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.

Amazon.com: The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama: Gwen Ifill: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Politics-Race-Age-Obama/dp/038552501X)

YouTube - The Breakthrough by Gwen Ifill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKjzQGRIsvA)

The book is scheduled for release Jan. 20 ;the day that the new President assumes office. What a boost in sales it would be if Obama was that new President!!

Greta Van Susteren claims that the McCain campaign was not told about the book before they agreed to Ifill being the debate monitor.
oh - oh !! « GretaWire (http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/01/oh-oh-6/)

Now just imagine the reaction if Paul Alexander was selected to moderate the debate ! Man of the People: The Life of John McCain : Paul Alexander : ISBN 9780471475453 - Buy.com (http://www.buy.com/prod/man-of-the-people-the-life-of-john-mccain/q/loc/106/33930668.html)

Hello tom:

Well then, you've got a perfect scape goat to blame when Governor Palin blows it. That's kind of what you righty's do, isn't it? Blame the media?

excon

So how did McCain's campaign people let this happen? Don't they vet anyone?

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially."
Conflict of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest)

You don't see the conflict of interests here ? Why doesn't Ifill have the integrity to excuse herself ?

I think Palin should congratulate Ifill on the book in her opening statement .

So how did McCain's campaign people let this happen? Don't they vet anyone?

A legitimate critique .However ;the point is that it was Ifill's responsibility if she has a modicum of integrity to excuse herself.

I don't think she would be in a "position of trust". Plus she is probably not the originator of all the questions, she's simply the moderator. Do we know where the questions come from? Does she run the whole show with full editorial control?

I firmly believe that it's up to the participants to vet the moderator. Much the same that lawyers vet possible jurors for conflict of interest.

Hello again, tom:

There's no debate regarding Ifills allegiance. The only debate is how McCain missed it. It appears to be just another misstep among many missteps.

I didn't know about her book... But, I DO see her on the talk show circuit plenty of times whooping it up for Obama. Her views ARE well known, so I don't see the publication of her book as an event that changes anything.

I also don't know how she was picked, but if there was an objection about her, it should have been lodged LONG ago. Soooo, I think this "new" information about Ifill is being spread to blunt her handlers anticipation that Sarah will blow it tomorrow night.

She's in over her head. She shouda blinked.

excon

Moderator :the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting
Where is the integrity ? Even CBS lets it's audience know in their reports when there COULD be a conflict of interest .

Actually, to maintain integrity in the process ,vetting should've been the responsibility of the Debate Commission as well as the 2 campaigns Commission on Presidential Debates (http://www.debates.org/)

Clearly McCain's camp dropped the ball on this but that does not excuse the rest ;especially Ifill.

It's going to be very interesting. The 'pitbull' will bare her teeth and attack Biden I'm sure. She'll probably hit it out of the park!

Yeah there should be no question that Ifill is in the tank . During the Republican National Convention, the PBS ombudsman fielded numerous complaints about Ifill’s coverage of Palin’s speech.

The question I have,and am still reseaching at this point is : when did the public disclosure of the book happen ? If it was not revealed until after the announcement of the moderators then the McCain camp cannot be accused of dropping the ball... but Ifill can truthfully be charged with a deception.

The question I have,and am still reseaching at this point is : when did the public disclosure of the book happen ? If it was not revealed until after the announcement of the moderators then the McCain camp cannot be accused of dropping the ball ...but Ifill can truthfully be charged with a deception.Her YouTube video was added September 17th. Today is October 1st. They could have made a statement before today. Why does the McCain camp know less than you? :confused:

Hello again, tom:

Upon refection, this appears more devious than at first glance. Instead of blaming Ifill for Palins BAD performance, I think they're going to refuse to let her debate at all, and use the book as their excuse. Call me cynical...

I wonder if they're paving the way by sending out emails. Did you get one?

This isn't really a put down of Palin, by the way. As a mayor and a governor, you're right - she DOES have to make executive decisions. These decisions, however, don't have anything to do with Americas foreign policy.

As a governor, I wouldn't expect her to know about that stuff. As a VP candidate, I do. You're pretty well versed on foreign policy. Do you think you could have become that way over the course of three weeks? I don't.

excon

Your assumption of a bad performance is premature. Unless the format is changed there is plenty of time allowed for a free and open exchange between the candidates.

The inexperienced candidate against the experienced one who has a history of getting foreign policy wrong. If I were Palin I'd like my odds on an even playing field .

NK further searches have revealed that the information about the books release was available to McCain in August. So either he dropped the ball or does not consider the facts sufficiently important.

Ex
I got no emails on this . Ifound out during my daily stroll throughout the blogsphere. I think Michelle Malkin revealed the information first . To date I have seen no reaction from the McCain campaign.

To clear part of this up now, it seems the CPD selects the moderators and they were announced on August 5th (http://www.debates.org/pages/news_111908.html). When in August was Ifill's book announced? Seems to me the commission dropped the ball regardless.

Good job Steve . The earliest date I can find where this was public knowledge is in this Howard Kurtz article on Sept. 4
In a Historic Year, Ifill Has One Thing to Do: Her Job - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303319.html)

And you have to look hard for it.

Must be part of that vast leftist conspiracy. Good job guys. The McCain camp missed the boat on this one. Perhaps they should suspend their campaign.

I just wonder if her book about black political acheivers includes Michael Steele Ken Blackwell JC Watts Colin Powell Condeleeza Rice Edward Brooke Janice Rodgers Brown Clarence Thomas Eldridge Cleaver Larry Elder Roy Innis Alan Keyes Rod Paige William T. Vernon or Walter E. Williams??

Ask her! Or better yet, you write that book!

Tom the format has been changed to suit Palin hardly NO time for exchanges between her and Biden. So basically we are just going to hear stump speeches.

VP Debate Made Easier for Palin - Political Machine (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/22/vp-debate-made-easier-for-palin/)

I guess when you let the pitbull off her leash she stands there with her tail between her legs.

I just wonder if her book about black political acheivers includes Michael Steele Ken Blackwell JC Watts Colin Powell Condeleeza Rice Edward Brooke Janice Rodgers Brown Clarence Thomas Eldridge Cleaver Larry Elder Roy Innis Alan Keyes Rod Paige William T. Vernon or Walter E. Williams?? Hey some of them are in there.

Here's the description, straight from Amazon:


"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."

Hey some of them are in there.

Here's the description, straight from Amazon:

One is "some of them?" Other than Powell, every name you listed is a prominent Democrat.

Hey guys, I watched that pres debate and I heard Obama say he would invade Pakistan if necessary. McCain rebuffed him by saying that you don't publicly say something like that about an ally.

