Same Old White Guys Run the Debates
A presidential campaign in which a prevailing theme is "change" makes it all the easier to see just how much things remain the same.
Take the presidential debates to be broadcast this fall. The Commission on Presidential Debates plans three events, as usual, with one a "town hall" format featuring questions from voters, a recent custom on its way to becoming routine.
Another tradition is firmly upheld as well: Three white men will be in charge of questioning Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama on behalf of millions of American voters who, as a group, are less white and male than ever before. Gwen Ifill, an African-American who is moderator and managing editor of PBS' "Washington Week," drew the number two spot. She will moderate the vice-presidential debate, as she did in 2004.
I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation." But how about a dose of reality? Race and sex already have become flashpoints in this campaign. McCain's age is an issue and Obama is sparking enormous enthusiasm among younger voters. So why are we stuck in a media rut with three white men, the youngest of whom, Brokaw, is 68?
Including the vice presidential moderator, "We chose four people who we thought were qualified," says Janet Brown, the commission's executive director. "That doesn't mean others are not."
Brown said the panel's research into voter preferences led it to conclude that a single moderator, rather than a panel of questioners, makes the best format. There also is a preference for moderators with live television experience. As for the vice presidential debate being assigned to the sole female and person of color, Brown said the commission does not consider the job to be a lesser assignment. "Gwen is not seen as being any less important a moderator or having less important an assignment than any other moderator."
Using the commission's criteria, it's pretty darned simple to come up with the names of television correspondents who are experienced in the issues and have the requisite live coverage credentials. Katie Couric, the CBS News anchor, is one. Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent who has reported live from dangerous conflict zones for two decades, is another. Andrea Mitchell of NBC also would fit the profile.
Brown said the panel avoids naming network anchors as moderators because "they are such celebrities." It's awfully hard to see how Couric could be considered more famous than Brokaw, who, with his best-selling books and other projects, sometimes seems like a one-man industry. But never mind. The point is that the commission looked around and what did it see? The same old picture.
Since the commission began running debates in 1988, only one female correspondent, Carole Simpson of ABC, has moderated a presidential forum. That was in 1992 and the format was a "town hall" meeting in which Simpson's role was to facilitate questions from the audience, not ask them herself. Before his retirement, CNN's Bernie Shaw moderated both a presidential and a vice presidential debate. Simpson, Shaw and Ifill are the only African-Americans who've had such high profile roles.
"Truth be told, even I would say there are not a lot of women on the level of the Brokaws and the Schieffers," says Carol Jenkins, president of the Women's Media Center. "It's the networks that are so thin on women and people of color." The center is petitioning the debate commission to add more representative moderators to this year's lineup, not to eliminate a moderator who already has been announced. But Brown said that's not likely because of the single-moderator format.
Would more women, African-Americans, Hispanics or those of other ethnic backgrounds ask the presidential contenders dramatically different questions? Perhaps not. Once a campaign settles into the stretch, the issues that are dominating public discussion inevitably dominate the debates. Just once, though, I'd like to see the candidates pressed on how changes they propose to Social Security would affect women -- the group most dependent on the program and most vulnerable to changes in it. I'd like not just to hear about our future military posture in Iraq, but about America's responsibility to the millions of refugees the war has created.
There is value in pursuing the same issues from a different perspective. But it seems that this year we are destined again to see them through the same lens.
--Marie Cocco
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
74 Comments so far
Show AllWhats wrong with wrinkled old white guys?
pissant
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/18/11064/#comment-352677
Earthian, I would think twice about a guy like Hartmann. I believe he is one of the guys supporting perpetual plan B. But outside of that this clip may be illuminating, yet surely tells me who owns him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqybHOaMucI
The two corporate, illegitimate (money-controlled) parties controlling the debates through their bogus commission is a conflict of interest.
Thom Hartmann also would be great.
I don't think the problem is that moderators are white or male.
I'd like to see Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky on a panel that interviewed the candidates.
Norman Solomon and Tom Englehardt would do fine as well.
So would Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales, Naomi Klein, and (obviously) Helen Thomas.
The important thing in the debates is for real issues of interest to Americans to be raised in the context of at least five candidates and parties. Obviously, if Nader, McKinney and Barr were in the debates that would broaden the discussion and the associated challenges of the assumptions of the corporate regime's two candidates.
