Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Butter]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Don't be fooled. Conservatives are happy that Ifill is moderating the debate. Palin is bound to screw up no matter who moderates the debate, so at least this gives them the good ol "liberal media" attack angle to use as an excuse for her performance.

You've got quicker fingers than I.

[Butter]

Besides, didn't McCain agree to the format and moderators long ago? Why would this be coming up just now? Oh right, because it's not really an issue, just a ready-made excuse. Carry on.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Besides, didn't McCain agree to the format and moderators long ago? Why would this be coming up just now? Oh right, because it's not really an issue, just a ready-made excuse. Carry on.

+1

now is not the time for anyone to be making a stink about this. if the campaign felt it was a problem they have had ample opportunity to speak up, and if the campaign doesn't feel it's a problem then really why is anyone else claiming to know what is better for them then the professional, paid campaign workers?

and yes i'd say the same even if Rush Limbaugh or O'Reily were moderating a debate.

Look, it's not like the moderator determines who speaks first, or asks different questions of the two candidates. although they have an impact in determining what questions will be asked, it's not like they can have a massive effect on how well one candidate performs versus the other.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think Palin needs much help looking bad at this debate tomorrow night, but this just adds to what might be a perfect storm for entertainment (from wiki):

"Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a book called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is being released on January 20, 2009."

How is this allowed? Imagine liberals, that the 2nd debate was going to be moderated by someone who was releasing a McCain book - would you think that was fair? I mean, she has a lot at stake financially in this election, and she's obviously a huge and public Obama fan.

At this point though, I'm just hoping for entertainment.

Wow - wasn't aware of that. That's a pretty bad oversight, IMO, and you'd think the commission on teh debates would try to get someone who at least doesn't appear to have a stake in the game.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's simply a different perspective. I understand many won't agree, but it's nice to know that once again dissent from the right is treated with respect in this thread.

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ).

FWIW, mine was a comment on how sad the defense was and not saying the defender was sad for defending. But, if you want to act like a martyr, take your ball and go home because you're getting laughed at, maybe the internets aren't for you.

[timmynausea]

What's up with these Quinnipiac polls out today:

Pennsylvania - Obama +15
Ohio - Obama +8
Florida - Obama +8

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

the value is in the intellectual level of the commentary and editorials.

Yikes, no wonder newspaper sales have fallen so far. This explains a lot.

Even in the internet age all the big thoughts end up in the major broadsheets as op-eds.

And then onto the internet as reprints, bootlegs, repurposed, etc. Case in point was the writer I mentioned up the thread a few pages back who is largely known to me as "a nationally syndicated writer" but who actually appears to work for a Chicago newspaper. I've now read the piece but haven't touched the physical paper nor the paper's website. In other words, it's possible to read the work of various writer's without associating them with a particular paper at all.

And I'm not saying she reads any of those guys, just saying it seems pretty plausible that you could read the work without having any particular publication come to mind.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

What's up with these Quinnipiac polls out today:

Pennsylvania - Obama +15
Ohio - Obama +8
Florida - Obama +8

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls

I don't buy any of those yet. All of them look like outliers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ).

Oh, give me a break Arles. You certainly didn't care baout the "90%" when your candidate was doing well. In the days following the Republican convention when it looked like Obama was tanking, I didn't threaten to leave the thread when McCain fans were having their little circle jerk about how badly Obama was stumbling.

I ask again, when did conservatives become a bunch of whiny bitches? Pelosi is mean to me! FOFC is mean to me! Now I know why people hated whiny liberals so much. That shit is annoying.

[Fighter of Foo]

From 538

"Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.

At the same time, they are highly-rated polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday, with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia)."

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yikes, no wonder newspaper sales have fallen so far. This explains a lot.

You’re looking down your nose at me because I can’t see Russia from my house, aren’t you?

[JediKooter]

Unless the McCain camp can teach her how to tap dance around the questions, I just don't see this debate being anything less than a train wreck of the Palin Express.

I'm not trying flair up tempers or anything like that, but, I have yet to see one redeeming quality in her that makes me think that she would be capable of fulfilling the duties of President if McCain some how can not finish his term, if he wins in November. She just doesn't have 'It'. Even Dan Quayle wasn't this bad.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

From 538

"Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.

