Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Election Connection

What Would You Ask?


From defense spending and defining leadership to potential cabinet appointees and how the voting process could be improved, citizens are speaking up about what they want to hear from the candidates in the debates.

 

With both candidates now confirmed to appear at tonight's first debate in Oxford, Mississippi, the focus can turn away from the debate over whether there will be a debate back to the issues.


NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer's questions to Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama will likely focus on the economy in addition to the assigned topic of foreign policy. The questions are up to Lehrer -- who was called  "the most important person in presidential politics who isn't running for president" by Time's Mark Halperin - for tonight's debate. But on the Bill Moyers' Journal blog, viewers have responded in huge numbers to the question 'What questions would you ask of the candidates?'


Kent C. from Portland, Oregon asked: As President what will you do about this hardship and corruption that the government has inflected upon the American People?


Mick Rosenthal asked: I would like each candidate to discuss Climate Change, and not just what the Federal government will do to help, but what everyone can DO NOW to help.


Michael Beard asked: I would like to ask both candidates, or for that matter all candidates from the past twenty years, if they have ever had to sign a check and pay for personal health care insurance?


To see more and add your own question, visit the Bill Moyers Journal blog.


Tonight's debate falls on an auspicious day -- the anniversary of the Kennedy/Nixon debate that ushered in a new era of televised presidential politics. Will there be any more surprises tonight? To follow real-time updates of the debate, take a look at Twitter's new election updates site where keywords like "obama" "mccain" "debate" and "Mississippi" appear as they are posted with commentary from users.


And tune in to the NewsHour at 9pm ET to watch the debate and come back to Vote 2008 to discuss who you think won, whether the right issues were covered and what you're looking for from future debates.

 











45 Comments

Kathryn Hall said:

Since it appears we have to bail out the financial system that underpins our economy, wouldn't it be fair for every taxpayer who "invests" in this bail out to receive stocks in the salvaged companies in return? We also, of course, need someone objective and intelligent to investigate this mess and fine those responsible for their part in the debacle. It is not right forthe hard-working taxpayer to bail out Bush's cronies while they take their exorbitant salaries to the bank.


Morgan said:

I'd like to know what the candidates have to say about this Reuters article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc
which found that "the surge" did not do everything it has been purported to do, and that an ethnic redistribution which began before "the surge" is, in fact, the reason for reduced violence.


From the article: "Our findings suggest that the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved".


Rick Waldon said:

I'd ask Obama:
1) "The current Congressional body has an approval rating of 17%. What steps can you commit to today to improve the sullied reputation of the Democratic party and thereby improve this rating to where it was when the Republican party was in control?"
2) "The Democratically controlled Congress implemented policies that lead our nation to a near collapse of our financial system. Please tell the American public what steps your bailout plan would take to reverse these ineffective policies?"
3) "Many Theologians liken the current abortion laws supported by the Democrats to be the equivalent of the German citizenry's awareness of the genocide occuring at the concentration camps. Your comment about the abortion debate being "above my paygrade" indicates your tacit approval. Do you feel any culpability in termination of 1,200,000 lives that will be taken in the US this year?


Hugh J. Campbell said:

What justification is there for decoupling the Iraq War from the economy?

Traditionally issues relating to the economy would be discussed as domestic issue but certain economic issues are more relevantly discussed under foreign policy in view of the following:

- how globalization involves interaction with foreign trading partners
- a main Al Qaeda goal in the terror war is to "bleed America to bankruptcy"
- huge trade and balance of payments deficits, becoming national security issues
-the administration's style of war economy with huge budget deficits, foreign borrowing and unrealistically low interest rates.

When these issues are excluded, there is not a holistic foreign policy debate, but rather compartmentized debates where effects become decoupled from causes. In fact, the unrealistically low interest rates combined with inadequate financial sector governance are the root causes of our current housing and financial crisis.

The central front in the terror war may ultimately be judge to have been economic, namely "bleed America to bankruptcy" rather than Iraq.


tom said:

Please ask Sen. Obama "how can you speak of giving 'tax cuts' to people who would _not_ be paying taxes under your proposal? I believe you're misrepresenting what you stand for - it's not a tax cut, it's simply a handout from the government. It's disingenuous to call it anything other than a handout - if you're not paying taxes and you get a 'refund', it's picking Peter's pocket to pay Paul".


