For the past two weeks we've witnessed the full fury of the mainstream media trying to destroy Sarah Palin personally. That failed. So, now they are trying to destroy her professionally.
"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Charlie Gibson asked tonight, in Sarah's ABC interview.
"In what respect, Charlie?" she replied. Because this was about as loaded a question as: everyone hates Bush and you hate him, too, right?
Charlie would not clarify his question. But if you were reading his body language--the rolling foot, the pursed lips--what he was really saying was: THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION DESIGNED TO EXPOSE PALIN'S LACK OF FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE.
Why the "lack of experience" accusation somehow sticks to Palin but not to Obama is just plain mystifying.
At least ABC isn't as bad as CNN where Ariana Huffington keeps telling us that John McCain's REAL running mate isn't Sarah Palin, it's Geoge W. Bush. Uh..thanks for that shining bit o' wisdom, Ms. H. But no-one's buying that anymore. And not just because Sarah wears lipstick.
And how 'bout Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment? OK, so he didn't mean it as a personal slam against Sarah. Sure was interesting timing. And he didn't shush the applauding crowd, either. How convenient for him. I mean, things always work out OK for this guy. The New York Times attributes this to a "disciplined and unflappable campaign strategy."
Well, what's there to get upset about? When people are hailing you as The One, when Oprah "cries her eyelashes off" over you, when you grace the covers of countless magazines---no wonder you're unflappable!
I'm just wondering why the media grills Sarah Palin on policy and domestic issues, and then allows Obama to wax eloquent about his....Compelling Life Story [cue majestic music].
For the record, I think Sarah rocked the interview. Putin must be wondering if moose hunters have good aim.
[Comments are open. Agree or disagree agreeably. Trolls will be deleted.]