At the same time, they are highly-rated polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday, with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia)."

thanks foo-foo.

even if you lop off 2-3 points off those polls, they still look good for obama, particularly the PA one

[NoMyths]

Meanwhile, as the Green Party campaigns to have Cynthia McKinney elected president...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Meanwhile, as the Green Party campaigns to have Cynthia McKinney elected president...

She is definitely coocoo for cocoa puffs.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Arles

I agree completely here. Listen, I have an unhealthy amount of bias for Palin. I would agree that most people should not feel all that safe if Palin is president tomorrow. Heck, I'm one of Palin's biggest fans and that would worry me.

Nominating Palin as VP and putting her a potential heartbeat away from the presidency is unbelievably irresponsible and shows a severe lapse in judgment by McCain and his staff.

A horrible, horrible choice made only to secure votes from the far right. If you're going to pick someone to be VP, you better make damn sure that person could handle being president as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Nominating Palin as VP and putting her a potential heartbeat away from the presidency is unbelievably irresponsible and shows a severe lapse in judgment by McCain and his staff.

A horrible, horrible choice made only to secure votes from the far right. If you're going to pick someone to be VP, you better make damn sure that person could handle being president as well.

but but but...didn't you hear? John McCain is the original maverick! He's a maverick! You know?

*and if you hadn't heard I'm sure Sarah Palin would be happy to tell you all about it

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

She just panicked. She's so nervous in these interviews that she can't think straight, so she says everything that pops into her head without filtering any of it. It reminds me a lot of unprepared guys I've seen in oral comprehensives.

I think that's probably it, in part -- she is justifiably apprehensive about having anything she says get picked on. If she decided to spontaneously lie and say that she read the Wall Street Journal, there's the chance that (1) she'd say it wrong and it came out "the Wall Street Times" or something; (2) some joker would find that there was never a single copy of the WSJ delivered to or available in the AK state house during the entire term, or (3) something even more dreadful I can't even think of yet.

My guess is that her handlers have basically just said "here are twelve things you can say, just steer clear of everything else." Names of newspapers wasn't on the list. But a phrase like "health care reform" was, and so that phrase oddly slipped in a few times when she was responding to questions about the economic bailout plan. She's just doing what they tell her, I reckon.

I don't think there's any debate that the truth of the matter is that she simply hasn't had any real interest in national and international affairs until just now, and that the honest answer to the question being asked just felt too embarrassing to just let it go. At least she had the political sense to dodge that, i suppose.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't think there's any debate that the truth of the matter is that she simply hasn't had any real interest in national and international affairs until just now, and that the honest answer to the question being asked just felt too embarrassing to just let it go. At least she had the political sense to dodge that, i suppose.

if she hasn't had any interest in national or international affairs until now she should not have accepted the nomination. And yes, she couldn't turn it down publicly, but she could have made it clear behind the scenes. For her to have no interest in national or international affairs and still accept the nomination is really the height of hubris. It also displays a stunning lack of respect for the job, a lack of judgement, and a lack of respect for the American people.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Oh, give me a break Arles. You certainly didn't care baout the "90%" when your candidate was doing well.

This forum has always been mostly Obama Kool-Aid drinkers and it used to be somewhat bearable. As the election gets closer, it's just extremely difficult to have a respectful discussion here. No biggie, there are many other places where one can be had.

I've said about 10 times in the past 15 pages that I don't think it's the end of the world if Obama wins, nor am I thrilled with McCain. I've admitted my bias for Palin and am trying to atleast explain the reasons why she is doing poorly (not to say she is doing a wonderful job in interviews as some have argued against).

But, you guys want no part of any discussion like that. You just want the election to be tomorrow because you are so terrified something's going to happen to "steal" the election from Obama that all reasonable debate has gone out the window. Not that this couldn't have been anticipated (esp given the results in 2000 and 2004), but the tension in this thread is palpable and I expect it will be a name-calling, whining, anger-filled, elitist gathering over the next 3-4 weeks and I just don't see the need to participate in that.

I think the country will be fine if Obama or McCain wins. I think all four candidates are good people and trying to do the best they can. I don't have a ton of angst or anger about this election and therefore feel a little out of place in this thread.

