Thank you. I've been reading references to this issue for days, and not one blog or news organization has pointed out the inherent racism at work here. There are all kinds of assumptions being made about Ifill and her book, and everyone is so comfortable making them that it's like they're not even assumptions, but simply obvious realities. She's a black reporter; obviously she's pro-Obama.

Of course, in that case, why did they ever agree to Ifill in the first place? Well, that's obvious: Not to have done so would have been pretty blatantly racist. But you can claim it's not racist if you can pin it on anything, even the flimsiest piece of nonsense. So that's what they've done.

It would be wonderful if we could have a thoughtful, energized debate about the way race figures into this discussion of Ifill, Obama, moderating the debate, that book, and such... but of course, we can't. Once white people who question Ifill's objectivity are accused of "racism", there's basically nowhere to go (or possibly, nowhere but down). Which has everything to do with the way we can't, and don't, talk about race in this country.

As I said over at Ezra's, I admire Gwen Ifill. She's my hero. Like Obama, I am a mixed race man. And frankly, Ifill's coming book, and the questions it raises, trouble me. Not because I don't think she's less than fully professional (and I happen to enjoy her hosting and moderating everywhere she goes), but because I think her politics, especially now, are not that impossible to figure out. It's as if there's something wrong with suggesting that black people might be heartened by the prospect of a black President, because he's black, when we all know it's part of the story, and really, a rather positive part. Ifill's publisher says her book is about Obama as a "transformational" politician who's changing black pokitics. I don't know that it means she wildly favors him, but it does seem she is, in some sense, raising him up. And frankly, I agree with her, and that assessment. But that makes me a partisan... and I think it does her, too.

We can't have this discussion all ways on race - white people can't always be accused of biases, prejudices, and "racism", while blacks remain blameless, above reproach, and unquestioned in their racial politics. We can't suggest that nearly every white person pciking McCain (or Clinton in the primaries) has unbelievable biases, yet not even consider that the huge, overwhelming support Obama has with black voters doesn't have some similar features. Everybody's got a point of view here. Everybody has a set of biases, prejudices, and yes, ugly stereotypes to work through. It's not racist to ask, gently, if Ifill has perhaps staked a position for a particular point of view that if not an outright bias, constitutes the kind of appearance of non-objectivity that, in others, would be disqualifying. And if it isn't, I think we need to acknowledge that we look at a certain sort of left-center approach as "neutral" when perhaps it isn't. It doesn't mean we won't have a good debate tonight, nor does it mean Ifill can't do her job. But still, I remain concerned, and I think it would have been better for the fact of the book, and the questions it raised, to have gotten more discussion sooner. And I don't anything helpful is achieved by yet again going to "racism" as a way to stifle discussion.

Weboy,

You haven't made a compelling case for Ifill being a partisan based on her book, because no one can. Because no one has read the book. Therefore, assumptions being made about Ifill have absolutely nothing to do with what's in the book.

Every potential debate moderator in America has at one point referred to John McCain as a "maverick." Does that not disqualify them also? Or are outward statements of praise made by journalists about John McCain simply not as compelling arguments for bias as a book no one has actually read?

This has nothing to do with racism. The publisher is paying for book to be released on inauguration day. This book will collect dust if McCain is being sworn in on that day.

The book's only chance for being successful is for Obama to be elected. That's a clear conflict of interest.

I can already see that a future Obama administration is going to be annoying. Every time a conservative lodges a complain the Left will hurl the "racism" charge.

It's a historically irony coming from the party that defended slavery.

Are you people serious?

You would need to be willfully ignorant to think that this book will be anything less than pro-Obama. While we have not technically read it, I'd be willing to bet, sight unseen, $1000 and a public apology that it is, on balance, pro-Obama.

Here's Ifill, quoted regarding the subjects of her book:

"They all chose to get into politics for the most upstanding of reasons, and they all have achieved much more than their parents could have hoped... This book is about a generation of people who took seriously the achievements that their parents fought for. They knew that Martin Luther King did what he did so that they could do what they're doing. And they decided to follow through..."

The official promo for the book:

"In 'The Breakthrough,' veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African-American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
"

But that misses a key point. Whether or not it is "pro-Obama", there is no doubt that the SALES for the book, and thus the REVENUE for Ifill, will dramatically hinge on whether or not Obama is elected. At a minimum, Ifell should be required to disclose this conflict of interest at the outset of the debate.

A person who is about to publish a book focusing on one of the candidates, is NOT a good choice to moderate a debate betweeen their running-mates. Racism, reverse or otherwise, has nothing to do with it.

You are an idiot Adam Serwer, racist is 95% of blacks voting for the chosen one just because he is black. Take a shower, your liberal stench is disgusting.

From the blurb, the book doesn't seem to be about Obama (he is interviewed but not "profiled"). While its sale would be helped by Obama's election, it will have sales regardless of the election outcome.

