Ricky : Gwen is the best!

Robert Anderson : Gwen, I saw the look on your face last night. And since you're moderating the VP debate, I have faith (such an overused word!) in you that you'll do your best. As an inspiration of sorts, I offer the words of Jonathan Alter from his Newsweek blog this morning: "I'd imagine that Palin will dodge press conferences in favor of interviews with people like Sean Hannity, Larry King and Ellen DeGeneres. Then, when the media complain that she is being kept away, the McCain campaign will cite the half dozen or so interviews she has granted as proof that the campaign press is just bellyaching. Brief press "avails" on the plane will be useless, unless reporters ask open-ended queries designed to elicit proof of real knowledge. That should get Palin through the next three weeks. By the end of the month, the McCain camp can say she has to go to ground to prepare for the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate, where expectations will be so low for Palin that she will likely emerge intact. It will be up to the press and public to raise enough of a stink about this, that Palin is forced to submit to real interviews with real questions that show whether her real-life experience is any preparation for assuming high office. In that sense, the Palin nomination is as much of a test of us as it is of her." Good luck to you in the upcoming weeks.

Gail : Dear Gwen, Like Sandra Day O'Connor, you may have a chance to decide the next election! Sarah Palin is obviously a master bullshitter. I have faith that you will know how to handle this problem when you conduct the VP debates. You can be an American hero! Love you.

Mark B : Gwen, your obvious disgust at Gov. Palin, expressed so vividly after her speech at the convention, was so transparent that even the Chicago Tribune editorial from 9/9 reported it as some of the most biased of the media. How can you moderate the Vice Presidential debates? You should recuse yourself and avoid the conflict of interest

Larry : Gwen, you must ask Palin how she represents any change from W, where her policy positions differ from his, what mistakes she believes he made, etc.

LN : I know many women (and men) who call themselves evangelical Christians who firmly believe that a woman must not be the ultimate decision-maker in a household, business, or community. Instead, they must seek counsel from and defer to a man who is her designated "head." If an adult woman is married, her "head" is assumed to be her husband. Since Sarah Palin identifies herself as an evangelical Christian, what are her beliefs on this? Does she have a "head?" If yes, who is it? Her husband? Her pastor? If she were to assume the presidency, would she defer to such a person as part of her decision-making process?

Carol : Charlie Gibson ask Gov Palin about the Bush doctrine when he did her interrogation. Why hasn't anyone ask Obama if he agrees with the doctrine of his past chruch I am very upset that the american press has been so bias toward him!!! Please could you ask him about this??????

Ann Canas : The VP debate between Biden and Palin will NOT be a real debate! Biden and Palin will respond to prepared questions but not to each other. This is a manipulated format that protects Palin and stifles Biden. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AT THIS CRITICAL POINT IN THIS MOMENTOUS ELECTION! WE DESERVE A REAL DEBATE BETWEEN REAL CANDIDATES! WHAT IS THE GOP SO AFRAID OF? PBS SHOULD NOT PARTICIPANT IN THIS OUTRAGE!!!!

georgina : Gwen, why is the VP debate not allowing the candidates to respond to one another? Only prepared questions will be answered because the GOP has put a strangle hold on the format. THIS IS A TOTAL OUTRAGE TO ALL OF US and anyone of reasonable intelligence. This will NOT be a real debate and it is time for Sarah Palin to step up to the plate with Joe Biden fair and square. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS KIND OF DIRTY DEALING AND WHY ARE YOU PARTICIPATING ON THESE TERMS?

UnFetteredReporting : Gwen, During the upcoming VP debate, I hope you will be more tenacious than others at getting the candidate to actually answer the questions after they try typical evasive responses. It's terrible how most interviewers let them get away with these dodges. For example, the Republicans are completely avoiding talking about the cost of the war in terms of dollars and lives, but they love to talk about 'winning' and doing "whatever it takes." When they give a response saying it may take 5, 10, or 100 years to win this war, ask them out right if they feel, conservatively estimated at 500 deaths/year and $10 B/year, that's the best way to use 2500 lives & $50 B, 5000 lives & $100 B, or 50,000 lives & $1 T? Of course the true dollar costs are much, much higher. If they balk at that rate, ask them to pick a figure.

Louise Hyson : Dear Gwen Ifill, you are a breath of fresh air in all the filth that is going on around us. I would like to send you something to read but do not have an address to do so. Is it possible to email you something?

ja : I sincerely hope the question of drafting more soldiers for the upcoming confrontations Sarah Palin seems to envision. Be it Iran or Russia, she has given very assertively her willingness to engage our men, We have just been told that Afghanistan needs 10,000 more troops alone. and the response was that that number would not be available until mid 2009. It's been said by a number of high level military that we will invade Iran before year's end.

pam : Please ask Palin, if Roe v Wade is reversed and abortion is criminalized, what should be the punishment for a woman who does have an abortion in her opinion.

Beverly : Gwen, When the infamous bridge to nowhere was okayed by Congress it was for two bridges. The second birdge was from Anchorage to the valley area. Reason was Anchorge was extremely limited in growth and was running out of land. Question: Does anyone know what happened to the money for the Anchorage bridge to the valley?

