidential debate with Ann Coulter, who should be as impartial as Gwen Ifill.

By the way, I do hope that Sarah Palin finds a moment during the debate to ask Gwen Ifill for an autographed copy of her new book about Barack Obama.

Trooper York said...

What the hell, Andrew Sullivan wasn't available?

Trooper York said...

The only thing worst than a journalist is a lawyer.

Unknown said...

Anyone who equates Ifill with Coulter has completely lost touch with reality.

Lorelei Leigh said...

The only thing worst than a journalist is a lawyer.

Is that you, Dad?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Now you've got me picturing Andrew Sullivan as moderator. Would be a lot like Lehrer's novel The Last Debate, if anyone's read it.

Trooper York said...

Whose you're daddy?

Mitch said...

Opening statement by Gov. Palin:

“Thank you Gwen for moderating this evening, and congratulations on your upcoming book. There is no doubt in my mind that you will make more money if Sen Obama is elected. With that said, I hope your desire to maximize your profit won’t affect your objective questioning tonight. I know that for every gotcha question you ask me, you’ll ask a similar one of Sen Biden. With that in mind, let’s get this farce on the road.”

Trooper York said...

I actually think this is a great idea. So Frank Gifford has agreed to be the head referee for Sundays Giant's game.


Did I tell you lately that the Giant’s won the Super Bowl?

Beldar said...

Your poll badly needs another choice:

Since it creates at least the potential appearance of financial bias, Ifill should disclose the anticipated publication date and title of the book at the beginning of the debate, and then let viewers make up their own minds as to whether her performance is biased.

My extended take

KCFleming said...

Proposed questions from Gwen Ifill:

For Biden:
"What's your favorite color?"

"How much do you love Obama? Would you bear his children if you could?"

"How much money can PBS expect from your administration?"

"Can you read the title of my upcoming book aloud for the audience?"

For Palen:
"Are you evil, or just dressed that way?"

"Why do you hate black people?"

"Are you as stupid as you look?"

"Is that lipliner a tattoo?"

TMink said...

Daniel wrote: "Anyone who equates Ifill with Coulter has completely lost touch with reality."

I am not sure about the whole reality testing thing, but I can go so far as to say they are clueless and wrong to compare the two!

Ms. Ifill is a modern journalist which is to say that she is more liberal than 80% of America and is blissfully unaware of her bias.

Coulter is a commentater and is totally aware of her bias which she flaunts and exaggerates for a living.

Neither would be appropriate for the role of moderator. But Coulter is more honest and trustworthy because she makes no claim of neutrality while Ms. Ifill is deceived and believes herself to be neutral. Coulter is at worst a nag while Ifill is qualified to be a deceiver of millions!!!!!

Trey (who is not sure how much of what he wrote is hyperbole!)

raf said...

"Not that bad, but she should be replaced to preserve the appearance of neutrality"

In the absence of neutrality, the appearance of neutrality can be more destructive. If bias exists, let it show.

Unknown said...

"Neither would be appropriate for the role of moderator. But Coulter is more honest and trustworthy because she makes no claim of neutrality while Ms. Ifill is deceived and believes herself to be neutral. Coulter is at worst a nag while Ifill is qualified to be a deceiver of millions!!!!!"

You have no idea how far off the cliff you are, do you?

I'm Full of Soup said...


I like your questions but we will never hear them of course.

Actually I prefer the Saddleback type forum. Ask the exact same questions of each candidate.

To be fair, Ifill is less of an activist than most of her MSM brethren. Or at least she disguises it better.

Peter V. Bella said...

With a little integrity, she would recuse herself.

You have to have integrity. The media has none and they have no ethics either.

Larry J said...

I read a suggestion this morning that in her opening remarks, Palin should congradulate Ifill about her book and ask her to give the title, then say no more about it. This would make sure that everyone watching is aware of this conflict of interest.

mikeyes said...

Will all of those who have read the book please raise your hands. I hope you can give us quotes and a better perspective into what it says.

