Originally Posted By ecdc >>His choices. You act like McCain hand picked the moderator himself.<< He as good as did. All McCain had to do was Google Gwen Ifill's name and see she had a book coming out. Then he could've said, "No, sorry. We respect Gwen but we believe her book poses a conflict of interest. Please propose someone else." This isn't tricky. McCain didn't do his job - again - and now he wants to whine about it instead of taking responsibility for another one of his failures.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The whining is also serving as a useful distraction for the McCain camp. It's glaringly obvious at this point that this is their campaign strategy - a constant series of irrelevant side shows that distract the discussion away from the issues. They'd rather talk about anything but the issues. Or the polling numbers.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The John McCain Campaign Battle Hymm: <a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eUFWaauGPCs" target="_blank">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=...WaauGPCs</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Or is it this? <a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kOYz3vNgrFo" target="_blank">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=...z3vNgrFo</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Someone you want to sip a nice iced chia with.> (...picturing a chia pet stuck in the freezer...)
Originally Posted By mele Josh, you keep assuming that it's a given that this moderator will earn heaps of money if Obama is elected. That's just an assumption, no way to back that up. Who knows, if Obama loses, there could be some really good chapters on why Obama lost...a book that would, frankly, be more interesting than this book sounds. I agree with chickendumpling...it's pretty easy to see how McCarthyism could happen in this country and could still easily happen. People are far too easily led.
Originally Posted By mele <<You act like McCain hand picked the moderator himself.>> Didn't McCain give his approval? Didn't he agree to have this woman be moderator? Or is he so out of control of his camp that they're making decisions w/o his knowledge or w/o his approval? Which is it? We're supposed to feel comfortable that this guy will be a strong leader and yet he is wimping out on something like this?
Originally Posted By gadzuux I won't be surprised if the moderator has a couple of 'gotcha' questions for palin - it's practically a sport these days. They 'could' have asked her to speak on her views of specific supreme court cases - instead they asked her if she could recall any. She couldn't, and that was the point. Charlie Gibson deliberately laid out the 'bush doctrine' question with the full expectation that she wouldn't know what it was. He was right. And this isn't a "bad thing". It's part of the press's job to expose the weaknesses in any candidate, not to make them look good. People seem to think that the media is being unfair, but it's OUR interests they're looking out for. If all you want is for palin to look good, put her in a ball gown and enter her in a beauty pageant, not a presidential campaign.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>If all you want is for palin to look good, put her in a ball gown and enter her in a beauty pageant, not a presidential campaign.<< And for mercy's sake, keep her away from flutes!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's part of the press's job to expose the weaknesses in any candidate, not to make them look good. People seem to think that the media is being unfair, but it's OUR interests they're looking out for. << Exactly.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>"The fact that [Ifill] is openly writing a book and that she's openly sympathetic actually may be a slight advantage to Palin, because everybody's going to tune in tonight and unlike some of these interviews where people pretended to be neutral, everybody's going to understand what you have is a reporter who's deeply biased towards Obama, but who's trying to be fair," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "If it benefits anybody, it's going to benefit Sarah Palin because if Gwen Ifill looks at Sarah Palin cross-eyed for a nanosecond, you know what's going to happen tomorrow," said Bernie Goldberg, author of "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News." "It's going to be, 'Well, Gwen Ifill has a book coming out, she's got a vested interest and did you see, did you see the way she looked at Sarah Palin?'<< <a href="http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/lemonade-lemons-palin-turn-moderator-bias-advantage/" target="_blank">http://elections.foxnews.com/2...vantage/</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>ST. LOUIS — Sarah Palin plans to go on the attack in tonight’s debate, hitting Joe Biden for what she will call his foreign policy blunders and penchant for adopting liberal positions on taxes and other issues, according to campaign officials involved in prepping her for tonight’s showdown.<< >>From her debate playbook, as described by McCain officials: — Throw Biden’s own words back at him. — Highlight past Biden foreign-policy positions as a way to undermine his core strength. — Highlight places where Biden and Barack Obama have differed, including primary-season statements about Obama’s readiness to lead and his positions on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. —Portray herself as a working mom and outsider who's been in the real-world, rather than being shielded in the bluster of Washington.<< <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/14220;_ylt=ApMNCXZKxw9QHYeGroJSiO2yFz4D" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/politi...iO2yFz4D</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux She'll have to get those pre-arranged talking points out there without looking like she's just reciting them rote from her debate cramming sessions (which of course she is). She also needs to be careful about slinging zingers at Biden - he's much more nimble at this sort of thing. But if she sets herself up in an adversarial role, it will be much easier for Biden to toss aside 'deference' and go onto the attack. Biden doesn't have much at risk tonight - he'll come through just fine. This is the "Sarah Palin" show all the way, so the burden and risks are mostly on her.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I actually think it's pretty smart of her to go on the attack, if that's the plan. All the reports have been that Biden has been planning to NOT attack (so as to not look "mean" to poor Sarah), so this could take him aback at bit, perhaps. Make him think "Hmmmmm... I'm not supposed to attack, but she started it... what should I do?" Of course, that's if these reports of her plan - and previous reports of Bidens plan - are even accurate. We'll know soon!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Obama & supporters would be saying the same things if the moderator had a vested interest in McCain winning the election.*** Wrong, Josh. As someone else pointed out, back in the primaries there was a debate between Clinton and Obama moderated by none other than George Snuffalupagus, former Communications Director for the CLINTON White House. The Obama camp did not object. They had more class than that, not to mention RESPECT for Snuffy and his professionalism. Next question... ***His choices. You act like McCain hand picked the moderator himself.*** The moderator was approved of by both campaigns, so YES Josh, he picked her. If they had a problem with her book, they should've objected then. It was no secret. If they were too incompetent to do a quick search on the woman and learn she was writting a book, what does that say about a McCain administration? Think he'll be that lax on terrorism, as well? Scary, ain't it? Anyway, I don't believe for a second they "didn't know". They knew just fine, and filed it away in their back pockets in case they needed some dirt (like now). Makes you wonder what other underhanded tricks McCain has up his sleeve. Last question... ***I still say it was a poor decision to choose a woman who will benefit financially on inauguration day if Obama is elected.*** Repeating it 10 times doesn't make your point any more or less valid Josh. You have no proof of this. In fact, we have no idea what this book will be like, the tone, what she thinks of the campaign or Obama...what we DO know is that she hasn't even written about him yet. For all we know, she's waiting til after Nov. 4th to see what happens, and if it goes badly for Obama it's entirely possible that the crux of her book will turn on how unfair the system is for black people (which just might sell a whole lot more copies, by the way). Thus, for all we know she COULD have a vested interest in seeing Obama LOSE the election. That argument is just as valid as yours. And yet make assumptions and ask a whole lot of "what ifs" and then tarnish the name of a well respected person. Nice. One more thing, Palin is the first woman in history running on a viable ticket...why is it not being argued that Ifill might have more bias towards HER, since they're both chicks?
Originally Posted By mele Yeah...don't you know...women vote for woman no matter what the issues are. We're quirky that way.