And you keep bashing Palin for being naïve about foreign policy. She is only the vp candidate, Obama is in the first slot.

Get real!!

Hey guys, I watched that pres debate and I heard Obama say he would invade Pakistan if necessary. McCain rebuffed him by saying that you don't publicly say something like that about an ally.

And you keep bashing Palin for being naive about foreign policy. She is only the vp candidate, Obama is in the first slot.

Get real!!!You're about to get reamed for that... but I won't do it. :)

Let's talk about Biden's foreign policy expertise (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/some_debate_prep_for_palin.html), this is the guy that said after 9/11 "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran."

I will be kind. Biden has been in the Senate since the 1970s and for the most part has been wrong on every major foreign policy position during that time. He even voted against Operation Desert Storm.He was wrong on Reagan's cold war intiatives . Even liberals have to admit that he was gungo-ho on the current Iraq war until things started getting tough. Then he came up with the most convoluted solution for the war that anyone in either party proposed.

It's a conflict of interest and if she has any integrity she will bail out (that's a popular term nowadays).
Consider how her book sales will go after the election if Obama wins vs McCain wins. It's a no-brainer. Get another moderator! The debate will have no value whatsoever with her in the mix. And it doesn't necessarily mean she will favor the Obama side, she may overcompensate by being slanted against Biden, to try and avoid the appearance of bias. There's an old saying--If it looks right it might be wrong but if it looks wrong it's got to be wrong.

The format has changed slightly: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html



At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.:rolleyes:

Hello Need:

Do we need a leader who ISN'T a world class debater?? I don't think so. Then we'll be at a "disadvantage and on the defensive" to the REST OF THE WORLD!!

But hey, she's a hockey mom.

excon

Palin did fine in the Alaska debates I saw. In my view the format change is a wash because I'm sure the Obama campaign is equally pleased Biden will have to answer questions in a structured format.

I know I'm not in that exalted, high altitude circle of really informed political observers that some of you are, but will someone PLEASE tell me how and where Obama got HIS vast experience in foreign policy?? Some of you seem to be more worried about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience than you are Obama's. Doesn't make sense to me.

That same "Gwen Iffil" has been moderator before. She was Black before and she's still Black now folks. She's not some Johnny come lately and she's been known to be toughest on Democrats having questioned Bill Clinton till nausea back in the day. The McCain camp needs to get over this scapegoat mentality. Sarah Palin answers for herself and Joe Biden will answer for himself. Mostly the Pubs need to stop nominating control freak "maverick" wannabe president types to avoid such campaign embarrassing goofiness. BTW that book is not solely about Barack Obama, that's another misconception and fallacy. It mentions several current leaders of African American heritage including Barack Obama.

She was fair and impartial in the format. Not sure if the public disclosure had any role in that.

She was very fair and impartial. Gwen Iffil always had integrity. :)

She was very fair and impartial. Gwen Iffil always had integrity. :)

She did fine, but if she had such integrity she would have disclosed her upcoming book (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVAeSkYI2HWjkaX11O2cv09Zf73wD93I1TVO1) to the commission. I don't care what anyone says, that was a conflict of interest.


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. The commission had no immediate comment when contacted by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for John McCain's campaign did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages.

Palin also did a fine job and Biden did no harm, he managed to take both sides of several issues. "Hard coal miner (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/more-fun-joe-265797.html)" Joe can't decide whether he's for or against clean coal. Helicopter Joe mocked McCain for thinking Shias and Sunnis could ever get along while bragging on his work on Bosnia between factions that have been fighting a "thousand years." And he changed the rhetoric on our military being stretched so thin we can't do anything else by saying we had the capability to do something in the Sudan. He almost had a Hillary moment and shed a few tears there at the end for icing on the cake. Meanwhile, Palin not only held her own she surprised a lot of people last night and clearly rankled "stand up for Chuck" Joe a few times.

The difference I saw was that Biden wanted to talk endlessly about legislative votes cast while Palin steered the conversation to accomplishments of her time as an executive. Curiously Biden's m.o. became a one man debate between his and McCain's voting record. Obama's legislative record is thin so he rarely tapped into Obama's record.

I'd tend to agree with Galviston's point. What foreign policy experience does Obama really have?? That should send a strong message to Americans. And, yes we all know that we are in a mess right now & it needs to change, but I'd feel a lot safer knowing there's someone in charge that has had the experience in foreign policy that Mcain has had over a new Senator any day of the week. In my opinion Obama is just a smooth operator, & we don't need that. If I want to watch a smooth operator, I'll go to the local bar & watch morons try & pick up women.

I thought Palin held her own. I don't think she did exeptionially well, but anyone 5 weeks into a VP slot from a Govorners position... Who would?
Biden is a great speaker though, he won the debate in my opinion, but only on his ability to point out certain facts? Not sure about those facts...

I think she did a very good job.
My question is this:
What happened to Bidens other wig?
Was it at the vet for shots and a bath?

Forget his wig where did he get those teeth from!! They are Perfect!!

As for the debate they both did what they needed to do. Biden didn't come off as a condescending pr*ck and Palin didn't sound like she was out of her league. They both side stepped a few questions.

The only thing I noticed was Biden seemed more comfortable up there. Palin seemed a little nervous not much but a little. Some answers she gave she had a little tremble in her voice but she did fine.

Can someone tell me exactly when the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon ?



When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."


Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

You know, after all of the attacks on Palin the past few weeks it's been eerily quiet here since the debate. Did she leave some of her critics a little "speechless?" :)

Did any of you catch Biden's answer on what promise they would have to cut back on because of the bailout? The only promise they might have to scale back on is their plan to "double foreign assistance." The only other thing they're going to cut back on are Bush and McCain tax breaks.


We also are going to make sure that we do not go forward with the tax cut proposals of the administration -- of John McCain, the existing one for people making over $250,000, which is $130 billion this year alone.

We're not going to support the $300 billion tax cut that they have for corporate America and the very wealthy. We're not going to support another $4 billion tax cut for ExxonMobil.

Seems they can't find it in their hearts or budgets to cut back on anything but someone else's spending. I'm not quite sure how that works but since they're still running against Bush it's no surprise.

I think both of them, especially Palin, missed a great opportunity when asked how their administration might be different from their running mate's. I was waiting for one of them to say they would take charge in their own way instead of promising to continue the ways of their predecessor.

You know, after all of the attacks on Palin the past few weeks it's been eerily quiet here since the debate.It's been half a day - we don't live here.

It's been half a day - we don't live here.