Her book had been announced (in the Washington Times, a newpaper read by Republicans) at least two weeks before the signing took place. Any competent researcher could have googled it up in just a few seconds.

Besides, she works for Public TV, what did they expect? Why should this be a surprise to Republicans and the McCain campaign now? I don't think that the party discourages watching TV, does it? It is time to look at how the decisions are made for Senator McCain's campaign. Whining won't help.

Cedarford said...

Yachira said...
Why do they use MSM news anchors as moderators anyway?

Because the other "so-called objective people", university presidents and federal judges, are busy summering and learning what true high civilization and law is, in Israel or Europe.

And the Republican effort to say that only hero cops, firefighters, CEOs, Gen Petraeus, and Fundie preachers have the moral authority to be moderators was rejected.

That leaves the tradition of journalist hacks - who back in the 50s when TV moderators started were regarded by the public as objective and impartial. That the public now despises them as hacks with agendas - given to ask stupid "gotcha!" questions or trivial issue du jour of some special interest group of people usually much smarter than they are
with higher credentials - is perhaps why we need to develop a new cadre of people that are objective..

TMink said...

Bleeper wrote: "Rush lost his hearing due to his willful addiction to painkillers."

I find your use of the word "willful" interesting. It seems to me that a willful addiction is no addiction at all as an addiction requires a loss of self control to qualify as an addiction.

Are the homeless "willful" addicts as well? Or does this only apply to addicted conservatives?


Anonymous said...

Ann Althouse would make a great debate moderator. Cruelly neutral in her questioning, I'd bet.

Trooper York said...

You see this is all wrong. This is a TV show so they should get a real TV host. Wink Martindale.

chickelit said...

If this Ifill turns out to be an Ishill, I think it will hurt Obama. Relax people.

But the book thing is a clear conflict of interest. The audacity of it all. Was William Manchester all set and ready to go with a book on JFK's inauguration?

bleeper said...

TMink - there was a volitional element every time El Rushbo popped another pill or spent another cigar box full of cash for said pills. "Victim" does not play with me - people make choices, and I don't pity them at all.

And while it is never possible to judge another's pain, I have had plenty - bad spine, bad neck, knee pain, hip pain, open heart surgery and so on, and never chose the painkiller route. I knew that it was a dangerous road to follow and that I had a lot of reasons to endure some pain rather than willfully allow pills to take over my life and coping mechanisms.

So, knowing the risks, Mr. Limbaugh continued to take the pills, even to the point of going deaf. That, to me, qualifies as a non-intelligent decision, regardless of what he says about it. His livelyhood requires hearing, and he was willing to throw it away rather than to confront his issues.

This has nothing to do with conservatism, or the homeless, who are usually drunk and crazy, but with personal choice. Rush chose poorly.

Jim said...

bleeper -

You were asked a simple question which you completely dodged:

Are all alcoholics and drug addicts "willfully addicted" and therefore unworthy of sympathy or is it just Rush Limbaugh?

He is neither better nor worse than any other addict when it comes to this issue, but your response is telling.

Addiction is a recognized medical problem. But when it happens to those you disagree with politically, all of a sudden it's fair game? Should we all have a laugh at Obama's willingness to leave his children fatherless because he's addicted to nicotine? Maybe a little giggle at Biden's expense because of a couple aneurysms?

You just hate Rush Limbaugh.

It's a perfectly understandable position given how effective he is at puncturing holes in liberal talking points as well as his immense popularity, but trying to attack him through his addiction is just base.

Try just being honest about your hatred next time.

BJM said...

As an author profiting from a book focused on Obama's candidacy she is an inappropriate choice as moderator in this election cycle.

One does not need to read the book to judge the ehtics of the situation. Ifill has received a publishing contract and most probably an advance which creates a conflict of interest for a journalist /commentator employed by a publicly funded network.

Ifill could defuse criticism of financial motive by announcing all proceeds from her book will be donated to an African-American college fund.

Fat chance.

Cedarford said...

