How great is it that Gwen Ifill will moderate the VP debate?

[EffieBlack]

Not only will she do a good job, the fact that she's a woman will shut down the "WAHHHH!! The men ganged up on her!" excuses from the Republican neo-feminists if she does poorly.

Serendipity.

[itsrobert]

1. She's a corporate hack.

She's corrupt as they come.

[cosmik debris]

3. She led us by the hand

down the primrose path to war. Now she wants to be respected as an objective journalist.

I say to hell with her.

[1corona4u]

4. Please explain.

Is she a republican?

[malik flavors]

16. You have no idea what you're talking about.

She's an objective journalist. Just because she's said some things you (as a partisan) didn't like doesn't make her a "corrupt."

[LanternWaste]

26. There are times and statements that lead me to believe

There are times and statements that lead me to believe that if a journalist doesn't parrot the opinions and beliefs of DU, then general consensus (on DU) wants to lead us into believing that the particular journalist is a hack, corrupt, in bed with the right, a corporate tool, etc.

I think that, as a whole, we're becoming as mindless and propagandized as the right was in the nineties when their rallying cry was "liberal media! liberal media!"

[malik flavors]

28. Agreed.

[depakid]

44. There are times that lead me to believe

that people think parroting outright lies (as in false statements of fact) or enabling and legitimizing the most ignorant and irrational of statements- and putting them on equal footing with truthful and rational analysis somehow makes a person an "objective journalist."

Or a criical viewer.

Want to know what's happened in America in a nutshell?

or why fundamentalist nutters are even on this stage to begin with?

[LanternWaste]

53. I'm sure there are broadcasters parroting lies.

I'm sure there are broadcasters parroting lies. I also imagine there are many who don't.

However I've never met anyone who has both the depth of insight into their own personal bias, and the breadth of wisdom to allow me anything other than anecdotal evidence and subjective perceptions as to who is or is not an objective journalist.

I have met many people who claim to know... but more often than not, they're simply passing off mere subjective opinion as objective fact.

...or, as grandad used to say, "the more a person tells you how much he knows, the more you can count on that person not knowing"

[depakid]

54. Empirical evidence- via personal obsevations

Watch the woman on PBS- consider what she says, who's on the panel- and how she responds to what's said.

Then think about it.

Do that enough times- and you'll see for yourself everything you need to know about how the debate will be run.

[Lancer]

2. Ifill did it last time, and did pretty well.

I'm so glad she was asked to do it again before anyone knew about Palin.

[ClarkUSA]

5. One of her best friends is Condi Rice, so how tough she'll get on Miss Piggy is questionable

If there isn't a few penetrating questions about Troopergate, we'll know the answer.

[demwing]

19. Condi Rice, to my knowledge, has been quite tight-lipped about Palin

Perhaps she, too, resents the "beauty-queen-gets-lucky" Palin. Regardless of what you think of Rice, she got where she is on her own efforts. No offense, but I doubt if anyone would deride Condi Rice as being eye candy for the Bush Gang.

[EffieBlack]

22. I don't think Troopergate is an appropriate topic for a debate

The debate should be about their stand on issues, not their personal issues or scandals.

The last thing we need is another Stephanopoulos-style tabloid debate about personalities.

[calmblueocean]

24. Anything is on the table re: Sarah Palin, becasuse she's cut herself off from the press

This is the only chance we're going to have to understand exactly who Sarah Palin is. She won't field a press conference, and does no live interviews. Anything is on the table for her.

[Diamonique]

25. I was just going to post something similar. I totally agree with you.

I don't think it's appropriate to question her about troopergate (or him about plagiarism or whatever).

We need to look forward. We need to hear what they think about current issues and how they'd move the country forward.

[BeyondGeography]

29. That's nuts...she's running as a "reformer"

She's going to reform the U.S. government when we can't even get her to honor her commitment to answer questions about an abuse of power investigation in her home state? That's not as relevant as her spoon-fed positions on the "issues"? This is the type of hands-off thinking that always screws the Democrats. Like the Republicans wouldn't be screaming about this from the highest mountain-top and having a political field day with it? Come on.

[ruggerson]

35. I agree that it's appropriate within the context of her positioning herself as a "maverick reformer"

Ifill has every right to broadly question her about running a secretive administration, quite contrary to her message in this campaign.

