VP Debate Does anyone else have a problem with this?

[Bev in B'ville]

The moderator, who is supposed to be neutral in the debate, has not only chosen sides, but has a book coming out about Obama. Clearly, if Obama does not win the election her book will most likely not sell as many copies.

 

So, she's not only partisan to the election, she stands to profit by one side winning. She gets to pick the questions. I find this highly inappropriate.

 

What was the Commission of Presidential Debates thinking? Did they not google her or did they know and either not care or chose her because of her partisanship?

 

This really bothers me.

[Laura in VA]

Who is it? I'm too lazy to google it. :)

[Bev in B'ville]

Sorry, I should have included her name in my OP. :001_smile:

[Chris in VA]

I'm not so sure about the book thing--it does seem a little over the top to pick someone who's not only got a personal opinion (that part doesn't bother me!) but also wrote a book that's coming out on the subject of that personal opinion.

 

Is she a journalist? It's a tricky road, but I think journalists are trained to at least appear impartial.

 

Is she on a particular network? Is she well-known as a liberal or whatever? I'm out of it--I don't have cable.

[Bev in B'ville]

in what role, I'm not sure.

 

Even if there is no impropriety in the debate, it's the appearance of impropriety that sticks out. Now, every facial expression, every body movement will be scrutinized. It's not fair to either candidate. She will have as much of an audience as the candidates.

 

She should excuse herself in my opinion.

[Jane in NC]

Bev,

 

Gwen Ifill moderated the '04 debate between Edwards and Cheney. Apparently the Republicans did not think she was overtly partisan or they would not have agreed to have her moderate this debate as well.

 

Further, while I am not a devotee of television news (preferring print and NPR), when I have watched The News Hour or Washington Week (which she moderates), she did not strike me as apologist for one side or the other.

 

Jane

[Bev in B'ville]

The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

 

I assume that all moderators have a position before the debate, but never before (to my knowledge anyway) has someone with a financial stake in the outcome of the election moderated a debate.

 

She may be perfectly capable of acting impartial, but as I said before, it is the appearance of impropriety that really bothers me.

[Laura in VA]

The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

 

I assume that all moderators have a position before the debate' date=' but never before (to my knowledge anyway) has someone with a financial stake in the outcome of the election moderated a debate.

 

She may be perfectly capable of acting impartial, but as I said before, it is the [u']appearance of impropriety[/u] that really bothers me.

 

 

:iagree:. I watched a YouTube video of her closing remarks made to Jim Leher on PBS after Palin's RNC speech. In my opinion, it's obvious that she is not unbiased. Here's the link if you're interested:

 

Edited October 1, 2008 by Laura in VA

[Danestress]

The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

 

I assume that all moderators have a position before the debate' date=' but never before (to my knowledge anyway) has someone with a financial stake in the outcome of the election moderated a debate.

 

She may be perfectly capable of acting impartial, but as I said before, it is the [u']appearance of impropriety[/u] that really bothers me.

 

Everyone in America has a financial stake in the outcome of this election.

 

Anyway, the Republicans could have rejected Ifill if they had a problem with her, so I am assuming they didn't. If they are not worried, neither am I.

[Holly IN]

Yes I have a problem with it. It should be a neutral moderator with no bias or gain.

 

Holly

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

:iagree:. I watched a YouTube video of her closing remarks made to Jim Leher on PBS after Palin's RNC speech. In my opinion, it's obvious that she is not unbiased. Here's the link if you're interested:

 

 

I just watched it. Did she say something incorrect? Or is it how she said it, or what?

 

This is sorta like a link I saw yesterday tha said John McCain was all angry and hateful while meeting with the Des Moines Editorial Board

.

I just didn't see it. I saw John McCain so angry and vehement once that he made a POW's sister cry and he turned all red and walked out. This was just minor annoyance -- if that.

 

I guess I do think it's weird that he thinks his ad that says Sen. Obama wants "comprehensive" sex ed for kindergartners is true when even Rove thought he crossed the line, but I didn't think he was angry, just that he thought, oddly, that he was right and they were wrong. (Stranger danger and keeping private areas private are not real "out there" for me, and parents can always opt out like we did, but that's just me. I imagine others here do think telling kindergarteners that doctors touch when they're examining you and parents might when they're bathing you, but that others shouldn't touch is too much government interference, but hey, this IS a home school board, lol! :001_smile:)

 

Anyway, I don't find him particularly Angry and I didn't find Ms. Ifle particularly incorrect or biased in her analysis of what Palin said or how the crowd reacted.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Yes I have a problem with it. It should be a neutral moderator with no bias or gain.

