For me, Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin was disappointing. She came across about how I expected--straightforward and earnest, but shallow on the issues. My big disappointment was with Gibson.

He didn't press her on anything, except for that stupid Bush Doctrine question (which I'll bet Bush himself would have flunked). He just put questions out there, and accepted her rehearsed answer without prying further. I suspect that Palin herself felt like she got off easy.

• She's been misleading the country about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere, but Gibson passively accepted her canned answer.
• He brought up, but didn't push, on her record with other earmarks.
• He let her get away with her totally unnecessary lie about selling that government jet on eBay.
• He didn't pry into what, to me, sure looks like abuse of power in Troopergate.
• He didn't bring up her, and her husband's, association with the Alaskan separatist party, and that party's affiliation with the American Constitution Party, which seeks a US theocracy (can you spell T-A-L-I-B-A-N?). I don't care how hard-core Republican you are--shouldn't this be explored?
• Religious statements she has made, like describing the Iraq war as "a task that is from God," and that building a new gas line was God's will.

I like Palin. But while I would love to perpetuate the image of Sarah Palin as squeaky-clean wholesome, there remains room for much legitimate press inquiry. She needs to be held accountable for misrepresenting her own record. I expected more from Charlie.

Palin's next interview is with Sean Hannity on Tuesday. That'll be a joke. Like Olberman interviewing Obama. Hannity will mostly just set her up to criticize Obama. At some point, Palin needs to be pressed.