Althouse's remark that the only professional responsibility here was with the McCain camp to discover if Ifill had any conflicts of interest she neglected to inform her employer on, or parties affected by her financial interests, is pretty sloppy work for a law professor.

As I understand it, TV and newsprint journalists now have an ethical obligation, especially when discussing securities and side businesses that they hope will enrich them further - to at least note that to audience and interview subjects that are impacted by the journalist's side fiduciary interests.

Ifill's book is The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama
It is coming out in a large printing order (300,000 copies initial) through a major publishing house, Doubleday.

If Obama fails to win, there is no "Age of Obama" and her book sales, and possible millions in income, tanks.

No, it very well could be that she went to her bosses at PBS, an organization that was found to have shared it's donor list with the Democrat Party about 15 years ago....and her bosses all said "Great Gwen, get those Republican bastards, and don't say a word of this to the McCain people until we seal the deal to have you as moderator."

Or it could be she didn't say "booo" thinking it her due in society to be awarded her 2nd VP debate.

I agree with a couple other posters that Ifill better start with a disclaimer and read the title of her book at the beginning of the debate - or Palin should bring it up immediately.

And if Ifill gets enraged or snippy in the debate, bring her book title up again and ask how many millions she might lose if "The Age of Obama" does not happen when her book hits the shelves.
Are we talking Wall Street fatcat levels of compensation, Gwen, if gotcha! questions and implications of my dumbness on foreign policy help your man Barack get elected??"

Politically, watching a liberal black journalist with strong anti-Republican bias and a blatant conflict of interest she and her employers kept from McCain's camp - rage against Palin? Or be "unfair"? That might be just what the Republicans want.

Ifill being icing on the cake of proof of MSM media bias and people owning and controlling MSM media having an agenda to manipulate America to be liberal and PC. The great thing is people are becoming aware not just of the bias of "figureheads" like Rather and Matthews - but about the "Puppetmasters" operating behind the scenes that put words and beliefs in the figureheads mouths.

bleeper said...

Addicts are responsible for their own actions. I thought I made that clear. They are not worthy of sympathy, just condemnation for continuing to make bad choices. If condemnation does not improve their plight, I don't care. They are addicts. Drunks, same deal - weak addicted fools. Your continued defense of addition as a disease and addicts as somehow worthy of sympathy reveals much about how you have misspent your life. Hope you take the proper number of steps to sort yourself out.

As for your idea that I hate Rush, get a grip and reread what I wrote. I am more conservative than Rush is, and I think he is weak for becoming an addict. Have you formed a cult of personality for him? He is a bloated, deaf drug addict. Get a grip. I don't hate him, I think he is too much like a Berkeley resident, rationalizing his drug usage, and lying about his addiction to nicotine to be a useful voice of conservatism in this country.

Now you can go back to worshipping Obama, the addicted, skinny biracial love object of the left. I expect to see you in one of his music videos soon - the drunk in the back, singing off key, humming when you forget the words in your hazy stupor...

Mr. Colby said...

Ifil's probably not significantly more biased than the next person they'd go to. But it might make sense for the McCain camp to publicize her bias a little, possibly making her that much more eager to let her bias affect her moderating. So there's no choice for me.

holdfast said...

" Michael_H said...
I suggest a compromise. Keep Gwen Ifill as moderator for the VP debate tomorrow evening, but replace the moderator of the next Presidential debate with Ann Coulter, who should be as impartial as Gwen Ifill."

-You do know that Coulter friggin HATES John McCain, right? How about a serious anchor like Brit Hume? Howcome he or Chris Wallace never gets to do these things - sure they are both conservative (Brit more than Chris) but far less so than a Gibson, Rather or Ifill is liberal. I guess their names never get in the pool even. Time for the Repubs to cowboy up and simply refure to have all liberal moderators.

Lorelei Leigh said...

You see this is all wrong. This is a TV show so they should get a real TV host. Wink Martindale.

Or Richard Dawson. He's still alive, isn't he?

chickelit said...

LL wrote: Or Richard Dawson. He's still alive, isn't he?

Yes, but he would try and french kiss Palin, throwing her off stride.