Having read your post, Mr. Taylor, I’m still quite at a loss to understand how it is a positive comment on the propriety of Ms. Ifil’s moderation of a debate in this election cycle.  Does Ms. Ifil’s literary work and subsequent moderation not constitute even the appearance of impropriety?  Perhaps she could do one, or the other, but not both - regardless of how interesting or important the subject of her book. 

This only gives credence to our political opponents, who will be able to distract from what I assume you expect to be a Biden rout of Governor Palin?

...in the real world, the debate hasn’t even started yet, so it seems a bit early to roast Ifill over some future imagined nondisclosure.  Next up:  Malkin excoriates George Stephanopoulos for not disclosing his affiliation with Bilderberg Group during his upcoming interview with John McCain…

Spin spin spin ...

Malkin has her volume control stuck on eleven as she hysterically repeats the current Republican talking points. Easy go to when looking for a post topic.

She’s a journalist doing journalistic work about a major political issue of our time.  If we eliminate everyone who’s ever said anything which could be found to be more positive about one candidate over another (or even just objectively analyzed something one candidate did as an accomplishment), the only people left to moderate political debates are recently awakened coma victims.

Are we to eliminate everyone in the press corps who thought McCain-Feingold was a good idea?  That leaves pretty much the editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal and New York Post to moderate the debates.

But, Mr. Taylor, the appearance to the people in Kansas is the issue.  It does not concern me much whether a member of the Press Corps thought that the enacting of McCain-Feingold was a good idea - unless and until he or she advocates in favor of or against the Bill, or later describes the Law (which is a contentious issue) as particularly successful.  I do not think that Mr. Lehrer operated under a similar cloud of suspicion.

Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the “stunning” McCain campaign and its “bold” path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day – and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation’s sole vice presidential debate?

Yes, very easily.
Next question!

Uh, Mr. Rumpole? 

One, the people in Kansas are voting for McCain, regardless.  Everyone between Philadelphia and LA is not some giant lump of Kansan.

Two, the entire press corps has been McCain’s biggest fans since 1999.  It’s only recently that he’s gotten any pushback.  There is no reasonable case for Ifill’s book being more demonstrative of any bias than the past eight years of McCain coverage is.

There is an appearance of impropriety here; it is just that simple. In order to appear fair in the legal world a judge/lawyer is ethically bound to recuse themselves if there is even an appearance of impropriety. I think the same rule should apply here as it should apply to Brokaw,who is NBC’s liaison with McCain’s camp.

I agree with the spirit of ridiculing these silly people, but I think you’re being a bit obtuse here.

Gwen Ifill should not be moderating the debate when she has a book coming out whose sales could credibly be affected by the result of the race.  And however you want to explain it away, it’s ridiculous to think that the election or non-election of Obama to the office of POTUS would have no impact on Ifill’s book sales.

The proper response to this whining is “Boo Fucking Hoo.” Horrific, irresponsible and corrupt media practices put George W. Bush in the White House twice.  Now the media wants our guy to win.  So, great!  Except it still sucks that our media landscape is corrupt.  We should fix that… starting next January.

Uh ... yeah, I’m with caliban. Appearance of impropriety and all that. Ifill AND Brokaw AND Scheiffer need to step down. Give it to Katie Couric!

Regardless of whether or not there is a question of impropriety, if Ifill stays in, and Biden wins (which, I mean, is there any question that he will win? He can answer questions.), then all this will do is add fuel to the reichwing fire and the win by Biden will be lost to the ages, just as the winning speech that Obama gave at his nomination was lost when McSpain? announced Palin as his running mate.

The smart thing for the Dems to do is to enjoin Ifill to please step aside.

It’s a debate, not a trial.  Ifill is capable of doing her job, which is posing fair questions to both candidates. 

McCain, until lately, has had far less negative press than Obama, despite the Republican talking points that the MSM is liberal and is laready in the tank for Obama.

Both candidates have known and agreed to the debates and format for months.  The McCain camp knew Gwen Ifill would be the moderator.  As Jesse says, a simple Google search could have helped anyone unclear on the subject.