Diana Keller-Cannon said:

Mr. Lehrer,
So far this debate has not captured the promary topic, Forgein Policy and National Security. You have allowed Sen Obama to spend more time talking about the economy, interruptinf Sen McMcain and not sticking tohis allotted time. I have timed the alloted time to each candidate and Obama has definitely had more time. Aren't you the moderator that is suppose to be the time keeper? If people are to have a fair assessment of both candidates, the media needs to remian fair and impartial, frankly they have failed big time on that. I am a democrat, I am tired of the Media electing Sen Obama. I want to make that devision myself. I have come to the conclusion that looking up their Senate records is by far the best way to pick the candidate. Please be fair. Sen Obama thhinks this is his 9n minutes of fame.

Stick to the time allotment!

Thank you,
Diana Keller-Cannon


Linda O said:

Why won't McCain face Obama when he's speaking. A little note about his demeanor in regards to bi-partisan-ism.


Nancy Morton said:

Please ask Senator McCain about his comment that Senator Obama voted to tax incomes of $42000. That is a lie that he has used over and over in his campaign. Factcheck.org says it is false, the New York Times says it is false and Senator McCain is lying to the American public at a Presidential Debate. How can we trust a man like this to be Prepqzpmsident when he lies so blatantly in public to the American people.


Richard H. Burns said:

Mr. Lehrer,
This has turned into the Obama Show where Sen. Obama interrupts, goes over his time, filibusters, tries to talk over Sen. McCain time and time again. In addition, Sen. Obama continues to not answer your questions while repeating his campaign slogans and spiel, while interrupting Sen. McCain when he tries to answer your questions. You've let Sen. Obama turn this into the Obama Show!


Amy Arnold said:

I would ask if there is any way that we could get uneducated talk radio listeners like Rick Waldon to be accountable for the pathetic job that the party they blindly supports?


Audra Hoffman said:

McCain keeps talking about "winning" in Iraq...what is his definition of winning? If his definition is staying in iraq until the end of time, then we are definitely winning. I think it is high time that we focus energy in making america strong again. We have poor people who do not have access to healthcare, a middle class being crushed by inflation, and children who have shoddy education. How am I supposed to be proud to be an American, when we would rather spend 700 billion dollars to bail out corporations, then find a way to nationalize healthcare and take care of our own?


Elsa E Wilson said:

It is pretty obvious that Jim Lehrer is in too deep and not cabable of handling this kind of debate, or any debate; could we not have found an intelligent (and tough) journalist to handle this? It says everything about our media today when you watch a fiasco like this where the moderator is completely out of his element; the animals were running THIS ZOO!! FOR SHAME PBS, where was Gwen Ifill when we needed her.


Robert Baskin said:

This is an example of left wing bias in the media Leherer is a monkey in the employ of the organ grinder Obama.
He gives Obama two and three times the air time as McCain, He allows Obama to inturrupt, with pointless statements regarding issues that were before Obama was even in the senate. BE FAIR PBS OR GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF TRYING TO LOOK IMPARTIAL.

RB


Audra hoffman said:

i would ask Rick waldon if he plans to adopt every child that is born. I would ask him if he would care if he and his family adopted a brown child. The truth behind pro-choice is not about killing babies, it is about having the free will over one's body. i would happily supprot pro life policies if they were fair, which they are not. Who is going to find every dead beat father who leaves a woman to care for their child on their own? Who is going to make sure that poor women have access to health care to successfully bring a child into this world. Before you get on your pulpit and preach, realize that this issue is about the government's right to tell you what to do with your body. the very second that the choice is illiminated, it sets a precedent that the government now has the ability to remove your rights. Rick waldon, what this means to you, is that someone could take away your right to drink a beer in your home, your right to say what you feel on this website, and your right to be an American. The thing that makes America great, is that we are not (or used to not) be ruled by religion. When you allow religion to rule your country, we become Iraq.


