If bad interviews can truly be used to determine someone’s readiness for the highest office in the land, then pollsters can save themselves a lot of time by removing Hillary Clinton from their list of 2016 contenders.

Back in 2008, after Hillary’s own party sold her out, the conservative movement was energized by the selection of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate.  Accordingly, her political head found itself in high demand by the left.

Critics began by questioning her experience.  But once they got a hold of her true record of reform and budget-cutting in Alaska, they knew it wouldn’t work, considering that their golden boy (Obama) had absolutely no executive experience whatsoever.

So they turned to the media.  Remember the Charlie Gibson interview?  In that interview, VP nominee Palin made a statement to the ABC host saying, “You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska” to describe Alaska’s proximity to the foreign country.  The remark was informative.  Most people in the lower 48 didn’t realize that.  Yet, when the writers at SNL decided to bludgeon the statement, it became “I can see Russia from my house.”  And to this day, some low-information voters still believe that Sarah Palin said it in the way SNL portrayed it.

Now it’s Hillary’s turn.  Her new book is out and, within a week of release, has already dropped to the number-three position among Amazon’s bestsellers, falling short of two books that have been out months longer.  In comparison, not only did Palin’s Going Rogue in 2009 debut at number one weeks before its actual release, but it stayed there for a considerable amount of time afterward. 

In Clinton’s book tour interviews, some of her responses don’t seem to be living up to her alleged brilliance, bestowed upon her by radical feminists and liberal scholars alike.

With Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended her responsibility for Benghazi.  As secretary of state, she had a meltdown in one congressional hearing, crying out loud, “At this point, what difference does it make?!”  Now, of course, in Hard Choices, she devotes an entire chapter to it, ultimately proving that it does make a difference if the Clintons want to sell books.

Clinton said there was a reason “why we hire people who have that expertise [in security],” but that she gave them “direct instructions,” but she “was not making security decisions.”  So even though she claims to “take responsibility,” she seems to whitewash the administration’s lack of response by laying the blame on her inability to “look at blueprints.”

In actuality, common sense should have kicked in.  We had ambassadors calling for extra security without response and a secretary of state responsible for poor planning.  That is why the administration’s talking points on the disaster only dug their hole deeper, and why Clinton tossed such word salad. 

Next, she clumsily went on to claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House as a way to explain earning in excess of $100M giving speeches since.  As laid out by William Jacobson, by the end of their White House stay, the Clintons had already scored millions in book deals, gifts, and certain White House furnishings.  Hillary’s claim of being “dead broke” was not only a lie, but quite a sloppy one, considering how easy it was to disprove.  (At least Chris Matthews was willing to call this a “half-gaffe.”)

Finally, with NBC’s Cynthia McFadden, Clinton claimed that the release of five top Taliban leaders in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl was “not a threat to the United States,” saying that perhaps they were a threat to Pakistan or Afghanistan.  This seems to suggest that Islamic militants are threats to Americans or our interests on the basis of geography, which completely defies all history regarding the ongoing conflict America has witnessed with such enemies abroad.  Surely this was more than a “half gaffe.” 

Yet despite such massive blunders and aside from the slight challenge Hillary got from Diane Sawyer, the “idiot” narrative just doesn’t seem to dominate throughout the entire media, as it did with Sarah Palin back in 2008.  Meanwhile, Palin continues to call it with accuracy and clarity on matters like Bowe Bergdahl’s exchange and the White House’s cover-up of Benghazi.

This happens because the media cannot stand strong conservative women, though there isn’t any need to cry for Palin when one considers how far she’s come.  There are many candidates she helped to victory in 2010’s midterm elections.  This continued in 2012 with the election of fine senators like Ted Cruz and Deb Fischer and today with the momentum she’s brought to great 2014 Senate candidates like Ben Sasse, Chris McDaniel, Joni Ernst, and T.W. Shannon.  Additionally, Palin’s been spot-on in calling out ObamaCare’s death panels, predicting Obama’s use of health care to further assault our Second Amendment rights as well as the Ukraine invasion.

Ironically the media’s attempt to protect Hillary Clinton not only exposes her weaknesses, but accentuates them.  Meanwhile, their continued witch hunt against Sarah Palin has only strengthened the battle-tested conservative, seemingly preparing her for bigger fights down the road.

Steve Flesher is a contributing editor at Conservatives4Palin.