Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Three Aging White Men to Moderate Presidential Debate

By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted August 19, 2008.


So much for change. Only one female correspondent has moderated a presidential forum since the commission began running debates in 1988.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

WASHINGTON -- A presidential campaign in which a prevailing theme is "change" makes it all the easier to see just how much things remain the same.

Take the presidential debates to be broadcast this fall. The Commission on Presidential Debates plans three events, as usual, with one a "town hall" format featuring questions from voters, a recent custom on its way to becoming routine.

Another tradition is firmly upheld as well: Three white men will be in charge of questioning Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama on behalf of millions of American voters who, as a group, are less white and male than ever before. Gwen Ifill, an African-American who is moderator and managing editor of PBS' "Washington Week," drew the number two spot. She will moderate the vice-presidential debate, as she did in 2004.

I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation." But how about a dose of reality? Race and sex already have become flashpoints in this campaign. McCain's age is an issue and Obama is sparking enormous enthusiasm among younger voters. So why are we stuck in a media rut with three white men, the youngest of whom, Brokaw, is 68?

Including the vice presidential moderator, "We chose four people who we thought were qualified," says Janet Brown, the commission's executive director. "That doesn't mean others are not."

Brown said the panel's research into voter preferences led it to conclude that a single moderator, rather than a panel of questioners, makes the best format. There also is a preference for moderators with live television experience. As for the vice presidential debate being assigned to the sole female and person of color, Brown said the commission does not consider the job to be a lesser assignment. "Gwen is not seen as being any less important a moderator or having less important an assignment than any other moderator."

Using the commission's criteria, it's pretty darned simple to come up with the names of television correspondents who are experienced in the issues and have the requisite live coverage credentials. Katie Couric, the CBS News anchor, is one. Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent who has reported live from dangerous conflict zones for two decades, is another. Andrea Mitchell of NBC also would fit the profile.

Brown said the panel avoids naming network anchors as moderators because "they are such celebrities." It's awfully hard to see how Couric could be considered more famous than Brokaw, who, with his best-selling books and other projects, sometimes seems like a one-man industry. But never mind. The point is that the commission looked around and what did it see? The same old picture.

Since the commission began running debates in 1988, only one female correspondent, Carole Simpson of ABC, has moderated a presidential forum. That was in 1992 and the format was a "town hall" meeting in which Simpson's role was to facilitate questions from the audience, not ask them herself. Before his retirement, CNN's Bernie Shaw moderated both a presidential and a vice presidential debate. Simpson, Shaw and Ifill are the only African-Americans who've had such high profile roles.

"Truth be told, even I would say there are not a lot of women on the level of the Brokaws and the Schieffers," says Carol Jenkins, president of the Women's Media Center. "It's the networks that are so thin on women and people of color." The center is petitioning the debate commission to add more representative moderators to this year's lineup, not to eliminate a moderator who already has been announced. But Brown said that's not likely because of the single-moderator format.

Would more women, African-Americans, Hispanics or those of other ethnic backgrounds ask the presidential contenders dramatically different questions? Perhaps not. Once a campaign settles into the stretch, the issues that are dominating public discussion inevitably dominate the debates. Just once, though, I'd like to see the candidates pressed on how changes they propose to Social Security would affect women -- the group most dependent on the program and most vulnerable to changes in it. I'd like not just to hear about our future military posture in Iraq, but about America's responsibility to the millions of refugees the war has created.

There is value in pursuing the same issues from a different perspective. But it seems that this year we are destined again to see them through the same lens.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gender, media, race, obama, election08, mccain, diversity, presidential debate

Marie Cocco is a prize-winning syndicated columnist on political and cultural topics for The Washington Post Writers Group. She is a frequent commentator on national TV and radio shows.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Terrible article ... Its' Not Age or Gender ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 20, 2008 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have seen women come to the fore and it hasn't been pretty. First there was Golda Meir, a blood thirsty woman. Then there was Maggie Thatcher, truly without heart or soul. Of course now we have Condie Rice. Need I say more ?

