On Friday, I scribbled up a storm on the first part of Charles Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin. This was over at the Corner. And I’d like to do just a little more scribbling now — on the 20/20 business, aired Friday night. In fact, I’ll do a series of quick points.

1. I thought Palin was poised, serene, and bright. I thought she gave a good sense of who she is: what she believes (on a variety of issues) and what sort of person she is. I thought she was amazingly unflappable. Her interviewer was often an attack dog; she refused to be prey, or a victim.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. The lead-in piece by the ABC News people was appalling — appallingly slanted, appallingly wrong. The most glaring example: Palin gives a stump speech, like every other politician. Consequently, she says the same things in different cities. ABC showed her saying these same things, in the different cities — making her look dumb and repetitive.

Appalling.

By the way, I had a memory of Mike Deaver. In the late ’70s, Reagan was going around the country, giving his classic speech. Deaver approached him and said, “Governor, maybe it’s time for a new speech.” Reagan answered, “Mike, I like this speech. Why don’t you get me new audiences?”

3. ABC made sure to say that Wasilla, Alaska, “shaped” Palin’s views and persona. And it sounded like they wanted you to understand: “She’s just a narrow, provincial gal.” Like hell.

4. Charlie Gibson was, again, rude, condescending, and obnoxious. I believe he was largely out of character. If he ever watches the tapes, I hope he feels at least a little chagrin.

5. It seemed to me that he was trying to get Palin to say that she was frightened by her new situation — overwhelmed, dazed, and all that. Palin said, “No, actually” (I paraphrase). That brought a smile to my face.

6. She was droppin’ g’s like crazy — as in, “I think he’s regrettin’ not pickin’ her now.” I like it, frankly. Others will say, “Hick.” But they would anyway — wouldn’t they? — given that Palin’s a conservative.

7. She said several nice things about Hillary Clinton. I wasn’t sure whether to believe her — whether her statements were more sincere or more political. Not sure.

8. Gibson said to her, gravely, “We’ve got a very sick economy” — as though he were a doctor announcing a terminal illness to a patient’s relative (and a particularly dim relative at that). Oh, come off it, Charlie. If you want to see “very sick” economies, go elsewhere in the world. And grow up.

Moreover: Aren’t these straight-news types supposed to go easy on the editorializing? Who does he think he is, Milton Friedman?

9. You may recall the “1-2-3” moment: when Gibson snapped at Palin, “1-2-3.” He was like a peeved parent, demanding something of his child. I talked to a woman who said that, of everything in the interview, that is what most offended her (I guess along with “Exact words” and “hubris”). “He wouldn’t have done that to a man,” she said. Maybe she’s right — I don’t know.

10. He simply couldn’t stop interrupting — and not because the interviewee was going on too long, or veering off course. He just couldn’t stop interrupting. Unless it was my imagination, he especially interrupted when Palin was hitting a stride.

(I’m sure it was my imagination — semi-sure.)

11. And how nasty he was! My goodness! You might have thought he was interviewing Bashar Assad (although he would have been far more polite and respectful to him — they always are). Our friend John Steigerwald, a radio host in Pittsburgh, sent us this note (and when I say “us,” I mean NRO):

Last night, I got a call [on air] from a psychologist who has appeared on Good Morning America about 75 times. He heard me talking about how condescending and dismissive Gibson was with Palin. And he said he had to call because he knows and likes Gibson, but had agreed with me 100 percent. He went on to say that he couldn’t believe he was watching the same Charlie Gibson he knows. So, it’s not just Palin partisans who remarked Gibson’s nastiness.

No.

11.5. I want to slip in a wee language note: The lack of a comma in that morning-show title — Good Morning America — has always bugged me, a little.

12. Palin, and lots of other people, say, “We can all agree there should be fewer abortions in America. Everyone agrees on that.” I don’t believe that, for a minute. I think it’s baloney. There are plenty of people who don’t agree there should be fewer abortions. And why should they?

Plenty of people don’t regard abortion as murder, or tantamount to murder — they don’t even regard it as wrong. They think it’s akin to an appendectomy: You want or need something removed, and you have it taken care of. I don’t hear anyone calling for fewer appendectomies.

When I was growing up, there was a feminist slogan: A baby in its mother’s womb has no more standing than a hamburger in her stomach.

Later on, I never understood this “safe, legal, and rare” business — the line that Clinton put out. Safe, I get — safe for the mother. Legal, I understand entirely. But rare? Why rare? If abortion is not the wrongful taking of innocent life — who cares whether it’s rare or common? Whether there are 10 million abortions a year or ten?

In pre-abolition days, did they call for fewer slaves? Maybe they did: “Let us hope there is less slavery in 1847 than there has been in 1846.” But the arguments have to do with fundamental principles, do they not?

Anyway . . .

13. I liked very much that Palin stood her ground on ANWR — McCain is simply wrong, in her view (and mine, for what it’s worth) (and the opinion of Alaska’s governor is worth a lot more).

14. Gibson demanded a yes-or-no answer at least once. I wish Palin had said, “Actually, why don’t you ask the questions, and allow me to answer them the way I see fit? And then, if you hate those answers, you can denounce me later.”

15. Bear in mind that Gibson was under tremendous pressure: He was standing in for all the establishment media. And, it’s pretty clear, they hate her guts. Plus, by selecting Gibson, for this first interview, the McCain campaign semi-insulted him — or challenged his manhood. The campaign could be interpreted as saying, “We think we’ll have a relatively easy ride with Charlie.” Therefore, “Charlie” had to be — well, you know how I thought he was . . .

There are many, many other points to be made, but 15’s enough, certainly for the top of Impromptus, don’t you think?

Do you remember Mike Gravel? He made a quixotic run for this year’s Democratic presidential nomination. And he was a senator from Alaska, for two terms. Well, he was interviewed by some lefties on the radio — who wanted him to slam Sarah Palin up and down. They opened with, “So, first, tell us what the Republicans are not telling us about Sarah Palin.” And Gravel spent most of the interview defending her against absurd attacks. The interviewers grew more and more frustrated. It really wasn’t going the way they expected!

Wonderful. Listen to it, if you like, here.

A reader made a suggestion to me: Palin is the governor of a nothing state with no population. Did we ever hear that about Howard Dean?

Somewhere on the Internet, I watched a good bit of John McCain on The View. And I want to make just a couple of points. First, boy oh boy, do they hate her — I mean, really, really hate Palin. Barbara Walters has such a nasty look on her face. Why? Is it merely abortion — merely the fifth child? Second, McCain handled himself very well (in the portions I saw). It was amazing how he could keep his cool, in the midst of multiple inanities.