 

 

Where do you propose to find a moderator with no bias? As for gain, moderating a high-level debate brings its own kind of gain.

 

I figure her possible bias will be at the very least matched by Tom Brokaw's possible bias in the Pres. debate number two. And I'm not saying they will even bring bias to the fray. They're possibly both professional enough to leave it at the door for 90 minutes. If they inject bias to the extent that people are worried about it, then they can be sure to be passed over in the future for such events. It's in their personal and professional interest to attempt neutrality for Ninety Minutes.

[Laura in VA]

It was her demeanor. She looks like she is disgusted. But like I said, that's just my opinion. :)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Have you actually looked at the description of the book? While it does contain the name, Obama. it is not all about him. It's about the civil rights era and the rise and future of black politicians.

 

I am really more concerned with the deal made for shorter answer times and no follow up questions that were made for the VP debate. What's the deal there??

 

But both parties agreed to this format. It's hammered out ahead of time, right, just like the presidential debates.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It was her demeanor. She looks like she is disgusted. But like I said, that's just my opinion. :)

 

I'll watch it again.

 

ETA: Sorry, I guess I'm missing it. She just looks like Gwen Ifle, lol!

[Laura in VA]

Have you actually looked at the description of the book? While it does contain the name, Obama. it is not all about him. It's about the civil rights era and the rise and future of black politicians.

 

I am really more concerned with the deal made for shorter answer times and no follow up questions that were made for the VP debate. What's the deal there??

 

I believe McCain pushed for it, but I'm sure Obama doesn't mind Biden having a shorter time to speak.

[Laura in VA]

I nominate Stephen Colbert :D.

[Laura in VA]

I'll watch it again.

 

ETA: Sorry, I guess I'm missing it. She just looks like Gwen Ifle, lol!

 

That may be it! :lol:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'm sure Obama doesn't mind Biden having a shorter time to speak.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Actually, Biden is a wonderful speaker when he has a) a point/plan and b) a time limit. He just doesn't have an off button when you just let him loose! :001_smile:

[Laura in VA]

I'm looking forward to the debate (I think). It will be interesting!

[Erica in PA]

It was her demeanor. She looks like she is disgusted. But like I said, that's just my opinion. :)

 

Absolutely she looks and sounds disgusted! I suppose we don't know *why* she is disgusted, and there could be another explanation, but since she is talking about Sarah Palin and the Republican Convention, I think it's reasonable to think that she is disgusted about what she is talking about.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I nominate Stephen Colbert :D.

 

Oooh, well, that would be interesting! Would he call it "The De-bah-te"?

 

"What is your record of truthiness, Senator Biden? Can you cite some examples of times in your career when truthiness was critical?"

[Jugglin'5]

Personally, I don't think the Republicans have always been very bright about this kind of thing. I mean McCain subjected himself to "The View". Any regular person who has ever seen that show, of any political sympathy, could have told him that it would not go well for him there.:D

 

Everyone in America has a financial stake in the outcome of this election.

 

Anyway, the Republicans could have rejected Ifill if they had a problem with her, so I am assuming they didn't. If they are not worried, neither am I.

[ma23peas]

she spent five years at NBC News as chief congressional and political correspondent,

 

 

The fact that NBC kept her for 5 years..is rather reflective of her positions. I firmly believe 80% of 'journalists' in the mainstream of media are pulling for the liberal issues....I also believe that Foxnews is definitely pulling for the conservative...but I have yet to find ANY that are stuck solidly in the middle...our age is about agendas...it's where the money is at....where the money is, so will be our society....

 

Although Tim Russert was liberal...I could at least not tell in his interviews because he asked tough questions to everyone in order to provide as much information as possible..man, we miss you Tim Russert.

 

Tara

[Michelle in MO]

I can't say I'm thrilled with the pick, either, although, like Jane said, the Republicans should have disagreed earlier. It does seem a bit disconcerting that she's coming out with a book at this time.

 

Frankly, in the 2004 elections, I thought Brit Hume did a good job moderating one of the debates between Bush and Kerry. I think he's a real professional and tries to remain as non-partisan as possible.

[Deidre in GA]

here is a description of the book:

 

Random House's press release...

“In The Breakthrough, veteran journalist Gwen 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…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.”

 

Ifill's book is about the impact Obama's campaign has made on US history. no matter what happens on 11/4, the fact remains that his campaign has been an historic game changer. i think it's completely possible for a journalist of her mind and integrity to author a book with this thrust and still be a good moderator.