The problem is not gender or age it is competence. The problem with the debates is that they are all scripted by the powers that be. None of the real issues are in any way framed to cause the least bit of discomfort to the Military Industrial Complex, Corporate Media, The Health Care Complex or any of the other protected Special Interests.

How about Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and Ralph Nader writing the questions and moderating the answers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrible response... Posted by: Cynic13
» RE: Terrible response... Posted by: mmckinl
Terrible article ... Its' Not Age or Gender ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 20, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have seen women come to the fore and it hasn't been pretty. First there was Golda Meir, a blood thirsty woman. Then there was Maggie Thatcher, truly without heart or soul. Of course now we have Condie Rice. Need I say more ?

The problem is not gender or age it is competence. The problem with the debates is that they are all scripted by the powers that be. None of the real issues are in any way framed to cause the least bit of discomfort to the Military Industrial Complex, Corporate Media, The Health Care Complex or any of the other protected Special Interests.

How about Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and Ralph Nader writing the questions and moderating the answers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just More Of The Same, As Usual
Posted by: cherylholmes on Aug 20, 2008 3:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, now we know the debates will be BORING BORING BORING as usual...Too bad the moderators don't include Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. That would be a debate worth watching! This one, like all the others, sucks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But what he would say . . . Posted by: dustdevil
Questions from 3 humble Americans
Posted by: weathered on Aug 20, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1.)the firefighter who sent the molten smpl. from the WTC for testing only to find it showed trace explosives through out.

2.)the Iraq veteran in the wheelchair who couldn't register to vote.

3.)Cindy Sheehan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Besides being white, the three wise men have other things in common.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 20, 2008 4:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most importantly, they have not had a son or daughter killed in Iraq.

For that reason, one of them should be replaced by Cindy Sheehan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Katie Couric?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 20, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As suggested by other comments above, using old white guys is, at most, just a symptom of a larger problem.

According to Wikipedia, the reason the LWV got out of the business was "in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were to be conducted [and give] the parties greater control over the debate environment". That reason would be the larger problem.

On the plus side, the article almost comes close to addressing its own weaknesses towards the end. Ideally, elections ought to be about the problems with Social Security itself, and how it helps those who need it the most, whether they are women or not.

Even if there were quotas, do you really think the CPD is going to pick non-white or female moderators who represent the oppressed constituencies of their respective sex/color? As recently proven, there are plenty of "minority representatives" like Condi, Colin, and Gonzales who can shut up and follow orders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Business vs Politics
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 20, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The unexamined premise is that the televised debates mean anything.

The televised debates are merely a chance for the networks to secure an audience, they serve no public service whatsoever.

What does the electorate learn from these debates?

We don't already know that John McCain is nasty and devious?

We don't already know that Obama can be long-winded and evasive?

The long distance campaign between McCain and Obama has been exciting and instructive.

Each time McCain utters one of his whoppers about his opponent,Obama uses it to tee off on McCain's poor judgement.

The unfettered and direct debate that these candidates are already engaged in is far more authentic and compelling than any moderated exposition will ever be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Business vs Politics Posted by: Dboy
There are no debates....
Posted by: daniel1982 on Aug 20, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only podiums for reading out talking-points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contemporaries of McCain
Posted by: taxidriver on Aug 20, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You think it's a coincidence that these "White guys" are roughly the same age as McCain? They'll defer to him, and their presence will send a none-too-subtle message that Obama is "too young and inexperienced."

The fact that there are no younger, dynamic, women or people of color asking "uppity" questions is a major victory for McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sick of it all
Posted by: Hearthis2 on Aug 20, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
White in this country has become a dirty word. However, as far back as I can remember and I am half a century old, Whites have been working hard to bring about equilty for ALL races.

