Sorry Bill, this doesn’t pass the smell test. And I worked in your business and have moderated and been a panelist on debates up to and including statewide offices.

It’s the only VP debate. She can slant the questions then sell her book. Her reply is arrogant. PBS has a perceived east coast liberal slant.

The Debate Commission must step in and remove her. There are plenty of people who can do the job. The excuse I heard yesterday is you can’t make a change this late. Sorry, moderating a debate is not rocket science.

There are plenty of qualified people who can substitute. Surely, the Debate Commission has a backup plan. After all, supposed Ifill became before the debate. Someone would have to do it. They don’t cancel debates based on moderators.

Ifill may discount this as mere “blog chatter” but that doesn’t take away from the facts. Contrary to what some have posted on other threads here, Ifill did NOT disclose this (link to AP story below), and the McCain camp was not aware of it, prior to agreeing to Ifill as moderator. This is an outrage, which can only be corrected by replacing Ifill. Mr. Simon is right, the Debate Commission does have a backup host - Ifill could have been struck by anything from a car to laryngitis, rendering her unable to serve this evening.

How do you suppose the reaction would be if Sean Hannity was tapped to moderate the next debate? Not comparable, you say? Then you haven’t seen the lovefest that was Ifill’s PBS interview with Obama.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081002/D93I484G3.html

As usual, the New York (New England corridor) and West Coast (LA and SF) crowd are in their narcissistic mind set. Gwenn Ifill knows she should excuse herself, but will she? I doubt it. Below I know is controversial to media, but let’s have at it. Why does media dislike Palin?

Narcissism: Self love.

Hmmmm, let’s look at the cosmopolitan set of media and their futile and successful attempts to shape the American conscience.

In the late 1980s, seeing a definitive threat to their position via Reagan popularity, they began to forgoe traditional multi source journalism for self generating journalism - their own opinions. We call that one source journalism, or simply tabloid journalism. For example, rumor has it that Couric took a bet that she could demolish Sara Palin.

Imagine this fictional scene: dinner and drinks at a publisher’s home, erudite conversation on some vague NY artist who got his degree from the Sorbonne, conversation of competing views of Tuscany, Venice, and Paris, wrapped up in a discussion on how to save their portfolios and how the Democrats would hide their complicity in the credit crash by their overuse and protection of Fannie Mae. Amidst the clatter of Royal Crown Derby china and Baccarat crystal, they laugh as they comment on how many passports they’ve had to renew because of the many countries they have visited, which of course makes them experts. Talk ensues over their anxiety of their respective companies as they realize that their broadcasting companies over extended their portfolios in the sub-prime market and are teetering on collapse. This is New York, folks. The world of narcissism head think and knee jerk reaction. The top glitz of New York doesn’t hesitate to stab the competition, and stab deeply – there is enough victims that could write an encyclopedia of their stories.

The conversation turns sharply toward Palin, an American woman, plain speaking, not one of them. Most assuredly a Harry Truman story, but they won’t recognize that. One reporter speaks sharply that this Alaskan is new, not of the Yuppie New York Register Revival of which they paid their dues. They discuss the elite of America and comment that the rest of the States are simply peasants. They laugh mockingly of the South, the Midwest, the Great Plains and can’t imagine nor identify with Carl Sandburg or Mark Twain.

They fear that London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Dubai are becoming the world’s financial centers, and where will that leave New York? Their answers are diverse – from the Dog Island example of London, or the stews of the Pont Neuf of Paris. Yet, they wash their hands of their complicity of the “credit crash”, neglecting to state among themselves or in media, that they too were part of the sub-prime schemes as they promoted on their talk shows, their morning shows, and their evening shows the great bucks to be made in the housing market. They sold this package to America, but today they want to defer their responsibility on someone else.

