In preparing for a debate, you are often preparing nearly as much for the "judge" or moderator as for the opponent. Both campaigns probably have a pretty good idea of what types of questions she is likely to ask, how he is likely to ask them. Palin and Biden have undoubtedly watched videotapes of Ifill moderating the 2004 debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney.I highly doubt that the McCain folks actually want Ifill to withdraw. They just want another stick to beat the "media bias" drum. Call their bluff. I love Gwen Ifill, and I frankly don't think that they're going to get anyone fairer. But they should call them on this. Let nothing stand in the way of Sarah being Sarah.
By changing the moderator, you're throwing everyone a curveball, and catering to the candidate who is better able to adapt on the fly. Which, most likely, is not going to be Sarah Palin.
« For the Clinton fans here | Main | Andrew on black homophobia » Nate on Gwen Ifill01 Oct 2008 03:17 pm
I agree with Nate, the Obama campaign should call the McCain people on this:
Comments (29)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Meanwhile, McCain's nearly as articulate as his running mate:
"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional," McCain said.
"Does this help that if she has written a book that's favorable to Sen. Obama?" McCain asked. "Probably not."
Huh? Does this help what? The totally objective job that I've just said she will do? In other words, yeah, the Repubs don't want Ifill replaced, they want an excuse for whatever Palin does. Which is why, unless they're inept beyond measure, they waited until a day before the debate to raise a stink over something that's been public knowledge for months.
You say: "I highly doubt that the McCain folks actually want Ifill to withdraw. They just want another stick to beat the 'media bias' drum."
The Republicans are in chain-reaction disarray right now, but I think Palin's handlers are focused much more narrowly. This is a warning to Ifill not to embarrass Palin, to make sure that Palin is asked no question that is beyond her incredibly limited range. It is a warning to pull back when Palin shows signs of incomprehension. It is a warning that Ifill needs to level the playing field by making sure that Biden looks no better than Palin.
clearly the republicans are trying to pressure ifill. how she responds is the question. she can rise to the challenge and occasion. the republican scuzz machine is pressing the pedal to the metal. they are going down and in a state of panic. now, they will do anything and everything, no matter how skeezy, scurrilous, and a steady stream of lies, lies, and more lies. even the appearance of truth or reason or logic will be gone. the republicans are firmly rooted to '1984' and won't move, until they implode.
Couldn't disagree more. McCain campaign has become the boy who cried wolf. Ifill is a highly respected journalist. She will ask fair questions, if the Palin can't deal with it....too bad. People are already tuning out the whining from the McCain camp, so let them whine some more. They've already changed the debate rules, no more concessions.
gwen will be just fine. just like mccain's buddy tom brokaw will be fine on the 7th. they are both professionals.
this tempest in a teapot is laying the groundwork for the right to question & undermine the expected media pounce when palin fails to rise to the occasion tomorrow.
that said, voters will just have to trust their own eyes & ears on this one. palin is not capable of pulling this off no matter what shenanigans the right throws our way.
tommy b: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/arts/television/30brok.html?scp=2&sq=tom%20brokaw&st=cse
Calling on Ifill to withdraw would be a huge mistake.
The McCain campaign's crying of media bias has been so over the top, that at this point, it's like crying wolf. They do have a case that Ifill appears to be a less than neutral moderator, but having made the claim so strongly for so many weeks, they simply lack credibility.
If the Obama campaign were to call on Ifill to be replaced, not only would Americans lose someone who would be an excellent moderator, but they would appear to acknowledging and justifying all the past hyperventilating about media bias by the McCain campaign.
The mistake here is in treating the McCain campaign as if its media bias charge was ever based on reality, which it wasn't.
Gwen Ifill does not exist to further the Obama campaign or the McCain campaign. She's there to moderate a debate that will hopefully, through her choice of questions, inform the viewers.
No moderator could get up to speed on both candidates and ask substantive questions on their records and their nominee's records in less than a day. It would be malicious and wrong to deny Ms. Ifill her place and a disservice to Americans.
