VP debate moderator releasing pro-Obama book

Tokyo-Expat · 10-02-2008, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preppiechick

When are you guys going to remember, that you are running against MCCAIN???? Edwards was ever more unknown/ unvetted. This is the PRESIDENTIAL campaign. Obama is seriously underqualifed, and all this attention that is being drawn to Palin just underscores the lack of self esteem, on BO's part. You always can tell who has "issues" on the playground...they are always the ones calling names, whipering insinuations, and deflecting their faults onto others. Oh, right...it's called "Chicago politics"

Mainly because she was brought in to be a "game changer" and was the only one actually getting people excited and drawing crowds and fund raising. Now that new car smell is wearing thin the more she speaks, and you guys want us to re-focus on McCain?!? Sorry you cant have it both ways!!

At least Edwards was well spoken and reasonably informed. She makes Bush look like a damn Rhodes scholar.

Renegade · 10-02-2008, 08:01 AM

"I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation,"

If she really had wanted to keep her "reputation" in tact and her name not maligned due to the question of ethics, she would have recrused herself due to the book she's authoring.

Potemkin · 10-02-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

She said it was the publisher, not herself, who set the Inauguration Day release date. It will be released then whether Obama wins or loses.

Come on. If Obama loses they will publish 50k copies and they will be at Half Price Books by the summer.

If Obama wins they will print 1M copies and have a second printing ready to go.

Who are they fooling.

Flint · 10-02-2008, 09:20 AM

This has now generated so much publicity that the moderation will be scrutinized as closely as the candidates. Not necessarily a bad thing. I would certainly expect that Ifill would bend double making as absolutely damn sure as humanly possible that her moderation can't be seen even by Republicans as giving any possible advantage to Biden. In fact, it's quite likely that, just to prove she's "objective", she will make Biden's experience a lot rougher than Palin's.

Basically, everyone is now expecting Palin to get nothing but hardballs to hit. To overcome this, Ifill will gently hand her nothing but cream pies. Palin will produce her usual campaign rhetoric largely unresponsive to the questions, and everyone will be astounded at how capably she handles these "tough questions."

Ifill was clearly a lousy choice to be moderator. Much better for the evil liberal media to select someone whose bias isn't so easily documented or visible.

Jacksonian · 10-02-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by free ranger

A partial list of Gwen Ifill’s questions for the VP debate:

Mayor Palin, Barack Obama is a handsome, charismatic demigod. How many boxes of Kleenex will you need after your crushing loss?

Mayor, which is your preferred method of stifling dissent, banning books or burning them? Since it's both, please explain how you can deny the accusation that you're a fascist, which I am making now.

And:

Senator, could you please sign my book?

Heh.

Flint · 10-03-2008, 10:45 AM

So, now that we've all had the chance to evaluate Ifill's moderation, what do we think? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, by the stone silence of Potemkin and His Echo Chamber.

Potemkin · 10-03-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

So, now that we've all had the chance to evaluate Ifill's moderation, what do we think? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, by the stone silence of Potemkin and His Echo Chamber.

Some of us have jobs. Others can hang here all day since they have little else to do.

BTW, straight out of the "25 Rules of Disinformation".

But in direct response what did you expect? Your previous comments predicted it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

This has now generated so much publicity that the moderation will be scrutinized as closely as the candidates.

She was being watched and knew it. What did you expect?

Flint · 10-03-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

BTW, straight out of the "25 Rules of Disinformation".

Gee, you don't seem to have a job when you find obscure anti-Democrat screeds to spam this forum with. You don't seem to have a job responding instantly to a request for comment. And when challenged to comment on the topic itself, I notice you duck with one face while attacking with the other.

Now, politely, DID you find bias in Ifill's moderation? Whether or not you mention it is a reflection of character like it or not. Your response is, uh, sadly indicative. I predicted silence. I got it.

Renegade · 10-03-2008, 11:19 AM

Pote? spamming the forum??

Flint · 10-03-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Pote? spamming the forum??

Q: Was Ifill biased in her moderation?
A: Look over there! Change the subject! (Rule of disinformation $17)

Flint · 10-03-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

She was being watched and knew it. What did you expect?

I expected her to be even-handed. She was being watched by the entire nation, and certainly knew what she was doing. The implication that she would do a slanted or irresponsible job was never really even a remote possibility. Which of course doesn't prevent someone like WMD from trying to poison that well, and doesn't prevent someone from READING the WMD to find the poison and repaste into this forum.

But you will notice that *someone* here stated as taken for granted that "the fix is in", so you can see that not everyone expected competent moderation.

Posting that Ifill is a shill, and THEN turning around when she did an excellent job and saying "well, what did you expect?" carries chutzpah a bit far.

(And Rule #1 of disinformation is "don't discuss it" and rule #25 is "vanish". So that part of your comment, at least, has some merit.)

Renegade · 10-03-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Q: Was Ifill biased in her moderation?
A: Look over there! Change the subject!

Q:Was Ifill biased in her moderation?
A: Quick! Disregard earlier posted answer to said question and make a funny statement regarding poster!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Potemkin

She was being watched and knew it. What did you expect?

Flint · 10-03-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

A: Quick! Disregard earlier posted answer to said question and make a funny statement regarding poster!!

Except you will notice that

1) You haven't addressed the issue yet; and
2) I DID answer the earlier poster.

Care to try again? The question is, was Ifill biased? You know, you're allowed to say "Yes, she moderated well and Palin won."

Renegade · 10-03-2008, 12:05 PM

yes you did...I typed too slow...LOL..

I didn't watch enough of it to judge, but based on what I've read and heard since I'm guessing she did a fair job. But, as was already brought up long before it started, the mere fact of the publicity guaranteed that she would go out of her way not to give anyone an excuse.

Now, whether Palin won or not is entirely subjective. Besides, I knew she'd be a bit out of her element going in so I didn't expect much. Other than his foot in mouth disease, Biden should naturally win any debate with her or plenty of other folks in politics, especially when you factor in his years spent in the game. Of course, personally I don't factor that as a good thing in his resume. As far as I'm concerned, the beltway could stand a large amount of new blood, regardless of the gender, state of origin, aptitudes or visual appeal factors. Hell, my mechanic could probably do better than a lot of them...

Flint · 10-03-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renegade

But, as was already brought up long before it started, the mere fact of the publicity guaranteed that she would go out of her way not to give anyone an excuse.

True, but WND had nothing to do with this. This was a given considering the sheer attention the program was guaranteed to get.

As for your point about politicians, this is definitely a double-edged sword. On the one hand, experience in Washington, knowing both the ropes and the current national and international political situation, is very valuable. On the other hand, this sheer knowledge indicates that you're part of how things got the way they are. That's the only way to be around long enough to have that much knowledge.

New blood isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. Obama and Palin both qualify on that score - and both are attacked for "inexperience" because they are new blood. But the value of new blood shouldn't be overrated. We notice that there's a constant (if fairly slow) turnover of folks in Washington, but how things get done doesn't ever seem to change. And that's because the rules (the constitution) doesn't change, and the requirement to please the voters doesn't change either.