I fail to see how anyone can be up in arms about the situation when the McCain camp agreed to it.  If they only vetted things like they apparently vetted Palin?  Well, that too is indicative of their campaign and how they run things.

It’s really too late to start bleating now.  The debate is not going to be cancelled.  Palin got to have the most favorable ‘debate’ rules for her, namely, not debating and just sound-biting.  She’s going to perform on her own, and tough questions are EXPECTED of qualified candidates, especially in a time when there are tough questions to be answered.  We are in the middle of two wars.  The Wall St. pyramid scheme has blown up.  People can’t get to their doctors for decent medical care b/c insurers stand in their ways.  McCain would be the oldest elected President ever, so the readiness of his VP choice is extremely important, especially since I doubt Republicans would repudiate the power grab by Cheney or his insistence on being a 4th part of our tri-part government.

Obama went on O’Reilly for pete’s sake.  There’s no value to that at all, except to take away the “He’s too afraid to go on BOR” meme, b/c O’Reilly’s show is all about spinning reality to fit BOR’s twisted view.

Caren, if they were aware of Ifill’s background they would probably still agree to her moderating because they could then just complain that her bias indelibly marred the debate.

If this sets off the fear and trembling on part of the bedwetters, I’m all for it.

And, please, what’s so hard about referring to it as the DEMOCTRATIC party.

Horace,

The moderators are all journalists. They all interact with the campaigns. They all produce work which may be more or less popular depending on who wins. Obama’s candidacy is an historic event which illuminates where America is and how it has changed. There will be many journalistic and academic works over the next few years on politics and race. Ifill’s book is not a puff piece and is not “pro Obama” if her record to date is any indication.

That said, I like the idea of moderators making a statement about their conflicts of interest. I just don’t know how you would determine when and what to say.

If CBS’ liaison to the McCain campaign can be a debate moderator without any protest, why must Ifill be banished for writing a book about BOTH Republican and Democratic politicians?

Oh, right, because rules only apply to Democrats.  Republicans can do whatever they want.

Michelle “VDare” Malkin sooo wish she was white.

I expect that the repubs didn’t object to Ifill earlier precisely *because* they knew about her upcoming book, and want to use it as an excuse for why Palin looks bad after the debate.  That, and she’s black, so she’s a perfect image of what’s wrong with the media and with America.  I don’t think that the democrats should go protesting her involvement, however… now that her book is a talking point, it would only look like kowtowing to the wingnuts to try and pull her.  Just like Biden, she’ll have to bend over backwards to avoid looking like she’s beating up on Palin, but the alternative would only reinforce the rightwing’s position.

Is Michelle aware of McCain’s racial bias?:

From the SF Chronicle during the 2000 campaign:

“I hate the gooks,” McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. “I will hate them as long as I live.”

What everyone else said.

Not to mention the presence of Bob “W’s Golfing Buddy” Schieffer in any position where he poses as an unbiased observer of political realities.

“Caren, if they were aware of Ifill’s background they would probably still agree to her moderating because they could then just complain that her bias indelibly marred the debate. “

“I expect that the repubs didn’t object to Ifill earlier precisely *because* they knew about her upcoming book, and want to use it as an excuse for why Palin looks bad after the debate.”

True, and it probably won’t matter if Palin gives another crappy performance like she did for Katie Couric.

Caren, if they were aware of Ifill’s background they would probably still agree to her moderating because they could then just complain that her bias indelibly marred the debate.

I think that’s exactly what happened.

And jamie d, they desperately need the MSM to keep being McCain’s base and bending over backward to support him.  Threatening Ifill probably fills that need as well, b/c responsible journalists try to appear objective, and once accused of bias, they push back the other way.  That’s why the “liberal media” tag is so evil: any current objective study shows that journalists are not as liberal as they were in the 70s and that the stories they push are NOT progressive. 