Ashley Reeves said:

This debate is terrible!! Jim, why are you not moderating? Jim is not imposing time limits. He also asked the same question about the economic bail out at least 3 times AFTER both candidates had answered!! How can you comment on a economic bail out plan that is not even written into law!!! Please PBS - you are supported by MY tax dollars - I am your employer so get better or get out of the business!!


Bradley MARGRITZ said:

I'd like to know how Senator McCain's efforts to reform campaign finance reform have reduced the influence of special interests? In my thirty years of following elections, I see more special interest ads across all media than ever before. Can Senator McCain truely say he made any progress in reforming the status quo in election financing?


Dave Angulo said:

What a totally sham, Lehrer let McCain have the last word on almost all of the questions even when he answered first. Really discouraging because you'd expect better moderation.


Bradley Margritz said:

In my thirty years of following election politics, I think special interests ads run repeatedly in abundance. Can McCain say any progress was really accomplished in his past efforts to legislate campaign finance reform?


Janette Reget said:

John McCain seemed almost sentimental when he talked about Iraq gaining prosperity. What about us? It seems like he would rather put all our energy and resources into Iraq so we "win" this war (whatever that means? How do we know when we win?). He only paid lip service to this country's needs. He never mentioned education, for example. I got the idea he doesn't really care about regular Americans. "Winning is everything."


bindi said:

i would like to ask senator mccain why he has run so many untrue ads about obama ... stating that he supports the messages that are being delivered by the ads.


Carrie said:

I'd like Senator McCain to explain the following contradiction: How can be believe that the federal government is competent enough to run defense and wars on the one hand but in the same breath disparage the federal government's ability to run anything when he criticizes Sen. Obama's plan for health care? If the Federal Government can run Congress, our national airport system, our interstates, veteran health care, homeland security (which he praised in the debate tonight), and the largest defense organization in the world why is it suddenly such an incompetent organization when the universal health care proposition is made? Plus, it's not as if the federal government would supply the doctors or run every single hospital directly, it would just provide the mechanism, insurance, policy and funding. In the end, I think his argument against universal healthcare is very weak because he only makes this single criticism�that the federal government would be running our health care. Why has he been involved with the federal government for 27 years in the Congress if he doesn�t think it�s competent enough to facilitate a health care system?


Bill W. said:

Scrolling to the comment box, I ran across this comment from Richard H. Burns:


"Mr. Lehrer, This has turned into the Obama Show where Sen. Obama interrupts, goes over his time, filibusters, tries to talk over Sen. McCain time and time again."


My experience was precisely the opposite, so perhaps someone would go through the video and count the interrupts and talk-overs, and see if there's a difference between fact and either Mr. Burns' or my perceptions.


Now, I confess that I'm an old Vietnam Vet and conservative as all get -out on the Constitution, so, herewith, my obviously biased observations:


1) I thought our ol' pal John Sidney McCain The Third (III) revealed a very nice mean streak when he mentioned that he wouldn't be putting together his "guest lists" before entering the White House and made a crack about the Obama campaign's really stupid "presidential candidate seal" on one of his lecterns. I do believe Sidney III does indeed have a mean streak and, though mild, these two little jabs perhaps opened the window on it a crack.


1a) Sidney III (sorry, it's my "Elitist, spoiled brat McCain" Republican Talking Point, and I must maintain my on-message-ness, lest I "drift out of the mainstream") was wise in issuing a premptive apology for his early failures in office (1983 onward, isn't it?) regarding Afghanistan.


But Obama will probably want to revisit that topic, inasmuch as the US's support for bin Laden as paymaster for the CIA in our "clandestine" involvement in Afghanistan against the Russian invasion and occupation provided the fecund womb which gave birth to The Base--al Qaeda--and even the Taliban.


Then of course there was Sidney III's further experience in the Iran/Iraq War--1980-1988--where the US supported ("tilted towards") Iraq--I think then-secretary of war Cheney actually sent future-secretary of war Rumsfeld as a special envoy to sell Saddam the ingredients for chemical, biological and radiological weapons--formerly known as CBR, but later re-labeled WMDs. I find the earlier designation more precise than the latter, albeit without the "emotive impact" so useful in sales and marketing operations.


