You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1189)

PLAYS: (3677)

Sarah Palin thinks she's got it covered now in explaining why she did so badly when interviewed by actual journalists in her failed vice-presidential campaign last year. She went on The O'Reilly Factor last night and told BillO that a simple foreign-policy question like Charles Gibson's query about the Bush Doctrine was just a "gotcha technique" by the liberal media (instead of a routine question intended to ascertain her bearings on foreign policy).

And Katie Couric? That was just a reaction to Katie's snotty questions:

O'Reilly: Katie Couric's a different story. Katie Couric asked you an easy question and you booted it, governor.

Palin: I sure did.

[Plays video]

COURIC: What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them ...

O'Reilly: Why did you boot it? I mean, if somebody asks what do you read, I say I read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, I could reel them off in my sleep, you couldn't do it.

Palin: Well, of course I could. Of course I could.

O'Reilly: Well, why didn't you?

Palin: It's ridiculous to suggest that or say I couldn't tell people what I read. Because by that point already, although it was relatively early in that multi-segmented interview with Katie Couric -- it was, it was quite obvious that it was going to be a bit of an annoying interview with a badgering of the questions. It seemed to me that she didn't know anything about Alaska, about my job as governor, about my accomplishments as mayor or governor, my record. And a question like that, though, yeah, I booted it, I screwed up, I should have been more patient and more gracious in my answer, it seemed to me the question was more along the lines of -- Do you read? How do you stay in touch with the real world?

O'Reilly: See, that was your inexperience.

Palin: It was my inexperience with having to deal with a condescending, badgering line of questioning. No -- no reflection at all on my inexperience in terms of administrative record or accomplishments or vision for America.

Pardon me while I call b-llsh-t. "What kinds of things do you read?" is a stock question of the political journalist when querying candidates, particularly those new on the scene. And as you can see from watching the clip that O'Reilly shows, there was nothing high-handed or suggestive of "Do you read?" in Couric's question.

You can watch the longer clip of this portion of the interview here. Palin is not bridling at Couric's arrogance -- she's drawing a blank and reaching for straws.

But in Palinopia, of course, she's just being "human." And I guess that's right, to an extent -- since prevaricating and dodging and making up lame excuses is part of the human condition too. Just not a very attractive or inspiring one.

DOWNLOAD (12)

PLAY (44)

Sarah Palin embarrassed herself pretty badly when she practically admitted on national television (in her first serious interview) that she had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was. Last night on the Late Show with David Letterman, BillO showed that he's just as brain dead as the Alaska Governor. The only difference is that he spent much of the last eight years actually defending the overarching premise of Bush's foreign policy.

"The Bush Doctrine? Remember that, when Charlie Gibson went, 'what's the Bush doctrine'? You got the nose with glasses on and all that. I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha."

Is he serious? I could care less if Bill O'Reilly knows what the Bush doctrine is, even if he has been defending it for years now. But I certainly expect someone who could easily be the President in three months to have an opinion on whether or not it's right for the United States to attack countries that we think may present a threat to us sometime in the future. Call me an elitist, but things like that matter.

  It doesn't matter that Sarah Palin couldn't answer Charlie Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine, because she is the Bush Doctrine.

Download | play   Download | play

Stewart: "Now I know her detractors will say that Palin actually supported the bridge until it became a political albatross and ended up keeping a lot of the money for it anyway; That she claimed to have visited Iraq when she really didn't; Or that she didn't really sell that plane on eBay; Or that she left the town she was mayor of $20 million dollars in debt; And that she made sure that women who were raped were charged for their rape kits."

[Audience boos]

Stewart: "Yea. Yea, it's f*cking true."

[...]

Stewart: She doesn't need to know the Bush Doctrine -- she is the Bush Doctrine. Her foreign policy experience consists of being able to see Russia from an island in Alaska. And a refueling layover in Ireland.

  To his credit, Charlie Gibson actually did a pretty good job of grilling Sarah Palin in her first interview since accepting the Republican nomination. When asked whether or not she agrees with the Bush Doctrine -- the idea that the United States should be able to reserve the right to launch unprovoked attacks on nations deemed a threat to us -- a visibly confused Palin simply doesn't know how to respond coherently.

Download | play   Download | play  

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

 Cernig wonders: The Most Dangerous Woman In The World?

For more on the Bush Doctrine, see Jon Perr's great series of posts:

The Death of the Bush Doctrine

This Just In From Afghanistan: Bush Doctrine Still Dead

The Myth of the Bush Doctrine