If everyone knows the spin; then call the McCain camp out. Don't screw up the entire process. And if Palin is as big a nightmare as I suspect; the McCain camp won't even show their face in the spin room. Forget talking Ifill down.
I can't believe this is getting any play.
This is enormously confusing. GWEN IFILL?
These guys agreed to the debates a long time ago. The only thing that has changed since then and now is who they chose as their VP nominee. Everything must be viewed through that lens.
I mean, Gwen Ifill?! I didn't know that was the name that got conservative blood boiling. Right up there with Michael Moore, eh?
I'm wondering if any of these people who are so concerned over Ifill will actually go on the record -before the debate- and tell us all exactly what constitutes the "Unfair" or "Biased" treatment they fear Ifill will bring to the debate.
I get a feeling the answer is "Any question Palin will have a difficult time answering or that makes her seem unqualified".
Plus the name of the book is "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." To me that does not denote a pro- or anti-Obama stance. Rahter, she is taking a look at an historical moment that remains valid whether or not Obama wins.
Oh, and he will!
I'm with TNC on this one. Call their bluff. They don't mean it. It pisses them off when their bluffs are called, which just alienates them from voters even more.
can you tell i'm pissed?
anyhoo, if gwen were to withdraw, we could end up with yet another white male moderator... however marginal, this does not work to biden's advantage.
that said, i agree that calling their bluff will expose them for the hypocrites they are, and palin will not be able to roll with that sort of unexpected change...
darn tho, i was so looking forward to gwen... i love my nigerian sista!
There's a fine line between calling their bluff and buying into their frame. Throwing Gwen under the bus looks a lot more like the latter to me.
Plus, Gwen Iffil? Really? If she's biased, then we really don't have any responsible journalist/anchors left. I suppose she's biased against Palin in the sense that Palin is a moron and Gwen will ask real questions ... but that isn't exactly bias.
Also, can I just propose for Meet the Press: Up with Gwen! Down with Tom!
I'm with soccty: If Ifill signed on this book last night, dithering today might be mildly acceptable. She did not, ergo it's more unattractive panicking. (Can anyone imagine, if her book were on the changing roles of women in politics, Biden's people getting all upset about how could poor Biden, a guy, expect a fair hearing in such extreme circumstances?)
But I don't want Ifill to withdraw--she deserves this. (If she decides to call their bluff, I nominate Katie Couric or Campbell Brown--I really want it to be a woman, to offset the "Charlie looked at her through his glasses in a dismissive way, so of course she lost" spin.) I think they're just trying to lower expectations below the subbasement, with an outside chance that someone will let Hannity in instead.
I wonder if Olbermann has any book deals just now?
The bar has been set so low for Palin that she's likely to trip over it. The key will be follow up questions from the moderator, as I expect Biden won't be on the attack very much lest he pull a Lazio.
On an unrelated note, much thanks TNC for hypin TV on the Radio's latest effort. Picked that album up a few days ago and I'm majorly hooked.
Cryin, Shout Me out, Family Tree, Lover's Day, Love Dog...all stand out tracks...
After reading this post, I agree with the idea in concept, but dont't think it would work for Obama necessarily. The publically unacknowledged,yet widely discussed theme of Obama's campaign is to remain above the fray, to not acknowledging what essentially amounts to media talking points, which is what this controversy ultimately us. The decision to do this has been disputed in the past (Huffington immediately comes to mind), but at this point how can anyone argue for Obama to not keep doing what he does? For a lesser politician, it'd be the path to take, but it just doesnt jibe with Barack.
I can not believe all this "call their bluff" talk. How about Gwen here? What the hell did she do but be black and smart and sign a book deal she's talked about in the WashPo a month ago? She had this contract when she was chosen. Given her questions in 2004 I don't see ANY bias on either side; so why is she being punished.
This is not about Obama. It's not about McCain. It's a process and Gwen's a journalist. She's earned this momment and I resent this "greater good" theory of taking it away from her.
