Witness Bill O'Reilly's Nov. 6 interview with Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe, co-authors of the soon-to-be-released "Sarah from Alaska." During the interview, the authors insisted that it was "not a slam book at all." In fact, Conroy said that his "final conclusion" of Palin was that "she's always been underestimated" and to "write her off" would be a "big mistake." Walshe also implicitly blamed the media by saying that Palin's "three-dimensional character" was ignored during last year's presidential campaign and, instead, "she was perceived as either an idiot or she was loathed."
So why did Conroy and Walshe feel the need to defend the fairness of their book? Perhaps because the duo had appeared on CBS earlier that week, and "fair" isn't an adjective that comes to mind in describing that interview.
Although the two networks asked the same basic questions, only FNC did any digging into the authors' responses. For example, during their interview with CBS' Harry Smith, Conroy and Walshe described the relationship between the "McCain and Palin camps" as "an all-out civil war," especially the night McCain gave his concession speech. According to Walshe, McCain refused to allow Palin to speak because his staffers were "terrified" that Palin would "embarrass John McCain even after the campaign had officially ended."
What could Palin say that would be so embarrassing? Was she going to hog the attention? Say something outlandish?
On CBS, Smith didn't ask these questions, preferring to use the anecdote to play up the "clash" between the McCain and Palin "camps." Which is too bad, since Conroy and Walshe had "exclusively obtained" the text of both Palin's victory and concession speeches.
Fortunately, O'Reilly bothered to ask. And it turns out that McCain's staffers were "terrified" of Palin being ... too nice.
"Both speeches really just praised John McCain as an American hero, praised Barack Obama," said Walshe.
"So it was a generous speech?" O'Reilly asked.
"Absolutely," Walshe asserted.
O'Reilly didn't ignore the subject of tension between McCain and Palin. But, unlike Smith, he didn't just accept the authors' initial assertions and move on.
During the CBS interview, Walshe said that Palin felt like "she wasn't being directed correctly" but the McCain staffers felt like "she was number two on the ticket and that she should follow direction." Conroy added, "[Palin's] sort of taken ownership of this phrase ‘Going Rogue,' but really, to many of the McCain staffers, it was very irritating that she time and again - towards the end of the campaign especially - was going off and doing her own thing."
"Time and again?" Wow. Examples? Smith didn't ask for any. Good thing O'Reilly followed up for him and found out that the McCain staff were irritated with Palin for the exact same reasons they had chosen her in the first place: for having an outgoing personality that connected well with the large, rural demographic.
"In the beginning of the campaign," said Walshe, "you'll remember, she wasn't allowed to come back and talk to the press. And she really wanted to. She knew that if she put her personal touch with the traveling press corps that she would be able to win them over as she did in Alaska. She was not allowed to. So, that's when she thought, I really should be following my own instincts. They didn't like that."
Conroy also said that Palin had trouble with the McCain staff when she wanted to campaign longer in Michigan. "She didn't want to give up there," he said. "She knew that those were the kinds of people she could win over - the salt of the earth people. But they just - the McCain staffers thought that was out of play."
Whatever trouble she might have had with McCain in 2008, both authors agreed with O'Reilly that she could definitely run again, citing her "thousands and thousands" of "very, very loyal" fans and saying that she had "absolutely" done a good job as the governor of Alaska.
So, while not a single positive word was said about Palin during the entire Smith interview, both authors agreed during O'Reilly's that, while Palin may have an "uphill climb," she shouldn't be "underestimated."
Now who's the real news network? Maybe it's the one with all the ratings.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Palin
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 16:09 ET by irishguyThe other interviewers asked leading questions which led me to believe it was an anti Palin book. O'Reilly's interview certainly changed that preception. Given all the attacks on Mrs Palin, it's nice to see some one attempting go give a straight story.
The Wrong Stuff
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 16:16 ET by allanfSomeone ran the worst Republican campaign for President in generations. It wasn't Palin. The buck must stop with the candidate: maverick Republican John McCain.
Man up John.
Yes, my friends, I am a
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 18:23 ET by monstermanYes, my friends, I am a maverick my friends, I am a RINO my friends.
I cringed every time he gave a speech and said "my friends" or any time someone was forced to call him a maverick.
It Just Proves
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 16:25 ET by GeneralAlPalin's comments just prove that John McCain preferred to lose rather than be upstaged by one such as she! He would have suffered an even bigger loss if she hadn't been on the ticket! I guess he was afraid she would hurt his ability to "cross the aisle!"
...because Fox often
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 16:26 ET by Hermano...because Fox often commits actual journalism. Great line, Carolyn. I am glad he asked as I am not likely to buy this book. After the Smith interview, I was wondering, as usual, if a followup would have changed the meaning. I certainly would have.
Only two forms of government? Find out why... http://www.flixxy.com/political-system.htm
The parallels between Palin and Reagan are eerily similar
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 17:50 ET by jondelwicheHey, I was a Dem in the Reagan era (but not!!! now) so I never voted for Reagan, but I have become a huge Palin fan. She is now a forner governor who was blamed for dragging the ticket down in a losing effort. She is called extremist, simple minded, etc etc The economy has mega-tanked since the election....She is now traveling around, out-of-office, trying to revive true conservatism.......
Does that sound familiar to Reagan circa 1977? Former governor, blamed for Ford's downfall in 1976, great people skills, accused of being a know-nothing, the economy tanks longterm after the 1976 election, etc etc. Reagan spends the years ahead of 1980 out-of-office trying to revive a conservative movement.....
Re: Palin--I would be very wary of this politician in the next cycle.
It is unfair to both Reagan and Palin to claim the latter might be the Presidential powerhouse the former was, but at this point in her career, she is exactly tracking the gipper's career choices.
We have to ask...
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 18:12 ET by retroconWe have to ask why we would think that the MSM would treat Sarah any better now that she's not on the campaign trail?
Just as the MSM "made" Obama, and therefore, must now work to maintain his image, or admit to their shenanigans, they also fabricated the image that most people have of Sarah... and again, if she is exposed as the competent and intelligent leader that she is, they will look very bad, indeed.
I believe that Sarah Palin could do more to discredit the MSM than all the NB's and Fox New's combined... all she has to do is to be seen by the general public as who she really is.
People will simply never trust the MSM again.
I guess
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 18:26 ET by FirmwormI guess you can't judge a book by how it's covered.
Good one
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 23:02 ET by JerryGood one.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).