Gwen Ifill has not even yet written the book that is allegedly the evidence of her "liberal bias," from the sounds of it, it is more an analysis than a polemic in any case.

On the other hand Gibson and Stephanopolous managed to dredge up all the slime that they could about Obama in the form of baiting questions about such pressing issues as flag-pins.

Oh, oh, oh, we're so unfair to the media pinheads aren't we Mr. media pinhead?

One does get pretty angry when God Obama is questioned about anything.

As far as Ifill goes she summarized what the book is about and it clearly presents him in a positive manner. In addition, listening to some of her commentary it would be hard to say she is not biased toward Obama. Lastly the book is set for release on inauguration day. Obviously, Obama winning would be better for the book than if he lost giving her a vested interest in how Obama fairs in the election.

I think questioning the soundness of her moderating the debate is absolutely fair. I think that she did a very good job but still think she made a mistake by how she handled the whole deal.

Every study done on the media and the election has shown that Obama is presented more often and more often in a positive light than anyone he has run against.

If you take some of the mistakes that Obama has made and think about what would have resulted if McCain did the same thing well even the most biased would see that there is very little even handed evaluation going on.

If McCain said 57 states with 2 to go it would be weeks of analysis on if he is exhibiting early stages of Alzheimer's.

Perhaps Obama is more often perceived in a positive light, even in the media, is because he is a very good communicator and he has well thought out articulated positions that appeal to many American voters.

I don't think that Obama should be penalized for being articulate and having well thought out positions that appeal to many American voters..

Can you blame the press?

The repulsicans constantly deride any journalist that's not on their payroll as being 'in the bag' for the left. They won't let any reporters talk to SP, like she's lindsey lohan. They label the forth estate as 'The filter'.

Why wouldn't the press be insulted to have their entire profession labeled as un-American? To hear it from the gop, journalist are all a bunch of biased no talent hacks with no rightful place in society.

And for this the repulsicans expect favorable coverage? It's just a continuation of the gop war-on-smart-people.

I agree, but some of his positions have historically caused far more problems than positive results. The media for the most part never question him on those types of things.

Raising Capital gains as an example. At one point he was talking about 28% which has in the past hurt business. There are others as well. My point is that even when his points are screwed up they seem to let it pass.

However, as I wrote this, it also seems clear to me that the media has really botched this whole election. Things that McCain says are not examined in any detail either.

Take off shore drilling. Some of what both said was correct. The media presented one side or the other. How many interviews of people in the oil business did you see interviewed?

CNBC had a special called Hunt for Black Gold that in a way presented both sides of the issue but also presented information that would help you decide which side of the issue you might fall on. It was the closest thing I saw to a rational evaluation of the issue.

Spend a few days researching the issue of offshore drilling and I guarantee that you will end up being outraged. Not that we should or should not drill. Which view you hold does not matter because what you will find out is that both of them are for the most part distorting the reality of the situation.

Yes, my "God" Obama, whom I only turned to supporting when he was the only one left opposing Clinton in the Democratic primaries. My "God" Obama who I disagree with on wire-tapping, my "God" Obama who is far too conciliatory to the criminals who got us into this mess and who (like too many Democrats) doesn't recognize their criminality.

Yes, Obama must be my "God" for the simple reason that I agree with him enough to recognize that he is the far superior candidate to John McCain.

Yes Ifill is writing a book that sounds like a positive portrait of Obama - among other upstanding African American politicians. She is also (apparently) writing a chapter about that lying stooge Colin Powell - should I infer bias from that?

So she doesn't call Obama a terrorist in his chapter, so she's biased? She's still writing the book, maybe you can get her to add something about Obama being a secret muslim manchurian candidate denying a war hero his dues as president of the United States of America.

BTW, Ifill gave your candidate a pass on her piss-poor performance, but I'm betting if she challenged Palin on her dissembling and avoidance tactics she'd be called bias.

If the media were truly "fair" to John McCain, they'd be hammering him everyday for running against the Republican establishment 8 years ago only to join them in order to get the nomination. They wouldn't be making excuses for his 100 years of war comment (I expect the only thing that would make a 100 year presence in Iraq necessary is war, and even if it is a "peace time" presence we still have to make it through the war in order to get to the peace, and how long will that take? 100 years maybe?)