I can't help what was done three hundred years ago. I also can not stop Black on Black crime or the comments of bigots such as the Rev. Wright who ignites racial prejudices in Chicago where Black youth are blowing each other way because they fear joining the larger community. They see no way out.

As for three "White Guys," monitoring the debates, these particular three have long careers in media and know what is happening in the world. They are good men, not cronies of G.W.

If you wish to disparge a man, do so becasue that man isn't using his innate goodness. However, if you are going to dis Whites, I would say you are no better than anyone who would disparge Blacks.

Get real. Sticking your neck out to prove you are not prejudice in this manor just shows how seriously prejudice you really are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sick of it all Posted by: weenie
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: emmas
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: Bonita
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: pauljulian
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: emmas
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: pauljulian
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: pauljulian
» RE: sick of it all Posted by: Bonita
» A bit overstated... Posted by: kepstein7777
Ifell & Amanpour YES...Couric & Mitchell..Are You Joking??
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 20, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please Couric can't shake the bubbles persona and Mitchell can't shake her connection to the Clinton years (Greenspan her Hubby and her undying support of Hillary??).Shit Michell is as much a conflict of Interest as Georgie the Wonder boy Stepanopolis!!!
Want to hear questions which most Americans are really interested in Get Maddow!I'm not interested in questions from the machine generated'Balanced' interviewers..I want someone who is pissed about what has happened to our country and what each candidate intends to do about it. I want someone who reflects my anger & outrage at what both parties have allowed this country to come to.
I want someone to ask..
What do you intend to do about the numerous crimes this admin has committed
What do you intend to do about Our reliance on Corp Owned Energy
What do you intend to do about the private banking firm the 'Federal Reserve',the Private mercenary Armies of Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater
What do you intend to do about ending our dangerous affilations with the Oil Royals of the M.E. and what do you intend to do about their Human Rights violations
What do you intend to do to get this country's citizens health issues out from under corp owned insurance co's and Pharmacuticals
What do you intend to do to build transporation which is more economical and environmentally sound
What do you intend to do to end gambling on Food prices, and help assure that We have an affordable safe food supply which supports farmers and humane animal practices?
What do they intend to do to get Lobbist money & influence out of Public service
What do they intend to do to assure all voters are afford their right to vote and have it counted accurately in every election!
How do you intend to return the Rights and Freedoms granted to the cititzens of this country under Our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
How will you end the Imperialistic/totaltarian strangle hold the Corps have had around our necks for nearly a Century???
enough of the Cordial BS questions, we want REAL Questions and REAL answers !
If I hear any dumbass questions about Lapelpins or 'How much do you Love Jesus/America' I'm going to lose my mind!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Robert Olive
Posted by: RSOlive on Aug 20, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel Maddow for Moderator! She's the best and brightest on television!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: obert Olive Posted by: Sassy Sue
» RE: obert Olive Posted by: edgar1
Questioning your ageist, sexist and racist commentary
Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney on Aug 20, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Three white men will be in charge of questioning Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama on behalf of millions of American voters who, as a group, are less white and male than ever before."
================================================
You claim to have nothing personal against those men who will be questioning Obama and McCain in the debate yet, you make a point in discriminating against them, not because of their qualifications, but because they are white, male and old. I think you are making racist,ageist and sexist insinuations because you are assuming that an older white man can not possibly relate or understand the problems of today's world. The fact that many of the problems could be blamed on our structure of "older, white men" is ignored as well.

I would have preferred seeing more people of colour and women, who are definitely qualified to sit with the rest on the panel asking questions but I wouldn't dismiss the present ones only for their skin colour, sex or their age. What do you consider an appropriate age for a person asking questions? More, what do you consider an appropriate colour for a person asking questions and mostly, is there an appropriate sex a person should have?

