Conflict of interest

[oldhardhead]

Originally Posted by Arius

Why is it ethically wrong for someone who writes a book on a subject to moderate yet not for someone who makes a living reporting on a subject to do so?

If Obama loses he will probably disappear into the sunset just like Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis, Perot, etc. never to be heard from again. If nObama wins, he will be in the spotlight for at least 4 years (unless he is impeached and then voted out of office by the Senate). The book is scheduled to be released on inauguration day. The book sales will pay royalties. More books=more money.

The debate could influence the outcome of the election.

You don't think it is it ethically wrong for her to moderate the debate?

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

Because the book has a public point of view.
A reporter is not supposed to have a public point of view.

So you are assuming. To me, it has an historical point of view that shows the "equalification" (my term) of America and the many different ingredients of its melting pot. Of course, as we are beginning to see, the only things that may melt in this unique experiment is the pot!

Couldn't a liberal see Lehrer moderating the first debate as an attempt to draw viewers to his conservative-owned news program?

I don't see it necessarily as supporting Obama, just explaining the importance of his candidacy in that "equalification" process. I don't think it gives him one vote that he would not have gotten otherwise, and I believe the stink you guys are making over it does more to sell the book then the debate would ever have. It kind of shows an ugly and angry side to conservatism that just whines over every little detail.

Gwen Ifill has never done anything to show that she is a partisan toward any topic, and an historical book on racial equality in this nation does nothing to change that. Besides, you fail to see that Obama won't even be in the building.

What I find overlooked in this non-issue, is the final negotiations of the debate format, which entailed this:

Originally Posted by http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080922/NEWS02/709229940

In the negotiations, Republicans wanted to limit the amount of time available for their candidate, Palin, to be questioned on a single topic.

Democrats, meanwhile, wanted to be sure Biden and Palin spoke from lecterns rather than sitting at a table the way Vice President Dick Cheney and his rivals in 2000 (Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut) and 2004 (Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina) did. Cheney had the upper hand in both debates, said several Democrats involved in the debate process, in part because the setting made it difficult if not impossible for Lieberman and Edwards to go after Cheney aggressively.

Why on earth would they want to do that??

[Arius]

Originally Posted by oldhardhead

If Obama loses he will probably disappear into the sunset just like Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis, Perot, etc. never to be heard from again. If nObama wins, he will be in the spotlight for at least 4 years (unless he is impeached and then voted out of office by the Senate). The book is scheduled to be released on inauguration day. The book sales will pay royalties. More books=more money.

The debate could influence the outcome of the election.

You don't think it is it ethically wrong for her to moderate the debate?

First, I don't think Obama disappears into the sunset. I see news article and tv report on the racial divide in this nation, and whether race played a part in his defeat, and when there will be another black candidate again. I see more opportunity in this market for this book in an Obama defeat than I do in his victory. In an Obama victory, the book itself becomes almost a moot point.

Sceond, I don't see it ethically or morally wrong for her to moderate the debate. Her book includes Obama as he pertains to racial equality, not about his greatness, or his issues, or his record, or his policy. It doesn't set the table for him to be known as the greatest, in fact it could do the opposite since it includes him in the same sentence as Jesse Jackson. This may get liberals all hot and happy, but it does nothing to entice the independent base that will win this election for either side.

And simply, conservative crying about Ifill just turns us independents off. Only those who know little about her would complain, so it seems like a setup to have someone blamed for Palin's anticipated poor showing.

In this, I certainly wish she would recuse herself so that there are NO excuses save the candidates on Thursday night.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by oldhardhead

If Obama loses he will probably disappear into the sunset just like Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis, Perot, etc. never to be heard from again. If nObama wins, he will be in the spotlight for at least 4 years (unless he is impeached and then voted out of office by the Senate). The book is scheduled to be released on inauguration day. The book sales will pay royalties. More books=more money.

The debate could influence the outcome of the election.

You don't think it is it ethically wrong for her to moderate the debate?

First, I don't think Obama disappears into the sunset. I see news article and tv report on the racial divide in this nation, and whether race played a part in his defeat, and when there will be another black candidate again. I see more opportunity in this market for this book in an Obama defeat than I do in his victory. In an Obama victory, the book itself becomes almost a moot point.

Second, I don't see it ethically or morally wrong for her to moderate the debate. Her book includes Obama as he pertains to racial equality, not about his greatness, or his issues, or his record, or his policy. It doesn't set the table for him to be known as the greatest, in fact it could do the opposite since it includes him in the same sentence as Jesse Jackson. This may get liberals all hot and happy, but it does nothing to entice the independent base that will win this election for either side.

And simply, conservative crying about Ifill just turns us independents off. Only those who know little about her would complain, so it seems like a setup to have someone blamed for Palin's anticipated poor showing.

In this, I certainly wish she would recuse herself so that there are NO excuses save the candidates on Thursday night.

[Pineygirl]

Thank goodness she didn't write a book about McCain or Palin!

[Arius]

But again, her book is not about Obama...

Had it been a book about an older generation of war heroes that included McCain, or about beauty pageant contestants that didn't quite make the cut that included Palin, I would have the same opinion.

[oldhardhead]

But again, her book is not about Obama...

One thing it's about:
"the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power."

Oh. I see. The book is all about Bush. McCain? Chicken little? The tooth fairy?

Originally Posted by Arius

And simply, conservative crying about Ifill just turns us independents off. Only those who know little about her would complain, so it seems like a setup to have someone blamed for Palin's anticipated poor showing.

Now... today you are an "independent"??? Since when? You are still defending Obama, even in the same post!

Conflict of interest. Arius, you keep avoiding the topic. Conflict of interest.

[Arius]

OHH, listen. There are times when I think you a genius and then times that I believe you to be just plain ole' stupid.

First, being AGAINST a Republican does not automatically make you a democrat. I don't "defend" Obama, but I do point out inconsistencies in characterizations of him. I do the same for McCain when they are made, particularly if everyone who is part of the discussion is liberal thinking that Obama is Christ on water and McCain is Satan on earth. I have no real horse in that fight, but think it an insult to intelligence when partisans spout off untruths while defending or offending.

I have always been and always will be an INDEPENDENT voter, man and thinker. Consider me as you will, but your judgments do not pass onto me at all.

Second, just because the book is not about McCain (a white man) or Palin (a white female), doesn't mean it is about Obama (a half-black male). The book is about race...so Obama's black side is relevant to the discussion being as he is the first black person to be nominated for the Presidency by a major political party. You could not expect someone who wrote a book about the civil rights movement and how it has effected modern day America to overlook that fact, can you?

McCain has already stated that he trusts Ifill's professionalism and that this doesn't matter to him or his campaign. So if he has no issue with it, why should you??

[oldhardhead]

Gee, Arius, you keep saying the book is not about Obama. Do you think the book has anything at all to do with Obama?

The book is titled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."

"it's taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it" - Gwen Ifill.

And if there isn’t an “Age of Obama”, then doesn’t Ifill’s book title look rather … lame?

With a financial stake in the election’s outcome, Ifill shouldn’t even be conducting interviews of the candidates, let alone moderating a debate.

Scandal: Gwen Ifill, Biden-Palin Debate Moderator Will Profit From Obama Win - Original News: The Post Chronicle

She talked to Obama to get material for the book. So... you gonna tell me he didn't know about it? Has she talked to Biden or anyone in their campaign?

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Ifill: I never told the Commission about the book

SCANDAL!

[Pineygirl]

She also needs Obama to win so she can make money from her book.
She needs to recuse herself.