ratbastid

Look, let's just take one example that has been held up as emblematic of the whole thing: the Couric interview. There were LOADS of softball questions in there--questions designed to explore her as a person, give her an opportunity to introduce herself to America, let them see the kind of leader she'd likely be. I think she came INTO that interview unprepared and adversarial.

"What magazines and periodicals do you read?" is a big old mushball of a question. Anybody who's not had their head entirely up their ass can hear that it's meant to give the interviewee an opportunity to yammer some, open up to the interviewer, present themselves however they want. BIG open-ended question.

What came back was pure defensiveness, and deer-in-headlights. "Oh, you know, I read all sorts of things. Whatever's lying around." And it's like.... C'mon, dumbass. She's trying to HELP you, and you keep HURTING yourself.

So the question is, did Couric "gotcha" Palin, or did Palin "gotcha" herself?

Now: Charlie Gibson testing her knowledge of the Bush Doctrine... That was a set-up. I think Gibson knew exactly what was likely to happen there. Was it unfair? I don't think so. You don't get to be Vice President without knowing about the biggest shift in military doctrine in the history of our country. Was it politically motivated? I like to think it wasn't--I like to think that if Obama had fielded such a woefully unprepared VP candidate, he or she would have been tested the same way. What you might call (and Palin did call) "liberal gotcha journalism", I call actual journalism.

Does that mean all the stuff that's been thrown at her--particularly since November--has been fair? No. There has been a bit of a pigpile on her since losing the election. But even so, she's got this "the media is unfair to me" trope (which you hardly EVER saw Hillary play) that is her ultimate get out of jail free card.