If Gwen Ifill can't be objective because she wrote a book about black politicians

Shouldn't Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer recuse THEMSELVES because they cover white politicians and therefore cannot be objective about Obama?

Oh, wait a minute. Black people are prone to making our decisions based on race. White folks, on the other hand, are perfectly objective unless they are conclusively proved to be otherwise.

Just white folks projecting their racism onto black folks.

It's not new.


EDIT: Typo in subject.

before the Democratic debate hosted by Tavis Smiley at Howard University - they actually noted in an article about the debate that Tavis Smiley (obviously in answer to a question) assured that the fact that the journalists were all minorities would not mean that Obama had a built-in advantage!

Smiley Promises Balanced Debate on Black Issues

When Democratic contenders meet at Howard University on Thursday night for their third presidential debate, the agenda will be focused on issues of importance to African American voters. But despite a panel made up entirely of minority journalists, the event is "not tailor-made" for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), said Tavis Smiley, the PBS host who will moderate the forum. Washington Post, June 27, 2007

Excuse me? Every other debate was held at "white institutions" and moderated by white journalists, but I don't ever recall seeing ANYONE ask whether this would result in a built-in advantage for the white candidates.

The bottom line for all-too-many people - including the media - in America is this: the perspective, opinions, institutions of whites are the norm and are presumed to be fair, objective and acceptable. Anything that deviates from that norm is suspect as unfair, subjective and questionable.

So the fact that Gwen Ifill is black is automatically grounds for questioning her objectivity, whether people do so openly or not. Interestingly, I haven't yet heard anyone suggest that her femaleness balances out her blackness and thus makes her perfectly objective. Apparently, the black outweighs the female in her - looks like the one drop of black doesn't just overcome the white in us, but also the girl.

There's a world of evidence for this.

though I generally agree with the sentiment of the original post that the standards for impartiality that minorities and women are forced to abide by are often unfair.

involving a black candidate?

Using your analogy, the fact that white voters until this year have always voted in a bloc AGAINST black candidates would mean that a white journalist could not fairly cover Barack Obama's campaign.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Half voted for Gore and half for Bush.
Half voted for Kerry and half for Bush.
And so forth.

To say "whites voted as a bloc against black candidates until this year" is just not true unless you see Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as legitimate candidates, which, I'll confess, I do not.

Bobby Scott gets a large percentage of the white vote in Nofolk, etc. Colin Powell could have been elected president in '92 or '96, or '00. Whites helped put Obama in the senate and they helped push Braun out.

'White' voting patterns are more complicated and diverse than 'veterans' 'women' or 'minorities', etc.

ALWAYS voted in blocs AGAINST black presidential candidates. The "viability" argument is, in my view, a crock, since viability is not a generic trait but is determined by how many people end up voting for them. Barack Obama is a viable candidate because he is getting lots of votes; if he were the exact same person he is now but did not get a significant number of votes, he would not be a viable candidate. In fact, one of the reasons black candidates have not been seen as "viable" is because white voters overwhelmingly have voted in blocs against them. That has changed this year.

FYI - I was not talking about local and state races in my post. I was referring to presidential elections since I assumed that you were, too, when discussing blacks voting in blocs, since blacks do NOT vote in blocs in local and state races any more than whites do. In presidential races, blacks do vote in blocs - but our bloc voting is tied to party, not race. Black voters have consistently demonstrated a willingness to vote for white candidates - usually in overwhelming numbers - even when black candidates are running. On the other hand, white voters in presidential elections, until this year, voted in blocs against black candidates, however you want to characterize it.

but whites with similar resumes - look at Pat Robertson - didn't get anywhere either.

Colin Powell could easily have been elected president had he chosen to run. My firm did polling on that.

People haven't had a whole lot of opportunities to vote for black or female candidates for president. This year was a surfeit of riches for us to have those opportunities. Hell, I'm just old enough to remember when Shirley Chisholm put her hat in the ring. She was cool, but no one jumps from Congress to the presidency, especially if you're a black woman and there's a war on.

an allegation that has absolutely no merit, notwithstanding your take on how black voters vote.

for Obama, based on voting patterns.

They're wrong and even McCain does not have a problem with it.

The RW media is really playing this shit.

Sigh. Oh well. Maybe next time.

I have never been able to decide which side of the political fence she's on. IMO she is a complete professional and I have no doubt that she will be an objective moderator during tomorrow's debate.

hands down.

the issue at the least, needs to be looked into. However, from what I've read it looks fine. Ifill is a career professional. But don't act like this issue is so, um, black and white.

Is Obama the name that dare not be mentioned?

Good Lord.

And yes, this issue IS black and white. That's exactly why the right wing is raising it - it's part of their dog whistle politics. And even some Democrats are falling for it.

"Politics in the Age of McCain" and was going to moderate a debate you don't think the Obama campaign should even look into it? That's all I'm saying.

What distinguishes McCain from previous candidates, aside from age, and has there been a history of elderly candidates struggling to achieve higher office?

The moderators were agreed upon in AUGUST. If there was a problem something should have been said then. That they're bringing this nonsense up now is proof that they're being completely disingenuous. They're saying that she's not objective because she's black. The book is excuse making bullshit.

Regards

ABSOLUTELY! :hi:

just because a judge may stand to profit if one party does better in court than another (Alito: No conflict of interest in Vanguard case http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/alito/index.html), doesn't mean that person can't actually be impartial.

members of the Black Caucus to vote for the House bailout.

talking shit about Ifill, are the wingnuttiest wingnuts. And they're being their predictable racist pig selves. The sentiment you expressed in your second paragraph is not held by the mainstream- not the media and not the general public.