 

also keep in mind that everything about these debates is negotiated right down to the temperature of the debate room.(see article here about the Kerry/Bush debates.) Ifill has a very long history. if the Republicans did not agree that she was a good choice for this delicate position, she wouldn't be there.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Deidre in GA

[astrid]

What I have a problem with is that the debate format was changed to accommodate Sarah Palin's percieved lack of ability to actually debate. Yes, I know both sides agreed to it, but really, what was the Obama camp supposed to do? And both sides agreed to the moderator, so if the McCain camp had a problem with the choice of moderator, one would think that they would not be shy about saying so.

 

astrid

[dawn of ns]

The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

 

I assume that all moderators have a position before the debate' date=' but never before (to my knowledge anyway) has someone with a financial stake in the outcome of the election moderated a debate.

 

She may be perfectly capable of acting impartial, but as I said before, it is the [u']appearance of impropriety[/u] that really bothers me.

 

I'm completely with you on this. I'm probably be an Obama supported if I were American but I am really, really sick of the way the media and politicians seem to have forgotten that the inage of ethical behaviour is AS IMPORTANT as ethical behaviour itself!

 

Impropriety is bad but it's the image of it that's so much more common, erodes public trust, and breeds cynicism. As is just what happened with you on this issue.

 

I have no doubt the moderator can be objective but that's beside the point. People will see her as biased and it will colour their view of the proceedings. That should have been avoided.

 

Rock on Bev in B'ville. I'm glad to have found a kindred spirit on this issue - wherever you are on the political spectrum!

[Michelle in MO]

Are you also aware that the Palin camp has asked for the format of the debate to be changed due to Palin's lack of experience with debating?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

 

The point of me mentioning this is that these debates are highly orchestrated events anyway. Candidates are given quite a bit of control.

 

you quoted, that Palin's lack of experience was a concern with the McCain side; however, according to this same article, the change in the debate format could also benefit Joe Biden. If you read the entire article, here's an interesting clip towards the end:

 

Indeed, both the McCain and Obama campaigns have similar concerns about the vice-presidential matchup in St. Louis: that Ms. Palin, of Alaska, as a new player in national politics, or Mr. Biden, of Delaware, as a loquacious and gaffe-prone speaker, could commit a momentum-changing misstep in their debate.

 

Given some of the statements that Joe Biden has made, some that have even hurt his own candidate, this format change may benefit both candidates.

 

Also, note this: Barack Obama also wanted a shift in the format so that the topics and the order of proposed topics would best benefit his campaign:

 

Mr. Obama successfully sought to flip the proposed topics for the first and third debates, so foreign policy is now coming first and economic and other domestic issues come last. There is a second debate, in the format of a town hall meeting, in which the candidates will sit on director’s chairs and take questions from the audience and Internet users on any topic.

 

The debate commission had proposed that the first debate be on economic issues and the third on foreign policy — in part, people involved in the process said, because the first debate is usually the most watched, and many voters rank the economy as their top concern.

 

Mr. Obama wanted foreign policy first to show viewers that he could provide depth, strength and intelligence on those issues, his advisers said, given that Mr. McCain consistently wins higher ratings in opinion polls as a potential commander in chief.

 

Mr. Obama wanted domestic issues to come last; advisers said that they believed even before the start of the financial crisis that the election was most likely to turn on the state of the economy and that he wanted the final televised exchange to focus on those concerns. He has argued that Mr. McCain would continue the economic policies of President Bush.

 

And, also note this:

 

Mr. McCain also wanted foreign policy topics to come first in the debates, his aides said, in the hope of capitalizing on his positive reputation on national security issues across party lines.

 

To me, the conclusion here is that both sides (not just the McCain/Palin camp) are posturing to highlight their candidate's expertise and appeal in the best manner possible. So, I wouldn't say that the posturing is coming strictly from McCain/Palin; it's also coming from Obama/Biden. It's politics, on both sides.

[Gwen in TX]

I believe they are aware of the questions beforehand. And do moderators make their own comments during debates? If they simply ask questions (that the candidates are aware of beforehand) then so what. At least nobody has left it up to speculation.

The point of me mentioning this is that these debates are highly orchestrated events anyway. Candidates are given quite a bit of control.

 

From the NY Times:

 

"Under the plan agreed to Saturday, Palin and Biden will have less time than McCain and Obama to reply to moderators’ questions and discuss each other’s answers. And there will be no guidelines given to Gwen Ifill of PBS, moderator of the vice presidential debate, as to subject matter, allowing her to mix in questions about foreign and domestic matters, the sources said."

