A reader writes:
The fact that anyone considers that interview "pwning" of Palin shows us just how far we've gone in accepting that Palin should be treated with kid gloves. The interview was very mildly challenging of her, while not being critical of her by any reasonable standard.
Sarah came in blathering nonsense about what is being done wrong, and O'Reilly doesn't interrupt her, but changes the topic a bit with his questions and asks her a challenging, albeit totally fair question of what she would do in this situation. She gets lost for a while, stumbling on her answer and then coming to one coherent thought about allowing help from outside, at which point he is sure to mention "good point."
The only point in which he's not in agreement with her is when she claims Obama isn't putting the effort to stop the leak first, which he does challenge, but is very reserved and deferential in comparison to standard O'Reilly outrage.
Have you ever seen O'Reilly interview someone who he truly distrusts or says something which angers him? In those cases he will talk over the interviewee, accuse them of insincere motives, and constantly redirect the interview any time they make a point, without giving them any sort of concession. He would never say "good point" in such an interview. He would never let the interviewee go on for a full paragraph of their scripted answer, as he often does with Palin, in such an interview.
Now, her blank stares and weak answers may be exposing, but in no way is O'Reilly trying to give her a tough interview. He's bending over backwards to give her credit, and at some point she goes so far into the crazy that he can't defend it, although he reacts in mild disagreement rather than horror.
Of course, my reader is right. It does say something about how low we've sunk that even I treated this softball interview as some kind of breakthrough.