[BeyondGeography]

30. dupe

[blm]

41. Troopergate ISN'T personal, and it matters greatly to Open government and ACCOUNTABILITY issues

where any corruption of government or abuse of power is scrutinized.

[Doctor_J]

56. Yes, we certainly wouldn't want to discuss McPalin's complete lack of etchics

that wouldn't be fair :puke:

[polmaven]

64. While I agree totally

that having a woman moderating this debate, and one who was chosen before Palin was announced will be a very, very good thing, I have to disagree that Troopergate should be off the table.

Troopergate, in my opinion, is not just a "personal issues or scandals". It illustrates her judgment and a tendency to abuse power. Those are legitimate issues, I think. Ones that have gotten this country in the shape we find it now....with our Constitution in shreds, disrespected throughout the world, and broke.

[BeyondGeography]

6. I'm not impressed with her at all

She comports herself like a deer in the headlights and, given the circles she moves in, it's probably a pretty good idea on her part. I expect her to be much tougher on Joe and our side than on Tinkerbelle. She sold out a long time ago.

[my3boyz]

7. Well, it could be worse. Brokaw could moderate. At least Gwen

can ask her tough questions (not sure that she will but she can) and not be accused of being unfair because she is a woman.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Ifill will do what her masters tell her

Those of us who have watched her for the last couple decades and who have seen her appear on panels dealing with journalists and journalism, will note that she is given a short leash and will rarely stray from she is told to do.

Bizarrely enough, I'd rather see Bahbah Wawa do it than Ifill.

[EffieBlack]

11. I don't agree - I think she's very good

And she's not beholden to any "masters" (an unfortunate choice of words). In fact, she has taken them on, as she did with Tim Russert last year when she lit into him and other white journalists for kissing up to Don Imus.

I like her and I'm very glad she's moderatimg this debate - not just because she's good, but also because her presence will help to tamp down the McCain campaign's main talking point.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. We'll have to agree to disagree

:hi:

I have seen her enough times over the years, and as a black female myself, she has been a disgrace, not unlike how the Rev. Barbara A. Reynolds used to be before having had an epiphany. Perhaps she'll be different this time but I will hold my judgment until after the debate.

[blm]

43. Did Gwen light into Russert and the corpmedia when they helped sell Bush and war and Condi

shoving the virtues of each down our throats?

Ifill went out of her way to present Bush, the Iraq war and Condi Rice as necessary to America's wellbeing. She was awful in the 2004 election, and always covering up for Bush and Condi.

[goclark]

59. Isn't she one of Condi's BFF ?

[LiberalHeart]

9. Not great at all.

[blondeatlast]

10. About 50% great, 30 okay, and 20% ick. The questions she asks will be good; but not broad in scope.

I'm doubtful about her follow-ups too; she tends to keep her feet squarely on the safe side of the line.

However, there could be a lot worse moderators.

[torbird]

13. Right

...as in, "you're right" and "her feet are kept to the right side of the line."

Her follow-ups are nonexistent. She apparently doesn't actually listen to what candidates say, but just reads the prompt and then begins studying her next index card. She's crap.

You all may recall when, in 2004, she asked John Edwards about his life experience and then asked Dick Cheney to "respond" to John Edwards' life experience. The single time Dick Cheney and I have ever felt the same way about anything was when Cheney spit at Ifill: "YOU want ME to respond to HIS life experiences???"

Sarah Palin isn't the only woman with something to prove at the debates. I'm hoping for better, but I fully expect Ifill to phone it it.

[ruggerson]

14. I agree Effie

She's a terrific journalist. Some of the remarks you are getting here indicate people's displeasure with her, because she does not conduct herself like Keith Olbermann. Apparently they want a commentator moderating the debate. But Ifill is a reporter, and as such, she is suited to run a national debate, while commentators are not. Ifill should do a superb job.

[EffieBlack]

15. Exactly!

Thanks!

:hi:

[BumRushDaShow]

17. I would again disagree and am insulted by your insinuation

about why some in this thread disagree with the OP and your assumption that the desire is to have someone with the style of or in your words "conduct... like Keith Olbermann". That's a nonsensical strawman argument. Perhaps consider those of us who have watched her for years on CSPAN panels full of similar journalists bemoaning their outcast states and trying to justify their excesses during whatever the latest media feeding frenzy was at the time, not unlike what is going on today.