Thank God for that. Somehow I think the eagerness to jump all over any chance to bash Palin in the last few weeks would have surfaced first thing this morning if she had met all your low expectations. "You guys" can't wait for a gotcha moment.

She did fine, but if she had such integrity she would have disclosed her upcoming book (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVAeSkYI2HWjkaX11O2cv09Zf73wD93I1TVO1) to the commission. I don't care what anyone says, that was a conflict of interest.

She was never under any obligations to indulge the writing of any books. That's never been a criteria for a moderator, and she's not the first moderator to write a book on politicians. Her book is on current history of African American leaders, not solely about Obama. She went on the request of both parties, in agreement.



Palin also did a fine job and Biden did no harm, he managed to take both sides of several issues. "Hard coal miner (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/more-fun-joe-265797.html)" Joe can't decide whether he's for or against clean coal. Helicopter Joe mocked McCain for thinking Shias and Sunnis could ever get along while bragging on his work on Bosnia between factions that have been fighting a "thousand years." And he changed the rhetoric on our military being stretched so thin we can't do anything else by saying we had the capability to do something in the Sudan. He almost had a Hillary moment and shed a few tears there at the end for icing on the cake. Meanwhile, Palin not only held her own she surprised a lot of people last night and clearly rankled "stand up for Chuck" Joe a few times.

Palin's a gloried cheerleader that was coached for days in preparation in hopes of not embarrassing her campaign base. If it was a beauty contest she'd win going away. She only revieved high marks from her Republican base. The Dems and Indies favored Biden. http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5poll.6614527oct03,0,4318398.story

Gwen Iffil had to ask Palin, repeatedly, to address the questions because she failed to answer after babbling on in Tina Fey fashion. Palin was uncomfortable and wanted to speak about what she chose on topic. Bad move! Palin was sorely out pointed on the issues due to her lack of knowledge. The latest CBS poll on last night's debate showed the public has Biden's knowledge approval rating at approximately 98% and Palin only 14%. Palin's not ready for any high ranking office in Washington anytime soon.


BTW Joe lost his first wife and daughter in a wreck (almost his sons as well). Give the man a little space. For a brief moment he was extremely saddened over his losses and the difficulties he endured. Do yourself a favor and avoid that campaigning route.

No we won't go that route .that is why NO ONE brought it up . There is a valid topic to discuss related to it if this becomes an issue however.

She was never under any obligations to indulge the writing of any books. That's never been a criteria for a moderator, and she's not the first moderator to write a book on politicians. Her book is on current history of African American leaders, not solely about Obama. She went on the request of both parties, in agreement. /QUOTE]

Agreement or not, Ifill should have disclosed. Period. End of story. That is integrity.

[QUOTE]Palin's a gloried cheerleader that was coached for days in preparation in hopes of not embarrassing her campaign base. If it was a beauty contest she'd win going away. She only revieved high marks from her Republican base. The Dems and Indies favored Biden. In survey, independents back Biden -- themorningcall.com (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5poll.6614527oct03,0,4318398.story)

The study "gave an immediate but unscientific glimpse into how the candidates fared." It means no more than the Fox News text poll that showed an 86 to 12 percent victory for Palin.


Gwen Iffil had to ask Palin, repeatedly, to address the questions because she failed to answer after babbling on in Tina Fey fashion. Palin was uncomfortable and wanted to speak about what she chose on topic. Bad move! Palin was sorely out pointed on the issues due to her lack of knowledge. The latest CBS poll on last night's debate showed the public has Biden's knowledge approval rating at approximately 98% and Palin only 14%. Palin's not ready for any high ranking office in Washington anytime soon.

LOL, you guys can't admit she did a good job, far and above the expectations you've set for her. Watch the polls and we'll all see soon enough... except for those skewed samples that AP and Yahoo like to use.


BTW Joe lost his first wife and daughter in a wreck (almost his sons as well). Give the man a little space. For a brief moment he was extremely saddened over his losses and the difficulties he endured. Do yourself a favor and avoid that campaigning route.

Like talking about Palin's parenting skills because her daughter is pregnant?

As far as polls go ;currently over 546,000 people have registered an opinion at the AOL on-line poll. Palin is leading 47% to 45% . I know already that the AOL method is not scientific but many more people register an opinion than those various professional polling agencies ;and I have real doubts about the impatiality of the CBS poll.

Agreement or not, Ifill should have disclosed. Period. End of story. That is integrity.


Steve, you're arguing the earth is flat the day after Columbus proved otherwise. You're spending way too much time torturing yourself foolishly here. The VP debate has concluded and for the record Gwen Ifill was quite fair by all measurements in last nights debate. That is integrity. I have the proof, and you have the sky is falling "chicken little."




[The study "gave an immediate but unscientific glimpse into how the candidates fared." It means no more than the Fox News text poll that showed an 86 to 12 percent victory for Palin.


You can save your speed dial technique for the radio station contests. That goes for you too, Tom. The Fox text poll allows you to text over and over like it's an American Idol vote. CBS, CNN, and others are one and done, random and non-random polls.




LOL, you guys can't admit she did a good job, far and above the expectations you've set for her. Watch the polls and we'll all see soon enough...except for those skewed samples that AP and Yahoo like to use.


She did a great job if you wanted to elect a cheerleader. However, I don't need the rah-rah-rah. I'd rather hear about solutions over issues that have failed this country for years now, and not a pep-rally for more of the same.




Like talking about Palin's parenting skills because her daughter is pregnant?

You're inviting me? Wonderful! I'll start! Sarah Palin, and hubby, failed to keep tabs and communication lines open with:

A) a beached whale off the icy shores of Alaska

B) a lost Russian sailor drifting in the Bering Strait

C) a "pregnant" daughter

I thought Ifill was fine and fair.

I think Palin did okay - kind of like getting a 10 yd gain on 3rd down after losing 10 on 2nd down.

I think she defended Mccain's healthcare proposal well




That doesn't cost the government anything as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program and unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds




But could have pointed out the benefit for those who don't have employer sponsored health insurance.

Also this is a CREDIT, not a deduction.

For a married filing jointly no dependents household the fed tax bill is $6697.5 - a $ 5000 credit takes it to < $2000.

If Biden uses that 12000 per year figure - under the current system that is all after tax income - if they don't have h insurance through work.

With medicare and ssi going bankrupt in 20 years or so, this trillion dollar bailout, how much is Obama going to RAISE TAXES to afford "universal healthcare"

Bush's HSA are even better because you can roll it over year to year.



Biden told half truths about tax benefits to oil company - he did not mention farm subsidys did he? Or the fact the taxes per gallon are actually higher than the profit per gallon that the oil co's get.