It’s the fear of being tagged “biased” that builds the stupid “he says/she says” meme that imitates true objectivity.  It’s one thing to get a response from both sides.  It’s another to give “dinosaurs and people lived together in harmony just like on the Flintstones” as much merit and weight as “the world is 4.5 billion years old and dinosaurs died out or evolved into birds 100 million years ago”.

The problem is that in order to fake objectivity, the Flintstones hypothesis is given equal time and weight as evolution.  That’s not objectivity.  Letting lies go by unquestioned and without ever following up isn’t objective. 

Screaming that a debate isn’t fair before it happens isn’t objective either.  If we have to use the legal meme, when you’re a JUROR, you are told to put your biases aside and make an objective decision.  Intelligent people are capable of doing that.

The others just fling monkey shit out of the cage.

I expect that the repubs didn’t object to Ifill earlier precisely *because* they knew about her upcoming book,

Normally I would say there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell they didn’t know about the book, but the McCain campaign has done so many things this year to demonstrate that they consider a snowball’s chance in hell to be good odds, I’m reluctant to say it. Still, it seems incredibly convenient this is coming up a day before the debate, and I won’t be the least bit surprised if this is used as an excuse for Palin to skip the debate.

Three old white men are the presidential debate moderators, despite 50% of the debating presidential candidates being black. The only black journalist who gets a shot at moderating is assigned to the vice presidential debate. If Ifill gets the boot, what do you think the odds are that her replacement would be yet another white man? Really, it’s tiresome, this white male hegemony thing.

The moderator’s job is to appear unbiased and fair, just as reporters are supposed to be. If Ifill writes her book on her own time but appears impartial on TV, then what the hell is the problem? Are Malkin et al. impugning Ifill’s professionalism? Ifill would lose all journalistic credibility if she ran the debate in a biased way. Isn’t she going to ask Biden and Palin to answer the same questions? If the questions aren’t pegged to the dumb things Palin has already said ("About this ‘Russia is Alaska’s neighbor’ crap..."), or pandering to Biden’s strengths ("Explain your stance on legislation pertaining to violence against women"), it’s probably going to be a fair debate. Ifill’s a professional with a good reputation.

It’s good for Republicans both ways.  First, it means that Miss Ifill will bend over backwards to appear to be fair, and it still leaves the “tainted moderator’ image intact.

Just one snarky question from Miss Ifill to Mrs Palin, and Governor Palin has won the debate.

If we eliminate everyone who’s ever said anything which could be found to be more positive about one candidate over another (or even just objectively analyzed something one candidate did as an accomplishment), the only people left to moderate political debates are recently awakened coma victims.

Hmm where can we find someone with no real knowledge of the candidates or exposure to the issues or bias based on their sources of information?  where, oh where, can we find someone in that sort of self-induced political/governmental coma?

hey Ape, I think you just addressed your own criticism

Gwen Ifill should not be moderating the debate when she has a book coming out whose sales could credibly be affected by the result of the race.  And however you want to explain it away, it’s ridiculous to think that the election or non-election of Obama to the office of POTUS would have no impact on Ifill’s book sales.

the topic is timely and of broad interest regardless of the final results.  Ifill’s book is just as likely to sell with an Obama win as it is with a defeat.

I agree with Malkin here.  If Hugh Hewitt were running the debate and the ass-clowns at Regnery were going to publish a Hewitt love letter to POW McCain on January 20th, we would raise hell.  I love Gwen Ifill but this is irregular.  Let Greta do the debate.

I’d point out that, even if Ifill wanted to throw the debate to Biden, she couldn’t. It’s enormously unclear what outcome of the debate would lead to increased support either way. Would throwing tough questions at Palin make her look stupid or endearingly embattled? Would lobbing her softballs make her look lightweight or pleasant and capable? How about Biden? Nobody has a clue. If Ifill wants to throw the debate one way or the other, all she can do is have faith in the American people and run as fair a debate as possible, laughable as that sounds.

The smart thing for the Dems to do is to enjoin Ifill to please step aside.