[tabasco]

18. Olberman tells the truth and demands the truth.

He is more of a journalist than Ifill will ever become.

[ruggerson]

21. He is a partisan commentator

as is Rachel. I love Rachel Maddow, but she's an opinion monger, not a reporter.

[tabasco]

27. Welcome to the machine.

Decades of corporate propaganda has numbed your mind.

[malik flavors]

31. Your strictly partisan views and mentality have numbed your mind. Welcome to the other machine.

[ruggerson]

34. If the machine is Journalism 101

I plead guilty

[EffieBlack]

23. I adore Keith Olbermann, but he's a journalist only in the broadest sense of the word . . .

He is a commentator, not a reporter. There's a big difference. Reporters gather and report the news. Commentators offer their opinions about the news and those making it. Keith does the latter.

[tabasco]

32. Do you consider Katie Couric a journalist?

Anyone without the moral courage to speak the truth is not a journalist.

Anyone who takes orders to present information "in a certain way" is not a journalist.

Most of the talking heads in the corporate media are not journalists.

They are propagandists and they are very good propagandists, but they are not journalists.

Amy Goodman is a journalist - Gwen Ifill is not.

Keith Olberman is a journalist - Charlie Gibson is not.

You and I have different frames of reference, so we will never agree.

[Orsino]

45. Still puts him a step ahead of most of his peers, who merely read what corporate set before them.

Time will tell whether he has a real commitment to progressivism, but he asks the right questions (often), isn't distracted by platitudes, and isn't afraid to call BS.

I think there are much better moderators out there, but none as famous as Keith.

[sunnybrook]

58. it's funny that you have to explain this

I cannot believe how some on our side are so blinded. I am extremely partisan, love the commentary of KO, and I do think he is a serious journalist... but you cannot have someone like him moderate a debate because perception does matter. Why not just have Rush Limbaugh or O'Reilly moderate the debate?

As far as Ifill, I am mindful of the comments about her, but I absolutely DO AGREE that there are many other choices that would have been far worse, and they are folks that the sheeple PERCEIVE as being fair, like Brokaw for example. With Ifill, I do think the woman factor is relevant, and I think most VIEWERS will perceive her as fair, taking away the crying/whining points for the Palin apologists, the Right Wing who have never given a damn about the rights of women, who are suddenly so enamored with the word "sexism." Could be worse than Ifill....

[MattBaggins]

33. Hmm smear people for not liking her style. How quaint.

Why don't you respond to the posts above giving examples of why folks don't think she is the greatest reporter of all time.

Silly question to Cheney for a response to Edwards life experiences.
Lack lustre follow ups. Doesn't really seem to listen to answers. Focused on getting to the next scripted question.

Oh and since you had to get all snide and insult people suggesting they don't like her for not being like KO; well the opposite is in fact true. I hate Cheney as much as the next Dem; but her disrespectful attitude to Cheney was appalling. I am surprised she was chosen again after that. I thought for sure she would be politely told she would never host another debate again after that fiasco.

[LiberalHeart]

51. Or, gee, maybe people just remember this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x14122

[cosmicsheep]

20. She lost all credibiltiy with me....

....back when she called the Plame/CIA/Rove revelations "just a summer story" meaning that it was simply a little bit of fluff to fill dead airtime in the summer when Congress was out of session and there was no "real" news being made.

She said this on her show "washington week" or whatever it is called, on PBS. I stopped watching it then.

She is so in the tank for the status quo, and the republicans.

[jenmito]

36. I agree. I started a similar thread about this a couple weeks ago...

and was pretty much blasted like you're being blasted, too. She takes the accusation of sexism right off the table. :hi:

[Dervill Crow]

37. Well, it doesn't hurt that she's a woman.

Her being a friend of Condi's might be good, too. I can't imagine she's dazzled by Palin's view of Russia.
:rofl:

Ifill will stick to the script, though. If she's not a Republican she certainly plays one on TV.

[Ichingcarpenter]

38. Amy Goodman would have been better but Gwen is OK

I wouldn't say "great'. The choice of a woman moderator
is a good call because it defuses the sexist bias.

Gwen is a right wing moderate who I've seen on Bill Maher
getting her 'facts' wrong countless times. She's a good choice
for the debate better than a Diane Sawyer. But Great? I give her
a rating of C/C- as a journalist and reporter.

