Ifill Reactions

If you've been reading this blog, you know that the moderator of tonight's debate is Gwen Ifill, a partisan Democrat who has a book (called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama") celebrating Obama's presumed Presidential victory that will be released on January 20th (Inauguration Day). It could not be more obvious that she has a personal financial stake in Obama's success, and therefore Palin's failure tonight.

Nevertheless, she will be moderating the debate tonight.

Here is some reaction...

Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt's blog

When accused of an ethical failure, anyone's first reaction is to take umbrage.

A true professional's first reaction, however, should be to shut his or her mouth for a while and ponder whether one's judgment has already been compromised — before going into self-defense mode or, worse, counterattack mode.

...I'm not at all encouraged by Gwen Ifill's initial reaction, as quoted by the Associated Press, to questions about whether she can be impartial in tomorrow night's vice presidential debate:

"I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation," Ifill said. "The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job." ...

In its online description of the book, Doubleday says that Ifill "surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on 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." ...

Ifill said Obama's story, which she has yet to write, is only a small part of the book, which discusses how politics in the black community have changed since the civil rights era. Among those subjects is Colin Powell, secretary of state in the Bush administration.

The host of PBS'"Washington Week" and senior correspondent on "The NewsHour" said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book.

She said it was the publisher, not herself, who set the Inauguration Day release date. It will be released then whether Obama wins or loses.

Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.

"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."

There are several problems with this.

First, the fact that Ms. Ifill hasn't written the portion of the book on Obama yet doesn't excuse anything. In fact, it leaves her free now to tailor the book knowing of the furor over her earlier non-disclosure to the campaigns and Commisson.

Second, the "nobody caught me until now" excuse is ridiculous and offensive. As a professional journalist, she is responsible for patrolling her own ethics. Ms. Ifill ought to have disclosed the plans for the book to the Commission and to both campaigns. Now, even with both campaigns consenting to her going forward, she still owes a duty to the public to re-disclose her personal financial stake in the election at the beginning of the debate.

Finally, it doesn't matter whether she ends up being critical or favorable in what she eventually writes about Obama. The title of the book has the phrase "Age of Obama" in it! For pete's sake, how many bestsellers have we seen with the phrase "the Age of Kerry" or "the Age of Dole" or "the Age of Dukakis" in them? I guarantee you that I am not an Obama supporter, but I bought a copy of each of his two books — despite the fact that that would put a few more coins in his pockets — because I sometimes read stuff about, and sometimes even written by, people I distrust, dislike, or even despise. Moreover, there's also no doubt that moderating this debate will raise Ifill's own general public profile — with tens of millions watching this debate, a large multiple of the audiences she gets on the PBS NewsHour or PBS' Washington Week.

No one can seriously doubt that if Obama wins, she'll sell more copies of this book — based on its title alone — which, in turn, will put anything from a few more dollars to a several tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars directly into her own pocket. They won't be black dollars, or white dollars, but green dollars. Yet she finds it "curious" and jumps to racism as a possible explanation for people's concerns? For her to pretend she doesn't understand the nature of the conflict and the potential for bias here smacks, at best, of self-deception. Self-deception can lead to plain old deception.

On the subject of Ifill, I've heard the Right go from immediate rage to grudging acceptance with the mindset of 'it may help Palin out, because people will be watching Ifill very closely'. I had that thought myself. But, upon further reflection, I agree with Peter Kirsanow:

This rationale points to the GOP's ( and, to some extent, conservatives') nearly wholesale capitulation to liberal media dominance and is one of the reasons the GOP base find themselves so frequently dispirited: no objection, no fight, no pushback to a howling conflict of interest.

We're instructed that it's perfectly understandable when all of the Democratic presidential candidates refuse to debate on Fox. But Republicans are supposed to quietly take their medicine from a moderator with a direct financial interest in an Obama/ Biden victory.

I concur that Ifill's a professional. That's not the point. Republicans will find themselves losing more and more often if they do not vigorously challenge these media travesties. And it's the right thing to do for the country. A partisan, cheerleading press is not a hallmark of a free and democratic society.

So many times we see Republicans act "gentlemanly" and turn the other cheek —to what end? It simply emboldens the media toward even greater bias. How does that serve the interests of the country? Democrat fingerprints are all over the current financial mess; Dodd and Frank were integral to the debacle, yet the GOP does nothing to counter the prevailing narrative that this is a McCain—House Republican problem—and McCain's poll numbers plummet.

The conclusion of McCain's convention speech exhorting us to "fight, fight, fight" has been quickly forgotten. There's no honor in failing to challenge brazen media bias and distortion. It does the nation no good when voters cast ballots based upon false or misleading information.

I agree whole-heartedly with this! I think there are a LOT of people out there who are livid at the spineless hacks and outright crooks in Washington, and those people are just waiting to leap onto the bandwagon of anyone who is willing to pick some righteous fights. That's why there has been such a groundswell of support behind Sarah Palin - she picked those fights in Alaska, and won. We now want her attitude and willingness to pick fights in Washington. It makes me almost literally ill to watch the Republican leadership compromise and give in time after time, and I would love to see someone stand up and throw a few proverbial punches. Forget the political correctness, just go for the jugular. Did we elect you to play nice, or to WIN??

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Palin did an interview with Sean Hannity yesterday, and talked about taxes and energy. Both of these are issues where McCain-Palin is clearly better than Obama-Biden, and they need to get their message out.

If Palin can handle these kinds of questions at the debate tonight, and work in this information and these numbers, it will strike a huge blow to the Obama-Biden momentum.

Mostly, she needs a chance to connect with the voters. Without the filter of the completely biased media, Palin is extremely relatable and likable, so this will be a terrific opportunity for her to make a connection with a whole lot of fence-riders.

Even if the moderator is another adversary.

There's my two cents.