Sept.10, 2008

I am so sick of all the dirty comments by both parties. I want to have the canidates speak on policys! All my friends started to vote in the 1960's. We find this conduct appalling.
Cleanup your act. Stick to the facts. Stop taking things out of context.
When is the Governor going to speak to the press? What are you afraid of. This is "Our Country" so stop acting like children.
Remember, my one vote as a woman who voted for Hillary is still out there.
Donna Marsh
Denton, Texas .....

Donna,

I think the debates are going to answer a lot of questions you have so I implore you to (as Guns N Roses advises) "have a little patience".

McCain/Palin does want your vote but you need to understand that the "mainstream media" as it is known has PROVEN that they have a strong bias against Sarah Palin and a true love for Barack Obama. If you disagree with that, then you are either not paying attention or are in denial. Under those conditions, Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign would be stupid if they did not create a commodity of Ms. Palin's appearances. By limiting the access that the ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYT crowd has to Sarah, they induce a motivation for that wing of the media to be fair and balanced.

And to further comment on your insistence that Sarah must avail herself to the vicious left-wing media, I ask you, why are you not calling for Barack Obama to avail himself to the right-wing media? He proved he can handle a interview with center-right pundit Bill Oreilly so now lets see how he would do with a Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt.

The mainstream press has blah blah blah.

Asa non-partisan voter, I want to hear the candidates speak to the point and have it out with each other. Period. Both ends of the political spectrum ardently proclaim the evil press as our enemy. So shut up and let the candidates speak. Not their handlers, their campaigns or their Machiavellis. Also, people who fall back on the evils of the press invariably are answered in spades with mirrored comments from their opposites. You can all kiss my centrist citizen ass. And keep track of the rising numbers of us who don't belong to any BS political party. AND VOTE.

I don't take claims that the media is biased both ways as credible. It simply is not credible and if you insist that it is, you are either too stupid to know the difference or you are a partisan disguised as a "non-partisan voter" (whatever the heck that is). If the former is the case, then you need to pay closer attention. If the latter is the case then we don't give a crap how you vote because you are going to vote the way you want regardless of what McCain/Palin does to try to win you over.

Overwhelming negativity is prevalent throughout the Republican campaign. It is very sad. The comments of the McCain supports here are negative. Palin was negative in her acceptance speech at the RNC, throughout which the Republican Delegate audience was negative: hissing every chance they got. Negativity is unattractive in all regards and one of the things that has been so appealing about Obana to many voters is that he is markedly positive and the Democratic Convention was remarkably positive (with no hissing heard whatsoever at any time). Senators Biden and Obama both took time to carefully and respectfully honor Senator McCain for his long service and time in the military and then went on to respectfully disagree with his ideas and policies for what next is needed for the country. When McCain and Palin become respectful, honest, positive, and specific, I will start listening again. Until then, it sounds and feels like high school, as many of the comments here do also.

I think that it has been negative, more by McCain. He and Palin have made it personal, which it should not be. It's supposed to be aboout ideals, plans, etc. When Rev. Wright was on the table, they destroyed him and tried to destroy Obama. Wright was not/is not running. Palin however, is running. She is an unknown, was not fully vetted, does not have congressional experience, big city experience, knows nothing about the inner cities and their problems, and just 4 months ago, said she had no interest in foreign affairs. To think that people are not going to ask her questions is beyond naive but rather ignorant. She is sarcastic, and rather nasty when she "reads" what others write for her. On her own however, she is an embarrassment, kills the English language and basically comes across as someone who needs to return to the trailer park mentality from where she came.

And people had the nerve to talk about Obama? Come on, let's be real. I know this country deserves better than what she has to offer.

OBAMA MEDIA BIAS ... NOW, OBAMA DEBATE BIAS !!!
The nation already is skeptical about the fairness and objectivity of the mainstream media regarding election coverage ... so, why in the world is Gwen Ifill the debate moderator, when she is writing a book about Obama ... especially since her book sales would increase if Obama/Biden win? The moderator in a debate ... especially one of this importance and magnitude ... should be seen as completely fair, objective and above reproach. This is a terrible choice, and could easily have been remedied by choosing from hundreds of other more objective potential moderators. I can imagine the outcry if Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter was chosen as the moderator for the first Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. FURTHERMORE ... Everyone knows that Roland Martin is in the tank for Obama ... and regarding his call for Palin to either 'put up, or shut up' ... for millions of Americans, we still feel that Obama never adequately explained why he chose to spend TWENTY YEARS, yes TWENTY YEARS, in Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, racist, black liberation church, which gave a life time achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, and Obama only quit the church due to public outrage and personal ambition.

Howard

Who's 'the nation' you speak of that it '...skeptical of fairness...' ? That's like me saying America wants change without qualifying that statement with polls, statistics, quoting citizens or citizens groups, etc... The Nation isn't worried, the McCain camp is concerned would be a more correct statement.

The only reason this would be 'bias' is being brought up is because Gwen Ifill is Black. Period.

Gwen & Jim Lehrer are very good moderators and these folks are always tapped to do these duties because they are very non-partisan in their reporting.

If George Will writes a book about Reagan or McCain, would he not be a viable moderator?

Stephanopolous was a Clinton spokesman yet people go on his program that are not flaming Democrats. Are Republican leaders boycotting his show?