I disagree that the debate moderators (or format or questions or participants) do not matter. If there were some revealing questions and on-point followup, the people might be more informed about the qualities of their choices. I also think that candidates who have achieved ballot status in more than one state should be up there.
Many people still take elections seriously as the bottom line of democracy. How are people to find out more? How is educating people about specifics not a good thing? Even though I am as disillusioned about politics as anyone, I do not think we should slink away defeated from the entire election debate scene and leave it to the network news.
If there is any opportunity for people to submit questions via email or phone, please everyone here think hard about the best questions and submit them.
I personally like all three of the moderators picked to run the debates, but that does not mean it was a responsible choice. In a time when there is no longer the luxory of denying diversity, it is even more important that it is reflected in our media. How else could we trust it?
Amy Goodman
Cynthia McKinney
Ron Paul
And this is why it is always to same ole white guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI
Debate is what the media puts on da hook to catch da fish (us), suckers that we are.
I might watch the fake debates if Wierd Al played the background music.
pee wee herman
tiny tim
my mother-in-law
Some great, some fun suggestions here.
The debates moderated by Stephanopoulous, Gibson, and the Fox News guy last year were insulting to all the candidates except the top one or two (as designated by the amount of money they collected in the month or so before the first debate) and to the intelligence of the American people.
The two-party Commission REALLY MUST reconsider its decision to go to corporate network control of debates and return that control to the nonpartisan, intelligent and informed-on-the-real-issues League of Women Voters.
What a red herring! There are two Senatorial war criminals running for President, and we are supposed to worry about who will moderate their fake debates? Stupid knows no limits.
Somebody mentioned the criteria for the debates, or proposed different criteria. Rich Griffin touched on the answer, and that is acheiving enough ballot lines in order to win the electoral college. If you are on enough ballots, there is no reason to be excluded from the debates. The people deserve to hear what you have to say.
Nader has actually polled at 6% a couple of times, which is odd because he receives about .01% of media time devoted to those running for president. Sure that number is a guess, but whatever it is in reality is still a gross underrepresentation of a candidate, based on number of ballot lines, that could win the election.
This topic makes my blood boil and renews my determination to get out of this absurd--and monumentally STUPID--country.
The hacks in both major parties continue to treat the voters like CHUMPS....and the voters continue to live down to those Republicratic expectations. They prove it all the time: AMERICANS AREN'T READY FOR DEMOCRACY!!!!
The Prize goes to whichever of the "TWO" candidates has the better team of pollsters, advertising experts, and market consultants...and the bigger 'war chest' to pay all of these otherwise useless hangers-on. In other words, "our" next "president" will be whichever candidate is more adept at bamboozling the 'Boobus Americanus'.
Of course they can't let Nader, McKinney, or even Bob Barr or Ron Paul into these "debates"...people who aren't terminally numbed by all the idiotic, dishonest, and fundamentally petty commercials the Republicratic Party imposes upon us would (VERY likely!) vote for one of these third-party candidates who would bring GENUINE Change.
How in h*ll did We The People allow ourselves to be manipulated into a nation of chumps? When did we become so complacent that these once-precious electoral 'contests' excite no more passion, no more meaning than a pie eating competition?!
I refuse to vote for ANY bought-and-paid-for corporate jerk who is cynical enough to take himself--and this charade--seriously. Anybody foolish enough to think either of the Republicrat candidates will bring "CHANGE" needs to have his/her head examined!
If we were ever allowed to hear anything more than the blandest political arguments and "gotcha" lines of the TWO so-called "serious" candidates, we'd have to actually THINK about important issues. Frankly, though, I don't think the current crop of American voters are up to it!
-------------------------------
"It is ironic that the people who think they are so free are the most controlled people on earth. It is equally odd that those who think they are part of the greatest democracy the world has ever known do not participate in a democracy at all."
-- Max Blunt
professional gatekeepers, all.
Dennis Kucinich
Vincent Bugliosi
Iggy Pop
The problem is not old white guys. (Have I mentioned that I adore quite a few old white guys). The problem is the automatic and unexamined assumption that being old or white or a guy or tall or Christian or patrician or American born gives you credibility, whether in the workplace, running for office or acting as an interviewer.
