The VP Debate

[spartan]

The debate is tomorrow night. The moderator is Gwen Ifill. She has a book coming out in January. The title of which is :

 "The Breaktrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama".

For the sake of appearances, anybody else think that this was probably not the best choice for the moderator? Not only has she already thrown her hat into the ring but since she has a vested interest in making Obama look good (i.e. it is highly unlikely her book will do well if Obama is not elected), anything that looks like other than total impartiality will cause an uproar.

[Lamond]

What does that have to do with Palin or Biden?

It sounds as though you're already trying to build a wall to protect Palin.

Expectations that low? I think Tina will do fine.

[spartan]

What does that have to do with Palin or Biden?

It sounds as though you're already trying to build a wall to protect Palin.

Expectations that low? I think Tina will do fine.

Que?

What has it got to do with Palin or Biden?

Nothing I guess, except they are the VP candidates in a Presidential race. The one where one party is being highly critical of the other sides VP candidate is not up for the job, and the moderator of said debate is writing a book that sheds "new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign". My post was about the appearance of impartiality, not the participants ability to perform.

[Lamond]

What does that have to do with Palin or Biden?

It sounds as though you're already trying to build a wall to protect Palin.

Expectations that low? I think Tina will do fine.

Que?

What has it got to do with Palin or Biden?

Nothing I guess, except they are the VP candidates in a Presidential race. The one where one party is being highly critical of the other sides VP candidate is not up for the job, and the moderator of said debate is writing a book that sheds "new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign". My post was about the appearance of impartiality, not the participants ability to perform.

Par?

As long as it's nothing I can see why you started a thread about it.

[spartan]

Are you having a bad day? Or just going off on a tangent deliberately?

[OpTiOnMaStA]

As Lamond says, the VP really doesn't matter much. Also if she has the hots for Obama it doesn't necessarily mean she has the hots for Biden too.

Although I know what you're saying I think that A) the level of persuasion she'll have is little and B) it doesn't matter anyway and C) her hots for Obama may not transfer to Biden.

[ufojoe]

The VP matters due to Mac's age and health.

The debate won't change much unless Palin does amazingly well or amazingly bad.

I think she'll do fine.

Did you see her answer to Couric when she asked Palin what magazines and newspapers she read to stay
up on world news? All of them. Couric asked for one name of one magazine or newspaper. Palin couldn't
give one. And when asked about other important SC cases besides Roe v. Wade, she couldn't name any
others. Not good for when she finally faces the press in a full blown press conference. Although, I doubt
her handlers will let that happen.

[spartan]

I think it COULD matter, and the level of attention that Palin has received shows that I think. When McCain chose Palin there was a an instant surge in public attention away from Obama and it was widely reported that Palin 'energized' the conservative base. After the Katie Couric interview, there are some conservatives who are beginning to ask if this was a wise choice after all. There was also a rise in interest from Independents and undecideds. If Palin performs well the base is reinvigorated and the doubts dispelled, if she performs badly those doubts rise to the surface.

The direction and tone of the debate is set by the moderator. A good example is the Primary debates between Hilary and Obama. In most cases I would be in 100% agreement with you, but in this case the playing field is different IMO.

[NovaBuc]

 The moderator can definitely be a factor in the debate. In this case, I'd think it would be better to err on the side of caution and avoid the appearance of any impropriety by having someone who is perceived as being more neutral. If she is hard on Palin, there are those who will see it as her bias showing. Just imagine how the democrats would react if say Sean Hannity was the moderator of the debate.

[Lamond]

Gwen Ifill isn't even close to being the partisan Hannity is.

Ifill is a Journalist with a capital J. She wrote a book about race and politics. She isn't "in the tank" for either side.

If anything I believe she'll go out of her way to be impartial.

Why not wait until after the debate to decide?

[ufojoe]

I think it COULD matter, and the level of attention that Palin has received shows that I think. When McCain chose Palin there was a an instant surge in public attention away from Obama and it was widely reported that Palin 'energized' the conservative base. After the Katie Couric interview, there are some conservatives who are beginning to ask if this was a wise choice after all. There was also a rise in interest from Independents and undecideds. If Palin performs well the base is reinvigorated and the doubts dispelled, if she performs badly those doubts rise to the surface.

The direction and tone of the debate is set by the moderator. A good example is the Primary debates between Hilary and Obama. In most cases I would be in 100% agreement with you, but in this case the playing field is different IMO.

There were several conservatives that came out in opposition to Palin as soon as it was announced. The Gibson and Couric
interviews just validated their opinions for them. And the way she is being kept hidden from the media (no press conferences
except the four question, abbreviated one) is another sign that she's not up to the task (handling the media) at this level.

Palin gave a short term bounce but in the end, she's going to contribute to the downfall of Mac. The failing economy will be
the big reason Mac loses to Obama.

I don't even think it's going to be very close.

[NovaBuc]

Gwen Ifill isn't even close to being the partisan Hannity is.

Ifill is a Journalist with a capital J. She wrote a book about race and politics. She isn't "in the tank" for either side.

If anything I believe she'll go out of her way to be impartial.

Why not wait until after the debate to decide?

 It's an example, not comparing the two of them. In addition to her book, she wrote an article for Essence Magazine on the Obamas that isn't about race and its involvement in politics, rather it is a piece about how great Obama and his family are.

 If she is a "Journalist with a capital J", I'd think she might possibly step down over the obvious conflict of interest. After all, I imagine her book sales will be greater if Obama wins. Isn't that potential financial windfall enough to quite possibly taint her impartiality? Even if she is able to be impartial, it's not going to look like it to many people. As I said in my original response, it's the perception and appearance that is troubling to me. Why not avoid the appearance of bias as much as possible and find someone with less of a financial stake in who gets elected?

[Lamond]

IMO, anyone can ask the questions as long as they aren't loaded for either side.

Pick the guy on the aisle of row 3. It's the answers that matter.

[ufojoe]

Gwen I. is not going to be a problem.

[JavaBuc]

Very strange choice for a moderator.   I notice all the Obama supporters seem to think it's no problem.  LOL!    How shocking.