I'm just listening to the taped interview of Gibson's questioning of Palin last night. I couldn't believe how he dared to ask Palin whether her decision to run for VP was due to "hubris." He would never ask a male candiate this question. His entire manner towards her was condescending; his serious, unsmiling face, looking at her beyond his little spectacles, was entirely sexist in the way he acts adversarial towards her. No doubt if he were questioning Obama or another man about these same issues, he would crack at least a little smile and not strike such a superior pose.
Slate's Jack Safer argues that Gibson showed a better foreign policy understanding than Palin. But isn't it a lot easier to read prepared questions than to answer them impromptu?
Here is the exact excerpt from the interview:
He asks her twice whether she thought she was experienced enough to be VP. She answers twice, and then he asks a third time:
Gibson: "You didn’t say to yourself, am I experienced enough, am I ready?"
Palin: "I didn’t hesitate. . ."
Gibson interrupts: “Doesn’t that take some hubris?”
Gibson would never have asked this of a male VP candidate. Doesn't Obama show hubris? Doesn't any one who dares to run for the highest political office have to have an excess of confidence? Hubris is such a negative word, and Obama, with all of his incredible cockiness, has never had this word ascribed to him.