Originally Posted By Disneyland Guest "Gwen Ifill is a professional not some political hack" Which makes it even more disturbing. I expect more from a "professional". "She ain't gonna, and she ain't gonna..." Wow. What a mature response. "We know poor dumb li'l pit bull with lipstick Sarah" ^^^ LOL! and another one.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I expect more from a "professional".*** What has she done that was less than professional? Nothing. You're just engaging in nasty slander at this point...and she's a good journalist, you and your party should be ashamed at what you're doing, but probably you feel pretty good about yourself.
Originally Posted By Disneyland Guest "What has she done that was less than professional?" Already been pointed out. "You're just engaging in nasty slander at this point..." LOL! Have you ever read anything that you have posted here in WE, MrX? LOL!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"What has she done that was less than professional?" Already been pointed out.*** Point it out again.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Have you ever read anything that you have posted here in WE, MrX?*** Nope. Drunken double vision makes it difficult most of the time. On rare hangover days, I catch up.
Originally Posted By retlawfan I said it before, and I'll say it again. Then I'll just leave. Ms. Ifill stands to personally profit from an Obama presidency. She should not be moderating a debate this season. I don't have any reason to believe she is "in the tank for Obama, but there should be no appearance of it. As someone who stands to profit from the result of this election, she should recuse herself. BTW, why would it be a problem with everybody if someone else comes into moderate anyway? What are the Dems afraid of here?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>BTW, why would it be a problem with everybody if someone else comes into moderate anyway?<< (1) It would be reneging on the debate agreement the two campaigns signed off on (after the release and title of the book were announced). (2) You can't just pop in off the street and moderate a VP debate. It takes several days prep. (3) Nobody has given any evidence that Ifill is even supporting Obama, or had anything to do with the book's release date, or even chose the title. The book is about a lot of people, Obama being merely the best known. (BTW - If she moved the release date and changed the title, would you shuddup? Betcha wouldn't.) (4) Being neutral is not, and never has been, a necessary qualification for moderating a debate, at least not until this morning. (5) We've recently realized how much we enjoy seeing flustered Republicans.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"Point it out again." no*** Exactly. Because there is nothing to point out.
Originally Posted By Mr X Nothing to get. She has been nothing but professional over the whole of her entire career. If you disagree, show some proof or shut up about it.
Originally Posted By Disneyland Guest "Nothing to get" Then stop asking for it. Aw, your normal attack mode-someone doesn't see eye to eye with you, you respond to "shut up about it" LOL!
Originally Posted By Mr X Nope, but if you have some evidence that this person you are attacking actually did anything wrong though, I suggest you offer it. Otherwise you're just out to harm an innocent person for political gain, which is not cool. Funny you call that my "normal attack mode", since I rarely if ever tell anyone to shut up (I often tell them I think they're wrong, sure). Your comment really ticked me off though. Dirty politics is bad enough...watching your type deliberately set up a car wreck on a bystander is downright sickening.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Ifill is a consummate professional, highly respected by her colleagues and politicians, and she's whistle clean after a liftetime of high profile journalism. The assumption that she's "in the tank" for obama is largely based on their race. And like many assumptions, it's probably at least partly correct - she's likely an obama supporter in her personal viewpoints. So what? So are most clear thinking people. Funny that no one is suggesting that she might be favorable to another woman candidate, largely because palin isn't particularly popular among other women. As to the assertion that she stands to gain financially if obama becomes president, she's been writing this book for years, and it's never been a secret. If the project morphed into a larger focus on obama over the last year - given his meteoric rise - it's completely understandable. The topic of the book is black leadership for the next generation, so of COURSE it's going to feature obama. But it's still going to be within the context of other emerging politicians. What's really happening here is that McCain supporters - whatever their reasons may be - are doing what they always do - glomming on to the latest talking points being spoon-fed to them by the usual suspects. And just like always, they're 'cheap shots' that can't even begin to pass the credibility test. But that never seems to stop GOP supporters, does it? They'll say anything, no matter how ridiculous or insulting. Remember 'baby-killer'? Paris Hilton? sex ed for kindergardners? Now it's casting doubt on the integrity of Gwen Ifill. And coming from them no less. One last thing - somebody back in the thread was huffing about what the democrats would do in a similar situation. Remember that the ABC debate between clinton and obama was moderated by george stephanopolos, former white house senior political advisor and communications director in the clinton white house. Yet we never heard a peep from the obama campaign. And that's a significant difference that McCain supporters don't like to acknowledge - Obama's campaign has been a class act compared to McCain's campaign of deceptions, staging and lies that go all the way to insulting. Two different worlds.
Originally Posted By dshyates Disneyland Guest, you are aware that knowledge of this book about Black poiticians was common in mid july. Before she was asked to moderate and before Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. And If the mcCain campaign didn't know about it then it is their own fault. Doesn't anyone over there know how to use the Googles? And simply because it has the name Obama in the titla doesn't mean that the book is about Obama. I know that concept is a stretch for the republican mind, but its true. It is about the progress of black pols from the Civil Rights movement through the "age of Obama" including Colin Powell. The book is not about Obama. So, in typical Repub fashion, lets go on attack mode on a respected journalist, for no reason.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Doesn't anyone over there know how to use the Googles? >> C'mon dshyates, don't make fun of McCain's disability -- he doesn't know how to use computers! What a cheap shot! ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Many righties like to call CNN the "Clinton News Network" or worse because they feel the network is so biased. And yet, CNN's Bernard Shaw hosted the Dukakis/Bush debate back in '88, and Shaw asked Dukakis the hot-button question about what the governor would do, in light of his opposition to the death penalty, if his wife were raped or killed. Dukakis' answer doomed his candidacy for good. (It wasn't the ONLY thing, but it was one of the top 2). So this idea that just because a moderator leans one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the Dems have some sort of advantage here. Ifill is a professional, and isn't going to blow it tonight in an attempt to "help" Obama. She didn't help Kerry when she moderated the debate back in 2004.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well said, as usual, gad. It continually cracks me up that conservatives keep harping on how liberal the media and higher education is, apparently unaware of what they're implying. Let me get this straight: You're saying that well-educated, well-informed people who are aware of the issues, are liberal? And that doesn't tell you anything? (I think that's an oversimplification, but the disconnect from what they're saying still amuses me.)
Originally Posted By alexbook Question for retlawfan and Disneyland Guest: Given that FOX NEWS reported on Ifill's book IN JULY, why did the McCain campaign wait until this week to complain? She wasn't chosen as the moderator until the month AFTER the book was announced! ----- I'm not arguing one way or another on whether Ifill would be a good moderator. I'm saying that there is NO WAY that the Republicans didn't know about Ifill's book when they agreed to let her moderate this debate. WHY? WHY did they wait until this week to complain?