Again, I think I understand the point you were trying to make and I would agree with you that the panel should be diverse in age, colour, and sex, but your original wording struck me as being insensitive, dismissive and yes, racist,sexist and ageist of those gentlemen who will be officiating the debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Absurd and funny Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Absurd and funny Posted by: Bonita
"Debates" are meaningless BULLSHIT without Nader, Mckinney, etc ... also included.
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 20, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the Democrats and Republicans love the way these phoney "debates" are being set up and conducted so you can stop blaming white males only and get to the root of the problem.

P.S.: Put Nader, Mckinney, and other 3rd party candidates in the race and Obama and Mccain would be SMASHED and SUPER EMBARRASED ! Except for Bob Barr who's nowhere close to being a genuine libertarian but a mere "conservative" opportunist posing as a "libertarian", any 3rd party candidate on a debate would be a total refresher. About Barr, he's pretty close to Obama and Mccain. And don't forget that Barr signed on to all of the rightwing policies 100% rubberstamp. The Libertarian Party should have made room for Ron Paul but they FAILED and SOILED themselves !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hahahahaha . . . Posted by: Scientz
» SUPPORT OPENDEBATES.ORG Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy
Sorry, only read headline and moved on...
Posted by: OwenK on Aug 20, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do not "aging white men" represent a very populous and influential demographic in this country?

AlterNet, fix the problem with your editors. The the article about the flesh-and-blood defense had a completely misleading and inaccurate headline as well. "Victims of the drug war?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ifill should be "Meet the Press" moderator
Posted by: war_on_tara on Aug 20, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A logical choice, after Brokaw's temp gig. Since she worked a long time at NBC, someone with her resume would be the inevitable choice... if not for race and gender.

In fact, if she were a white guy she'd probably have the job already, which shows how race and gender are still viewed in that business, and why some of the comments above are off-target.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3 Old White Guys Are Best Qualified
Posted by: skappesser on Aug 20, 2008 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Commission on Presidential Debates was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. In order to do that they must choose the best qualified people who are intelligent, experienced, and well-spoken irregardless of the physical attributes that are being argued here. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation. Do some research and review the list of people who are on the commission - they are not all old white guys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Commission does not impress me. Posted by: JakobFabian01
Take back nonpartisan control of debates
Posted by: JakobFabian01 on Aug 20, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an interesting bit of history from Wikipedia:

"In 1988, the league [that's the LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS - JF] withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were to be conducted, which ultimately resulted in the Democratic and Republican parties forming the Commission on Presidential Debates which gave the parties greater control over the debate environment.

On October 2, 1988, the league's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release: “The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

Why do we allow the two major parties to control which questions they will receive during Presidential debates? We should restore non-partisan control to these debates, not let the politicians decide for themselves. They are supposed to work for us, after all. With non-partisan control, you can bet we'd hear a lot more from Greens and Libertarians.

By the way, why are there so few debates? Don't the airwaves belong to us? Well then, why aren't the commercial broadcasters using OUR property to inform the US-American public better about the candidates who want to be elected President?

It's awfully hard to get gender balance, to say nothing of racial, ideological, or socio-economic balance, when all you have to work with is one panel of moderators. Why can't we have several panels with several different groups of moderators? This is the way to get real diversity, it seems to me.

But I don't want to be greedy. Here's a simple, modest solution: Just put the League of Women Voters in charge of the debates, and I'll be satisfied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No Debates Posted by: edgar1
They just don't get it.
Posted by: nomomorons on Aug 20, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, at times I really believe that empathy is more rare than perfect diamonds.

White male presumptions of (unearned) authority live on; sadly, the feminist movement (no, the real one, not the hi-jacked one Hillary dictates) is without it's voice.

