no bias here LOL

[mg1942]

I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional and I think she will do a totally objective job," said McCain, "because she is a highly respected professional.

It was in the news before the McCain campaign even agreed to the debate conditions. It's just a controversy because both McCain's and Palin's poll numbers have been dropping.

Just more crap to feed to base and an excuse if Palin bombs.

[mg1942]

Her publisher sets the release date. It'll be released on that day even if Obama loses.

Ifill said Obama's story, which she has yet to write, is only a small part of the book, which discusses how politics in the black community have changed since the civil rights era. Among those subjects is Colin Powell, secretary of state in the Bush administration.


In its online description of the book, Doubleday says that Ifill:

Surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

[mg1942]

 

She writes a book that almost proclaims Obama President and schedules the release for the date of the inauguration, but she's not biased. Sure.

Um, you can have a contrary opinion and still be relatively unbiased (at least enough to not try and degrade or otherwise humiliate you opponent). Gwen Ifill is the epitome of polite and strives to be unbiased to the issues she is covering (she has presided over presidential debates before), unless she is directly taking a position on the matter (such as in a round table discussion, etc).

[john9001]

come on mg1942, she is going to softball biden and play gotcha with palin.

[Toad]

She'll have to ask both of the candidates the same questions. If she tries to slant the debate or makes snide comments it will be immediately obvious and would probably help Palin.

Look, 99% of the media is in the tank for Obamessiah. They use media talking heads for moderators. This is no big surprise and no big deal.

It's just poor taste to pick a talking head with an Obamessiah praise book coming out. They should pick the ones in the tank that don't create such a splash.

[RedTop]

Has it progressed to simply professing a belief in God is grounds for being a nutberger?

Yep

[Hangtime]

They should pick the ones in the tank that don't create such a splash.

a technique i hereby dub  'drowning turds from the clean end'.

[bj229r]

Um, you can have a contrary opinion and still be relatively unbiased (at least enough to not try and degrade or otherwise humiliate you opponent). Gwen Ifill is the epitome of polite and strives to be unbiased to the issues she is covering (she has presided over presidential debates before), unless she is directly taking a position on the matter (such as in a round table discussion, etc).

It needn't be blatant, it can be subtle and still affect things

For example, she pressed Cheney to attack Democratic nominee John Edwards personally: “President Bush has derided John Kerry for putting a trial lawyer on the ticket. You yourself have said that lawsuits are partly to blame for higher medical costs. Are you willing to say that John Edwards, sitting here, has been part of the problem?”

Ifill then turned around and asked the Democrat if he was feeling pained at the attack she had just requested: “Senator Edwards, new question to you, same topic. Do you feel personally attacked when Vice President Cheney talks about liability reform and tort reform and the president talks about having a trial lawyer on the ticket?”

The PBS host also pressed Cheney with a Tim Russert-style question on Iran: “Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, ‘Unilateral sanctions almost never work.’ After four years as Vice President now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the ‘Axis of Evil,’ do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?” Cheney said no, and that in 2000, he was talking about unilateral sanctions, not universal sanctions. Some viewers were put off after the Edwards counterattack, when Cheney said “I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds,” and she said “Well, that's all you've got.” She said Democrats loved it (“they thought I was being snippy”), but she said that wasn’t her intent.

When Ifill turned to Edwards for a question on Israel policy, there wasn’t an equally tough question for him. She said the U.S. seemed sadly “absent” under Bush: “Today, a senior member of Islamic Jihad was killed in Gaza. There have been suicide bombings, targeted assassinations, mortar attacks, all of this continuing at a time when the United States seems absent in the peace-making process. What would your administration do?”
Ifill’s toughest question to Edwards underlined that he had the least governmental experience of any vice-presidential nominee since 1976. She also pressed Edwards from the left on Kerry’s promise not to raise taxes and their opposition to gay marriage. But her last question seemed designed to aid Kerry: “Senator Kerry changed his mind about whether to vote to authorize the President to go to war. President Bush changed his mind about whether a Homeland Security department was a good idea or a 9/11 Commission was a good idea. What's wrong with a little flip-flop every now and then?”

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2008/fax20081001.asp

[Stringer]

Has it progressed to simply professing a belief in God is grounds for being a nutberger?

I didn't call her a nutberger......and I've already shown that I have a belief in God.

[Stringer]

Palin isn't a bishop or a cardinal or any other church official. We've already had a catholic president. What's your point?

I like to keep government and religion seperate.  I don't think Kennedy ever said we were on a mission from God, or was blessed against witches though...

My point is I think she's over her head, and I'm upset with McCain that he didn't pick a better running mate.

[mg1942]

On this Gwen Ifill crap, have the people who are complaining READ THE BOOK????!!!!

If there is no endorsement of the candidate then I have trouble with all this complaining. From what I have heard, Ifill's book uses barack as a centerpiece for the changing of the old guard of black politics according to the description on Amazon and other articles I read. This on it's own does not equal Barack slant, it's more then likely a contextualized historical perspective.

Plus It's not like this is a secret, Ifill discussed the book last month with the Washington post as politico pointed out.

There have been other pieces on that same topic written before, I hardly believe it's an ENDORSEMENT of Obama himself. I'm not saying anyone here who is saying that is predjiduced, but I think there's this idea that because Ifill wrote such a book and cause she is black then she is invariably pro-obama AAAAAAAAAANNNDDDD that she will not moderate the debate effectively. (which is roadkill cause I've seen her moderate before)

Like I said I haven't read the book, but if people complaining (not singling out anyone alone here) haven't read it they NEED TO CHILL OUT.

Association DOES NOT EQUAL causation!

[SirLoin]

I hope Palin slams both Biden and Hillary on this in the debate.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I'm seeing all sorts of stuff saying Ifill did not disclose the existence of the book project to the commission on presidential debates. If that's true, not only is she biased, but she has lied by omission, at the very least, and if she was asked any questions where an honest answer would have revealed the book project, then she's just a liar.

[john9001]

On this Gwen Ifill crap, have the people who are complaining READ THE BOOK????!!!!

the book is not out yet.

[Eagler]

if ppl can't see whats wrong with this, then they can make excuses for anything ... pretty much what is wrong with our country these days