In reading reactions to Gwen Ifill being the moderator for tomorrow's Palin-Biden debate, I find that people are missing the point.
The general reaction to criticism of Ifill being the moderator is mock-outrage that people would question her ability to perform impartially as moderator despite the fact that she is so in the tank for Obama, she has gills. I don't buy that for a second.
It isn't that she might or might not be able to hide her bias--it's that she should never be put in the position in the first place. Of course everyone has biases so finding a truly unbiased person is a fruitless thought exercise. But how hard would it be to find somebody who doesn't actively support, write magazine articles about, and have a vested interest in one of the candidates?
If huge personal biases are not a big deal, then may I suggest a change for final McCain-Obama debate--moderator Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure that would over like a lead brick with the left. But can't Rush be asked to put his (huge, annoying, loud) biases aside and moderator fairly?
Part of me hopes that Ifill flubs in a major way and is shown to be horribly partial while moderating. The other part knows that no matter how unfair she is the only people that will make note of it will be those "crazy conservative bloggers". So perhaps it is best for me to hope for a truly impartial performance by Ifill in order to give Palin a level playing field.