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. 

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. 

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. 

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?

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.

"Ifill’s supposed bias"

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Palin says Obama ?palling around? with terrorists

As an Obama supporter, zach will not demand proof from you.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Palin says Obama ?palling around? with terrorists

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.

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" ?