Palin played it off beautifully with her EXPERIENCE in Alaska and dealing with oil companies.
You see she has actually DONE SOMETHING to benefit the people of her state.



Anybody can point out the economic facts and the problems with war, the economy, gas prices, healthcare, job growth, etc... and anybody can PROPOSE solutions... you'll get it "free" from the government for example, but what has Obama actually DONE?
WHAT IS OBAMA's EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE?





IFILL: So, Governor, as vice president, there's nothing that you have promised as a candidate that you would -- that you wouldn't take off the table because of this financial crisis we're in?

PALIN: There is not. And how long have I been at this, like five weeks? So there hasn't been a whole lot that I've promised, except to do what is right for the American people

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2910698021_ab88590f4b.jpg?v=0

Steve, you're arguing the earth is flat the day after Columbus proved otherwise. You're spending way too much time torturing yourself foolishly here. The VP debate has concluded and for the record Gwen Ifill was quite fair by all measurements in last nights debate. That is integrity. I have the proof, and you have the sky is falling "chicken little."

Bobby, nice attempt but I've already judged Ifill's performance as "she did fine." That however, doesn't change the fact that a journalist of integrity would have disclosed this conflict of interest. Integrity was your word, not mine, and I know what it means.


You can save your speed dial technique for the radio station contests. That goes for you too, Tom. The Fox text poll allows you to text over and over like it's an American Idol vote. CBS, CNN, and others are one and done, random and non-random polls.

Thanks for pointing out what I've already pointed out, it means nothing - just like the "unscientific glimpse" you cited. At least we agree.


She did a great job if you wanted to elect a cheerleader. However, I don't need the rah-rah-rah. I'd rather hear about solutions over issues that have failed this country for years now, and not a pep-rally for more of the same.

I love how associations mean nothing for Obama, like unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, a racist pastor and mentor and I'm sure the latest, his poker buddy from the Illinois (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/03/fbi-raids-obama-friends-office/) legislature now under investigation, but mean everything for a guy that's rankled both sides of the aisle and a governor that is a Washington outsider that too on the good ol' boy network in her state. I'll take the hockey mom that has taken on the big boys and says "Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again" over a "change" to even more failed, massive government programs.


You're inviting me? Wonderful! I'll start! Sarah Palin, and hubby, failed to keep tabs and communication lines open with:

A) a beached whale off the icy shores of Alaska

B) a lost Russian sailor drifting in the Bering Strait

C) a "pregnant" daughter

Just what I thought, you didn't really mean Biden's "Joe-motion" was off limits.

Nk-

So true!

Bobby, nice attempt but I've already judged Ifill's performance as "she did fine." That however, doesn't change the fact that a journalist of integrity would have disclosed this conflict of interest. Integrity was your word, not mine, and I know what it means.



Thanks for pointing out what I've already pointed out, it means nothing - just like the "unscientific glimpse" you cited. At least we agree.



I love how associations mean nothing for Obama, like unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, a racist pastor and mentor and I'm sure the latest, his poker buddy from the Illinois (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/03/fbi-raids-obama-friends-office/) legislature now under investigation, but mean everything for a guy that's rankled both sides of the aisle and a governor that is a Washington outsider that too on the good ol' boy network in her state. I'll take the hockey mom that has taken on the big boys and says "Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again" over a "change" to even more failed, massive government programs.



Just what I thought, you didn't really mean Biden's "Joe-motion" was off limits.



Steve,

I've come to the conclusion that you are replying from a laptop at a bar. Put down the drink and sober up. Your going after a moderator that did a wonderful job. And you argument is so naïve and silly that I'm really surprised at your actions here. First off every moderator votes. Do you want them to disclose whom their voting for every time that are asked to moderate? Secondly, your logic is contradictory to your evaluation of Palin's performance in the debate.

You're wrong on the conclusion about the polls. The text poll allowed for multiple hits from the same individual. The CBS, CNN, among many others was a random and non-random polls and you only got one chance. While none of the polls are scientific, because they are not using a whole analysis, the ones that come closer to factual representation of the public are the polls that do not permit redundant votes.

Lastly, do you really want to talk about Joe Bidens first wife and daughter that's dead? Get your act together here and stop embarrassing yourself. I've got family to be with today and better things to do!

Steve,

I've come to the conclusion that you are replying from a laptop at a bar. Put down the drink and sober up. Your going after a moderator that did a wonderful job. And you argument is so naïve and silly that I'm really surprised at your actions here. First off every moderator votes. Do you want them to disclose whom their voting for every time that are asked to moderate? Secondly, your logic is contradictory to your evaluation of Palin's performance in the debate.

LOL, is an Obama victory so important that you had to switch from arguing the points to insults? Not very constructive, Bobby, especially when you're ignoring the fact that I have yet to "go after" Ifill unless saying "the commission dropped the ball (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/objective-moderator-vp-debate-265380-2.html#post1300739)" and "she did fine" twice is an attack. You argued for integrity and I countered that a person of integrity would have disclosed a potential conflict of interest. That's hardly "going after" someone, it's a fact.

It isn't naïve, silly, surprising or illogical to point out that fact regardless of her performance. Whether she votes or not is irrelevant, I would expect most journalists do vote but this was still a clear conflict of interest. David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun - who I know nothing about - explains it admirably (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/debate_moderator_gwen_ifill_at.html):


PBS anchorwoman Gwen Ifill, who is scheduled to moderate Thursday night's vice presidential debate between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin, has written a book that features Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama prominently. It is slated to be released in January when the next president takes office, and it would surely be a more valuable publication if Obama is elected.

Conservative Web sites WebNetDaily and NationalReview.com were among the first to raise questions about a possible conflict of interest this week, but ultimately, this is not a matter of ideological warfare. It is a matter of ethics, and the questions are valid wherever they come from.

And the organizers of the event had better deal with the matter before the debate starts -- or risk having the results of the encounter between Biden and Palin wind up being discredited in a blaze of partisan charges and counter-claims.

The book, which has not yet been released, is titled Breakthough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, and Ifill can be seen talking about it in a promotional video on YouTube here. As she describes it, Obama is one of four African-American politicians featured in the book. Ifill says she interviewed the Democratic candidate for the book, and that is the first conflict.

As someone who has written a non-fiction book, I know access can make or break the project. If Obama gave her access, as she says that he did, then they were essentially in business together -- him in telling her story, and her in recording and then reporting it.

That conflict has already been done -- and can't be undone. It can only be acknowledged by Ifill to the tens of millions of voter-viewers who will be watching tonight, so that they can judge her accordingly. She should also acknowledge to viewers whether she presents his story in a positive light.

