Moderator

Latest news on moderator

Google's 20 Percent Time Projects Pay Dividends for the Rest of Us

eWEEK offers a visual peek at Google's famous 20 percent time projects. These include Gmail, Google News, Google Talk, Orkut, Google Sky, Google Moderator, Google RechargeIT and Google Grants. What is your favorite of the bunch? - Aside from the college dorm-like aesthetics, on-campus meals and other perks Google's 20,000 or so employees enjoy, Google is known for some other customs that differentiate it from the mass of other high-tech companies. One of those is the 20 percent time project rule, which allows programmers ...

NY Times, AP repeat McCain falsehood that Obama said Ayers was "just" a guy in his neighborhood

In October 10 articles, The New York Times and The Associated Press uncritically reported Sen. John McCain saying of Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers: "Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood." The Times reported that McCain added, "We need to know that's not true," while the AP reported McCain added, "We know that's not true, we need to know the full extent of the relationship." In fact, contrary to McCain's claim, Obama did not use the word "just" when describing Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." Indeed, during the April 16 Democratic primary debate, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos said to Obama: "An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his [Ayers'] house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem." Obama said of Ayers: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from." Obama added, "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis," and went on to say that Ayers' Weather Underground actions were "detestable." From the April 16 Democratic primary debate: STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And, in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly." Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem? OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George. Additionally, neither the Times nor the AP noted their previous reporting that Obama and Ayers were not close. The Times reported on October 4 that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8' "; the AP reported on October 5 that "there is no evidence that they [Obama and Ayers] ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts." By contrast, McClatchy reported McCain's quote but added that "Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign." From the October 10 New York Times article: Although Mr. McCain did not mention Mr. Ayers, a founder of the radical group the Weather Underground, by name, his intent was clear in his response to a question about Mr. Obama. A man told Mr. McCain that ''we're all wondering why Obama is where he's at'' in the polls and then asked, ''Is there not a way to get around this media and line up the people he has hung with?'' Mr. McCain responded, ''Well, sir, with your help and the people in this room, we will find out.'' He added: ''Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. You know, but that's not the point here. The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.'' Although Mr. McCain raised questions about Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers in a televised interview last spring, he has refrained from attacking Mr. Obama on the trail for his association with Mr. Ayers in the general election campaign. He had left those attacks to his campaign operatives and Ms. Palin. Mr. McCain's reference to Mr. Ayers's desire to carry out more bombings was from an article in The New York Times, published by chance on Sept. 11, 2001, about Mr. Ayers and his memoir, ''Fugitive Days.'' The article opened with a quotation: ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'' Three days later, Mr. Ayers wrote on his Web site that the meaning of his remarks had been distorted. Most of the bombings attributed to the Weathermen were meant to damage only property, but a 1970 pipe bombing in San Francisco attributed to the group killed a police officer and severely hurt another. Mr. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lives in Mr. Obama's neighborhood. He was named citizen of the year in Chicago in 1997, has worked with Mr. Obama on a schools project and a charitable board, and gave a house party when Mr. Obama was running for the State Senate. From the October 10 Associated Press article: McCain also referenced Obama's connection with 1960s radical William Ayers without mentioning him by name. "Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that's not true. We need to know the full extent of the relationship," McCain said. From the October 10 McClatchy article: Outspent by Obama on TV ads, McCain launched a new Web ad about his opponent's connections to Bill Ayers, the Chicago professor, in which the announcer describes Ayers as a "domestic terrorist" and concludes, "Barack Obama: Too risky for America." McCain told the Wisconsin crowd, "Look, we don't care about a washed-up terrorist and his wife who still, after Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. But that's not the point here. The point is Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that's not true, we need to know the full extent of the relationship, because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not." Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign.

MSNBC's Witt falsely suggested Obama concealed Ayers event when referring to Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood"

