Update and Conclusions

The 20/20 version of the second interview held a lot more detail.  Much more of Charlie in follow-up questions trying to wrangle a substantive answer to the actual question asked. 

Since my original intention was to critique Charlie, I'll end by saying I think he did fine.  Admittedly, I was rooting for him.  I have seen him inteview in that pose before - the glasses and serious demeanor, I think that is just his style, so it did not seem unusual, condescending, or affected.  There were no softballs among the questions.  He asked about things I wanted to hear from Sarah Palin's own mouth.  Given the current environment, there was a fine line to tread. As a journalist, he had to remain objective.  I think when he ended a line of questioning leaving her unsatisfactory answers hanging, he was wisely allowing the viewers to form their own conclusions.

As to Palin's responses in the second interview, there was much rhetoric and little substance once again.  She has a disturbing manner of simply denying all of the legitimate critisims of her (the false claim about turning down the bridge; her statements about God's plans; the fiscal disaster she left in Wasilla;  use of lobbyists to obtain federal earmarks for Wasilla; the state's current earmark programs; even her exteme anti-choice agenda).  It is most disturbing because although the responses appear well-practiced and thought-out after the fact, she seems to absolutely believe there is no contradiction between her past actions and her current words.  Like others who have never made a mistake that they can recall..... hubris in the nth degree.  She spoke of being humbled but showed no humility whatsoever. 

My first impressions of Palin have not changed - she remains drastically unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.  Her temperment is unsuitable for a position of high power.  Her confidence is firmly anchored in her arrogance. 

I am still terrified on the thought of this person being second in command of the United States of America, and I am off to donate to Obama again!

Update after Part 2:

 Part 2 on ABC news wasn't as much fun as Part 1.  It's not all Charlie's fault there, there are only so many comeback questions to statements of "personal opinion".  He did try to straighten out the dodginess of the response to the economy question, although I was left shaking my head at the lack of substance in the response. Palin didn't appear to do any harm to herself, except to viewers who, like me, recognized the evasions for what they were.  But overall, while Charlie remained serious, the tone was different from last night, and not in a good way from my viewpoint.

I am going to watch the 20/20 version of all this in a little while.  More comments later.

Part 1 (Thursday night)

I love the name Charles, and it's nickname Charlie.  My father was a Charlie and to me, the name connotes the goodness that was my dad. My nephew is a Charlie (although his athletic peers have re-nicked him as Chuck and he has fully assumed that mantle.  He is such a good kid though, he told me he would always be MY Charlie). 

We all know good-time Charlie, and Charlie on the MTA right? Maybe, in some small part, we did badly in Viet Nam because they nicknamed the Viet Cong Charlie,  which was far too nice a name for a deadly, misunderstood enemy.

I also like Charlie Gibson but for the most part, I view him through the lens of my experience (as well as his on GMA) as an intelligent, kind, hard-working,  good-natured, involved-father type of man that his name inspires.

I was fairly certain that he had it in him to conduct a hard-hitting interview, but I feared he'd let his Charlie-nature get in the way.  So I watched his interview with Sarah Palin tonight primarily to see if my Charlie stood up as a journalist or sat down as a puff piece reporter.

I am pleased to report he did not disappoint me.   He was all business tonight, and he was able to ask important and telling policy questions without being "hard-hitting".  He did not allow prevarication and avoidance to go unnoticed.  He doggedly pursued the answer to his actual question after the avoidance answers.  He even pointed out the avoidance.  He was polite but persistent.

The "Bush Doctrine" question was clearly a well-designed "gotcha" but only one of many he could have sprung on her.  I didn't know the answer either, but I am not a Republican candidate for VP.  On most questions, he  handed her some rope, and he only tugged a little tigher each time she tried to shake the noose.  I'm certain he did not set out to hang her, but he was clearly determined to force some policy positions out of her.  He let the "God's plan" question go just a little too easily, but overall, I was impressed with Charlie tonight.

There is more of this interview to see, and I have to assume it will become "folksy" at some point.  But we finally saw  Sarah Palin forced to speak in her own words on important policy matters.  I THINK I saw some cracks in her armor; I know I saw her start to go towards sarcasm and get beaten back; I am positive she showed herself to be uninformed and without clear potitions on specific issues.

I am pleased with Charles Gibson tonight; I had a good time watching him. Thank you Charlie!