This is sort of like the integration issue, which a great philosopher explained would all get better once a lot of old folks die off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's television?
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 20, 2008 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read a helluva lot and when I don't I look at: Turner Classic Movies; premium channels for the best programming and uncensored movies; ESPN; Bravo; PBS; local channels for live sports and that's it. If I want news and commentary I surf the web and vent my spleen as needed. Newton Minnow labeled TV what it has become, i.e. "vast wasteland." When Cronkite left, so did the evening news run by news departments. Its now run by entertainment divisions and newscasting is dead. Pick your moderating donut for the reality charade known as a Presidential debate and you watch it and comment and bitch about this or that while I feed my dogs, love them, cuddle my wife and listen to opera. Ciao!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PRAYING FOR A MCCAIN MELTDOWN MOMENT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 20, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, his followers don't expect much of him. On the other hand Obama is expected to be brilliant. Funny how smart people are under alot more pressure than the poor performers. No one ever had high expectations of Bush and he never disappointed. McCain has no reason to worry about looking stupid his mommy will still love him and so will the voters. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RINKLE 47
Posted by: rinkle47 on Aug 20, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recent "debates" are a sham. They are a contrived
nothing designed and run by the DNC and RNC so that candidates will not be made to look stupid as would happen if they (the debates) were still being run by the National Organization of Women. Much like our entire electoral process there are corporate handlers at the bottom of it. Do you really think it makes a difference who wins the election?????>

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: INKLE 47 Posted by: kmarx
Yeah, but Stupid Black Woman
Posted by: cindyn on Aug 20, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gwen Iffel is "moderating" the VP debate again after her 2004 fiasco.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Courtesy of the Grey Lady Posted by: edgar1
Control thE Message , Control the Message .
Posted by: Kahoneez on Aug 20, 2008 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Globalists , Council on Foreign Relations control the message, control the debate and control the questions . Hence why you'll never hear anybody ask Is the U.S. military in Afghanistan to help build the Oil pipeline from the Caspian . You won't hear anybody ask is RUSSIA reacting to the murderous and militaristic policy of the U.S. , " Full Spectrum Dominance " or why the telecom immunity violates are privacy and lets illegal activity "to continue or that the U.S. is waging a War on Somalia and why is it happening .
Tom Brokaw - Council on Foreign Relations
Jim Leher - Council on Foreign Relations
Bob Scheiffer - Bush Sr. golfing partner, probably CFR member , since almost EVERY "news" person is on TV , along w. Kissinger , Gergen of CNN, Isacsson of CNN (who said showing "DEAD afghan CIVILIANS was perverse", after 9/11 ), making them unworthy victims of U.S. aggression .
More nuggets from the CFR's Richard Haass (pres.) says in his own writing Nations need to "reduce SOVEREIGNTY " , to deal with disasters , "reduce sovereignty for economics of the future". Haass is a frequent guest on CNN and is NEVER asked why Globalists think reducing our sovereignty is needed for their global economic expansion .
It's all RIGGED , right Tom Brokaw ( Iraq - " we broke it , so we OWN it " ) except IRAQIS own their country, not the U.S. military , you represent, you fraud .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is going to
Posted by: TruthBeTold on Aug 20, 2008 5:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
guarantee that Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer won't be passing the questions on to John McCain?

Who will also guarantee that John McCain is not outfitted with a little square box on his back under his suit coat and ear phones so his handlers can feed him the answers to questions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey hasn't anybody been paying attention!
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Aug 20, 2008 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we have voting machines for the election ,Mccain is going to win by a miracle. and all the debate huhaha won't mean shit. This is serious fascist state stuff here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Now you hit Posted by: weatherking
Moderators?
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 20, 2008 7:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we need moderators? Let the two candidates put there gloves on so they can dish out the lies to feed the sheeple everything they want to hear! LOL. What a waste of time.

RT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Moderators? Posted by: kmarx
I guess this is what happens when women are in charge
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Aug 20, 2008 8:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We chose four people who we thought were qualified," says Janet Brown, the commission's executive director.

How can anyone really argue with what a woman in charge chooses?

P.S. - Yea, and where's the Martian representation? :>

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh So Sad a Nation
Posted by: kmarx on Aug 21, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don’t you just love this comment?