On the October 9 edition of MSNBC's News Live, host Alex Witt claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "originally dismissed" former Weather Underground member William Ayers as "just a guy from the neighborhood despite the fact that Ayers did, in fact, host an event for Obama when he was running for state Senate." Witt went on to ask former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D), "[D]o you think that Barack Obama has always been completely honest about his ties to Ayers?" But contrary to Witt's suggestion, Obama did not attempt to conceal the fact that Ayers "host[ed] an event" for him when he referred to Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." In fact, the very question Obama was responding to addressed the "organizing meeting" that Ayers hosted for Obama, and Obama did not deny that the event took place. Moreover, Obama did not use the word "just" when he described Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," as Witt claimed. Witt's injection of the word "just" into Obama's statement recalls a McCain campaign ad, which asserts: "When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, 'This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.' That's it?" From the exchange between Obama and debate co-moderator and ABC host George Stephanopoulos, during the April 16 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia: STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem? OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. From the October 9 edition of MSNBC's News Live: WITT: Could Bill Ayers derail Barack Obama's run for the White House? John McCain is trying to raise questions about the depth of Obama's relationship with the man who bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol in the 1970s. Obama's campaign says the two haven't been in contact in years. OBAMA [video clip]: The notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that he -- I've "palled around with a terrorist" -- all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points. WITT: Iowa's former Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack is an Obama supporter. It's good to see you again, governor. Thanks for being here. VILSACK: You bet, Alex. Thank you. WITT: John McCain insists Obama hasn't been truthful about this relationship, and what he's trying to do is reveal the truth. Obama originally dismissed him as just a "guy from the neighborhood" despite the fact that Ayers did, in fact, host an event for Obama when he was running for state Senate. So, do you think that Barack Obama has always been completely honest about his ties to Ayers?

Knol debates: See both sides, get involved

As the election season builds to a climax, the candidates have been engaging in a number of debates. With all the excitement, we wanted to get involved, so we've started our own set of debates on our new tool Knol. The debates on Knol are meant to offer a variety of in-depth opinions from experts so you can really understand all sides of an issue. Our first debate focuses on the economy. Economists from the Cato Institute and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) have offered opening arguments on what should come next now that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is law. Take a look to see what they think -- but don't stop there. As with most articles in Knol, these are open to collaboration, so you can rate what you read, submit comments, write full responses (i.e. reviews),  or even suggest edits to the author by making changes right in the knol itself. These experts are using Knol because they want to collaborate with readers, and they are committed to updating the articles based on your input. In addition, there's a forum where you can suggest additional topics that you'd like to see debated in our new tool Google Moderator.  As we prepare for the election, experts from leading think-tanks including Cato, EPI, the Heritage Foundation, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund will conduct similar debates on the issues you find the most important. We hope these knols help inform your decision on election day, and we encourage you to voice your opinion. Posted by Matt Ghering, Product Marketing Manager

Media again quote debate attack that Obama "voted against funding the troops" while omitting Dem response

In their October 3 editions, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times both reported Gov. Sarah Palin's attack during the vice-presidential debate that Sen. "Barack Obama voted against funding troops" without noting, as Sen. Joe Biden pointed out in response, that "[Sen.] John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a time line." As Media Matters for America has noted, the Los Angeles Times -- as well as Reuters, the Associated Press, and the Politico -- also quoted a similar attack by Sen. John McCain in the first presidential debate without noting that Obama -- like Biden in the vice-presidential debate -- pointed out that "Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn't believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open-ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable." In the New York Times article, reporter Patrick Healy noted that Palin "attacked Mr. Obama's Senate vote against federal financing for troops in Iraq, which Mr. Biden also once criticized." In the Los Angeles Times "news analysis," staff writer Peter Wallsten reported that "on Iraq, [Palin] hewed to years-old attack lines of painting war critics as quitters and accusing Obama of trying to deprive the troops of funding." Neither article noted Biden's response nor did they note that McCain voted against the Senate version of a March 2007 bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs -- along with all but two of his fellow Republican senators. From the October 3 New York Times article: In response to a question about her views on an exit strategy in Iraq, Ms. Palin championed Mr. McCain's support for the "surge" of American troops there; hailed "a great American hero," Gen. David H. Petraeus; and attacked Mr. Obama's Senate vote against federal financing for troops in Iraq, which Mr. Biden also once criticized. After that, Mr. Biden turned to the moderator and said, "Gwen [Ifill], with all due respect, I didn't hear a plan." From the October 3 Los Angeles Times article: Potentially erasing memories of her widely mocked efforts to claim foreign policy expertise based on Alaska's proximity to Russia, Palin talked about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. She repeatedly mentioned the president of Iran by name, and even talked about having a conversation with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. But she spoke of foreign policy in the broadest of strokes, adopting rhetoric about spreading freedom around the world that is the core of the so-called Bush Doctrine that, in one of her network interviews, she did not seem to understand. And on Iraq, she hewed to years-old attack lines of painting war critics as quitters and accusing Obama of trying to deprive the troops of funding. "We're getting closer and closer to victory," she said, "and it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq." Biden, in one of his strongest points in the debate, shot back that the Republicans were offering no plan to end the Iraq war. "This is a fundamental difference between us. We will end this war," Biden said. "For John McCain, there is no end in sight to end this war."