I resent it a lot.
Don't forget, "She's BLACK!!!!"
Its not like her book has been a secret. It has been a part of record for months now, long before Palin became the Republican nominee. I am glad Mccain made the stand up call he did today in speaking of Ifill as the professional she is. Anything to work the refs to protect the Gov from anything more threatening than a marshmallow.
Deleted. Oh man the trolls are out in force today.
i agree wholeheartedly.
call their bluff.
make the moderater a non-issue.
and you are so, so right about them NOT wanting ifill to actually withdraw.
they want her right there.
they just want her to take it easy on palin.
and if palin screws up, they want to be able to make ifill the issue, not palin.
sorry gwen, you will have another day.
this also points out exactly why black folks do not vote republican. is there no limit to how far they will go to exploit racism?
I was talking to my mom this morning, and asked her how she thought Thursday's debate would go: Well you know with that Gwen Ifill, who knows?
She's been a lever-puller for the Republican party in every election since the 50s. She watches FOX news exclusively. This pre-debate chatter about Gwen Ifill gives her something to hang her hat on. That's what it's intended for.
Enough said.
If there is one thing Obama is good at (not that I think there is only one) it's calling people's bluff (see "the last debate") for that one. I think he's probably got this covered.
Jeame, I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, then I'm sorry your life is so unfulfilling and hateful.
You are right that McCain doesn't want Ifill to withdraw, and I think it is irrelevant "when the book deal was signed" as some are saying.
The McCain campaign is baiting the 'liberal media' and preparing the ground for a major attack post-debate on the media, which will surely be left no choice but to report the obvious after the debate -- that Palin isn't qualified.
I thought of this when I saw what the blogs have been reporting -- McCain's comments to NPR and to the DeMoines Register, both considered pillars of the 'liberal media.'
I saw Mike Murphy ask why McCain would meet with an Iowa newspaper, and I think the answer is for the same reason they attack Ifill and go on NPR the day before Palin's debate appearance -- put McCain/Palin in the position of appearing to be victimized by the media. If they get 'unfair' questions from NPR, it 'proves' how the deck is stack just the way Ifill's book does.
This is funny, because I consider Ifill almost absurdly tepid. That PBS show of hers is stocked with the most boring group of "on the one hand, on the other hand" reporters it would be possible to stuff on a single panel.
The one thing she did that boosted my respect for her was finally calling out the white male journamilists who hung out with Imus - none of whom made a peep after he called Gwen "the cleaning lady." That was at least as racist and hurtful as the thing that lost him his show. Maybe more so, because Imus probably did think he was just joking around and could get away with that lowlife crap in a sports context. Singling out a black female journalist as "the cleaning lady" is incredible - and Gwen's peers who hang out with Imus let him do it.
Rhoda is right. This book deal is old news. Ifill was talking about it in the spring, many people in the tri-state area were aware because she was interviewing mayors of Newark, Philly.
I can't imagine that McCain's team didn't vet the moderators...oh, never mind.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20080508_Journalism_pioneer_talks_about_politics__race__herself.html
But what about Ifill's expectations? Odds are good that, when she comes across as fair, it will make them look worse. I haven't seen a huge public backlash against Charles Gibson or Katie Couric.
It would be a very foolish mistake by the Obama campaign to suggest the withdrawal of Gwen Ifill. The correct response would be to suggest that the McCain camp is clearly not comfortable with qualified women in positions of responsibility. Emphasis on QUALIFIED. It's pretty clear that McCain and Co desperately want to get a male journalist for the moderator, since that way Palin's incipient self-annihilation can be tagged as sexism. Don't fall for the okey-doke, Senator Obama - stand up for women and defend Gwen Ifill as a woman and as a professional.
I was looking at Drudge and came across an article near the top on Ifill (http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/theobamasportraitofanamericanfamily). I wish I wouldn't have looked. I probably came across a little self-righteous when I commented (around page 20), but I can't believe some of the things people say.