1b) So the question I would ask Sidney III is, given that your foreign, or war, policy experience has extended from 1983 to the present, and because it has more often been wrong than right, how can anyone be faulted for thinking that your much-vaunted "foreign policy experience" is, from the standpoint of the rest of the world, an absolute disqualification from ever having your "finger on the red button"?


1c) Furthermore, given the profoundly limited access you have provided to your medical records, how can we be certain that you do not suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome to this very day, given your long torture and imprisonment by the North Vietnamese? For myself, after a few short weeks in South Vietnam in 1965-1966, I had fall-out-of-the-bed nightmares for weeks after I returned to CONUS. And they're now recurring, I suppose reactivated by the gory YouTube and GoogleTube and al Jazeera posts on the web.


1d) To both Sidney III and Obama: You mentioned the 4,000 dead and 30,000 or so wounded by our misadventures in Irag and Afghanistan. However, it seems that you have NO concern about the deaths of Iraqis, because you did NOT mention the estimated one million or so Iraqis starved to death or who succumbed to the diseases set free by the destruction of the country's civilian infrastructure by Shock and Awe I (in 1991 or so, the 10 to 11 years of blockade/embargo/"sanctions" against the iraqi people--I guess to encourage them to run Saddam out of town on a rail--and the--which prevented the Iraqis from rebuilding any of the civilian infrastructure--sewage treatment, water purification, electricity, hospitals, etc., etc--followed by, on March 19, 2003, Shock & Awe II--which presumably destroyed even those bits of civilian infrastructure that the Iraqis had managed to repair, however poorly, the rest of the invasion to April 9, 2003, and now the five-years-and-counting occupation of that land.


2) My rabbit-ear reception is really rotten, so it may have been that both lads were wearing their "Scoundrel's Refuge Pin" on their lapels, but I didn't notice them (there has some debate over whether the flag is the last refuge or the first refuge of the scoundrel over the years, or the "patriotism" it is intended to boast. Here are the entries in Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary.


PATRIOT, n. One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.


PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.


In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.



3) For the next debate, I would request PBS to provide a string trio--violin, viola and cello, I should think--to accompany Sidney III's recitation of all his experience, his "encounters" with "gold star mothers who gave me their dead sons' ID bracelets to wear and made me promise not to let them have died for an illegal invasion and occupation." Until I heard Sidney III in this debate tonight, I would never have believed a politician could have achieved as smarmy and unctuous tone as Sidney III maintained throughout his performance, and without some kind of additional accompaniment to cut through the treacle, constant citizen will fwow up. (Despite my veteran status, I still have a weak stomach for cant.


4) I would urge Gwen to really chop interruptions and talking-over episodes. I would, in fact, recommend that she have a "kill button" for each candidate's mic, and when one candidate lobs a lie or other comment that triggers a "response reflex" in the opponent, Gwen should kill both microphones, tell the "attacked" candidate that he/she can answer the direct attack--in 30 seconds, say--open his/her mic for 30 seconds, then open the attacker's mic to let him/her continue.


In other words, Gwen or whomever moderates should not let the propaganda slide by unacknowledged and un-rebutted.


5) Set up the podia so that they face each other. Mount the moderator in a cherry-picker-like flying desk. Set the cameras over the shoulder(s) of the debaters so that the only way they can "face the TV audience over the heads of the 'filter' " is to look at the other debater, or so nearly as to be unable to, once in a while at least, look eye-to-eye.



6) Final questions to each of the next 4 participants: One of you is going to take an office to "preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution" -- albeit only "to the best of [your] ability," sad to say. What does that oath mean to you, and how would you defend that document against the low, medium and high crimes and, ditto, misdemeanors of elected officials in your administration, in your party, members of the military, the legislature and the judiciary?


(For the vice-presidential candidates, the oath is set out by statute, not in the Constitution itself, and runs something like: "...to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and Cheneybush..." etc.)


7) Final question: When was the last time you read the US Constitution, if ever, and do you carry a pocket-sized version with you at all times?


8) Otherwise--Great Start to the all-too-short debate season!