Armstrong Williams -- who received and didn't disclose Bush administration money to promote NCLB -- criticized Ifill for book deal

On the October 1 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, conservative radio host Armstrong Williams criticized vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill over her upcoming book about African-American political leaders, saying she "should have disclosed" it, and that it is "ultimately impossible" for her not to favor Sen. Barack Obama, because she has a "financial stake" in his winning the presidency. However, Ifill's book was publicized before she was chosen to moderate. Moreover, Williams' judgment on the issue of potential conflicts of interest was called into serious question when, beginning in 2003, Williams received $240,000 in Department of Education funds to promote the No Child Left Behind Act, including through his media commentary -- a fact he didn't disclose while he was doing it. The Government Accountability Office later found that the Department of Education's actions constituted "covert propaganda" in violation of the law. During the broadcast, when co-host David Asman asked Williams whether Ifill, a PBS senior correspondent and managing editor of Washington Week, can "be fair and balanced at the forum," Williams replied: WILLIAMS: Listen, all of us respect Gwen Ifill for what she does. But look, when you have a financial stake in a project that could be a great financial windfall for you, how can you not help but root for the person that you're writing about? I just think it's ultimately impossible for her not to have a bias and wanting Senator Barack Obama and Joe Biden to win this presidency. I think for at least -- being the professional that she is, she should have disclosed this before anyone else found it out, to let people know that she has written this book, but it in no way is going to affect her effectiveness in being fair and evenhanded in the debate with vice presidential candidate Palin and Biden. The fact that she did not do that brings her credibility in doing this furthermore into question. In January 2005, USA Today reported that Williams received $240,000 from the Department of Education in December 2003 -- through public relations firm Ketchum -- to promote No Child Left Behind "on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same." The article further reported, "The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams 'to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts,' and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004." An Associated Press article published the following day quoted Williams saying, "Even though I'm not a journalist -- I'm a commentator -- I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it." A GAO report concluded in September 2005 that Williams' contract with the Department of Education was unlawful, because it was done "without assuring that the Department's role was disclosed to the targeted audiences. This violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition for fiscal year 2004 because it amounted to covert propaganda." According to the report, the GAO found no evidence that the Education Department directed Williams to disclose the contract. As Media Matters for America has previously documented, Williams has made several conflicting statements about whether he publicly disclosed his contract with the department, variously claiming that he did not recall if he disclosed; that he "made it very clear that we were being paid as advertisers"; that he "consistently" disclosed; and that he "periodically" disclosed. Citing this evidence, the GAO stated that Williams "publicly acknowledged that he did not regularly, if at all, disclose to his audiences or the colleagues he was to influence that he had been hired at the Department's request to promote the NCLB Act." Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission's enforcement bureau, in its July 2007 citation of Williams and his company, the Graham Williams Group (GWG), for violating part of the Communications Act, stated that "[i]n response to our inquiry, GWG has provided documentary evidence, including recorded program material, that details numerous instances where GWG's principal, nationally syndicated broadcast commentator Williams, apparently promoted NCLB during various programs in which he appeared without identifying such comments as being sponsored." The bureau concluded that, because "Williams and GWG received more than nominal consideration from [the Department of Education] to include particular material in programming supplied to and intended for transmission by broadcast stations and that the material was, in fact, aired by various broadcast stations," section 507 of the Communications Act required that Williams "disclose to the [broadcast station] licensees receiving the programming that the NCLB-related broadcast material was sponsored by [the Department of Education]," and that "[t]he record ... establishes that such disclosure was not provided by either Williams or GWG." Later in the October 1 broadcast, Williams said again that Ifill "should have at least disclosed it before someone found this