First off, the moderator. Ifill is writing a book called “The Age of Obama” that will be released on Inauguaration Day. Estimates are she will make an extra $400K if he wins.  That is a huge and obvious conflict of interest and she should have either declined to moderate or not published the book. The fact that she was barely even criticized for her decision to proceed speaks volumes about accountability and integrity in journalism today.
I think Palin held her own, but should have won easily. She needs better handlers. What struck me most was how unprepared Palin was to attack Dems on their culpability for the subprime crisis, but there were numerous other issues that also should have been attacked and were not, such as Obama’s broken promise to take public financing, his connection to William Ayers, and his long association with Rev. Wright. They call her Saracuda, but they arm her with marshmallows.  She should have annihilated Obama/Biden on the energy issue (even though Ifill, oddly enough, never asked a question on the issue where the GOP position is much more popular) with Obama/Biden opposing not just nuclear and new drilling, but even clean coal (depending on what day of the week it is, and who they’re talking to).
Biden made numerous factual misstatements, some of which demonstrate his ignorance of the job (such as not knowing the VP is always President of the Senate, or claiming that we kicked Hizbollah out of Lebanon) and some which he likely knows aren’t true (McCain did not vote for that tax increase Biden claimed he did), and made several statements that were deliberately misleading (such as arguing McCain was for deregulating FNMA and Freddie Mac, when in fact it was Democrats like Barney Frank who were demanding they be allowed to back the subprime loans that have gotten us in this mess). If Palin had made any of these mistakes we’d all be hearing about them this morning, but of course,the press has said very little about them because they so badly want Obama to win.
It’s also become clear Obama is going to be allowed to parse his way out of any uncomfortable position unchallenged. As in the POTUS debate, Obama’s promise to meet unconditionally at the Presidential level with various hostile and repressive dictators like Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad was spun down to the notion there would be low-level diplomatic contacts that might lead to such meetings.Â
Sadly, there is as little accountability for Obama/Biden as there is for Ifill, and their essential untrustworthiness is going totally unremarked. With the press derelict in their duty, they will likely succeed in fooling Americans into believing taxes will only be raised on those making $250,000 or more, and when taxes are actually raised on everyone making $50,000 or more (i.e., pretty much everyone who pays taxes), you can bet that promise will be as forgotten as President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” non-statement was remembered.
UPDATE: Ace has more gafftasticness. And how the hell did Palin not mention Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines?
UPDATE: BTW, I conceded this election to Obama and the press months ago. At this point, I’m resigned to higher taxes, a new Fairness Doctrine, government-run health care, and war crimes trials for Bush, Cheney, and anyone admitting to being a “neocon.” I just hope new EPA chief Al Gore doesn’t make driving my Corvette illegal.

{ 16 comments }
I thought the same thing about calling the Dems out on the subprime debacle…but I wouldn’t doubt that video of prominent Dems ridiculing regulators a few years back and the like would play VERY well around the 2nd to 3rd week of October. Â Why waste it now and give Barry and Biden time to backfill and obfuscate?
I’m still stuck on Obama’s monster revelation that he thinks America was more inviting to young black africans in the late 1950s than today. I have to say, if he can say that and get a pass on it, he could say "look flying purple dragons coming out of my butt!" And the press would just say "Oh, they’re so cute, can I have one?"
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
Er, it’s not called "The Age of Obama," as the article you linked clearly indicates. It’s called "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." It is a history of black politics from the Civil Rights era of the 1950s until today, including prominent profiles of numerous major political figures, including the older generation (the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons) as well as the Harold Fords and the Obamas. It also makes a point that should be uncontroversial, which is that the Obama phenomenon, for good or ill, marks a very new era in black politics–one that the older generation of black politicians like Jesse Jackson isn’t entirely happy with either, because Obama is both the fulfillment of a lot of their dreams for their community, but also a repudiation of many of those dreams.
Rumor having it that she’s black, she may have something interesting to say about all of this, since for good or ill black people ARE a very identifiable subculture in America (in fact, they are a QUINTESSENTIALLY American subculture, a fact that some people black and white miss).
As she and her publisher and those who’ve worked with her have all made clear (in statements that can easily be found if anyone on the right would care to look), it is a strictly journalistic endeavor that strives to look at all of these politicians warts and all–including the undeniable reality that the Obama nomination, whether he wins or not, is a watershed moment in American politics and especially black politics.
Like it or not, a lot of old guard black politicians will resent a President Obama if he wins, and will say (as some black people continue to say) that he is "not black enough" or "does not appreciate" where he came from… and if he loses, for good or ill, there will be those especially in the black community who will say "we know that in their hearts most Americans still don’t accept us." Fair or not (and I think it would mostly be unfair), that’s reality, and as a quite accomplished professional journalist–as proven in spades by her stellar performance at the Vice Presidential debate, where she mowed down her most irrational critics –she had absolutely no reason to step down from the debate.
There has never been anything but innuendo about Ifill and this book, and it’s time, in my view, for the right to come clean and stop practicing the negative personal attacks that they spend so much time whinging about when it’s leveled at them.
I can’t wait to read Ifill’s book, which probably won’t be published until inauguration day in part because she’s going to have to write an epilogue about the results of the election and it will need time to get to print.
If this turns out to be a worship-piece on Obama, I’ll eat every freaking word of this. Quote me.
