Part I of my comments here, and now I've just picked up the article again. Once more on Page 4, read that "no serious vetting had been done" (and whose fault was that?) followed by assertion of Palin's "slipperiness," followed immediately by the statement that Palin was "unwilling, or simply unable" to prepare for the Couric interview.
This is clearly an effort to blame Palin for whatever went wrong in an interview that never should have been scheduled.
Palin would have been solid gold in any impromptu encounter with reporters on the campaign trail. Putting her into one-on-one interviews with the network anchors -- eager to draw blood with "gotcha" questions -- was a stupid blunder on the part of the campaign.
To schedule those interviews, and then to arrange sessions to "prepare" her for them, was to imply that she was incapable of handling the interviews without the "expert" assistance of the Team Maverick brain trust which, of course, had committed her to these interviews in the first place.
Am I the only one who sees that the problem with how Palin was "handled" had nothing to do with Palin and everything to do with the handlers? She is being made the scapegoat for the failures of others.
CNN: Fake News and Fake Twitter followers - Not only is CNN fake news, they have more fake followers on Twitter than they do legit followers. CNN likes
1 hour ago