out. The McCain camp just acknowledged they did not know that this book had been written." As Media Matters has noted, the book is available for preview on Amazon.com, and the AP reported that Ifill was the book's author weeks before her selection as moderator. Additionally, a September 4 Washington Post profile of Ifill by media critic Howard Kurtz mentioned that she was working on the book, and Ifill herself wrote about the book in a Time magazine article published August 21, the same day she was announced as moderator. From the October 1 broadcast of Fox News' America's Election HQ: ASMAN: Can Ifill be fair and balanced at the forum? Our fair and balanced panel weighs in: conservative radio talk show host Armstrong Williams and Mark Lamont Hill, Fox News contributor and professor of American studies at Temple University. Good to see you both. Armstrong, first to you: You know what really got me was when I saw Gwen Ifill covering the convention -- the Republican convention? When she was covering the speech by Sarah Palin, she really didn't seem that interested. She actually had a little distain in her voice when she was dealing with -- did you see the same thing, or was it just me? WILLIAMS: No, no, I actually saw that. Listen, all of us respect Gwen Ifill for what she does. But look, when you have a financial stake in a project that could be a great financial windfall for you, how can you not help but root for the person that you're writing about? I just think it's ultimately impossible for her not to have a bias and wanting Senator Barack Obama and Joe Biden to win this presidency. I think for at least -- being the professional that she is, she should have disclosed this before anyone else found it out, to let people know that she has written this book, but it in no way is going to affect her effectiveness in being fair and evenhanded in the debate with vice presidential candidate Palin and Biden. The fact that she did not do that brings her credibility in doing this furthermore into question. MARTHA MacCALLUM (co-host): Mark Lamont Hill, you know, it's hard to imagine -- you know, I always try to put the shoe on the other foot. If there were a moderator, the sole moderator, doing the vice presidential debate and that person had written -- just, you know, finished a book about Sarah Palin and how great it is of a breakthrough for women, would you be OK with that person questioning Joe Biden in this case? HILL: Well, first, you know, Ifill didn't write a book on how great the breakthrough was, she simply wrote a book about the impact of the breakthrough. We haven't read the book, and so we can't say this is some sort of hagiographic, you know, description of Obama. But that said, if someone is a journalist, I respect their ability to be objective. We wear many hats in this world. There are many people who are sort of conservative talk show hosts. I don't doubt, for example, that Armstrong Williams could objectively moderate the debate, even though he's a conservative, because I respect him and I respect the possibility of his objectivity. You know, and so, I think -- same thing with Dave, and you, Martha. Regardless of what your politics are, I don't doubt that you all could on the one hand be sort of ideological in certain spaces and then be objective in others. So, I don't -- let's give her the benefit of the doubt, here. WILLIAMS: But, I gotta say this. In all due respect, if I'm writing a book about McCain and Palin, and the book is scheduled to come out right after the election, just before the inauguration, how can I be objective? I'm conflicted, and when you're conflicted, that brings about a dilemma, and that dilemma is not going to weigh on the side of the person that you want to win versus the person that you want to win. My point is that -- HILL: But here's the -- WILLIAMS: -- I think you will agree is that she should have at least disclosed it before someone found this out. The McCain camp just acknowledged they did not know that this book had been written. The debate committee, when they were voting, she had to be voted on by Republicans and Democrats. ASMAN: All right, Mark, last word. HILL: I'm sorry. There's -- there's two things wrong with that. The first thing is, she didn't hide it. The book is on Amazon.com. Millions of people go to Amazon.com every day. If you Google her name, it comes up immediately, so there's no hiding here. And secondly, to say that she's conflicted because of her investment in this, there are many people who are journalists who want McCain to win very badly, and does that affect the way they do it? George Stephanopoulos -- WILLIAMS: They're not writing books. HILL: No, no, no, but it doesn't matter. If you want McCain -- WILLIAMS: It does matter. HILL: -- if you hate -- no, no, let me finish my point. If you want Barack Obama to win desperately, might that affect the way you moderate? If you want McCain to win, might that affect the way you moderate? Perhaps, it does -- WILLIAMS: We're talking about a financial stake here. HILL: But let me finish, but that's not exhausted at the level of a book, it's also -- it also can happen just because you want someone else to be president.

