“When did we start accepting as hard news sources bloggers, anonymous bloggers especially. It’s a sad state of affairs in the world of the media today, mainstream media especially; if they are going to rely on anonymous bloggers for their hard news information. Very scary. What is the double standard here? Why people would choose to believe lies, and reporters especially, not just taking one extra step to get to the facts and report the facts but instead continue to spread things that are not true. So I have the same question perhaps you do and others who would participate in this documentary. Is it political or sexism? What is it that drives someone to believe the worst and perpetuate the worst in terms of gossip and lies?”

You can view video of this interview posted on Jan. 7 below.

Of concern to McCain’s campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin’s interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how “infuriating” it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

There may be no issue as important to the future of this country and more directly tied to the influence of the president than the makeup of the Supreme Court.

With the court almost perfectly divided and with retirements on the liberal side of the court all but certain over the next four years, the next president will have the power to change the face of the law with a single appointment to the court. And McCain is asking you to put someone who has apparently only heard of one Supreme Court ruling in our entire history a heartbeat away from that power.

And by the way, McCain is not much better educated on judicial matters. He’s never shown anything remotely resembling an understanding of constitutional law.

This is a man who, after all, not only voted for Robert Bork’s nomination, he gave a speech on the Senate floor declaring that he was doing so “without hesitation” and showered him with effusive praise. He said that Bork, who actually argued that the First Amendment did not protect any speech that was not political in nature (!), was “hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in sync with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench.”

Yes, that should frighten you as you contemplate McCain naming justices to the Supreme Court.