Her other potential conflict is the one that commentators at the conservative Web sites have emphasized -- the vast difference between the value of the book should Obama be elected president versus him being defeated. I do not know how Ifill can convince some viewers that the difference doesn't matter to her.

In the end, it doesn't even matter if there is a genuine conflict. There is already clearly the appearance of one, and that is a serious enough problem.

Last week, in an interview with me about his goals as moderator of the first presidential debate, PBS anchorman Jim Lehrer said, "Fairness and the appearance of fairness are critical, because everything must appear to be absolutely straight and driven by the views of these people who want to be president, rather than by some agenda that the moderator may have."

Tell me how she did not have a conflict of interest Bobby.


You're wrong on the conclusion about the polls. The text poll allowed for multiple hits from the same individual. The CBS, CNN, among many others was a random and non-random polls and you only got one chance. While none of the polls are scientific, because they are not using a whole analysis, the ones that come closer to factual representation of the public are the polls that do not permit redundant votes.

Follow me closely, Bobby. You didn't cite CBS or CNN, you cited an "unscientific glimpse (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5poll.6614527oct03,0,4318398.story)" by "HCD Research with the help of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion." I based my reasonable conclusion on what you put on the table, not what wasn't there.


Lastly, do you really want to talk about Joe Bidens first wife and daughter that's dead? Get your act together here and stop embarrassing yourself. I've got family to be with today and better things to do!

Have a great day, but not once did I discuss Biden's tragedy, I mentioned his Hillary moment which appeared contrived because I don't recall anyone suggesting that because as a man, he "don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone" or worry if a child will make it. I don't remember that being an issue, do you?

LOL, is an Obama victory so important that you had to switch from arguing the points to insults? Not very constructive, Bobby, especially when you're ignoring the fact that I have yet to "go after" Ifill unless saying "the commission dropped the ball (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/objective-moderator-vp-debate-265380-2.html#post1300739)" and "she did fine" twice is an attack. You argued for integrity and I countered that a person of integrity would have disclosed a potential conflict of interest. That's hardly "going after" someone, it's a fact.



Steve, until Gwen Ifill does something that's harmful to society, I'll stand beside her actions. You, on the other hand considering integrity, I would find most difficult to defend based on days spent attempting to ridicule a professional news woman that was so highly thought of, that both camps requested her to be the moderator. The smoking gun fact is that she proved to be a moderator that was fair by all measurements. My only possible defence on your behalf is that you are either drunk or insane. A judge would look right through you're bias ignorance and laugh me out of the courtroom for taking on your case.


It isn't naive, silly, surprising or illogical to point out that fact regardless of her performance. Whether she votes or not is irrelevant, I would expect most journalists do vote but this was still a clear conflict of interest. David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun - who I know nothing about - explains it admirably (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/debate_moderator_gwen_ifill_at.html):

Tell me how she did not have a conflict of interest Bobby.



Easily. Gwen Ifill was no more in a conflict of interest than, upcoming moderators "Tom Brokaw", or "Bob Sheifer," or any other moderator ever. Each of these moderators exercise their right to vote every election.

Media Matters - Debate moderators (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200810010003?show=1)

Two things to keep in mind:

1) The October 7 presidential debate will be moderated by NBC's Tom Brokaw, who currently serves as NBC's liaison to the McCain campaign -- while spreading pro-McCain misinformation on Meet the Press. In fact, the McCain campaign hand-picked Tom Brokaw to moderate the October 7 debate:

Mr. Brokaw said he had been told by a senior McCain aide, whom he did not name, that the campaign had been reluctant to accept an NBC representative as one of the moderators of the three presidential debates -- until his name was invoked.


"One of the things I was told by this person was that they were so irritated, they said, 'If it's an NBC moderator, for any of these debates, we won't go,' " Mr. Brokaw said. "My name came up, and they said, 'Oh, hell, we have to do it, because it's going to be Brokaw.' "
2) CBS' Bob Schieffer moderated one of the 2004 debates, despite the fact that he is a longtime friend of George W. Bush who had previously acknowledged that his personal relationship with Bush made it difficult to cover him. Schieffer's brother was a business partner of Bush's before Bush became president -- and Bush made him an ambassador.



Follow me closely, Bobby. You didn't cite CBS or CNN, you cited an "unscientific glimpse (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5poll.6614527oct03,0,4318398.story)" by "HCD Research with the help of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion." I based my reasonable conclusion on what you put on the table, not what wasn't there.



All right boy scout you've lost your compass again. I'll do the leading here, thank you.

CBS Poll: More Uncommitted Voters Saw Biden As Winner - Horserace (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/politics/horserace/entry4497035.shtml)

UPDATED CBS News and Knowledge Networks have conducted a nationally representative poll of 473 uncommitted voters to get their immediate reaction to tonight's vice presidential debate.

After the first presidential debate, a similar survey showed that more uncommitted voters identified Barack Obama as the winner

Final numbers from tonight's poll have yet to come in, but we do have some early results. (These numbers may change as more respondents complete the survey.) They suggest that once again more voters have responded favorably to the Democratic candidate.

Forty-six percent of the uncommitted voters surveyed say Democrat Joe Biden won the debate, compared to 21 percent for Republican Sarah Palin. Thirty-three percent said it was a tie.

Eighteen percent of previously uncommitted percent say they are now committed to the Obama-Biden ticket. Ten percent say they are now committed to McCain-Palin. Seventy-one percent are still uncommitted.

Both candidates improved their overall image tonight. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed say they now have a better impression of Biden. Five percent say they have a worse opinion of the Delaware senator, while 42 percent say they debate did not change their opinion.

Fifty-five percent say they now have a better opinion of Palin. Fourteen percent say they have a worse opinion, while 30 percent say their opinion hasn't changed.

After the debate, 66 percent see Palin as knowledgeable about important issues – up from 43 percent before the debate. But Biden still has the advantage on this – 98 percent saw him as knowledgeable after the debate. That figure was 79 percent before the debate.

Uncommitted voters' views of Palin's preparedness for the job of vice president also improved as a result of her debate performance - but they are still nowhere near the percentage that thinks Biden is prepared.

Fifty-five percent say Palin is prepared for the job, up from 39 percent before the debate. Ninty-seven percent say Biden is prepared, up from 81 percent pre-debate.

Although Palin made some gains on the question of whether she could serve as president if needed, she rose just 9 points on that measure. Now 44 percent say the Alaska governor could be an effective president. Ninety-one percent said Biden could be effective as president, up from 66 percent before the debate.

We will have a full report on the poll later on. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.