LA Times cited Palin's "reject[ion]" of Biden for "blame game" response without noting Ifill's question eliciting it

In an October 3 Los Angeles Times article, staff writers Cathleen Decker and Michael Finnegan asserted that, during the vice-presidential debate, "[a] discussion of Israel sparked one of the night's most spirited exchanges -- even as both candidates pledged their unstinting support for the longtime U.S. ally -- by spinning into a debate over accountability versus finger-pointing." Decker and Finnegan added that Sen. Joe Biden called President Bush's policies "an abject failure" and that Gov. Sarah Palin "reject[ed] the way Biden depicted Bush's policies with her line about the 'blame game.' " However, Decker and Finnegan did not note that Biden's characterization of President Bush's policy regarding Israel came in response to moderator Gwen Ifill's question specifically asking the candidates to assess the Bush administration: "What has this administration done right or wrong -- this is the great, lingering, unresolved issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- what have they done?" Decker and Finnegan also quoted Palin disputing Biden's claim that Sen. John McCain opposed "allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe." While Decker and Finnegan suggested that Palin "got lost in the thickets of rhetoric" when discussing bankruptcy, and noted that she quickly changed the subject to energy, they did not note that, according to an ABCNews.com article posted shortly after midnight ET, the McCain campaign stated that "Palin misstated McCain's position" on bankruptcy reform. From the ABCNews.com article: The Alaska governor incorrectly made it sound like McCain supports giving bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite mortgage payment terms on first homes. He doesn't. The McCain campaign confirms to ABC News that Palin misstated McCain's position. "No, that is what is called the cramdowns, which is so objectionable that Obama didn't even want it jammed into the stabilization bill," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers when asked if McCain supports giving bankruptcy judges the power to re-adjust the interest rate and principal to help people stay in their homes. Palin's mistake came when the debate's moderator asked her if Biden was right in thinking that she and McCain oppose giving bankruptcy judges this new power. During the debate, Biden said: Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe. That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it -- I'm not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don't support that. There are ways to help people now. And there -- ways that we're offering are not being supported by -- by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Governor Palin. Ifill then asked "Governor Palin, is that so?" to which Palin responded: "That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket's energy ticket, also." From the October 3 Los Angeles Times article: Palin occasionally got lost in the thickets of rhetoric, as she had in a series of high-profile interviews in the last week. "That is not so," she said of Biden's statement that McCain did not support provisions to help homeowners facing bankruptcy. "But that's just a quick answer. I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus -- your ticket's energy -- ticket, also, I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan, again, that was voted for in '05." [...] A discussion of Israel sparked one of the night's most spirited exchanges -- even as both candidates pledged their unstinting support for the longtime U.S. ally -- by spinning into a debate over accountability versus finger-pointing. Biden condemned Bush's policy toward Israel as an "an abject failure," asserting the president had emboldened Israel's enemies and waited too long into his administration to become engaged in peace talks. "We will change this policy with thoughtful, real, live diplomacy," said Biden, who suggested that "no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden." Palin responded by hailing her rival's support for Israel and rejecting the way Biden depicted Bush's policies with her line about the "blame game."

McCain Confident About Fairness Despite Debate Moderator's Book On Obama (AHN)

(AHN) - Some Republicans are concerned about whether journalist Gwen Ifill will be a nonpartisan moderator on Thursday's debate, but Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) isn't. Ifill, who is African-American, is set to release a book entitled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." - Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:20:47 GMT

Fox News' Kelly falsely suggested Ifill's book about Obama was made "public" only after she was announced as debate moderator