Who cares who the moderators are? These debates are a complete sham designed to create the illusion that we have a real choice between two legitimate candidates. Obama is McCain, McCain is Obama.
The moderators would matter if we had a real debate, one including Nader, McKinney and Barr, you people are pathetic.
Of course, Nader would put two sentences together and destroy Obama and expose him as the fraud that he is in a New York minute. That's why Democrats would never allow him, this article is irrelevant.
tolerancenow says:
"They taught us to ignore the fact that whites in the north signed up by the hundreds and thousand to fight for the freedom of blacks in the South after 1863."
Obviously he would not have done so himself.
And I hate to spring this on you, but Columbus, while a very interesting guy (just read The Last Voyage of Columbus) and a tremendous sailor, DID horrible things to the natives and DID steal their gold, though not as cruelly as some of the others.
And we actually did slaughter a few million Native Americans, most before our westward expansion.
Sorry these are uncomfortable facts for you. I suggest Fox News. It will make you feel better. And maybe put a Stormfront CD on, too.
Now, now
It's true that white christians butchered 97% of the Native Americans, setting the high mark for holocaust effiency (USA ! USA!)
but the wonderful white people were simply introducing christianity and democracy to our Native American brothers and sisters
See. They had to kill them.
Ask the people of Iraq (before they're all gone)
Hey people:
These three white guys led the way for all of you to hate white people so much. When these guys started out, people in this country actually felt they had to use their own ambition and work ethic to suceed, just like Obama has preached. Silly people back in the sixties, huh?
Problem is, the old guys actually believe people like you respect them.
They taught us that Columbus did not find the new world, but that he exploited the native population and stole their gold.
They taught us that brave men did not settle the west, but that they slaughtered native peoples and stole their land. They taught us to ignore the fact that whites in the north signed up by the hundreds and thousand to fight for the freedom of blacks in the South after 1863.
The truth is that without these old tired white guys (and their over protective mothers), there would not be affirmative action; white people would actually have the right to respect themselves; and the white race wouldn't be so hated today.
All of us owe these old white guys for the way we are encouraged to hate and ridicule the white race!! So think twice before you belittle these old white guys.
By the way, they only ones who should be monitoring any debate are
Barbara Streisand
Rep Nancy Pelosi
The Saudi Arabian Royal Family
Muslim Taxi drivers in Kansas
Oprah Winfrey and of course
Spike Lee
"I don't care so much that they're old and white, I care whether they'll ask TOUGH questions, and not give up until they have an answer"
Fat chance of that happening. We'll find out(if we
watch the BS) which one is the most Godly, along with
the standard lines of BS.
I agree with all above who believe Nader should be in the debates, because it will only help Obama put McCain away.
But I would like to know what you believe should be the guidelines for someone participating. Nader is getting about 2-4% nationally right now.
The guideline is you must be a sham
You must be a person devoid of character and principles
You must be a corporate whore
ruscle - Maddow is on her way to becoming a National Treasure in the Helen Thomas mold.
"I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation."
Really Ms Cocco? I do, as in they all suck, with Lehrer sucking possibly the least.
Let me add to the growing wish-list of moderators:
Gore Vidal
Howard Zinn
Chalmers Johnson
Ishmael Reed
Keith Olbermann
Olbermann of course being the only credible choice, as no one would allow the others a chance to ask questions.
How about Roseann Barr
My guess is that heads of the Commission on Presidential Debates are 3 old white dudes. >:-)
Here's what the CoPD says is their leadership, I notice that at least 2 are dead:
Co-Chairmen
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Paul G. Kirk, Jr.
Honorary Co-Chairmen
Gerald R. Fordâ€
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reaganâ€
William J. Clinton
Board of Directors
Howard Buffett
John C. Danforth
Antonia Hernandez
Michael D. McCurry
Newton N. Minow
Dorothy Ridings
Alan K. Simpson
H. Patrick Swygert
Executive Director
Janet H. Brown
The so-called debates don't matter. Everyone knows McCain is a shoo-in. The poll analysts have already declared him the winner.
Helen Thomas
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
A reporter, and 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' congressmen who aren't afraid to ask tough questions of their own party as well as the opposition party.