 

 

So, Gwen Ifill will be choosing the questions she asks. Lots of opportunity to load the shotgun for one side or the other.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

So, I wouldn't say that the posturing is coming strictly from McCain/Palin; it's also coming from Obama/Biden. It's politics, on both sides.

 

And I wouldn't call it posturing. I would call it negotiating an agreement.

[Mama Lynx]

Mmmmm. I don't like the book bit. However, I think she's been generally professional in the past. That's the real point: everyone is going to have bias. A professional will not allow that bias to affect her job. It doesn't matter what her personal opinions are, as long as she doesn't seem to have any during the debate.

[Paula in MS]

Gwen Ifill was totally disgusted with Sarah Pallin during the RNC debate. I was absolutely floored with how unprofessional she was. Her face completely showed her dislike for Palin. I would never have agreed to this. Who makes these choices?

 

Paula

[Word Nerd]

The news of a partisan moderator isn't surprising to me at all. There's a reason that the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the debates. This is a news release from 1988:

 

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

 

 

[Parrothead]

I was wondering about the apparent conflict of interests yesterday when I found out who the moderator was going to be.

 

I don't get it, but I since no one asked my opinion during the process I've got to just go with it.

[jacqui in mo]

Actually to me, Gwen Ifill usually looks very upbeat & cheerful. This was a marked departure from how she normally carries herself. If I was giving her the benefit of the doubt I'd say she looked tired (which I think a journalist of her caliber would try & hide) but because of what her subject matter was she looked as if it was all very distasteful.

[nmoira]

Both sides agree to every detail before the debate agreements are signed. If there is a problem with Ifill, perhaps the GOP wanted a built-in excuse so doubts could be raised about Palin's chances even before the debate begins? Maybe Ifill will ask some "gothcha" questions about specific policies and situations (or even newspapers). :eek:

 

Or, maybe, as I'm inclined to believe, both sides really are OK with her role as moderator.

[tibbyl]

The moderator' date=' who is supposed to be neutral in the debate, has not only chosen sides, but has a book coming out about Obama. Clearly, if Obama does not win the election her book will most likely not sell as many copies.

 

So, she's not only partisan to the election, she stands to profit by one side winning. She gets to pick the questions. I find this highly inappropriate.

 

What was the Commission of Presidential Debates thinking? Did they not google her or did they know and either not care or chose her because of her partisanship?

 

This really bothers me.[/quote']

 

The "debates" are not true debates; they're nothing more than carefully scripted televised performances. Which is why I refuse to watch but that is another thread.

 

With only a little over a month until the election, are you suggesting that there is someone who has not chosen a candidate? If you are displeased with the moderator choice, where exactly would you suggest looking for another?

 

For the record, yes, I believe that a *professional* journalist should be able to moderate a debate without injecting bias. Actually doesn't the moderator have little to do with it anyway besides reading the questions and indicating whose turn it is to talk? Anyone with a clear pleasing voice and some broadcasting experience should be able to pull off the job.

Edited October 1, 2008 by tibbyl

[Erica in PA]

Yeah, I just watched it again and I don't see how anyone could miss her demeanor. :confused: If her tone, expression, and word choice ("belittled Obama at every opportunity") didn't give her away, how about her body language?! She noticeably shook her head throughout the entire report. A very clear sign of disapproval.

 

Erica

[sdWTMer]

Absolutely I do! How slanted is that!?!

[Bev in B'ville]

The "debates" are not true debates; they're nothing more than carefully scripted televised performances. Which is why I refuse to watch but that is another thread.

 

With only a little over a month until the election, are you suggesting that there is someone who has not chosen a candidate? If you are displeased with the moderator choice, where exactly would you suggest looking for another?

 

For the record, yes, I believe that a *professional* journalist should be able to moderate a debate without injecting bias. Actually doesn't the moderator have little to do with it anyway besides reading the questions and indicating whose turn it is to talk? Anyone with a clear pleasing voice and some broadcasting experience should be able to pull off the job.

 

 

A moderator at this point who is not biased, perhaps not. However, a moderator whose own book on the candidate is due to be released on January 20, 2009 (which, by the way, is the same day as the inauguration - coincidence? I think not) stands to lose 100's of thousands of dollars if McCain is elected. If McCain is elected her book would sell about 5 copies; however, if Obama is elected her book would be a bestseller. Like I said, $$$$$$ are involved here. A moderator, even a blatantly biased one, without so much $$ to lose would be a better bet than her.