“I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation." But how about a dose of reality? Race and sex already have become flashpoints in this campaign. McCain's age is an issue and Obama is sparking enormous enthusiasm among younger voters. So why are we stuck in a media rut with three white men, the youngest of whom, Brokaw, is 68?”

I have no intention of voting for either candidate as when they remove their masks I see twins. But just look at the fashion in which the writer portrays the two: McCain is aging while Obama is uplifting and inspirational among those who constitute the future of this has-been nation. I'm glad to see the writer is trying to discuss the topic in an objective fashion and isn’t letting her bias creep out!

Does the writer think a phrase like ‘Three aging white (Asian, etc) women’ is an apt way to describe people? It seems quite cold, doesn’t it? So does ‘Three aging white men’! The three elderly gentlemen are seasoned veterans who are highly qualified, respected for their talents and have proven themselves over a number of years in a very competitive milieu. (Wow! why not use the term ‘gentlemen’ in lieu of ‘white men’. It sounds so much better and is more in line with the truth but I guess there are those who need to objectify those in their ‘favorite group to hate’! And oh yes, why not use ‘seasoned’? It sounds so much better then ‘aging’, a term suggesting that these gentlemen are on the verge of senility for heaven sake!)

There was a time when the elderly were respected as a source of information about events that happened before their eyes, events of which they were a part, events long before the rest of us were even an idea. They serve as a repository of information that one can’t find in history books. Just talk with World War II veterans and you will see what I mean. (And you better do it soon as many of that generation are quickly leaving us!!!)

There was a time when experience, intelligence and hard work meant something in this has-been country. Today we have two generations that have grown up in a culture that places skin color, gender, nationality, etc as the primary criteria for selection, be it a job, promotion, entrance into a professional school or PhD program. Ask yourself this: If you needed a major operation, would you first and foremost seek those (irrespective of color, gender, etc) who have proven themselves or would you first and foremost seek those who are of a particular race, gender etc?

If a nation is to successfully compete in this highly competitive world, it must nurture its best and brightest irrespective of whom or what they are! When that nation is more concerned about ‘looks and appearances’ it is condemning itself. Just look at this failing, pathetic nation with respect to even some third world nation who are up and coming. It’s sad!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals should be ecstatic
Posted by: Romans1 on Aug 21, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debates are run by left wingers and the advocates- um, I mean journalists- are all old school liberals. They are what has always made the networks so left wing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Three corporate stooges
Posted by: ceraiteri on Aug 22, 2008 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't a matter of them being white men, it's a matter of them asking only corporately controlled questions. Why anyone would spend his/her time watching anything originated by mainstream media is beyond understanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the
Posted by: TruthBeTold on Aug 22, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Commission on Presidential Debates really wanted to "ensure that debates provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners" it would have chosen someone other than Bob Schieffer and Tom Brokaw.

Schieffer has been carying water for the Bush administration (along being a family friend and golfing buddy) and Brokaw demonstrated his lack of class during his last interview with Obama.

And if they were interested in the "best qualified people who are intelligent, experienced, and well-spoken irregardless of the physical attributes", they would have chosen the League of Women Voters, which is REAL NONPARTISIAN political organization.

Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Wold Blitzer and the rest of those clowns at CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and NPR and nothing but disgusting lapdogs for Bush/Cheney and the republicans.

Bob Schieffer and Tom Brokaw need to prove to the American people that they did not attend the John McCain barbeque and chicken-fry and also reveal the names of the lapdogs who did attend.

One other thing: Who is going to guarantee that Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer or their minions won't be passing the questions on to John McCain?

Who will also guarantee that John McCain is not outfitted with a little square box on his back under his suit coat and ear phones so his handlers can feed him the answers to questions?