I don't care so much that they're old and white, I care whether they'll ask TOUGH questions, and not give up until they have an answer.
Never mind!
Naomi Klein
Ray McGovern
Bruce Fein (constitutional conservative who took a stand against Bush's shredding of the constitution)
Can the debates get any more boring than they already are? No one asks any meaningful questions. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the candidates "faith" for one thing. Are they politicians or are they prospective ministers of churches?
The mainstream media whores are bought and paid for. They're paid to not make waves. God forbid they might ask pertinent questions that people could learn something from and make it interesting.
Boy I'm glad the writer isn't suggesting we bring racism or sexism into this.
ruscle August 19th, 2008 4:34 pm
I'll make an exception for Maddow, she is reasonable and thoughtful.
Gwen Ifill is as big a clown as the rest of them. When the League of Women Voters re-assumes control of the debates again, I'll take them seriously again.
Any comments on these "debates" is not worth the strokes on this keyboard. They're an insult to any intelligent voter...a media farce to satiate the ill/uninformed.
Live TV experience - Check
Non Male - Check
Minority - Check
Smart - Check
In touch with Reality - Check
Why wasn't Rachel Maddow asked to host one of these debates. I bet it would have been the most watched and the most enlightening.
Dumb old Great Grandpa McCain's quote:
"In the 21st Century, nations don't invade other nations."
haha
So what does he think the U.S. did to Iraq??
Great Grandpa McCain also blames Obama for the high gas prices.
McCain: Different puppet, same puppet master (Karl Rove).
Lots of great suggestions for interviewers here.
How big are the blinders that MSM wears when thinking about who has the stature to comment on important issues? Since intelligence has no racial or sexual component (right?) and young people can think too, one suspects unexamined assumptions are skewing the selection process. When older white men are chosen over and over again, the message to young Black women, for example, is that they are not qualified to serve in such a capacity.
To figure out the probability of three older white men being chosen for any panel, you have to first find the chance of one older white man being chosen out of our diverse population. Then you raise that to the power of three. The probability is less than half of one percent.
Math is below.
US Populaton Category and percent
white 67.00%
male 50.00%
old 50.00% (Rough estimate)
Chance of choosing one older white male -------16.75%
Chance of Choosing Three older white males----- 0.47%
I do this mentally every time I see some tall white men, usually rich too, striding self importantly together in their well cut suits on their way to a meeting that will decide our fates. (Don't get me wrong. I love white people, older people and men. But they have to be educated to share the podium and the power.)
Daniel FUCKING David is scared of Nader and wishes he was a "moderator" ! Nice try but Nader's getting stronger as Obama keeps BURNING his base out and keeps rolling over to the rightwing like a DUMB DOG ! If Nader, Mckinney, Paul, etc ... had a chance at the presidential debates, they'd SMASH Obama's and Mccain's ASSES and have an even greater chance of causing a major change in the votes come November. They might get a chance yet even if they're kept off the debates. Too bad more disaffected and disgruntled base voters aren't going to vote for Obama and even the moderates will swing to Mccain for Obama's BETRAYAL of his base. CHOKE ON THAT !
Lehrer, Shieffer, and Brokaw: Three bees in a barrel to buzzzzz everyone to sleep. That is the whole point--the American electorate as the somnolent undead. Most people won't even bother to watch these useless old drones, or the useless candidates.
The two stooges, the three stooges, everywhere a stooge---and thanks for nothing to the author who did not mention the other presidential candidates, whom nobody but the MEDIA freaks have decided we shall not hear in a free and open discussion. Remember non-inquisitive clowns, the high and mighty pastor already asked the big American question: "Does evil exist?" Of course it does, Satan has a factory for example where he produces fake fossils in order to confuse good people (Lewis Black)---and it's America's mission to track it down and make everything perfect forever. Sleep tight! NADER NADER NADER. I will not watch or vote for prostitutes.
Why Are we legitimating these Fake Corporate Elections? Why are we not on another website explaining how fake they are. Here everyone already knows, except those who are pretending, so they don't have to do more work.
What elections ?
Oh ! You mean the selection process to see who will be the new figurehead of the United Corporation of America ?
I just vote for Nader, and think fondly of a time when the government was ours, before we let the corporations take it from us and kill, maim, enslave, poison, starve, torture most of the people on the planet.