Have a great day, but not once did I discuss Biden's tragedy, I mentioned his Hillary moment which appeared contrived because I don't recall anyone suggesting that because as a man, he "don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone" or worry if a child will make it. I don't remember that being an issue, do you?

No, "Steve." That was not comparable in anyway to Hillary Clinton's breakdown or Sarah Palin's pregnant healthy daughter. Joe Biden chose to speak to the public because he wanted to convey that he is very understanding of family difficulties. The fact you think Biden contrived that moment tells me that your not as close to your child, or children, as you think you are. I suggest you reconcile by taking some time out the day to reflect on your own life.

You, on the other hand considering integrity, I would find most difficult to defend based on days spent attempting to ridicule a professional news woman

Bobby, I'm a bit shocked at how an election has turned into you into an insult machine toward someone with whom you were once a friendly, fellow Cowboys fan. I'm even more shocked at your ignorance of your own posts and the reality of mine. Until you realize that one, I have never in my life attempted to ridicule Gwen Ifill - not on these boards or in real life - and two, that I never addressed CNN/CBS or whatever polls because that was not the study you cited, we'll get nowhere. And if you can't see the ethical concerns of not disclosing this book under these circumstances I pity you - it isn't me that needs to take time out and reflect on my own life. That's all I have to say on the subject, so insult me and spread your meandering imaginings all you want from here on out. I stand on every word I've said about it with no shame.

Bobby, I'm a bit shocked at how an election has turned into you into an insult machine toward someone with whom you were once a friendly, fellow Cowboys fan. I'm even more shocked at your ignorance of your own posts and the reality of mine. Until you realize that one, I have never in my life attempted to ridicule Gwen Ifill - not on these boards or in real life - and two, that I never addressed CNN/CBS or whatever polls because that was not the study you cited, we'll get nowhere. And if you can't see the ethical concerns of not disclosing this book under these circumstances I pity you - it isn't me that needs to take time out and reflect on my own life. That's all I have to say on the subject, so insult me and spread your meandering imaginings all you want from here on out. I stand on every word I've said about it with no shame.


Oh? Before you had suggested that Gwen Ifill lacked integrity, and now you've added that she's not ethical? But that's not ridiculing in your book?? Son, I have news for you! You're not entitled to be called my friend. Friendship is earned, not because two people are fans of the same football team. And my friends, by the way, wouldn't call me a liar either, but you did. I just posted the CBS poll that I was citing and still you would claim otherwise. Yup! According to you ,"CNN/CBS or whatever polls because that was not the study you cited." I'm going to stop your childish shenanigans. Here's my promise, if any person on this board, can find this mystery poll that Steve thinks I used... it's worth a check in the mail for one hundred US dollars. That's right! Go back through the threads relating to this VP debate discussion.

Here's my promise, if any person on this board, can find this mystery poll that Steve thinks I used... it's worth a check in the mail for one hundred US dollars. That's right! Go back through the threads relating to this VP debate discussion.

No problem. Under BABRAM She was never under any... Yesterday, 05:28 PM, Babram's third post on this thread and first mention of any poll/study - right after I said Ifill "did fine."


"Palin's a gloried cheerleader that was coached for days in preparation in hopes of not embarrassing her campaign base. If it was a beauty contest she'd win going away. She only revieved high marks from her Republican base. The Dems and Indies favored Biden (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/objective-moderator-vp-debate-265380-post1304267.html#post1304267). http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-.. 4318398.story"

Link to "mythical poll" I've been referring to. (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5poll.6614527oct03,0,4318398.story)

Text of "mythical poll' I referred to when I said "The study "gave an immediate but unscientific glimpse into how the candidates fared." It means no more than the Fox News text poll that showed an 86 to 12 percent victory for Palin."


The study, conducted by New Jersey-based HCD Research with the help of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown, gave an immediate but unscientific glimpse into how the candidates fared among self-described Republicans, Democrats and independents.

I haven't lost my mind, Bobby.

No problem. Under BABRAM She was never under any... Yesterday, 05:28 PM, Babram's third post on this thread and first mention of any poll/study - right after I said Ifill "did fine."



Link to "mythical poll" I've been referring to. (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5poll.6614527oct03,0,4318398.story)

Text of "mythical poll' I referred to when I said "The study "gave an immediate but unscientific glimpse into how the candidates fared." It means no more than the Fox News text poll that showed an 86 to 12 percent victory for Palin."



I haven't lost my mind, Bobby.

Steve, let this be a lesson to you. Never try counting the teeth in mouth. You'll get bitten every time. The time of my post was at 2:28 pm in Vegas. It may appear to you as 5:28 pm in your time zone. But most importantly it was my post, my citing, and my reference. So for you to argue that I was not referencing the CBS poll is your own undoing here.


From my post...



The latest CBS poll on last night's debate showed the public has Biden's knowledge approval rating at approximately 98%


Now from the CBS poll...

CBS Poll: More Uncommitted Voters Saw Biden As Winner - Horserace (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/politics/horserace/entry4497035.shtml)

"But Biden still has the advantage on this – 98 percent saw him as knowledgeable after the debate."

Notice the similarities?! That's what I've been referencing. I even gave that same reference on the political board.

From Politico --

Fox's Carl Cameron asked John McCain today (10/01/08) if he thought that PBS journalist Gwen Ifill should recuse herself from moderating Thursday's VP debate in St. Louis.

"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional," McCain said.

"Does this help that if she has written a book that's favorable to Sen. Obama?" McCain asked. "Probably not."

There's been an uproar today over Ifill's forthcoming book, “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” As I mentioned earlier, it's been known that the book's been in the works for a while, but has just gained traction now, primarily through conservative websites, cable news, and talk radio.

On the air today, Rush Limbaugh said Ifill was " totally in the tank for Obama."

"This is a conflict of interest,” Limbaugh said. “She has a financial stake in Obama winning the race."

Next, Limbaugh played a clip from McCain being asked on another radio show whether he thinks Ifill should be moderator.

“I don't make that judgment,” McCain said. “I am confident that Gwen Ifill, or whoever is the moderator, would be fair.”

McCain said he “had not heard about a new book or anything else,” but added that Ifill would be "scrupulously fair.”

*************************

Ifill didn't write the questions nor did she speak/act any way other than objectively. And thank God she's female so as not to give the McCain camp a reason to feel ganged up on.

Hannity can moderate the last debate.

Now, saying that, I hope you watched the skit at the beginning of SNL tonight.

Now, saying that, I hope you watched the skit at the beginning of SNL tonight.
Tina Fey As Sarah Palin In VP Debate On SNL (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-i_n_131964.html)

;) <-- the patented Palin wink.

