Biden won...But Gwen Ifill should never be allowed to host another debate

[percussivemadness]

I have never seen such a disgrace, fluff ball questions that skirted around the real issues. If you want to sit there and allow a VP candidate to not answer a question for 30 mins, then you are not up to the job.

A shocking example of poor journalism. Weak, gutless and sychophantic.

[Bluebear]

1. She caved to wanting to look "unbiased". nt

[malaise]

15. Ditto n/t

[bluethruandthru]

2. I wish she would have asked Palin for some specifics.

She just let her spew her talking points and that's it.

[oldtime dfl_er]

7. She should have forced Palin

to answer the fuckin questions.

[misanthrope]

40. ...to name all seven continents**nm

**

[Pattib]

8. No follow-ups at all...and let her ramble on and on.....

[sixmile]

14. Exactly

Someone needs to go back to Moderator School!

[Liberal In Texas]

3. Yeah, I thought she was weak too. And the format was debate-lite.

[JI7]

4. i think she felt she couldn't be tougher because of the right wing attacks on her

prior to the debate. the phony outrage.

i want a moderator who pushes them to answer and follows up on the answers they gave.

[Liberal In Texas]

10. Anybody worth their salt doing this can't listen to what the critics say going in.

If she caved, it's unforgivable.

[LostInAnomie]

5. Ifill has always been soft when she moderates debates.

She always asks standard questions with nothing to trip anyone up. It's almost as if she tries too hard not to get criticized after the debate.

[Muttocracy]

6. and she didn't followup to make Palin answer the questions she had asked!

[grannylib]

9. She was terrible. FOLLOW UP! Palin answered very little, and for her

to start off basically saying "My rules, fuck you" - she should have been stopped RIGHT THERE.
"Governor, you will abide by the rules of the debate, or you will not participate. You are here to answer to the American people, as is Senator Biden. Are you willing to participate or not?"

FUCK HER.
She's pathetic.

[NV Whino]

11. I think you are off base there

The format of the "debate" didn't allow for backing up, calling out, clarifying. Gwen called her on it a couple of time and given the format and time frame, I think it's the best she could do.

[percussivemadness]

24. I disagree, how about the following questions

What do you think of Roe vrs Wade?

Do you believe that demons control every American city?

Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?

If you believe marriage is deemed by God to be between a man and a woman, do you agree with the Catholic churche`s stance on divorce?

These are all valid questions, this is not about religion, however when one`s religious beliefs dictate policy, then the public have a right to know what those beliefs are.

[dennysp]

32. You're absolutely right. She also saved a question that they

both didn't answer for a repeat. I think she did an OK job. I think that if the moderator, whoever it was, had been harder on Palin, it would have backfired. Intelligent people who were fence-sitters, are moving on over to the Obama column after this. If Palin convinced ANYONE to vote for John McCain, we wouldn't want them in our party anyway. (*mumbling* blasted pinheads voting for McCain!)

[Auggie]

Agreed. Neither should Tom Brokaw.

Oops...

[bdamomma]

12. too many softball questions

[Median Democrat]

13. Agree, No Follow-Up To Force Palin To Answer

[eleny]

16. It could also be viewed as handing Palin as much damaging rope as she wanted

And Keith Olbermann is now going right into it at this moment.

[Union Thug]

17. Agreed. That pop-tart Palin wouldn't answer a simple question..

and Ifill sat there and let her get away with it. blah.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. It was a pretty poor performance.

But I also think it was a poor format. Just when it seemed like they were about to go after each other, the question was changed, and it started all over again (generalized opening, followed by a slow buildup, then they go after each other for a few seconds, then the question is changed).

[TomClash]

19. She was horrible

No followups.

Palin was allowed to ignore her questions completely.

[Montauk6]

20. I agree and not because she was biased or anything...

THERE WAS NO STRUCTURE!!!! It looked like she was coming up with questions at the moment! WTF kinda moderating is that???

And allowing "Tadd's gal" to NOT answer the question was unacceptable.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. I disagree .....

.... on sycophantic. I agree with the rest of what you said.

[ColbertWatcher]

22. The GOP asked that no "follow up questions" be asked. n/t

[ryanmuegge]

23. She was muzzled by the Commission (and its corporate sponsors) and

the two parties that do not believe in democracy. Believe me, anything you wanted her to ask was probably contractually off the table.

[tularetom]

25. Ifill is worthless as tits on a boar hog

She was the same in 2004, caving to Cheney at every opportunity. She was played by the pukes who spent the past 3 days questioning her objectivity. If she had a spine she would have stood up to their whining and cracked the whip on Palin's bullshit talking point responses.

Guess it's more important to get invited to all the best "Georgetown cocktail parties" and sell lots of books than to have any self respect as a journalist.

[dascientist]

26. I personally thought the moderator did a good job

she kept shit moving, and even went in on both candidates

[graywarrior]

27. It was terrible.

[donna123]

28. wasn't she just another victim of the repub smear machine?

They start raising questions about her impartiality, laying the groundwork, that way if Palin sinks like the Titanic, they can blame it on the "elite media" who are in the bag for Obama, so Ifill is less aggressive than she might have been

the repubs are going to ruin this country because they put themselves ahead of putting this country ahead
by pushing people like quayle, bush, and now Palin

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. Her job was also to keep them on topic and she let Palin steamroll all over her.

[leftofthedial]

30. I thought Ifill was awful.

the questions were superficial and relatively meaningless.

the debate format also strayed all over the place, with unpredictable response sessions and off-topic monologues and a confused order at times.

[2Design]

31. This is the way she was at the debates the last election n/t

[bullwinkle428]

33. Hilarious that we're now agreeing with the Freepers on this one!

:crazy:

[Cass]

34. Yep, it's one thing to be unbiased but to let a candidate repeatedly not answer

questions was unforgiveable.

[TexasObserver]

35. She was Aw-ifill.

[WolverineDG]

36. I thought that 4 years ago

and yet here she is again. :eyes:

dg

[dudewheresmycountry]

37. omg my god

we all know that SNL has more material to use, can´t wait for this.........loving it all........

[defendandprotect]

38. Meaningless questions helped "Sarah" .... would they have allowed anyone to host

who would have asked real questions-- ??? NO--!!

[Supersedeas]

39. all commentators saying the "format" favored Palin -- no accountability on any question

[youthere]

41. I agree..I think Gwen overcompensated.