National Journal compiles a number of blog reactions to Gwen Ifill's awful performance during last night's debate:
Yglesias: "I'm not sure if Gwen Ifill was cowed by the rightwing mau-mau brigade or what, but I thought Ifill's handling of the debate was pretty disappointing. Palin was clearly operating with a game plan that involved simply refusing to answer certain questions in order to drift over to her pre-prepared text, and Ifill didn't ask any followups or challenge either candidate to address the questions she was asking. Indeed, at times Ifill was barely even asking questions -- just suggesting topics."
Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Palin was able to filibuster and repeat talking points without being pressured by Gwen Ifill. I suppose the mau-mauing worked."
The Atlantic's James Fallows: "Ifill [was] terrible. Yes, she was constrained by the agreed debate rules. But she gave not the slightest sign of chafing against them or looking for ways to follow up the many unanswered questions or self-contradictory answers. This was the big news of the evening. Katie Couric, and for that matter Jim Lehrer, have never looked so good."
AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay [I actually wrote this, not Joe]: "Gwen Ifill got bought off by McCain before this debate. He played her and she rolled over. What a sad excuse for a reporter. I've always liked Ifill in the past, but what has she done tonight that a 5th grader couldn't do? She read questions. That's it. Palin doesn't answer them, Ifill moves on to the next question."
Obsidian Wings' publius: "[Ifill]'s been absolutely awful. Her questions are terrible. And more importantly, she's let Palin ignore every single question. Just flat out ignore them. They got in her head."
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "There was only one loser: Gwen Ifill. She was intimidated, peripheral, neutered. The rules didn't help. But Ifill put in a dreadful performance."