Fuck.  That.  Shit.  They’ll just claim victory either way.  And seriously, you’re arguing with someone named Horace Rump-pole?  Seriously?  I’m calling poe, on the sheer ridiculousness.

<quote>
the topic is timely and of broad interest regardless of the final results.  Ifill’s book is just as likely to sell with an Obama win as it is with a defeat.
</quote>

Um, OK.  Anyone know how to get historical info on book sales?  I’m make you a four-way parlay bet:

1) In 1989, books about George H.W. Bush sold better than books about Michael Dukakis.
2) In 1969, books about Richard Nixon sold better than books about Hubert Humphrey.
3) In 1961, books about John F. Kennedy sold better than books about Richarc Nixon.
4) In 1953, books about Dwight Eisenhower sold better than books about Adlai Stevenson.

Think I’m wrong?

This is bull. Wingnuttia would go batshit if any black person other than Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes or Ward Connerly were moderating.

Let Greta do the debate.

If Greta Van Susteren is their substitute of choice, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is a load of bull. 

They’re supposed to 86 the widely lauded real grownup journalist who works for a publicly owned news organization renowned for its fairness and strong ethics (as well as being catered towards real grownup viewers who are actually interested in real issues and information), and replace her with a partisan hack?

Haha, yeah, right…

Apeman:

will continue to disagree - in the cases you provide the one whose book sold more is definitely considered the more compelling charismatic figure (which, granted, may be why they won their elections). Actually, that’s no compliment to Bush - Dukakis was really considered pretty uninspiring.

Obama, regardless of whether he wins or loses is a charismatic and compelling character.  Part of that reason is why Ifill is writing the book: he is the first person of color to be a real bona fide contender for the Presidency. Her book probably would have sold very well even if Obama didn’t get the nod.  It’s timely and topical even more so than other political type books.  In other words, she’s not doing a biography per se and this isn’t your typical candidate political book.  Really to be on par it would have to be Obama vs Hillary Clinton - then the status of sales could be skewed based on win status.

This is bull. Wingnuttia would go batshit if any black person other than Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes or Ward Connerly were moderating.

ALAN KEYES: “The next question is for Senator Biden: Senator, your hands are soaked in the blood of innocent unborn fetuses.  As a Democrat, you are wholly responsible for this ongoing, unrepentant slaughter which is rivalled only by the Holocaust.  You have repeatedly sponsored legislation that prevents women from receiving proper moral correction and discipline from their husbands.  On Judgment Day, how severely will you be punished?”

If Hugh Hewitt were running the debate and the ass-clowns at Regnery were going to publish a Hewitt love letter to POW McCain on January 20th, we would raise hell.

Well, yeah, because Hugh Hewitt is not a journalist.  He’s a commentator.  It’s not like they hired Bob Herbert or Maureen Dowd—Ifill is a real, bona fide journalist.  I honestly don’t know that liberals would be screaming the same way if they hired Brit Hume to be the moderator since he’s kept at least the facade of being a journalist intact despite his propaganda work for Fox News.

In an imaginary world where journalists are held to the same standards as they had been before Fox News came on the scene, they would be required to report on the facts and stop making shit up.

fixed that sentence.

Ifill’s book, if you believe the blurb, is about the generation of black politicians whose careers were made possible by the Civil Rights movement, but who aren’t ‘of’ the Civil Rights movement. That presumably includes Condi Rice, who, I note in passing, hasn’t yet endorsed a presidential candidate. Obama is the most prominent example, but people like Artur Davis, Cory Booker and Deval Patrick also fit the bill. (Even Harold Ford Jr. counts.) This is a phenomenon that doesn’t depend upon Obama.

In that regard, MalKKKin is making apple pie from the Florida citrus harvest. If McCain were the most prominent of a new generation of politicians indebted but not tied to a previous generation, it would be book-worthy; though I’m sure that Hugh Hewitt’s insta-biog and cultural survey of Palin (working subtitile: How Smart Female Politicians Paved The Way For This Really Dumb One) will appear in time for the election, and thus the December remainder shelves.