Notice the similarities????!!!!!! That's what I've been referencing. I even gave that same reference on the political board.

Time zone is irrelevant here. I know you've been mentioning CBS and CNN, but I've been referencing the study you first cited, the one you actually linked to and the one I quoted. You asked for proof of your mythical poll, I gave it, now where's my hundred bucks?

Time zone is irrelevant here. I know you've been mentioning CBS and CNN, but I've been referencing the study you first cited, the one you actually linked to and the one I quoted. You asked for proof of your mythical poll, I gave it, now where's my hundred bucks?

Wrong. Timing is everything. And although it's the first time ever that I've encountered such foolishness, I do like to be thorough when being accused of not knowing my reference points. I made several references, which BTW, the one you are speaking of, if you read the link uses the CNN numbers, as well. So now your wrong on two accounts. In that same post I referenced the CBS poll and that I did cite by memory, I paraphrased (proof again below). But you said I didn't!


Follow me closely, Bobby. You didn't cite CBS or CNN, you cited an "unscientific glimpse (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5poll.6614527oct03,0,4318398.story)" by "HCD Research with the help of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion." I based my reasonable conclusion on what you put on the table, not what wasn't there.

If you can prove that the following words below are from that poll above and not the CBS poll, I'll start writing out the check.

Bobby said...

"The latest CBS poll on last night's debate showed the public has Biden's knowledge approval rating at approximately 98%"

Now from the CBS poll...

CBS Poll: More Uncommitted Voters Saw Biden As Winner - Horserace

"But Biden still has the advantage on this – 98 percent saw him as knowledgeable after the debate."


Now you "Steve" are claiming I didn't reference that CBS poll! Go ahead, print the whole exchange out in this post and take it your preacher buddy today and let him maul it over. ;)

I made several references, which BTW, the one you are speaking of, if you read the link uses the CNN numbers, as well.

Bobby, I'm man enough to admit a mistake. The article on the survey you linked to which I quoted every time, which you called mythical though I proved to be the one you said didn't exist (the article is about this study first and foremost - CNN isn't mentioned until the 13th paragraph), for which you promised, "if any person on this board, can find this mystery poll that Steve thinks I used... a check in the mail for one hundred US dollars" and then moved the goal post - did mention CNN - even though in that very post you did not mention CNN. I acknowledged its mention of CNN. Happy?

I proved your mythical poll to exist, now where's my hundred bucks - or are you just going to keep moving the goal post, attacking me personally, and welshing on your bet?

Bobby, I'm man enough to admit a mistake. The article on the survey you linked to which I quoted every time, which you called mythical though I proved to be the one you said didn't exist (the article is about this study first and foremost - CNN isn't mentioned until the 13th paragraph), for which you promised, "if any person on this board, can find this mystery poll that Steve thinks I used...a check in the mail for one hundred US dollars" and then moved the goal post - did mention CNN - even though in that very post you did not mention CNN. I acknowledged its mention of CNN. Happy?

I proved your mythical poll to exist, now where's my hundred bucks - or are you just going to keep moving the goal post, attacking me personally, and welshing on your bet?


It was an open invitation to every board participant. Notice that nobody came to your rescue? I know that you associate correction and being chastised (especially from me), as insults. But quite frankly, if you attempted to become a lawyer your practice would be from a cardboard box in a dark narrow alley.


Oh?! Before you had suggested that Gwen Ifill lacked integrity, and now you've added that she's not ethical?! But that's not ridiculing in your book??? Son, I have news for you! You're not entitled to be called my friend. Friendship is earned, not because two people are fans of the same football team. And my friends, by the way, wouldn't call me a liar either, but you did. I just posted the CBS poll that I was citing and still you would claim otherwise. Yup! According to you ,"CNN/CBS or whatever polls because that was not the study you cited."I'm going to stop your childish shenanigans. Here's my promise, if any person on this board can find this mystery poll that Steve thinks I used...it's worth a check in the mail for one hundred US dollars. That's right! Go back through the threads relating to this VP debate discussion.


Read above! Its not "mythical," but mystery. It's mythical if it didn't exit, yet my reference poll did exist. It was called CBS. It was a mystery to you to find where else besides the CBS poll that I got that those "knowledge approval" numbers. You couldn't. Because your argument was that I didn't cite the CBS poll. You came up short. A hundred dollars short to be exact. Remember when I said don't try counting the teeth in my mouth?? But instead you opted that it was the "Morning Call" poll. I said you are now wrong on two accounts. One, the CBS poll was cited, and two, of the several references I used, the 98% knowledge approval rating for Biden came from the CBS poll, not the "Morning Call" poll (related CNN numbers see below) that I mentioned earlier in the same post . Why would you want to argue with any person over their own posts, and their own reference points? That's really not smart, Steve. You can argue over views, Republican, Democrat or Independent, but not that I didn't make a reference, the I clearly cited originally by saying, "the latest CBS poll."


The latest CBS poll on last night's debate showed the public has Biden's knowledge approval rating at approximately 98%


Now from the CBS poll...

CBS Poll: More Uncommitted Voters Saw Biden As Winner - Horserace (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/politics/horserace/entry4497035.shtml)

"But Biden still has the advantage on this – 98 percent saw him as knowledgeable after the debate."

In the process of clearing up your confused wrongful conjecture, I then pointed out that, BTW, if you would like to reference the "morning call" poll, it also makes reference to the CNN poll numbers, which again you originally said was not cited either. Since then your ego finally allowed you to succumb and admit to at least one of your multiple mistakes here. Yes. I'm very happy. But I can only imagine what sort of killjoy you are for company. :)

It was an open invitation to every board participant. Notice that nobody came to your rescue?

Moved the goal post again, eh? To claim my bet requires someone else to come to my rescue, not just "any person?" You know Bobby, it's strange how you think the first person to prove it would need a rescue.


Read above! Its not "mythical," but mystery. It's mythical if it didn't exit, yet my reference poll did exist.

Twice already in one post, moved the goal post again. The bet was on the poll "Steve thinks I used," the survey on which the article you linked to was about. Forgive me for being so naïve as to think a link to an article on a specific survey that just happened to cite a different poll deep into the article would be what you were referring to, and not believing that if you were speaking primarily of another poll you might have linked to that particular poll instead.

Here's a clue Bobby, if your point hinges on a particular item you should link to that item, not something entirely different - the item which I quoted verbatim every time on which my point behind all of this rests - the "unscientific glimpse" I originally mentioned. I admitted my mistake, are you man enough to admit yours? And while we're correcting on words, I said "friendly" - not "friends." Friendly is cordial and respectful, something you've been lacking ever since you've been in the tank for Obama.