[Cleita]

48. Like dear Amy would have had a chance with these corporate orchestrated

debates. They know she would have peeled the candidates down to their figurative underwear, especially the ones who lie all the time and that would not be good for business. Maybe we can assist Gwen though and mail her the questions we would like to see her ask. If enough citizens do this it will back her into a corner where if she doesn't ask the tough questions it will show her as being complicit with the corporate agenda.

[Doctor_J]

39. This is a disaster. I am sure mcSame signed off on this

Ifill is a right-wing hack, who will spoon-feed Caribou and insult and browbeat Biden. The fix is in on this one.

[Overseas]

40. Sorry but I really didn't like her last time. Softballing Republicans.

Maybe she bends over backward to help Republicans to cover up her being a Democrat, or maybe she is a Republican but a moderate one and therefore thinks that showing a bit of preference is okay.

Or maybe, as a friend of Condi's, she felt she had to be deferential to the man her friend respects so much.

[undeterred]

42. She moderated last time didn't she?

I seem to remember her asking a question about African American women and AIDS and the question being skillfully avoided.

[dailykoff]

46. I'd like to see Clarence Page moderating the veep debate.

I really don't trust Ifill at all.

oops, meant to put this in the Page thread.. :blush:

[gauguin57]

47. Thank Goddess it's a woman moderator, so we won't get charges of sexism from the McSame campaign.

Looking forward to this debate. Will Biden have one hand tied behind his back? ;)

[Doctor_J]

55. Thank God it's a Republican moderator, so we won't get charges of partisanism

from the McSame campaign :eyes:

[Cleita]

49. Here's a link to the transcript for the debate she moderated in 2004

between Dick Cheney and John Edwards. You decide how great she was. Her initial questions were good, but when Cheney unloaded a lot of BS, she didn't ask the obvious follow up questions IMHO

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

[blondeatlast]

62. That's exactly how I remembered it. No depth to her follow-ups whatsoever; she can't expand

on an answer.

I think she's close to neutral in presentation, she just isn't as sharp as I think a moderator should be.

[malik flavors]

50. The fact that half the people here approve and half disapprove, shows Gwen Ifil is quality.

You know you're doing a good job as a reporter when half of the liberals/conservatives hate you and half love you.

Good job, Gwen!

Keep telling us like it is and don't pander to either side. Just the unbiased truth.

[kath]

65. Oh, please - you and others made the same stupid ILLOGICAL argument regarding Tim Russert.

It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now.

[grantcart]

52. How great - we won't know until the debates are over

I suspect that she will rise to the occasion but we can't know until its over.

[bermudat]

57. I don't understand why everyone is so rah-rah for Gwen Ifills.

I remember the 2004 VP debates and I thought she did a horrid job. Asking Cheney about HIV in

women of color? What was the point of that? Yes I understand that a very large segment of

HIV occurs in women of color, but she really think Darth Cheney gave a damn and would do

something about it? I really see her giving the Disasta from Alaska a complete pass.

[gauguin57]

60. Sorry, but I think believing Gwen OR Brokaw are Republicans, just because they ...

... don't exude liberalism every little minute like Keith or Rachel, is, frankly, crazy. I agree with those who say Gwen is an objective journalist, who may not always say what DU-ers want her to say.

I have a lot of respect for both Ifil and Brokaw. I think Ifil should be the Meet the Press host, in fact, after Tom's temporary fill-in is over.

And, frankly, there weren't too many nationally known journalists who DIDN'T lead us down the primrose path to war. Dismissing everyone who didn't do their jobs back then ... well, we'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMHO. Flame away, I really don't care.

[Ganja Ninja]

61. Not so much.

It's better than Ann Coulter or some FOX bot but I'm not really expecting much. PBS has been neutered by the GOP.

[eshfemme]

63. Uh... the fact that Gwen is a woman won't stop the Repubilcans from crying "Sexist!"

because that's what they did to Tina Fey in response to the SNL skit.

You forget that logic and reason won't be guiding the Republican response but the OUTRAGE that drives them all. It's just that a lot of people see that outrage and see it as the sham that it is other than that 20-30% who still love Bush.

[demokatgurrl]

66. Isn't she a republican? n/t

[Matariki]

67. Don't you mean 'Republican faux-feminists'?