Oh, and by the way: if it’s such a partisan book, why wouldn’t she stand to raise MORE money if Obama lost, so she could channel all that good ol’ fashioned racial grievance?
Face it guys: all you’re saying is she wrote a book with Obama in it, and therefore is unqualified to moderate a debate that involves him in some fashion.
A debate where the McCain camp indicated that they were perfectly comfortable with her, I might add.
Yeesh.
I haven’t made any issue of the Gwen Ifill book thing. It smacks of conflict of interest sure, but did anyone actually think Gwen Ifill wasn’t in the tank for Obama already? All you have to do is view video of her swooning coverage of the DNC compared to her sneering, eye-rolling coverage of the RNC to know that.
Which makes her exactly the same as 90% of the media today.
So this just goes in the overall media bias thing imho. There’s nothing special about this, and quite frankly I thought she did a fine job as moderator considering her obvious bias. Yes I think she favored Biden a bit, but compared to Charlie Gibson she was downright fair.
So she’s in the tank for Obama. Forgive me if the news that a prominent journalist working for PBS is a liberal Democrat doesn’t surprise me.
Gwen Ifill isn’t the problem. She’s just one small specific example of the problem. One that is so small that the fact that her obvious conflict of interest ISN’T surprising shows how big the real problem actually is.
Face it guys, at least she wasn’t shoving forged memos in Palin’s face. Give her some credit.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
I probably didn’t make my point clearly enough the first time, I got sidetracked into the whole media bias thing again.
Here’s the deal on Gwen Ifill.
Anyone who thinks that her selling more books in January could POSSIBLY make her any more enthusiastic about Barack Obama, or make her want him to win anymore than she already does is fooling themselves. Yes there is a conflict of interest here TECHNICALLY, but since every interest Ifill has is ALREADY totally invested in an Obama victory, the conflict of interest is really only on paper. She has no "conflicting" desire for fairness or even-handedness. It’s ALL Obama, all the time.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Palin says Obama ?palling around? with terrorists
okay, cosmic, i think you have an obligation here to either put up or shut up. Â either give me some proof of Ifill’s supposed bias, or else stop making accusations fueled by nothing other than your own divined knowledge of Ifill’s motivations.
Dean,
I already told Dave et al about the book, here, yesterday.
Apparently they all went hiding under the bushes.
So exactly how does one rationalize a "huge and obvious conflict of interest" and by the way, "I concede the election to Obama" ?
As an Obama supporter I thought Ifill should not have moderated due to the clear conflict of interest.
Having said that, her moderating could in no way be called bias. As a matter of fact, I thought she did a poor job moderating, but she was not biased.
redux:
As an Obama supporter, zach will not demand proof from you.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Palin says Obama ?palling around? with terrorists
zach:
"Ifill’s supposed bias"
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Palin says Obama ?palling around? with terrorists
Dean,
I’m sorry, but you’re really missing the point here.
It wouldn’t matter if Ifill’s book were critical of Obama, or even an attack piece. The problem is, whatever her opinion, with Obama’s name in the title and the book being released on Inauguration Day (!) she has an inarguable financial interest in who wins this election.
We have lobbyists going to jail over the fact they gave money to influence legislation — often a lot less than $400,000. The fact that Ifill sees no problem with ignoring a blatant conflict of interest regarding a Presidential election should frighten you. These people are supposed to be the watchdogs, but more and more they are foxes asked to guard the henhouse.
It doesn’t matter if she’s black, white, green or purple, this was horrible judgement and if she didn’t step down on her own she should have been removed.
Cosmic,I know, hilarious, right? Â Your mind-reading powers are truly without parallel. Â Still waiting on something of substance, btw.
zach:
As I said, if her sycophantic, breathless coverage of the DNC vs her eye-rolling, sneering coverage of the RNC doesn’t do it for you, pretty much nothing but a signed confession will.
Go ahead and keep living in your world. I like mine better.
Oh, just maybe putting “the Age of Obama” in the title of her FREAKING BOOK might, just MIGHT be a clue about her opinons.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Movie Review: ?An American Carol?
Cosmic,
a link or two might be helpful in assisting others in coming to their conclusions. i watched a few youtubes of her coverage of the RNC debate and I think, again, you’re telepathically reaching inside Ifill’s mind and pulling out her thoughts and motivations. Whatever her expression conveyed to you, her words were clear, factual, and professional.
as to her book, leaving Obama’s name out of the title would be idiotic, regardless of her opinions.Â
the issue is not even about whether she leans democrat or republican. if you think it’s even possible to have a moderator who is somehow magically non-ideological then maybe your world really is better than mine, being populated by unicorns and magic fairies.
the question is whether either her book deal or her politics somehow presented such a manifest conflict of interest that she would be unable to be fair in the debate. Maybe I just can’t execute a google search, but I haven’t been able to reproduce Dave’s 400k figure.Â
In any case, it’s a bit of a closed question at this point since I think most people, the 4 prez and VP candidates included (who are probably best equipped to judge), agree she was a fair moderator given the confines of the debate rules.Â
it begins. I think we are going to need a Move On equivalent for the right. Obama’s win in november wont possibly because more americans simply voted for him, or because mccain made a series of horrendous campaign decisions. it must be because of Gwen Ifill! Her power is awesome. truly a woman at the apex of political power.
Comments on this entry are closed.