In the days following the Republican convention when it looked like Obama was tanking, I didn't threaten to leave the thread when McCain fans were having their little circle jerk about how badly Obama was stumbling.

Again, that's because you are adamant that Obama will be a much superior president and are willing to put up with a minority of 20% complaining about him in this thread to discuss it. I'm fairly ambivalent about this election and feel no need to justify the McCain/Palin ticket to every piece of criticism (esp when 80% of the thread is criticizing it).

I ask again, when did conservatives become a bunch of whiny bitches? Pelosi is mean to me! FOFC is mean to me! Now I know why people hated whiny liberals so much. That shit is annoying.

This is the angst that I'm talking about. You guys are so vested in Obama that anything remotely positive about McCain/Palin needs to be immediately snuffed out without debate (ie, dismissive comments). As to your question, I see conservatives having two issues with participating in this thread from now on:

1. No actual debate is desired at this point. It's just a "quickest way to try and shut up/dismiss the McCain/Palin fan" by about 8-10 posters. Who wants to participate in that unless you really love that ticket?

2. I might be convinced to put up with 1 if I really thought that McCain/Palin would be a much better president/VP than Obama/Biden. But, I don't. I think they are similar and will vote for McCain, but I can't see an inch of difference in real economic/military/environment between the two tickets. I honestly don't feel like I have a candidate that represents what I would like to see done so why continue to fight for a side when even if I win the "battle", I don't really win anything.

Maybe this will fall on deaf ears here and I'll be referred to as a "whiner" again, but that's why I think this thread has run its course from a participatory standpoint for me. I'll still read it and I do think a lot of you have smart comments/perspectives, but I don't feel the need to say something I will regret in the next 5 weeks (something I think everyone participating will do) - especially when I don't see the outcome as all that "ground breaking". Either way, I will have someone in the White House I agree with between 30 and 50% of the time. That's something to fight for!

[Kodos]

Whiner.

[Flasch186]

Arles, the problem Ive seen with this thread is that no matter which side of the debate a person is on they will be able to find op-ed pieces or facts to back up there side. There really isnt any open mindedness. I, in particular, have a hard time with "lying, hypocrisy" etc. but, as pointed out by others, it exists on both sides of the game and I am really the only one suffering from point it out and getting my panties in a wad. If anything Ive stressed myself out for no reason since as Bucc said 'it really doesnt matter' and 'my words dont matter' and he's right.

On both sides, I think some things are indisputable but than somehow they get disputed and we're both left scratching our heads saying, "How do they not see/read that? it's plain as day." For example, I thought McCain won the debate and somehow Im left scratching my head saying, "Did I watch the same debate as others?"

Anyways, dont listen to me because while I type it out I wont even be able to take this sort of low-stress position when something rankles me but at least you can see where im coming from.....for today, anyways.

[Big Fo]

The whole Palin controversy is a blatant ploy by the McCain campaign to have her portrayed as a moron before she comes out and rips Biden a new asshole in the debate. The struggling through basic questions, "omg sexist media" stuff, McCain holding her hand through the Katie Couric interview, maybe even her daughter's pregnancy, it is just an illusion designed to lower Americans' expectations. I recall Vegas Vic many pages back saying Palin has shown herself to be an excellent debater when running for governor in Alaska, and that wasn't the first or last time I'd seen that mentioned. Tomorrow night Sarah Palin will shock America and the world. Expect a five point bump in national polling and Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina to be taken off the board. We'll all be staying up late on election night.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

For example, I thought McCain won the debate and somehow Im left scratching my head saying, "Did I watch the same debate as others?"

Peculiar thing about that (IMO). My impression from here & elsewhere seems to be that quite a few Obama-backers thought McCain won the debate and quite a few McCain backers thought Obama won the debate.

Damned if I know what to make of that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Tomorrow night Sarah Palin will shock America and the world.

You mean there'll still be a viable McCain campaign after Thursday night?

edit to add: Since sarcasm is really easy to lose on the webz, please allow me to clarify: I'm not kidding.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Whiner.

Love it.