Moved the goal post again, eh? To claim my bet requires someone else to come to my rescue, not just "any person?" You know Bobby, it's strange how you think the first person to prove it would need a rescue.

Pssst... Nobody sensible answered (even after offering the moolah). Now did you copy this discussion and give it to your "preacher" (pastor), like I requested? Surely you would trust him to be straight as possible with you. See Steve I'd let your own Christian minister decide if your argument makes any sense. That's how confident I am that your ego has blinded you!


Twice already in one post, moved the goal post again. The bet was on the poll "Steve thinks I used," the survey on which the article you linked to was about. Forgive me for being so naive as to think a link to an article on a specific survey that just happened to cite a different poll deep into the article would be what you were referring to, and not believing that if you were speaking primarily of another poll you might have linked to that particular poll instead.


You're twice as confused. The CBS poll was not cited from deep within another article. You mean the CNN poll that was in the "Morning poll" article. Oh grasshopper, foot get sore kicking your butt. I'm more than willing though to forgive you for being naïve.


Here's a clue Bobby, if your point hinges on a particular item you should link to that item, not something entirely different - the item which I quoted verbatim every time on which my point behind all of this rests - the "unscientific glimpse" I originally mentioned. I admitted my mistake, are you man enough to admit yours?

Oh goodies! I like clues. Here's one! Can you say "dictator?!" Nobody has to link anything, Stevie. Your lack of comprehension is not my fault. Occasionally I cite from memory. Like when I said "the latest CBS poll," and then cited the stats. Quit trying to control people and tell them what to do. It's not healthy for you and besides when you run into individuals like myself you just get worked over and embarrassed. And don't go take out your frustration on the dog, or heaven forbid anyone in your family. Suck it up, big boy.



And while we're correcting on words, I said "friendly" - not "friends." Friendly is cordial and respectful, something you've been lacking ever since you've been in the tank for Obama.

Wow! You just made me spew drink out my nose. Try warning me ahead of time before going on another silly tangent. That word, "mythical (http://www.answers.com/mythical)," has a different meaning than the word,"mystery (http://www.answers.com/mystery)." Mythical is the word you wrongfully injected into this discussion. I used the word "mystery."

Now Stevie, take a close look at the adverb, "friendly (http://www.answers.com/friendly)." Notice that it is of, relating to, or befitting a "friend (http://www.answers.com/friend)." ;)

Pssst... Nobody sensible answered (even after offering the moolah). Now did you copy this discussion and give it to your "preacher" (pastor), like I requested? Surely you would trust him to be straight as possible with you. See Steve I'd let your own Christian minister decide if your argument makes any sense. That's how confident I am that your ego has blinded you!

Ego my a$$, one has to put ego aside to admit a mistake. When will you do the same?


You mean the CNN poll that was in the "Morning poll" article. Oh grasshopper, foot get sore kicking your butt. I'm more than willing though to forgive you for being naïve.

Thanks for realizing the obvious. I said concerning your original article, that it "did mention CNN." Look it up (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/objective-moderator-vp-debate-265380-post1306450.html#post1306450).


Oh goodies! I like clues. Here's one! Can you say "dictator?!" Nobody has to link anything, Stevie. Your lack of comprehension is not my fault. Occasionally I cite from memory. Like when I said "the latest CBS poll," and then cited the stats. Quit trying to control people and tell them what to do. It's not healthy for you and besides when you run into individuals like myself you just get worked over and embarrassed. And don't go take out your frustration on the dog, or heaven forbid anyone in your family. Suck it up, big boy.

At least you can amuse yourself, it can be really good for a tortured soul to escape into a fantasy world for a while. Me, I'm fine with reality.


Wow! You just made me spew drink out my nose. Try warning me ahead of time before going on another silly tangent. That word, "mythical (http://www.answers.com/mythical)," has a different meaning than the word,"mystery (http://www.answers.com/mystery)." Mythical is the word you wrongfully injected into this discussion. I used the word "mystery."

Mythical, mystery, doesn't matter. If you aren't smart enough to figure out the quotes I used were from the mythical (imaginary), mystery (One whose identity is unknown and who arouses curiosity) survey you linked to that's for you to work out. You really shouldn't get into an argument with me about word definitions, it's not good for your blood pressure.


Now Stevie, take a close look at the adverb, "friendly (http://www.answers.com/friendly)." Notice that it is of, relating to, or befitting a "friend (http://www.answers.com/friend)." ;)

Obvisously you don't understand words have different meanings, as in "Favorably disposed; not antagonistic." Now where's my hundred bucks?

Ego my a$$, one has to put ego aside to admit a mistake. When will you do the same?


When I make the mistake.


Thanks for realizing the obvious. I said concerning your original article, that it "did mention CNN." Look it up (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/objective-moderator-vp-debate-265380-post1306450.html#post1306450).


Took you three days to come that conclusion. It was your choice to argue frivolously like you've done numerous times on this board with others. Personally I think you had a learning disorder that carried over into your adulthood.



At least you can amuse yourself, it can be really good for a tortured soul to escape into a fantasy world for a while. Me, I'm fine with reality.


You did this to yourself.



Mythical, mystery, doesn't matter. If you aren't smart enough to figure out the quotes I used were from the mythical (imaginary), mystery (One whose identity is unknown and who arouses curiosity) survey you linked to that's for you to work out. You really shouldn't get into an argument with me about word definitions, it's not good for your blood pressure.




Words do matter. It's that attitude that gets you in trouble. Like I said you have a learning disorder. Mystery is, as in you, trying to overcome your reading comprehension deficiencies and figure out the CBS poll citing that was right before your eyes. Mythical refers to mythology,"speechlessZEUS."



Obviously you don't understand words have different meanings, as in "Favorably disposed; not antagonistic." Now where's my hundred bucks?

Like I said you have a learning disorder. Check the first the first five letters at the root of the word friendly. If I thought a hundred bucks would be enough to help overcome your learning disabilities I'd gladly send it.

I've had my say and it's obvious you don't honor your bets, so ramble on...

Like I said twice before, since you don't trust me just copy the discussion and take it your pastor for his reaction. I'd dearly love that! Oh! And BTW only winners get paid in Vegas, and I'm the house. You can't beat the house, baby.

;)

Like I said twice before, since you don't trust me just copy the discussion and take it your pastor for his reaction. I'd dearly love that! Oh! And BTW only winners get paid in Vegas, and I'm the house. You can't beat the house, baby.

;)

Right on cue. Ramble on... and on and on and on...

Run Forest Run!