It has been confirmed that the McCain camp did not know about VP moderator Gwen Ifill’s book which basically predicts Sen. Barack Obama will win the presidency. The controversial book is due to be released on Nov. 4 — the day of the elections. This, according to Greta Van Susteren on her blog:
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.
The moderator of tomorrow’s much-hyped showdown between Senator Joe Biden (D) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is putting out a book that promises to “shed new light” on Sen. Barack Obama.
The book’s release date is being timed to coincide with the election of this country’s new leader on Nov. 4.
Gwen Ifill is confident that Mr. Obama has the election in the bag. But should the moderator of such an important debate show such blatant bias towards one party? Couldn’t she wait until after the debate to announce this book of hers?
Apparently, Ifill doesn’t care if we know she’s biased. She has faced criticism before for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
During 2004’s vice-presidential debate — which Ifill moderated — there was an intense exchange between Democrat John Edwards and Republican Dick Cheney.
Cheney asked Ifill for more time to rebut Edwards accusations because 30 seconds wasn’t enough.
“Well, that’s all you’ve got!” she snapped at Cheney. Later, Ifill told the Associated Press that the Democrats were “delighted’ with her answer.
And viewers of PBS’ Washington Week, which Ifill hosts, reported a “look of disgust” on Ifill’s face when she reported on Sarah Plain’s speech during the Republican National Convention. (Source)
Last week, presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama launched a ‘Truth Squad’ in Missouri asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”
When I saw this video last week on The Huffington Post, I thought it was a joke. I assumed it was an SNL type parody and I kept waiting for the punch line — only, it never came.
In an earlier post, I told you that Obama’s camp reached out to TV stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania to block the airing of a National Rifle Association ad.
With this latest move, Obama takes us closer to an Orwellian society and gives new meaning to the words ‘BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.’
I see that Sen. Barack Obama’s camp is, once again, attempting to trample upon the First Amendment rights to free speech. Politico.com reports that Obama’s camp reached out to TV stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania yesterday to block the airing of a National Rifle Association ad.
This makes, what… the 2nd or 3rd ad Obama has asked TV stations not to run — and he’s not even president yet?
This is an alarming trend. IF Obama is elected president, will he exert Orwellian control over TV stations to suppress programming that he feels puts him in a bad light? It’s called censorship any way you look at it.
House and Senate negotiators from both parties said early Thursday that they had reached general agreement to move forward with the administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street to avoid a widespread economic collapse.
But Sen. Richard Shelby, the head of the Senate Banking Committee just emerged from a meeting at the White House and announced “there is no agreement”.
This throws the first presidential debate tomorrow into question.
Sen. John McCain’s spokesman Tucker Bounds has assured MSNBC News that McCain will attend the debate in Mississippi tomorrow night:
Before John McCain suspended his campaign yesterday, the situation that we’re looking at today looked very different then. After he showed leadership and called for bipartisanship, for us to partisanship aside and tackle this solution head on, here we are. And we’re going into a debate, I think we’re going there strong. (Source)