Darlene : Gwen, Please ask Palin, who touts government transparency, if she were president, does she believe the executive branch should ignore Congressional subpoenas. If not, why is she allowing her husband and staff to do so in Alaska?

Riccardo : Gwen, I know that the VP debaters are not allowed any coaching during the debate. Is there a way to know whether a candidate is wearing an earpiece in order to stay in touch with a debate coach on the other end of the line?

M.J. Kitchens : Gwen, please enforce time limits on both debaters. They both tend to run at the mouth, and it will help us and them if you force them to come to conclusions in the allotted time frame. since a primary task of the Veep is to sit as President of the Senat, ask each candidate how they would handle a problem that would arise in the senate. Cheny commented that he had not often seen John Edwards in the Senate in the prior year...(whether it was true or not). It was effective. I wonder how Gov. Palin would respond.

Gail T : You are getting lots of advice. Given that both parties supported a lot of deregulation in the 90's, I'd like to know what specific regulatory changes the VPs would support for the future. For instance, can the US continue to allow companies that are "too big to fail."

Gail T : There is some support for easing the regulations on refinery construction and nuclear power plants. If we use 1960 EPA standards, it is cheaper for industry, but when it comes to locating those more dirty plants, they would run into the "not in my backyard" syndrome. What do the candidates think?

Karen T : Gwen, I would like to hear where the VP candidates stand on Israel and on the abysmal situation Darfur and Somalia. We are often broadsided by the problems we ignore. How are we going to make friends and allies with South America. With 'politics as usual' playing out, we are hearing virtually no substance. Hopefully you can tease it out of them.

Lisa B. : Gwen, Please ask Palin why she supports the barbaric activity of gunning down wolves and bears by air against the wishes of the Alaskan people. Defenders of Wildlife group has a video on this topic. The Center for Biological Diversity awarded Palin the 2008 "Rubber Dodo Award" for seeking to remove the polar bear from the Endangered Species Protection Act and for her suppression of studies and her denial that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Why is she opposed to protecting an endangered species? Why does she oppose the overwhelming science behind global warming? What kind of "science" does she believe in?

DavidKM : Gwen, Ms. Palin has made her "born again" religious beliefs the cornerstone of her public life. I think it is only fair to inquire about how her religious beliefs will affect Ms. Palin's decision making in the event that she should become President. A recent LA Times article has Ms.Palin saying that she believes that the Earth is only six thousand years old and that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time [despite myriad scientific evidence to the contrary]. Others who share Ms. Palin's "young earth theory" also believe that the dinosaurs like Tyranosaurus Rex went extinct in the "Great Flood" when Noah could not take them aboard the Ark. I would like to hear from Ms. Palin's own lips if she believes in this strain of Creationism? Would she seek to promote and fund Creationism in schools if she becomes President? Secondly, I wish to inquire about whether Ms. Palin would appoint "anti-choice" judges like Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts to the Supreme court? With respect to her own views on abortion : would Ms. Palin permit a 12 year victim who becomes pregnant after being violently raped by a career criminal the choice of ending her pregnancy or would she force the innocent victim the agony of having her rapist's baby? The next Supreme Court Justice to be appointed could well decide whether to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Marilyn : Gwen, don't you have a conflict of interest since you are writing a book about Barak Obama? I would surely think that you will be letting the viewers aware of that before the debate begins.

Lori : I cannot believe that Ifill, who is so strongly backing a candidate (Obama), is actually being allowed to moderate this debate. I'd have the same reaction if she were supporting John McCain. This makes me sick to think that the debate, which is supposed to be for the American people to learn more about the candidates, is going to be so tainted. I saw the clip from Ifill after Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC and she might as well have been eating bugs. I was looking forward to the debate until now...doubt if I even watch.

R : Gwen, can you try to keep the proceeds you will earn from your (soon to be released) book about Obama out of your mind when moderating the Veep debate. Those of us who haven't drank the coolaid would like some fair unbiased coverage for a change.

John Applegath : Almost everyone I know is tired of the presidential and vice presidential candidates talking about the candidates on the other side -what they have supposedly done in the past, what they "will do" if elected. (No one can accurately predict what another person will do in the future - especially politicians in these immensly challenging and fast-changing times.)Since these messages are inevitably out of context or otherwise distorted, this is not information useful to voters -especially undecided voters. This kind of thing cannot be avoided in campaign speeches and TV ads. But would it be possible for you to establish a rule for the precious minutes of the candidates' debate that all responses must focus only on what the candidate (and/or their presidential candidate) intends to do; or on their own relevant experience, priorities, values, operating ideology, etc.? You have a chance here to establish a precedent that will vastly improve the quality of information conveyed in these performances; and simultaneously to greatly improve the American people's attitude toward "the media". John Applegath Durham, New Hampshire

Scott : Gwen, It's highly unethical of PBS to let you moderate the VP debates. You have a direct financial stake in Obama winning. If he wins, your book sells millions and if he loses, your book goes to the discount section.