Palin's witch-doctor priest and her Alaska seccessionist party connections would be as central to the political conversation as Jeremiah Wright's out of context quotes and Obama's passing aquaintence with someone who was pardoned for a crime that he commited when Barak was eight.

They'd be talking about how Republicans are actively seeking to prevent people from voting instead of beating around the bush saying things like "the parties disagree on how best to prevent electioneering."

You know what media bias is? It's when the entire media declares BOTH debates ties when the audience (the public, ie the VOTERS) declared Biden and Obama to be the winners. Oh, but I guess that would be a case of the self-congratulating "liberal" pundit elites being right for once wouldn't it? I guess not, cuz they didn't say the grumpy sneering old man and his fake-folksy condescending VP won...

If the media was actually FAIR instead of merely being "balanced" you party would come off far worse than it does. You would LONG for the old days of liberal media bias if you had to live for a day with media FACTUALITY.

I agree that today's Reporters are not Investigative Reporters at all that would question any statement made. Today's Media Reporters are more like Clerical Reporters recording a subject's monologue looking for "sound-bites" that their Editors might be able to use later.

But even I was shocked at the VP debate when one of the subjects flat-out stated to the Moderator that she didn't feel she needed to answer any of the debate questions directly. It lends a whole new meaning to the term "debate".

Media "fairness" during a Political election season is definitely going to be very elusive target and very subjective in the eye of the beholder. Someone will always be crying foul.

I fail to understand how raising the capital gains tax back to 28% hurts business. Please explain. As for interviewing people in the oil business for offshore drilling, that is interesting but in reality the antagonism against this has nothing to do with the drilling or the process. Its about not taking any more chances with our coasts, natural resources and ecosystems for negligible benefits to us in particular. The trade off is very skewed towards oil companies not our country as a whole. What is more valuable to you? A few months of oil or your country and its environment? I would not take a risk with our coasts to get just a few months or even a years worth of oil. The smart person would find a way to get that benefit with the least amount of risk. Its called conservation and energy efficiency in our book....

"I fail to understand how raising the capital gains tax back to 28% hurts business. Please explain."

I'm not going to waste my time explaining something so fundamentally simple so someone so clearly uninterested in researching the issues for himself. In typical Democrat fashion, you want it spoonfed to you...so you can argue with the person who hepped you.

Because I'm generous, though, I'll answer your question with a question and in so doing shed some light: If corporations were as in collusion with the Republican Party as the Democrats maintain, and if raising the capital gains tax didn't hurt them, don't you think they'd have more to gain by backing a hike in windfall taxes and the cap gains tax while the GOP was in power? Any idea why Republican presidents--historically the "party of business"--routinely lower the capital gains tax when they can?

Extra credit: The Al Gore 2000 campaign routinely tarred "big pharmacy," "big oil," etc. in his bid to burnish his populist bona fides. Given that 50% of the nation's adult population now owns stock in some form or fashion, is it any surprise that analysts ridiculed his anti-business rhetoric as self-defeating?

Please show your work, genius.

As far as Ifill goes she summarized what the book is about and it clearly presents him in a positive manner

To put it bluntly, you are either lying or utterly ignorant of the basic facts. Ifill has said that she hasn't even written the chapter on Obama yet.

In fact, the only summary of the book thus far has been by Doubleday, the publisher--the same publisher that scheduled the release date, not Ifill.

According to Doubleday, the book "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."

The only word here that would make it remotely seem like it is a positive portrayal is that Obama's presidential campaign is called "stunning." However, even the most hardcore rightwing conservatives can admit that it has been "stunning" in many ways.

As for mistakes, Obama and McCain have each made their fair share of mistakes--which is to be expected when on the trail nonstop with little rest. McCain has had some pretty whoppers of mistakes himself, so you really don't want to go there, especially when the individual that made the mistake corrected it later.

Wolly your question was answered adequately by someone else.

Obama does not say that the only reason is environmental issues. If that is the only reason then why would he support drilling now.