With respect to disclosure of Ifill's personal financial interest, then shouldn't each moderator have to disclose at the outset of each debate that he/she personally and his/her networks' owners will benefit from the McCain tax cuts ? Must Tom Brokaw disclose that NBC is owned by GE, which will benefit from the military spending that McCain proposes ? Each of those financial benefits far exceeds anything that Ifill will receive from her book !

The fact that Ifill did not admit that she was writing a book about one of the candidates is by itself enough to disqualify her, Rasicm has nothing to do with it.

H-Bob,

In a word, no.

You've created a false equivalence. Ifill's pocketbook and career will be dramatically helped by an Obama victory in a way that dwarfs your examples. In addition, the debate moderator has a unique, one-time role that is different from a daily newsreader. If the conflict is the nothing that you contend, disclose it and let Americans decide for themselves.

Mr. Serwer,

Thank you for your thoughtful post on this topic. It is funny to me that Gwen Iffill should be the distraction. The Vice Presidential nominee is having a hard time reciting what newspapers and magazines she read before being picked for the Republican running mate. She obviously has no idea about policy issues in the international arena. She is the real problem for the Republican Party. Senator McCain obviously has no idea what "Country First" consists of after these last disasterous eight years.

Ms. Iffil's book was announced months before the McCain campaign agreed to her moderating the debate. She has spoken of it on national television. She was picked long before the V.P. choice was made. She is a professional and is qualified for her job. The Rush Limbaugh attack on her is a distraction from the real issue. Can Sarah Palin lead? She has proven to me that she has less qualifications for being President than George Bush. She is one 72 year old cancer patient's heartbeat away from the POTUS. As CNN's Cafferty says, "....And if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, it should."

Serwer (intentionally?) left out some important details. Like the name of the book (hint: it has "Age of Obama" in it) and the publication date (inauguration day).

It is beyond question based on those two facts that Ifill has a more favorable view of Obama than McCain and that she has a financial interest in Obama winning the election.

Now, if anyone can find anything racist in what I wrote above, I'm not the one with the problem.

I think Serwer, by leaving out those two details, has lost whatever credibility he had in commenting on this matter. He is misleading his readership.

"I can already see that a future Obama administration is going to be annoying. Every time a conservative lodges a complain the Left will hurl the "racism" charge."

Oh, God, I know. I'm so glad Hillary is gone. If I should really need to invoke some form of "sexism" someday, I want it to still mean something.

The likes of the kind of bankrupt Democratic presidencies we've had the past 30 years sure as hell ain't worth the trouble.

the kind of bankrupt Democratic presidencies we've had the past 30 years

For 20 of the past 30 years, the president was a Republican.

And as for the rest of the critics of this post, I don't get the sense that any of you know the slightest thing about the book business. All sorts of books are published with the expectation of fairly modest sales. This looks like one of them -- if Doubleday wanted a big bestseller, it would have tried to persuade Ifill to write a book just about Obama. Why throw in Corey Booker and Deval Patrick and Artur Davis?

But that's the book Ifill had in her -- as I said in the post Adam linked, an analysis of black politics past and present. And, yeah, there's the possibility that the book will be on the front table of bookstores for a week or so if it comes out on the day of an Obama inaugural. But it's not likely to be a bestseller because it's clearly not an Obama book, it's a state-of-black-politics book. It'll be of interest to students of politics and of race relations. It'll get a slight bump in sales if Obama wins, but nobody will get rich.

And the book will still come out if Obama loses. Maybe the publication date will change. Probably the final chapter will be about the limits of new-style black politics -- Obama didn't win, Patrick and Booker won and then hit rough patches with the public, and so on. And the hope will be that it stays in print as a book students of politics and race relations want to tuern to. And maybe it will sell a bit more if Obama runs for president again.

"it would have tried to persuade Ifill to write a book just about Obama."

Or, alternatively, it would put "Obama" in the title. Hey, it did! Weird!

You guys know you're wrong on this, we can tell you're just going through the motions here. Be real.

Steve, It's called Age of Obama, and it's likely to have a big picture of Obama on the cover. But I'm sure you're right, no one would ever think its an Obama book. And I think you're wrong about it's sales. Books on Gore and Kerry didn't exactly sell like hotcakes after the elections, and this won't be any different. I'm sorry, but it's just not racist to want a debate moderator who doesn't personally stand to make quite a bit of money if a certain candidate wins.

Steve,

Also, it is not just the sales of the book that matter to Ifill long term. What is the value, both monetary and in terms of prestige, of being a "best selling author" or the "author of the NYT #1 best seller". Such things could matter quite a bit in her career, and they are inarguably more likely if Obama wins.

The answer is simple - disclose at the beginning and let the American people decide if she behaves impartially.