Sherry : Gwen, how can you, with your lovefest book on Obama coming out the day after the Inauguration, not only have a liberal bias but also a monetary interest in moderating this VP debate? I think you should recuse your self immediately! The public is up in arms over your HUGE conflict of interest! This stinks to high heaven!

Heidi : I hope this does get posted. This is an unfair election to begin with and now this VP debate will be worse. How could this woman be bias? Obama is in her book-I hope Palin mentions this during the debate so everyone is aware of this.

Cindy A. : Can you please tell me how someone who is financial invested in a candidate winning be unbiased at a time like this? One slight, intentional or not, will taint the debate - for either candidate. You really should recuse yourself and allow someone like Jim Lehrer, who did a fantastic job last week, moderate. Let the candidates views stand out so we can make our own decision. I feel your own "ambitions" will overshadow the event and the candidates views will not be taken for what they are but will be analyzed based on whether you were the least bit partial to one side or the other.

Smirking : Gwen, Way to let your own agenda totally overshadow the debates. The purpose of these debates should be to inform the public on where the candidates stand, not to promote your new book. Good luck to you and your candidate. I hope you make a lot of money come January.

lamplady : I am absolutely APPALLED by the news that Ifill has written a pro-Obama book and has not recused herself from moderating the vicepresidential debate. She obviously has a financial interest in the outcome of the election and should be ASHAMED of herself!!! for this behavior. (And you WONDER why some of us are angry and bitter???))

Julie B : Gwen, Please, please, hold both of the candidate's feet to the fire. But especially Governor Palin's. It's looking like this is the only time the American people will get a chance to hear this woman who potentially could end up being the President. There are millions of us out here who believe she is NOT qualified to be the VP and certainly not the President. We can not take 4 more years of the Republicans! I beg you, please do not allow this woman, (who is a Queen of Bullshit), to get away with generalities, vague answers and campaign slogans. Push her to be specific and test her knowledge of foreign policy and International Law (like torture and illegal wars), geography, terrorism, our Country's drug policy, how did we get into this financial mess?, and how to get out of it. Ask the tough important questions! You are a wonderful, smart, tough woman and I am so happy it's you moderating the debate. I hope your ankle heals quickly and you aren't in too much pain.

Dave H : Gwen, I would hope you would be fair, since you are a known Obama supporter.

tcone : Gwen Ifill: PBS is supposed to be fair and balanced -especially since it is publicly supported. Obviously it is not, what with you, Bill Moyer, etc. (Can you name any pro-Republican who has a role at PBS?) For you to have the gall to moderate the VP debate is the epitomy of arrogance (especially after your performance at the Republican Convention). If you had any interest in the ideals and ethics of journalism, you would withdraw form any role in this debate. Shame!!!!!

John Valenti : Ifill should be pulled from the debate. Not because she is black, The book presents a whole range of conflict that is not necessary to the debate.

Nett L : Gwen, you need to recuse yourself as the moderator of the VP debate. You are definitely very partisan as shown by your Obama book. It will not be a fair presentation of the VP candidates.

Scott : Gwen, be sure to ask Governor Palin if she'd like a complementary copy of your impending Barack-umentary. It's unfair and insane for you to be moderating the Vice-Presidential Debate. If PBS doesn't have the sense to reassign you, I hope that you have the sense to understand that half the nation will be scrutinizing all your questions, reactions, and facial expressions. I would suggest that your obvious biases and financial motivations be replaced by an abundance of courtesy to Governor Palin.

SHW : Ms. Ifill, You should immediately recuse yourself from the Palin-Biden debate! Otherwise, you will prove, with out a doubt, how UNETHICAL and BIASED you and PBS truly are towards Obama and this election! shw

SeekingObjectivity : Gwen, your objectivity has waned in recent months. Now we know why! Surely you would be more professional than moderating the vice-presidential debate with a significant financial reward when Obama's running mate does well. The McCain/Palin ticket is at a decided disadvantage with you in charge! And this is public broadcasting? No longer with my support if this goes on!

Paula Wisner : I think it is a disgrace that Gwen Ifill (who has a huge stake in a democratic win) does not have the integrity to pull herself as the commentator of the Vice Presidential debates because she was not forthcoming regarding her upcoming book. This is a disgrace. Gwen Ifill knew all along what she was doing here. PBS will be looking at a real economic downturn if she does not do the ethical thing here and pull herself from this debate. She should have told everyone that she was writing a book when she was asked. By being associated with Gwen Ifill, PBS is also responsible for intentional, calculated tampering with the election process of the United States of America. Huge moral crime here.

Pam B : PBS should be crucified for allowing Ms. Ifill to moderate the debate! There is definitely a conflict of interest on her part, she should be replaced before the VP debate. If she is not replaced I will make sure I never give another dime to PBS and will make sure to discourage all of my friends to do the same. SHAME ON YOU PBS!

Papadick58 : Gwen, Please be a true professional and show your impartiality by recusing yourself from tonight's debate. You do have a vested financial interest in the election results, so it is hard to understand objectivity on either side.