Susan Collins said:

1. Why is no one mentioning that the invasion on Iraq was illegal. PERIOD. America was not invaded by Iraq. PERIOD. Why is the legality never mentioned?

2. When McCain says the deaths of our American soldiers would be in vain if we did not leave as winners of this war, is he saying all the soldiers who died in Vietnam died for nothing?


Laura said:

At the next debate, I'd like Jim Lehrer to ask the candidates about their VP choices. The question could be "Both of you have said that the most important factor in choosing a running mate should be whether they are ready to step in as president. Is your running mate qualified to be president of the United States? Senator McCain, we'll start with you."


Jim H. said:

I would ask Senator Obama how he thinks his actual governmental leadership skills and executive decision making experience compares to that of VP candidate Palin, and if his experience qualifies him to run for the position of President. As a follow question I would ask him to name any past President in modern times that had less experience qualifications for the office than he does.


VJG said:

I'd like Mr Lehrer to ask McCain why he refuses to make public his medical records.The voters need to know about his health in particular. Obama has already released his, I read.
Also, I agree with Laura, each candidate should be questioned about their running mates, again particularly McCain.


Dominica Sanchez said:

I have a few burning questions:
For McCain: How will you convince undecided voters, defectors of the GOP, etc.; that your choice of VP is anything but grossly (criminally?) irresponsible, that your behavior re attendance of the first debate was anything but a deeply ironic, used-up grandstander? Are you suffering more than a little delusion, that you could then use the debate to trumpet how much you are against regulation? Having only moments before lied to the press about your campaign advisor's VERY current ties to Freddie? Hello, there are people in this country who still remember The Keating 5! There are also a heck of a lot of people who are sick to death of liars, thanks to the shrub, with whom you voted more than 90%. How dare you claim to be the champion of "Main St." while you own more than 7 estates, NOW- when so many are losing their homes. What IS your definition of Maverick?
For Senator Obama: Dear professor, please spare us from your pedantic hair-ball lectures and nail this Napoleon wanna-be to his own fetid record! How can you respect a man with the moral depravity to take advice from Karl Rove? More to the point: Why can't you be a champion of a single-payer health system? Do you think that healthcare-for-profit is morally acceptable? Do you think it serves us in our purpose of being competitive in a global economy? What are you going to do to get Corporations out of the White House? Can a moral government, one that represents the long-term interests of its Citizens, continue to be the lapdog of corporate interests? BE A LEADER! Stand firm and tell your troubled country that we will march into the 21st C., not with guns- but with innovation! With wind and solar-powered American jobs! And toward the dream of a True Democracy!


phyllis thomas said:

I am very concerned about Gov. Palin's lack of knowledge about history, current affairs, government -everything.
Will she be checked to make sure she is not wired by earpiece during this week's vice presidential debate?


Jackie said:

What I would ask is a request to Gwen Ifill, not to the candidates.

Gwen,
Please make your questions worthy of the weight of this decision we face as a nation. I know the debate rules have been dumbed down a little. The questions you ask willl matter even more as a result. The health, the prosperity, the civility, the security--perhaps the very survival--of our country hang in the balance.

We need to be able to judge in precious little time whether either, both, or neither candidate is capable of assuming the role of President of the United States.

I do not want to have to go on sheer guesswork. I want as much of the truth as possible. Please help us. It looks like you are one of our only options for real information.

Thank you.


Andy Murdock said:

Please ask Sarah Palin.
1. How old does she estimate the Earth to be, 6000 years or perhaps 4 billion years.
2. Did man walk the Earth with the dinosaurs?
3. Does Sarah Palin believe and witches and or witchcraft, and what will she do to protect our children from this threat?
4. Is she currently wearing/listening to any type of wireless communication device to aide with her answers?

I realize this may seem like a gotcha question or a one that is below the standard of a PBS sponsored event, but this will give an insight into the kind of people she maybe hiring and appointing to high level science related jobs in the US government. There are many well documented Sarah Palin stories/videos dealing with these very issues. I'm hoping someone in media will have the guts to ask her these questions in front of the voting public.