[Flasch186]

LOL

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Arles

This forum has always been mostly Obama Kool-Aid drinkers and it used to be somewhat bearable.

I am a registered Republican and I will NOT be voting for McCain/Palin. Palin is too much of a liability to the future of this country and I will not take that risk and am voting for Obama. I wish there was more to choose from, but, there's not.

So, no kool aid drinking on my part.

[JPhillips]

Am I the only one that thinks the VP debate won't matter regardless of what happens?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Am I the only one that thinks the VP debate won't matter regardless of what happens?

Nope. Unless Palin starts ranting about killing Jews, or Biden wants to increase taxes on the elderly by 100%.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You mean there'll still be a viable McCain campaign after Thursday night?

edit to add: Since sarcasm is really easy to lose on the webz, please allow me to clarify: I'm not kidding.

There was some sarcasm there (I don't necessarily believe that the McCain campaign had Bristol feign pregnancy to appeal to the pro-lifers in a "talk the talk and walk the walk" kind of way) with a dash of paranoia, but I do have a feeling that Palin will earn a creditable draw at worst in tomorrow's debate. Also, McCain has still has a shot, there's five weeks left and who knows how big the Bradley effect will turn out to be. Sure Obama is more likely to win at this point, but not as likely as the 85.4% chance on fivethirtyeight.com or others that seem to feel it's all but over.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Heh. I couldn't decide whether to put this in the college football thread or the presidential thread ... figured it fit better here than there.

Just noticed an article on ajc.com that talked about the great rating for this past weekend's Georgia-Alabama game. It pulled a 21.7 rating, and didn't show any significant erosion in spite of 'Bama's 31-0 halftime lead. That made me curious ...

Overnight ratings for the first presidential debate, all four broadcast network affiliates in Atlanta combined: peaked at a 21.0 for broadcast, might have had enough cable to match the football game (I don't get the cable overnights locally).

Just kind of amusing to me, in a sad sort of way.

[larrymcg421]

Lots of polling lately. Here are all the ones I see that ended on 9/29-9/30

National

Obama 50-46 (ABC/WaPo)
Obama 49-43 (Pew Research)
Obama 48-41 (AP/GfK)
Obama 48-45 (Ipsos)
Obama 50-43 (Time)
Obama 48-44 (Gallup)
Obama 51-45 (Rasmussen)
Obama 47-42 (Hotline/FD)
Obama 48-46 (GW/Battleground)


Florida

Obama 51-47 (CNN/Time)
Obama 49-46 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 46-42 (Suffolk)
Obama 51-43 (Quinnipiac)


Nevada

Obama 48-47 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 51-47 (CNN/Time)
McCain 49-47 (ARG)


Ohio

Obama 47-45 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 50-42 (Quinnipiac)
McCain 49-48 (SurveyUSA)


Pennsylvania

Obama 54-39 (Quinnipiac)
Obama 48-41 (Morning Call)


Virginia

Obama 51-45 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 53-44 (CNN/Time)


Single polls from other states

GA: McCain 52-44 (SurveyUSA)
IN: McCain 48-45 (SurveyUSA)
MO: Obama 49-48 (CNN/Time)
MS: McCain 52-44 (Rasmussen)
NJ: Obama 52-42 (SurveyUSA)
OK: McCain 64-34 (SurveyUSA)
TX: McCain 52-43 (Rasmussen)
TN: McCain 58-39 (Rasmussen)
WI: Obama 49-40 (Strategic Vision)

[flere-imsaho]

Confirmation that Palin can't, apparently, name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA

[Flasch186]

Quick! theres that color vs. that school thingy!

name one case other than Roe v. Wade?

"I would think any again that could best be dealt with on a more local level maybe i would take issue with but....sigh, y'know as a mayor and then as a governor and even as a vice president if I am so priviledged to serve, to be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."


huh?


nevermind, taken back...it was one she disagreed with when on first listen i thought it was name one, any one.

Sorry....the discombobulation of the english still stands however.

[Big Fo]

Well she was asked to name a case whose outcome she disagreed with, so she couldn't just shout out the first thing that came to mind.

[Vegas Vic]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm watching C-SPAN right now, as the Senate is voting on a US/India bill regarding nuclear inspections, and later they'll be voting on the Financial Markets Bill.