They don’t like Palin. She’s different. She doesn’t understand the nuance of some obscure review on some even more obscure French writer of the 1830s. She doesn’t connect to their society of ennui, power-broking, or “on-dit” (society’s scurrilous tendency to gossip and tear down anyone that threatens their group). They protect their own, much as the tsars of Russia protected the landed class. They encircle Palin like frenzied dogs, intent on ruin, for that is what corrupt societies do – drown and destroy the voice of the people, like the repressive government of Burma tried to destroy the innocent and truthful voice of Aung San Suu Kyi,

Yes, they are weary, but they are resolved, and will continue onward toward profits, not conscience. They will get up in the morning with one agenda, to push their extreme liberal and fringe ideology more forcefully everyday by endorsing like minded individuals. They are socialistic in nature – desiring the masses to national programs - yet, they are conflicted as they want ownership of ideas and property, which makes them what? Predators? Perverted purveyor of the human condition as they continue their mechanics of one source journalism, their comfort zone of wedge marketing?

Here’s the irony of the above, I could ask Katie Couric five gotcha questions, and I doubt Ms. Couric would be able to answer four spontaneously. That’s a fact jack. That is what is wrong with American journalism – they just don’t know – they are too in love with themselves.

Waldenpond, well written.

I also understand that Tom Brokaw will be moderating the next McCain/Obama debate…yet another partisan moderator.

NEW YORK (AP) - Conservative pundits across the nation are calling for the moderator of the upcoming Vice Presidential debate, Gwen Ifill, to recuse herself, claiming that her upcoming book about Obama casts serious doubts about her neutrality. Ifill responded to the accusation by asserting that conservatives must be “well-nigh retarded” to have not figured this out until one day before the debates.

“Am I in the tank for Obama?” asked an incredulous Ifill, “Well, DUH! Come ON people I work for [expletive] PBS! Do I have to get ‘LIBERAL’ tattooed on my forehead, too? Good heavens! My [expletive] GOLDFISH has more political perspicacity than these drool-cupped Republicans! Didn’t they see me sneering and rolling my eyes when I covered Palin’s speech at the convention?”

After venting her frustration at the apparent lack of right-wing discernment, Ifill addressed concerns over whether her planning to publish her book, “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” - which is set for an Inauguration Day (January 20th) 2009 release - constituted a conflict of interest.

“It’s pretty simple,” said Ifill, “if Obama wins, I sell more books, which means I make more money. As moderator of the Vice Presidential debate, I’m in a position to help make sure that happens. That’s not a conflict of interest, that’s an alignment of interest. And a pretty damn sweet one. The only way it could be better would be if I’d been moderator of the Presidential debate, but they gave that to Poppin’ Fresh Lehrer because he’s white.”

“Besides,” added Ifill, “How else am I gonna make money working for America’s least-watched network? Because I’ll tell you straight up, being PBS’s token negress don’t pay diddly.”

It sounds like you guys already have a perfect excuse mapped out in case she bombs this! Good for you!

I am truly sorry that the neo-conned ones here are so lacking in confidence in their VP candidate that they have to generate this “controversey”. Just in case facts still matter here is the link to the August Time Magazine article by Ms Ifill wherein she mentions her book and the research she is doing:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1834321,00.html

Of course since Time Magazine has such a limited criculation and Governor Palin may have missed it in the pile of papers and journals she reads every day (you know which ones, doncha you like know).

Of course this whole put up job is to predetermine the outcome of the debate before it even happens, and is likely to be as successful as Senator McCain’s congratulations on the House vote before it happened.

RHarnack - When Sean Hannity is allowed to moderate one of the debates, we’ll call it fair.

They don’t let NFL refs bet on the games because they don’t the can do their jobs objectively when they have a monetary stake in the outcome of who wins. Duhhhhh!!!

They shouldn’t let a moderator that has a financial stake in this election pretend to be objective. She stands to gain much if Obama wins and lose much if he loses. Seems like a no-brainer even the brainless could get.

Would anyone in their right mind allow Don King to referree a boxing match that he was promoting?

Would Don King swear to the end that he was going to be impartial?

Would any sane person trust the final results?

The FIX is in and everyone knows it before a single punch is thrown.