Until we get the nerve to make use of our 2nd amendment rights and take back our country, voting for Nader will have to do.
The debates are meaningless without the participation of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney in them; I hope - and will participate in - for large huge turnout protests at all three debates. It wouldn't matter one bit what the format was if the two substantive candidates were full participants (and their vice presidential counterparts) in each of the debates. (I only do not include Barr because I don't know if he is on enough ballots to get electoral college votes necessary; I'd include him if he were).
Naomi Klein and Amy Goodman (from Little Brother)
Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney (from others)
That would do.
By the way, someone mentioned Judy Woodruff. She is a bigger Republican pro-corporate hack than any of the three fossils that are slated for the job.
The article fails to mention that the "Commission on Presidential Debates" is actually a creature of the Republican and Democratic parties. Go to their website (http://www.debates.org/pages/lead.html) and you'll find that the commission's co-chairs are former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties.
It's not the "white guys" I object to, it's the legitimacy that's given to this organization that represents the 2-party duopoly and the corporate/ruling class masters that both parties represent.
If there were genuine free and open political discussion in this country, we'd have debates sponsored by an independent organization that would invite ALL presidential candidates.
The way it is now, virtually every important topic -- the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us, our imperialist foreign policy, our outrageous military spending, our out-of-control presidency, single payer health care -- is "off the table" because the 2 main parties basically agree. Without the participation of candidates who hold truly different points of view, like Nader, McKinney, or Ron Paul, the debates are just a dog and pony show for the candidates the ruling class has pre-selected.
The more things change the more they smell the same.
Sorry, it cannot be said often enough to get the stink out of my nose..
The reason that Nader is NOT in the debates, and will NEVER be in the debates, is that he would likely get between 23-30% of the National vote. As a HIStoric reminder, the last time a Third Party candidate got in - Ross Perot - Perot got 18% of the National vote. It is also the last time THe League of Women voters RAN the debates. The white partisan elites then took over the platform pushing out the independent branch of the League of Women voters insuring that male-whitey-patriarchal-non-diverse- voices of enfranchised elites stole the show and will continue to steal the show. ThE more things change the more they stay the same.
Applause
Applause
Applause
Applause
Applause
Applause
Yeah, I don't watch the euphemistically-named "debates" either; I don't have a big enough shovel, or an efficient enough gas mask, to sit behind loose-boweled elephants and asses for all that time.
I'm all for equal-opportunity infotainwhoring in principle, though.
What debates ?
Corporate right vs. corporate middle-right discussing the best ways to keep the people asleep and or afraid, what propaganda will work best on them for the next 4 years.
No Thanks
I don't watch debates. I refuse to support the MSM. I won't buy newspapers either. If they say anything important I'll read about it the next day or hear it on "DEMOCRACY NOW"
"The Commission on Presidential Debates plans three events, as usual..." As usual indeed. This "Commission" is a one Corporate Party self-serving organization dedicated to making certain that non-Democrats and non-Republicans CANNOT participate.
_
As for "The way Ralph Nader ought to be in the debates is NOT as a candidate, but as the moderator. That's the kind of thing he used to do, way back when, when he was effective." Yeah. Yeah. You know better than Nader what Nader should do. I'll tell you this. Nader would NOT have pandered to evangelical crowd saying that he doesn't walk alone, or that he is saved, or Jesus is part of his marriage. Nader belongs in the debates to challenge the crap that comes out of both Obama's and McCain's mouths. What Democrats fear most IS a debate with Nader in it. If their candidate were so friggin' superior why would they fear that. C'mon Obama. Debate Nader. We dare you! And we dare you to do it in a town meeting setting without teleprompters. Let's see how you fare against "non-effective" Ralph Nader. Chicken? We know you are.
btw that was actually aimed at hazmat August 19th, 2008 12:52 pm, not hazmat August 19th, 2008 1:40 pm.