I noticed Obama and Hillary standing off to the side, and it appeared that they were having a lengthy, rather warm conversation with each other. It didn't appear to be contrived by any means. Supposedly, they have a very icy relationship, but she has been vigorously campaigning for him in Florida, so maybe there's not as much animosity between them as we sometimes read about.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Confirmation that Palin can't, apparently, name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA

Truly remarkable that the McCain campaign felt that she could be presented as a legitimate Vice Presidential candidate rather than as a cheap vote-grabbing ploy.

Also remarkable how effectively CBS News is letting such a damaging interview go viral day by day, keeping their work in the news. Strong work on their parts.

I'll say this for Palin: a person with a less strong constitution would have probably bowed out of the race by now for their own peace of mind, if not the good of the country.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'll say this for Palin: a person with a less strong constitution would have probably bowed out of the race by now for their own peace of mind, if not the good of the country.

If Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle didn't bail out, why in the world would you think that Palin would?

[Flasch186]

Is CBS somewhat wrong though in not just releasing it at once as a whole, i mean i was against editing of answers and while that's not the case here I wonder if it all shouldnt be released so it isnt considered sniping. I get the ratings thing and youre right in that they continue to get the viral ratings but im not sure they keep their credibility in the process if they cared at all anyways.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

If Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle didn't bail out, why in the world would you think that Palin would?

I don't think she would. A responsible person with her background wouldn't have accepted the nomination in the first place.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Confirmation that Palin can't, apparently, name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA

Ouch. That was painful to watch. Someone should explain to her what the word specific means.

She sounds remarkably like this: YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question

[Fritz]

i am astounded the Trout is still around.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?

Here's a decent theory from Ezra Klein:

But on a slightly broader note, you have to appreciate the bind the McCain campaign has put Palin in. By launching an overwhelming attack against "media elite," they effectively walled off leading publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Palin couldn't name them, because to legitimize them would undercut the campaign's rhetoric from recent weeks.

At the same time, the fear is that she's really just a parochial, small town mayor and small state governor who's unready for the national stage. She can't name the Anchorage Daily Post or whatever and risk someone reporting that her primary information source doesn't even have a foreign bureau.

And meanwhile, she's not actually so fluent in the ideas and information infrastructure that she'd think to name a safe elite choice like "The Economist" or wrest some generational cred by pointing towards a news aggregator. Instead, we get "all of them."

If true, it's at least a little more comforting than the only other explanation, which is that she's an idiot.

[Fritz]

early trout reference

Which would be best for the US in terms of international reaction? - Front Office Football Central

[miked]

I wonder how much of it is arrogance. I don't know if she's arrogant, but when she was being vetted, she had to know that she was grossly unqualified. I mean, did she ever just say to herself, "darn, I've barely been out the country" or "man, I've never dealt with things on a national level this much" or something to that effect. Who knows, just seems like something is missing.

[Big Fo]

Obama is now up 353-185 on RCP's projection. It was a 50-50 race last week.

[Mac Howard]

The one thing that Palin has done well so far was her speech at the Republican convention but, as one commentator (who apparently lectures on politics) said at the time "Given a tele-prompter and three days of tutoring and rehearsal, half my students could have given that performance". It now remains to be seen if the latest tutoring can help her shine in the much more ill-defined environment of a debate.

Add to that Biden's apparent propensity for foot-in-mouth gaffs, then I'm looking forward to this debate almost as much as I did the Man Utd Champions League match earlier this week

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Obama is now up 353-185 on RCP's projection. It was a 50-50 race last week.

RCP is the gold standard in predicting presidential elections.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think Palin needs much help looking bad at this debate tomorrow night, but this just adds to what might be a perfect storm for entertainment (from wiki):

"Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a book called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is being released on January 20, 2009."

How is this allowed? Imagine liberals, that the 2nd debate was going to be moderated by someone who was releasing a McCain book - would you think that was fair? I mean, she has a lot at stake financially in this election, and she's obviously a huge and public Obama fan.

At this point though, I'm just hoping for entertainment.

So you telling me McCain and Co. just found this out? If conservatives didn't care then, why do you care now?