FREEDOMFREE said:

I WOULD ASK , IF YOU ARE FREE ,

VOTE FOR FREEDOM , FREEDOMFREE .


Bob said:

Why don't everyone check the facts and look for the facts before voting? You have to look at each person and check to see if what they say is how they voted. Thier actions (voting record) has got to match thier speech. Why does not Obama give his TURE birth cerificiate for all to see? Why pick on a Teenager's mistakes? What matters is How the person is going to run the country and try to work with the house - they are the ones that create all the policies and laws. The president just can decalre wart and represent the country.

Obama should NOT even be running for USA President - he does NOT believe in our country!

GOD bless AMERICA! but he is probably a bit upset with the USA at this time since we are letting politics take HIM out of our contry!


Anita Shutt said:

I would like the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to be hooked up to a polygraph test during the debates -- like the TV show "Moment of Truth".


F. Coe Bumgarner said:

I'm sick of hearing about McCain's age!! Hell, I'll bet he is helalthier than Joe Biden, and he never plagerized like Biden did!! And John and Cindy are Both PROUD to be Americans, which is more than Obama's wife is!!!!!!!!


Brucio Baconi said:

I would like to see both VP candidates checked for electronic communication devices. Since the Republicans appeared to have wired up Bush in the 2004 debates, I would like to be sure that they are not prompting Sarah during the upcoming VP debate. I want to hear what Sarah has to say on stage and not her handlers. We are all very interested in her veiws and knowledge of the world.


Grover said:

"I would like to see both VP candidates checked for electronic communication devices."

Yes. By all means, strip them down. I'd like to see this debate done in the nude.
That would help me decide more than anything they say.


gregbash said:

I find it telling that PBS has a poll questioning whether Palin is qualified to be VP, but no poll questioning whether BHO is qualified to be POTUS. If you weren't so far in the tank for BHO, you'd be lecturing us on the fact the he's not qualified to be the Gov. of Alaska, let alone POTUS.


gregbash said:

VJG - you have it backwards. McCain's medical records were made public during his 2000 run and they are public now. BHO has released no documentation of any worth.


r. carrigan said:

what about the obvious conflict of interest of Gwen Ifill in these debates???? she is Pro Obamma, and she is moderating. just watch her disgusted remarks after palin speech at convention. PBS (Pro-Obamma_station)
Liberals say they are open minded, tolerant, and want diversity.....UNTIL you disagree with them and then they are NOT SO TOLERANT NOT SO OPEN MINDED AND REALLY DONT WANT DIVERSITY OF IDEAS. pbs should ask miss gwen ifill to state a disclaimer that she supports barrack and wrote a gl;owing report of him in her columns and will be realeasing a pro obamma book next month. shouldnt pbs place that disclaimer at the bottom of the screen. why not have rush limbaugh moderate it would be the same thing. NO liberals wont do that.....you see it fairness only applies to them and wanting their opinions heard not for anyone else. disgusting...oh I am sure you liberals will have some elitist witty retort...go for it, you prove my point snobbery and elitism at =its highest level BHO for president, if you dont vote for me your a racist!


Jim Rankin said:

Without question the most important programs on TV come from PBS: Bill Moyers, Frontline, POV and Cspan. But You have failed the citizens of our country by excluding Ralph Nader from interviews and the debates. After listening to the debate between Obama and McCain both turmed me off. McCain is pathetic, old, a warmonger and since receiving the nomination Obama sounds like a conservative. Nader stands for something: bring our military home(say no to Imperialism), cut military expenses drastically, create a single payer medical system(Taiwan abondoned a US like system and provides comprehensive health care for less than 7% GDP), create a progressive flat tax system. Since WW2 we have had Democrats and Republicans and look what a mess we are in. Time for real change.


Ken C said:

A current disgusting thread running through the press corp is "Some Whites will not vote for Obama because of his race. I believe this may true for a very small portion of Whites. But more to the point: If it is wrong to NOT vote for someone because of his/her race, is it not just as wrong to vote FOR someone because of his/her race? Look at the percent of African Americans voting for McCain vs the percentage of Whites voting for Obama. The press is being disingenuous not covering this aspect of the Black vote, while they will make incendiary remarks about who Whites wil or wil not vote for based on race.


