Just One Question about the Debates: Why Do All the Moderators Suck?

This is a serious question.

None of the debate moderators: ABC's Charlie Gibson, CBS' Bob Schieffer, or PBS' Jim Lehrer or Gwen Ifill is a particularly strong journalist or strong interviewer. See Daily Howler for a discussion on Schieffer who claims to come from conservative Texas Dems but whose brother has been very Bush-friendly. Schieffer admits a bias toward down-home boys. I don't think he means Kerry.

Charlie Gibson, to quote someone this week but I don't remember who (sorry), is a "lovable doofus".

Gwen Ifill spent weeks it seemed gushing over her new friendship with National Insecurity director Condi Rice (they had dinner together!), while Jim Lehrer lost ALL my respect when he said of the Iraq war (and I'm paraphrasing but the intent is the same, I believe), "How could journalists question the president's judgment in the leadup to the war? That's not our role!"

Well, gee, Jim, what is your role? Bending over and taking it up the ass? I thought that was Scott McClellan's role! Or maybe your role is just to roll over and play sycophant to the whims of the powerful and privileged.

Either way, Jim, you're in the wrong profession. You're a little old to be a whore. Go open a tea house or write more cheesy novels. You aren't a journalist, sweetie.

No moderator has handled these debates well, followed up on questions evenly, or called the president - although Gibson kept asking Kerry to explain things - to account for one of his misstatements. These debates may be entertaining, but they have very little to do with what the American people need to know, and the moderators chosen were apparently picked for their deference to power.

Who would I have liked to see? Good question. Amy Goodman of Pacifica/Democracy Now. Even Keith Olbermann or someone else who can think and watch the president chew gum at the same time.