A lot's being made today of the fact that Gwen Ifill, the moderator of Thursday night's vice presidential debate, has a new book coming out on Inauguration Day titled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. The story's drawn hundreds of comments on the Drudge Retort.
Ifill has made no secret of the book, which has been mentioned for months in media reports. On Aug. 21, she wrote an essay for Time magazine that describes her motivation for writing it:
... Obama is just one member of a generation of political leaders faced with a new task: honoring the contributions of their forebears without alienating the broader, multiracial audiences they need to win. I've spent part of the past year tracking dozens of these rising stars and have concluded that anyone who thinks Obama is unique is not paying attention.
The essay identifies her as a TV host and the "author of the forthcoming The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."
Although Michelle Malkin uses the existence of the book to claim that Ifill's "in the tank" for Barack Obama, the book's premise doesn't require him to win in November. As the daughter of a minister who marched in civil rights demonstrations, Ifill's writing about a generation of leaders and using Obama, the most high profile of those black politicians, as the embodiment of a larger trend.
Ifill's a well-respected PBS journalist who moderated the debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards four years ago. Though I expect she'll do a fair job in her role as moderator on Thursday, the book raises undeniable questions about her objectivity because of the timing of its release. Ifill will sell considerably more copies if Obama wins the election, particularly when it hits stores on the same day he takes the oath of office. For this reason, she has a commercial stake in his success that makes it harder to trust her judgment in the debate.
The McCain campaign is complaining that it didn't know about Ifill's book, according to Greta van Susteren. That's hard to believe, given the fact that it was mentioned in an AP story on July 23, two weeks before Ifill was chosen as moderator.
But then again, figuring out what the McCain campaign doesn't know has been difficult since the selection of Sarah Palin.
-- Rogers Cadenhead
Ifill's no McCain fan, whether or not she's "in the tank" for the subject of her book. I think she's biased enough to make her a bad choice for the debate, but then again I think most journalists are, so I'm not sure how you'd get away from this kind of thing. Democrats wouldn't even debate each other on Fox News, so you'd think there would be a little more sensitivity to this issue on their part.
Wrong again, Mikey - Obama subjected himself to an hourlong grilling from O'reilly on Fox News last month.
Nice try, brave anonymous commenter. I'm referring to the Democratic primaries, not Obama's attempt to divert attention from McCain's acceptance speech. That's why I wrote "debate" and "each other," so even you could understand.
Obama would do a one-on-one with O'Reilly but you think he wouldn't do a debate moderated by O'Reilly where only half the biased questions would be aimed at him? That's super logical, buddy.
By the way, I'm not anonymous - I'm Anon. "Anon" is a word. Don't worry though - there's no way you could have known that because it's a word that smart people use.
I don't think it, it happened. Your ignorance is beyond tiresome. Bye now.
Show me the article where Obama says he refuses to do a debate with John McCain on Fox News, and I'll wire $1000 to your PayPal account.
"Ignorance" - that's a big word for you, Mikey! Obviously, someone's been using the flashcards I sent...
Please don't fight like this. John McCain said bipartisanship was crucially important at this point in time, and I couldn't agree more with that dishonest Republican asshole.
Rogers rants liberally, "... I couldn't agree more with that dishonest Republican asshole."
I think McCain is dishonest for not identifying who the "Emergency Finance Bill" (more like, "Stand, and deliver!") the earmarks are for, and who it is that is a US Congressperson that needs to be bribed into voting "Communism USA".
He swore that as president, he would so identify the governmental thieves stealing from all of us for elitist bikepaths and tax breaks for business who has bike racks! Instead, I hear a thundering silence from McCain as he works bipartisanly to make a victory for welfare.
Welfare for bankers and mortgage brokers, and to save their bribers; although most of those are DEMOCRATS!
Yes, indeed, with Obama bribed as any possible "progressive" presidental candidate to the highest figure. Dodd right behind, and Franks quietly in the "running" for graft and corruption which got us here, in the first place.
Democrats in-charge and Republicans trying to regulate ...
"No! We need housing for the poor and these pseudo-communist/governmental organizations are SOUND! Ignore the whining Republicans!
And ... you think McCain is "dishonest"? How about the Democrat criminals, Rogers, are they "okay" and should remain in power ... just so no (shudder) Republican should try and actually regulate them ...
Democrat hypocrites are literally making this nation sick to its guts ... and the yellow-dogs keep on yapping and lapping the regurgitated propaganda of the Left ...
It was a joke, son.
I enjoyed it.
Foghorn Leghorn says, "It was a joke, son."
Your imitation of a cartoon chicken is much better than any pretense at journalistic skill you might think you own.
However you put it, though, it is still an attempt to patronize my response without actually having to expend any mental capital, whatsoever. I'm sure you consider that being intellectually responsive - you seem to live in that sort of dreamworld.
Indeed, I actually enjoy the effort to escape any sort of intellectual debate about the subjects you raise, and moderate in favor of socialists and communists; while removing rants against liberals of the same "asshole" quality. However, no one is fooled, Rogers, except a few of your ilk or otherwise obsessed with one of us and, or both ... you actually mean to call McCain an "asshole" and no joke about it ... son ...
Tommy's back, and once again he's crying about the moderation policy.
How many Kleenex do you go through a day, hon?
Is it the summer? Because you've already gone into reruns.
Anon: Tommy's back, and once again he's crying about the moderation policy.
It seems to me that tadowe is using the policy to criticise Rogers for having a double standard. Is that what you mean? Criticism is equal to crying?
If so, then you seem to whine and moan a large quota, yourself! In fact, that is all you seem to do - make personal attacks off-subject and against the moderation rules!
Some Anon says, "It seems to me that tadowe is using the policy to criticise Rogers ..."
I'm actually enjoying Rogers' new moderation policy - not crying about it!
Nothing can demonstrate to the objective blogger the idiocy inherent in such obvious promotion of partisan double-standards. It shows the intransigence of such zealous partisanship and the tendency to goosestepping, arm raising force that characterized the Yellow-dog-Democrats of the South who fought integration and Carpetbagging Republicans, by putting on sheets, conical hats, and bringing their 'hemp rope' arguments to the 'party' ...
I want the spam posts, off subject and always personal attacks generated by Leftists and outright communists to continue and remain as the representative response(s) to rebuttal and contradictions of their collectivist propaganda.
It shows the public what party-over-nation ideology does to otherwise intelligent people - turns them into tacit traitors for votes - liars for votes.
Please all you "Anons", keep up the fine demostration of radical adherence to the ends-justify-the-means philosophy of life your ilk shares with millions of dead Nazis and live communists ...
Add a Comment