On the October 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, host Megyn Kelly falsely suggested it was publicly revealed that PBS senior correspondent Gwen Ifill is the author of the forthcoming book, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Doubleday), only after it was announced she would moderate the October 2 vice presidential debate. Kelly said: "Critics are asking how Ifill can pen such a glowing review of Senator [Barack] Obama and still be fair during this debate. Ifill has gone public recently talking about the book and how the path to influence has changed for African-Americans." In fact, media outlets, including the Associated Press, reported that Ifill was the book's author well before the August 21 announcement that she would moderate the debate. Additionally, following an October 1 post on her blog, in which she asserted that "full disclosure to both [candidates] was necessary," Fox News host Greta Van Susteren wrote in a second post that day: I confirmed for us here on GretaWire: the McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill's book (I think I told them when I made my efforts -- emails about midnight -- to find out!) I am stunned ... the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair -- in law, this would create a mistrial [emphasis in original]. However, in addition to ignoring the AP report citing Ifill's book, published on July 21, Van Susteren did not note in either blog post that a September 4 Washington Post profile of Ifill also mentioned that she was working on The Breakthrough. In an October 1 post on his Politico blog, Michael Calderone wrote of the Post article: "Ifill discussed it [the book] with Howard Kurtz last month in the Washington Post, in the only profile she's done before the debate. (And I'd imagine someone in the campaign should have read it)." Ifill's role as moderator of the October 2 vice presidential debate was announced in an August 21 joint statement from the Obama and McCain campaigns, which is posted on the McCain-Palin website: The two campaigns agreed today on a framework for four General Election debates, to be sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Key elements of the agreement are: [...] 2. Vice Presidential Debate - Date: October 2nd - Site: Washington University (St. Louis) - Moderator: Gwen Ifill - Staging/Answer Format: To be resolved after both parties' Vice Presidential nominees are selected. Prior to the joint announcement of the debate schedule and format, the July 21 AP article -- which is also posted on FoxNews.com -- identified Ifill as "author of 'The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,' slated for publication early next year." Additionally, in a May 8 interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer -- portions of which were also quoted in a May 13 article in The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts -- Ifill discussed the book*: Q: What do you do when you're not reporting or moderating? A: Well, I am working on this book now, which is frankly taking almost all of my waking hours when I'm not at work. The book is about an emerging generation of black politicians - in fact, when I'm in town, I'll probably talk to your mayor - including focusing on Barack Obama and [Massachusetts Gov.] Deval Patrick and [Newark, N.J., Mayor] Corey Booker - and trying to talk about what we see happening here, and I think there is something fundamental shifting here, which is shifting before our eyes, that goes beyond Barack Obama. It's my first book, so it's terrifying. But when I'm not working all the time, I'm playing with my godchildren and going to movies and doing things normal people do. Below is a Doubleday description of Ifill's book: In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen 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 argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history. THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy. From the October 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom: KELLY: Also, this developing story from the campaign trail this morning: The moderator for tomorrow night's vice presidential debate is now under fire for a book she has written that's set to hit bookstores on January 20, which just happens to be Inauguration Day. PBS' Gwen Ifill, writing a book called, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. It focuses on Obama and other emerging African-American leaders. Critics are asking how Ifill can pen such a glowing review of Senator Obama and still be fair during this debate. Ifill has gone public recently talking about the book and how the path to influence has changed for African-Americans. IFILL [video clip]: The title of the book is The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. It's taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to talk about a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing very similar things in very different ways. They're younger, they're more likely to get to power not by marching in marches, the way their parents did, or by leading protests. They have decided to do it by getting educations; basically walking through the doors that their parents opened, then choosing public service in a different way. KELLY: Well, the official promo for the book calls Senator Obama a "power broker," calls his campaign "stunning," and says this is a "pivotal moment in American history." Fox News contributor Juan Williams knows Gwen Ifill well, and he will join us live on this developing story, which is picking up a lot of heat, in our next hour. * Text added to include the original May 8 Inquirer interview.

What would you ask Senators McCain and Obama?

Millions of Americans will be tuning in tonight for the first Presidential debate between Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Historically, the debates are led by a moderator from a prestigious news organization, asking questions to each candidate and leaving time for a rebuttal from the other. Tonight is no different, with the well-respected Jim Lehrer from PBS serving as the debate moderator.While tonight's event will be exciting, many have argued that we should consider new ways for the candidates to debate. Technology has enabled a historic number of voters to learn from and participate in the election process -- something that was well illustrated by the CNN/YouTube debates.While we're not officially part of the Commission of Presidential Debates, a few days ago we launched Google Moderator. It's a free tool which enables communities to submit and vote on questions for debates, presentations and events. This way, the best and most representative questions rise to the top.One of the featured series on Google Moderator is U.S. Presidential Debates 2008 which, at the time of this writing, has 730 people already contributing 230 questions that have over 11,000 votes. Top questions submitted so far include:Many Americans feel it's unfair to saddle taxpayers with the bailout of irresponsible Wall Street firms. What caused this mess and what is a fair solution which benefits the average American, not the executives who got us here in the first place? - Suggested by Doug H, Los Angeles, CAWhat will be your single, top priority for your first 100 days in office? - Suggested by Shira, Pensacola, FLWhat will you do to reduce the size or increase the efficiency of the US government? - Suggested by Dave M, Philadelphia, PADo these questions represent your concerns? What would you ask the Presidential candidates? Who knows, maybe NBC legend Tom Brokaw will have a look at what you're asking before he moderates the next Presidential debate on October 7th in Nashville!Posted by Katie Jacobs Stanton, Elections and Moderator teams