Who will guarantee that George Will won't be coaching John McCain on the answers to the questions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hinabear
Posted by: Hinabear on Aug 22, 2008 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just a woman, it's also diverse ideology, age, race, intelligence-for brilliant white women with camera savvy try Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman, Barbara Walters just to name a few. Yes, they would certainly ask different questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jim Lehrer should wear a dress
Posted by: cthelyt on Aug 22, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe some bangles too. Anything to liven up the proceedings, which are absurd anyway. They aren't debates in any commonly understood sense of the word. They're merely showcases for the predigested candidates who have made it through the mainstream's elaborate vetting process.

I'm all for making it more of the show it already is. Hire John Waters to write and direct. Jim Lehrer may be Divine's second coming; if so, John Hagee will bow in devotion, and make sure the cameras catch that moment too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some other options
Posted by: gr8shoes on Aug 22, 2008 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't disagree with the premise of the article and need for different moderators but adding katie Couric to the list wouldn't be a change from the same old, same old. Except that she's a woman-maybe once a long time ago Ms Couric had some reporters chops but they obviously disappeared during her long stint on the Today Show.

If you want moderators who ask really superficial questions the line up could be Couric, Ann Curry and Contessa Brewer now there is a talentless team. If you prefer smart women asking questions let's try Ammanpour, Maddow, & Alison Stewart. Anyone of them could easily replace just one of the 'old white guys' that would show at least a modicum of understanding of what this election is about from the debate rules committee.

It does seem a tad unfair that all of the Presidential Debate moderators are older white men; since one of the candidates happens to be a young black man.

The rules committee try something really new and use a print reporter say Bob Herbert of the NY Times of Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post; that might even the playing field just a bit, don't you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE REMEDY? WWW.OPENDEBATES.ORG
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Aug 22, 2008 10:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the mainstream media WON'T tell the American People about, and what AlterNet just failed to tell you about, is the organization fighting to regain the people's control of the presidential debates: OPENDEBATES.ORG linked text

The Commission on Public Debates (CPD), from the moment they took over the debates from the League of Women Voters, has rigged our presidential debateshas by conspiring with the two parties of this nation's duopoly to exclude third party candidates and ideas, effectively censoring information and depriving the American People of freedom of choice. Through memorandums of understanding, they conspire on everything from seating arrangements to podiums, to the very questions that cannot be asked. OLD WHITE MEN is just a symptom.

OPENDEBATES.ORG is headed by George Farah, a brilliant attorney, and members of Open Debates come from across the political spectrum, from far right to far left, and everything in between. Names you know from Congress to candidates to political and environmental activists. You can view videos of their press conferences at the National Press Club on their website. They have filed lawsuits with the Federal Election Commission against the CPD and with the IRS to revoke their non-profit status, since the CPD exists clearly for the sole purpose of profit and power.

Please support their efforts in every way possible. Along with CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGNS across the nation, Open Debates is working to free Americans from the domination of the power elites who would OWN OUR GOVERNMENT...THE PUREST DEFINITION OF "FASCISM."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Non-Partisan and Equal Male/Female ratio
Posted by: zepher on Aug 24, 2008 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am bothered by all three of the older white male TV personalities proposed for the "debate" of presidential candidates in the near future. They have been performing news for a long time and I have personally witnessed each of them sell out America on national television more than once. So, let's see some new and vibrant non-partisan female and male moderators.

It is important they be non-partisan or it will end up like the Stephanopoulos-Charles Gibson fiasco debate of all democrat candidates on ABC this April. Those two were so partisan it was pathetic.

A true debate would be nice too. One where there are no interruptions by moderators, fair and equal time for responses, and follow the rules all high school debate teams follow. That would be a good debate to watch. Obama and McCain. Telling America their platforms for election. No corporate media interference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The one question to ask..which never will happen
Posted by: motamanx on Aug 28, 2008 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When talking to the candidates about funding the war in Iraq, or about debating the funding of the war in Iraq, or about debating the debate on the war in Iraq, the interviewer must insert the inescapable fact that the war is illegal and was instigated by lies. Therefore the funding of such a war is problematical.

Sadly, all of the relevant interviewers-- interviewers everywhere--have neglected this seminal fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]