Ame Davila said:

We The People:

Wake up America:

First of all there is no conflict of interest for Gwen Ifil to be the moderator this evening. Both parties and those who made the selection for Ms Ifil to be the moderator knew about the book prior. If they did not see a conflict, why should the general public?
She is a professional and will conduct herself as such.
The one thing that America should be concern about, is Sara Palin stepping into the office of President should something cause Mr. McCain to be incapacitated. That is cause for alarm!! big time.


Audra Hoffman said:

Again, there is no such thing as an unbiased moderator when it comes to politics. I am actually completely saddened by the inability of what I hope to be intelligent people complaining as to whether or not PBS is a liberal station. Does it matter? If it runs on CNN does that mean that the issues will make more sense. Move forward people...what is important here are the issues, is Palin experienced and does she plan to do good things for the average American? Does joe Biden? That is what we should be worried about, not who the moderator is and their agenda, because if we had to find an ubiased moderator, we would have to go to some third world country without televisions or literacy and maybe then everyone would be happy. It is high time that Republicans stopped waving the imaginary "liberal media" flag and calling liberals rude names. It is high time that Democrats stopped calling Republicans idiots. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are an idiot. Republicans, just as you believe strongly in your cause, democrats belive JUST as strongly in theirs. I don't understand why the two sides refuse to actually have a conversation with one another...we would both be surprised by how much we truly have in common.


Audra hoffman said:

I am black and take GREAT offense to anyone saying I am voting for Obama because he is black. I am voting for him because I am a Democrat. I am voting for him , because after 8 years of Bush, I don't want another 4 years of this crap. Under Bush, we have allowed the corporations to run rampant, and when they fail it is up to US, the people to bail them out?

It is important to not get into racial issues. do not let the media make you think that what they are saying is all the truth. Talking about race is a fantastic way to avoid talking about the issues.

If whites don't want ot vote for Obama because he is black, then there are also several black people who won't vote for him because he is not black ENOUGH for them.

Let us all get past the race issue and get to the real issues. The issues are not about how cute Sarah Palin is or what a rock star Obama is...they are about what the candidates will to help us. We are on a precipice in this country, and should the wrong person be chosen, this country will fall, and the terrorist will have accomplished what they wanted.

I choose Obama, because he would try to use peace instead of hate; understanding, instead of bombs. Anyone who tries to make a statement against Obama and Biden because they voted for the war, is not thinking clearly. When those planes hit the twin towers, we, as a nation were shocked, stunned, and ready for action. Had we known then what we know now, most people would have voted for moderation, peace and working together to get Osama Bin Laden. Where is that guy? At the time, war seemed like the best choice, when we were afraid to fly our skies, when we were afraid to go to work or the store. Fear is a motivator and we were ALL lied to. WMDs? not there. Democracy? I guess. 10 billion dollars a month? Insane.


Sue said:

a friend told me about the voting site at PBS for Sarah Palin. So, where is the site to ask if the Democratic side is qualified to be President or Vice-President?? I think it's time to reign in some of the media opinions and if you aren't giving equal time and unbiased facts, then it shouldn't be published, produced or televised. It used to be media could be trusted -- now, all they can do is be trusted to give only their side of the story.


Leave a comment

We welcome your comments, and hope to host energetic, civil discussions. As you post, please keep the following in mind:

  • Keep your comments focused on the topic at hand.
  • Don't use profanity, personal attacks or hate speech.
  • Don't promote a business or raise money.
  • When all else fails, think "Golden Rule": Treat others the way you'd like to be treated yourself.

We reserve the right to remove posts that don't follow these guidelines. By clicking submit, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

 
About this blog
PBS Engage, public broadcasting's social media initiative, and PBS Vote 2008 are finding the best elections content from across public media and our partners and bringing it to you. We're following the campaigns and highlighting in-depth coverage. Feel free to leave a comment, send us an e-mail, or suggest a topic!
 
Subscribe
Keep in touch with election coverage from PBS and public media. Sign up for our RSS feed.
 
 
Recent Comments
 
 
 

Support Provided By: