It looks like Charles Gibson will get the honor of being the first national reporter to interview Sarah Palin since John McCain introduced her to the world last week.

The national media, including Gibson, is still stinging from its failure to ask the important tough questions about WMD that might have prevented the war in Iraq.  We have every reason to believe that Gibson himself feels a personal and professional obligation this time to push back against GOP posturing and get real answers.  

But Democrats who assume that Palin will collapse under a soft breeze should think again.  The questions many of us want to see answered mostly involve where Palin stands on the important issues.  What is her position on the surge, benchmarks, earmarks, the capital gains tax cut, sex education, prayer in schools, supreme court appointments, foreign aid, global warming.  

But the logic of the Palin pick was modeled largely on the logic of appointing Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court: his record was so slight that there was little to stand down from or contradict.  Likewise, Sarah Palin's answers to all the above questions will reliably be John McCain's answers.  What is she doing tonight?  She's reading McCain's website. She's memorizing the answers to the test.

This is why it's imperative that the questions be not What, When, Where questions—for which Palin can simply fill in the blanks with McCain's standard talking points.  The questions must by Why and How questions. 

Instead of asking her “Where is South Ossettia?” and “What should our policy be toward the separatists there?”  Gibson should begin, “I assume you agree with Senator McCain's plan to support the government of Georgia and to invite it to enter NATO.  Why is that in our national interest?”  Why not what. 

He should ask her essay questions, questions that require her to make an argument.  If she thinks government isn't rocket science—as she said of the job she held until twenty months ago—he should find out if she thinks the vice presidency requires a similarly modest level of expertise.

This woman is well-trained. That is not the same thing as having understanding.