I have full confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a great job and Palin won't get any bias with respect to the question. I would worry FAR MORE about her readiness to answer the tough questions.

Everybody knew about this book months ago so it's not news...it's just a last ditch effort to protect Palin...and it looks like collective whining.

Comparing Gwen Ifill to Ann Coulter is like comparing the CEO skills of Carly Fiorina to Sarah Palin. Gwen is a reputable journalist that BOTH PARTIES agreed upon, Ann Coulter is a whackjob that should have married Ted Nugent when he was single.

There you go again. Pulling out the race card. Can anyone who is not white be criticized WITHOUT you race-baiters pulling the race card? Honestly!

So you're saying that you fear Gwen Ifill's book that much? Or Palin's incompetency?

This isn't the race card, this is the reverse race card. What is the core complaint here?

The complaint is that Gwen can't be in any way objective. Did you see the Farce News Republican debates? Ron Paul was asked questions on how he was a viable candidate, Mike Huckabee was asked if he was too radical for mainstream.

Yet, the only people asked about the economy were McCain & Mitt Romney!!! The bias comes from the question, not Carl Cameron's ideology. Simply lousy moderators & a sham debate. Gwen & Jim have been doing top-notched debates since Bush 41. I wouldn't fear her moderating. Just another weak whiney excuse to lower the expectations of this debate.

Why are you criticizing Gwen Ifill and not George Stephanapolous? How about Sam Donaldson? If Gwen Ifill was white or if Barack Obama was white, we wouldn't be hearing about this.

It's that fear mongering attacking at your core.

PS Who's black on this forum anyway? Raise your hand...

***deafening sound of crickets***

I have a great idea, let's let Lou Dobbs & Joe Scarborough moderate the debate. Would that make you feel better? Palin & Biden would get a bigger grilling than a redneck wedding reception in a trailerpark.

If you say Gwen Ifill is predisposed to favor Obama because he is black, is she also predisposed to favor Palin since she is a woman?

Here book is not about Obama, it is an academic work about the historical growth of black politics in our culture.

No matter what questions she asks Palin, she or anyone else for that matter will be criticized as partisan in an effort to divert attention away from the issue of the competence of Palin.

When there is no substance, cry fowl and go on the attack seems to be the only course of defense. Why not take a sober look at the facts and let the facts speak for themselves, or is that too threatening to the ideological fog of reality.

Richard,

Who said anything about Gwen's race? The reason she is biased is because she has a book coming out that the sales will be directly affected by the outcome of this election.

I guess you would rather believe this is about race because that is an arguable theme. You sir are nothing but a partisan hack.

I am late on commenting in this thread but it is quite convenient to use the Race card when there's nothing else to say. Not every person who has an issue with Obama or his supporters has that issue because of Race. That is already becoming the groundwork for rebuttal if Obama is not elected. Well, it won't be his Race but his beliefs and the way in which he intends to ruin our country, our ideals, our existence. I am prepared to hear all the rowdiness that will accompany his defeat. It always happens: "if I wasn't Black . . ." Strange that we as Black persons want all equal rights but when it goes against what we really want, there's always the cry and hue. All this carrying on over Palin, yet so much protection over Obama, hiding his skeletons in the closet. What politician, in fact, what human being doesn't have something going on that another person disagrees with. So much of it is our own perceptions. The media has clearly chosen sides, printed and spoke their personal opinions--personal opinion does not make it a true fact. Get off the Race card--that's only being played by Blacks as an excuse. BTW, I am bi-racial so don't go there.

Hollyhock,

I find it ...'suspisous' that first you mention 'we as blacks' in making a stereotypical reference to black people, then you mention 'get off the race card- thats only being played by blacks as an excuse', then you mention that you are 'bi-racial' (which does not even denote black, just bi-raciality).

Im afraid your viewpoint disclaimers are suspect, in that you may just be another white person on the internet who wants to attack black people and sound legitimate by claiming that you yourself are black/bi-racial. I dont know many bi-racial partially black people who refer to other black people constantly in the third person as 'blacks'.

On the internet, everyone is anonymous to an extent. Just claiming you are, especially as a hazy racial attack method, gets you no points.

BTW, I am black, so dont go there. (To partially quote your last comment)

Why can't a black person refer to other black people as blacks. I see nothing suspect in that. But if you wish to call hollyhock a liar and have his/her opinions de-legitimized I guess you need an attack of this nature to stick. You sir are one very ignorant man.

This is just like the guy in the video I posted that you commented on. He does not see himself solely as the member of a race but rather a member of the County of America. It would therefore be appropriate for him to refer to those that are part of this racial identification group as blacks.

"Why can't a black person refer to other black people as blacks. I see nothing suspect in that. But if you wish to call hollyhock a liar and have his/her opinions de-legitimized I guess you need an attack of this nature to stick. You sir are one very ignorant man."

Are you black? If you were, you probably would know. An attack of this nature? Do you mean her attack on black people?

She refers to black people in a third person connotation, then refers to herself as one, then does it again, then claims she isnt even black but 'bi-racial' (You dont have to be part black to be bi-racial, a bit of common sense there).

Though this is jumping subjects (you brought him up), that guys personal demeanor of himself is what made him look like he was conveying a stereotype. Ms Hollyhocks shakey claims of her ethnicity, and her thrid party references to what she claims as her own ethnicity (then doesnt claim) are what makes her claims unreliable. Two different subjects. Nice try though.