Precisely why the White Inside The Beltway crowd is losing the progressive vote. The black candidate who is the beneficiary of diversity programs, is now adjudicating over the dismantling of diversity issues by participating in the status quo ordering of events. No matter how the spin masters weave their latest dogma of salvation, this is just another nail in the coffin of Obama who thrust himself onto the National Stage by SELLING HIMSELF that as a NEW politico doing things differently. Turns out, after all the noble platitudes, his policy positions, shifting center/right doctrine, and cozyness with the corporate media elites demonstrates that we are getting - and will likely get under Obama -is MORE OF THE SAME!
hazmat,
Right. We can't possibly judge what issues actually matter to people in the current political climate. The MSM blaring at 220 million isolated individuals in their living rooms does not result in a system where people are even aware of their *own* wants and needs. Shut down the corporate media, limit politicians to 10 words a day, and create community discussion/debate groups; then maybe in a few years you'll start to get to a situation where national debate is guided by people's own critical thinking about what they'd like to see done. In the present climate no one even brings up anything that hasn't already been brought up by elected party members or talking heads--the handful of elites have near complete agenda-setting powers.
re 1:23pm
it's easy to see why the corporate candidates and their tireless cheerleaders would rather not have to face nader (or mckinney) in an open-format debate.
another typical DPA cheap shot, long on bile and short on substance.
Daniel David August 19th, 2008 1:23 pm: "Ralph Nader ought to be in the debates"
I agree. I would like to see him in the debates as well, DD. If Nader is not effective, then the corporate party has nothing to worry about.
I'd love to see Cynthia McKinney grilling McCain and Obama, like she did with Donald Rumsfeld. Then we'd finally get some meaningful questions asked at a debate. Ralph Nader should also be there to provide some meaningful answers.
Oh, how I wish....
Make that same old CORPORATE white guys. Until the US electorate identifies corporate power as the root of the demise of the US, the demise will not slow down, let alone turn around.
"I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation." But how about a dose of reality? Race and sex already have become flashpoints in this campaign. McCain's age is an issue and Obama is sparking enormous enthusiasm among younger voters. So why are we stuck in a media rut with three white men, the youngest of whom, Brokaw, is 68?"
So it would be okay to have black women moderators, as long as everyone involved was a member of the coordinator class?
The way Ralph Nader ought to be in the debates is NOT as a candidate, but as the moderator. That's the kind of thing he used to do, way back when, when he was effective.
You're blaming Ralph Nader for the cowardice of liberals. That's ugly.
He's there fighting for justice and truth, standing up to the corporate monster that owns the government, the media, and is hell-bent on either owning or destroying the entire planet
We're there, selling-out to fear and lesser-evilism
and you rip on him
1. Cynthia McKinney.
2. Ralph Nader
Nail 'em!
Naomi Klein
Amy Goodman
1.Sarah Bernhart
2. Margaret Cho
3. Jane Lynch
4. Whoopie Goldberg
"...and how many times a day do you, Mr. Candidate, go down on all fours and "Praise Jesus" for making a America a (genocidal) Xrstian (white man's) country?"
I WUV amewican dewates. They so smart....we can wuship our future Overseer of choice (the only choice allowed), through a tube....
from the article:
"Once a campaign settles into the stretch, the issues that are dominating public discussion inevitably dominate the debates."
strongly disagree. my experience has been that the "debates" set the limits of acceptable public discourse.
so who's going to ask the UFO question?
In order to keep the agenda within accepted limits, you have to have 'old, white, guys asking the questions. They are the ones who hold dear to the company line and would never think of asking a question that could embarrass or expose their bosses. They may say they are their own bosses but they know better who signs their paychecks.
Hoa binh
The questioners this year will be:
1. John Tesh
2. John Mayer
3. Avril Lavigne
Expect the questions to be probing and substantive. For example: "Senator McCain, have your pubic hairs turned gray? Senator Obama, do you eat barbeque and watermelon?
How about: Judy Woodruff of The News Hour or Charlene Hunter-Gault or Monica Kaufman Pearson (Atlanta), Barbara Walters or Gloria Borger? Anyone from C-SPAN would be excellent. There are lots of women with excellent credentials. The issue isn't the credentials, but the questions asked and the topics covered and where the focus of the debates lies. As opposed to the mess with Charlie and George during the primary season. The Commissions need to rethink the moderators and go for quality, not reputation, name recognition; afterall, this is about the American people and what we want and need, not the media's desire for ratings and more money.
The three I'd like to see asking questions
Helen Thomas
Chris Rock
Stephen Colbert