[Kathy in MD]

I've watched Gwen Ifil for years and am confident that she will be as impartial as a human can be. As far as the book is concerned, how much imput did she have in the final title? By mentioning Obama, the publishers will probably increase book sales a lot. But the book's content seems to be more of a modern history book, not a book about a particular canidate.

 

Given how much arguing about debates that has occurred in the past, I positive that if the GOP felt she might in anyway be unprofessional and biased, they wouldn't have her moderate the debate.

 

I posative she'll be impartial. However having read reviews of past coverage of controversal issues, I'm sure that many ardent supporters will believe that she's favoring their opponent.

[Bev in B'ville]

I've watched Gwen Ifil for years and am confident that she will be as impartial as a human can be. As far as the book is concerned, how much imput did she have in the final title? By mentioning Obama, the publishers will probably increase book sales a lot. But the book's content seems to be more of a modern history book, not a book about a particular canidate.

 

Given how much arguing about debates that has occurred in the past, I positive that if the GOP felt she might in anyway be unprofessional and biased, they wouldn't have her moderate the debate.

 

I posative she'll be impartial. However having read reviews of past coverage of controversal issues, I'm sure that many ardent supporters will believe that she's favoring their opponent.

 

The book is about 4 candidates, of which Obama is one. So, I suppose technically, the book is about 25% Obama.

[astrid]

Both sides agree to every detail before the debate agreements are signed. If there is a problem with Ifill, perhaps the GOP wanted a built-in excuse so doubts could be raised about Palin's chances even before the debate begins? Maybe Ifill will ask some "gothcha" questions about specific policies and situations (or even newspapers). :eek:

 

Or, maybe, as I'm inclined to believe, both sides really are OK with her role as moderator.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

A convenient excuse if Palin flubs the debate. And it's hard to respect that. I respected McCain in 2000. After the way he's behaved in this campaign, I have not a shred of it left.

 

astrid

[Jennifer in NH]

I am very conservative and I am fine with this choice. I've seen her moderate debates in the past and they were fair. Providing commentary after the conventions is a bit different than moderating the debate...anyway, I'll watch and see...at least it isn't Keith Oberman who I don't think could be fair, or on the other side...it isn't sean Hannity who I also think would not be fair( even if I do agree with him a lot;)).

 

If she is unprofessional then Friday morning I'll come back and gripe..but from watching her in the past I think she will be okay.

[Vida Winter]

I agree there is bias. At least they won't be able to edit the responses, through - it will be live, is it not?

 

I'll be watching after the fact since I'll be at Tae Kwon Do during the debate.

 

~Dana

[lovemyboys]

Personally' date=' I don't think the Republicans have always been very bright about this kind of thing. I mean McCain subjected himself to "The View". Any regular person who has ever seen that show, of any political sympathy, could have told him that it would not go well for him there.:D[/quote']

 

You're so right about this. Seems likes since the days of Carville and Begala and the infamous "war room" approach to campaigning, the Democratic Party has developed a strong style of staying "on message" no matter what the discussion or questions asked. It's pretty remarkable to watch it in action.

[Bev in B'ville]

Did you get this info on the Drudge report? Here's an article from earlier today that should set things straight.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/01/ifills_book_is_no_secret.html

 

on Fox News. Then I started googling her and found other info, including the above forementiond video of her giving information about the book for the Random House publishers. Real Clear Politics also offers an article on this worth reading.

[Jenny in Atl]

I've watched Gwen Ifil for years and am confident that she will be as impartial as a human can be. As far as the book is concerned, how much imput did she have in the final title? By mentioning Obama, the publishers will probably increase book sales a lot. But the book's content seems to be more of a modern history book, not a book about a particular canidate.

 

Given how much arguing about debates that has occurred in the past, I positive that if the GOP felt she might in anyway be unprofessional and biased, they wouldn't have her moderate the debate.

 

I posative she'll be impartial. However having read reviews of past coverage of controversal issues, I'm sure that many ardent supporters will believe that she's favoring their opponent.

 

:iagree:

[Mama Lynx]

While I still do think that Gwen Ifill will manage the debate professionally, it does appear that she never actually notified the commission about her book.

 

I'm really curious as to why.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26978194/?GT1=43001#storyContinued

 

I think I'm linking you to the second page of the story there, which contains the information that she did not inform the commission about the book.

 

I suspect that this whole book thing is not a big deal, but why not let the commission know? It is, on the surface, a no-brainer potential for conflict of interest. Seems like something that should have come up, if only to say "I have this book coming out, and since it may look to some people like X, I just wanted to let you know up front."