I will not bore you with why what I am about to say is the only logical conclusion when looking at his energy strategy but I am very certain that you do not have very many facts on this issue.

Obama's opposition to offshore drilling is completely based on the desire for the price of oil to increase, which makes some of these alternative measures viable.

Do you support drilling in areas like off the California coast where drilling reduces pressure in the oil fields so the amount leaked into the ocean is less than what would occur naturally?

In a time where jobs, government taxes are a big issue. Have you ever considered how much money is generated by the leases as well as royalties. What about all the high paying jobs that the oil industry would create if they expanded the areas they could drill. What about balance of trade issues.

Have you thought about what the requirements are for even a clean thing like windmills. 200 feet up, a significant area where there is no ground clutter, and based on the amount of energy they create, consider how much natural areas will need to be cleared to allow for the large numbers needed. What about all the power lines. In my area there is a big issue about the running of power lines across the state. The lines run from a nuke so if we move to wind mills imagine all the lines that will need to run.

What happens when they are not so efficient like when the temperature drops or the wind is calm. Obviously a secondary source will be needed, which lessens the economies of scale don't you think.

The reality of Obama's plan is that everything is going to cost significantly more. So when you fill up with gas, heat your house, turn on the lights at night or any other activity that uses energy consider yourself lucky because as far as cost goes you have not come close to seeing what expensive is.

Spend some time and do the research. It is clear as the clearest day.

Oh and if you are OK with paying a lot more to save the planet, I assume you drive a hybrid, turn your lights off at night, keep your house hot in the summer, cold in the winter and never drive when the place you are going is less than 10 miles away.

But again, where is your proof that business makes decisions based upon capital gains tax rates? We had very high marginal rates up until Ronnie yet we created the most impressive economy that ever existed during that time period. You like to spew economic theory as if there actually is an absolute truth to any macro economic model. Earth to right wingers in love with MIlton Friedman:

His policies are what created this gigantic debacle we are faced with today. His selling of lowering tax rates forever is why we are now facing massive deficits and looming financial disaster.

You can spew right wing stuff until you turn blue in the face, it will not change reality.

The meme about oil drilling stopping natural seepage has been debunked by the very professor that wrote the article you all want to use as proof. Its been all over the local press since our idiotic local supes, controlled by conservatives in the north county, asked Arnie to let them drill offshore since we need the money. Brooks Firestone quoted a local professor of geology at UCSB and that very same professor got up in the public meeting and corrected him, to his face. Brooks still did not change his wording so the professor went to the local papers and explained that he had no proof whatsoever for that claim, none.

As for you thinking its a good idea to drill out here, we do not want our ocean to look like the crap in Galveston. We care about our state, we like it nice and clean.

Let's flip the coin for a second and talk about the media love affair with Palin. If she's big girl enough to play with the big boys then she should be big girl enough to play by the same rules. Why isn't she interviewed more? Why aren't her views dissected? What's all this she won the debate because she didn't fall on her face like she did in the 3 interviews allowed by the McCain camp. She didn't even answer some of the questions. Why is the media treating her with kid gloves? Why aren't their questions about her associations, her record, her judgment, and her church? Biden has participated in over a hundred interviews. The Vice-President inherits the presidency if something happens to the president. We need to know that that individual can handle the job. Each and every journalist has a bias and prefers one candidate over the other. The professional ones just perform their duties in a nonpartisan way. As for the media presenting Obama in a positive light, I've seen and read much press criticizing him and raising doubt him. I'm an Independent and I have to tell you I was undecided before the 700 Billion Bailout mess. But when John McCain said the economy is sound and then pulled that "I'm suspending my campaign" fiasco, he lost me. This election is much too important for me to vote for someone who doesn't care or understand the gravity of the times.

"The Age of Obama", published on Inauguration Day - and she doesn't have a stake in whether it's Obama's Inauguration or not? hmm...

But Ifill's the best present the McCain campaign could ask for. Most real Americans resent the fact that every single major media organization is *literally* - I mean in every possible sense - an arm of the Democratic Party. State-controlled media like this is not an American phenomenon, or shouldn't be. So McCain makes huge gains by running against the media - real Americans despise the MSM.