... I realize that the Wasilla Assembly of God taught Sarah that Sigmund Freud was Sigmund Fraud, and that she’s believed it ever since, but that doesn’t immunize her from what the rest of us might call a Freudian slip. Speaking of Gingrich’s recent stumble out of the gate, Hannity asked her, in regard to 2012, “Is there going to be a different standard?” Meaning: will candidates be held accountable for their words? Sarah said:To his credit, McGinniss doesn't seem to know what to make of it, but several commenters expressed what may be an expectation bias with comments that essentially said, "I knew it! She's going to run."
There’s gotta be the preparation on all the candidates’ parts for those gotchas. That’s what the lamestream media is known for nowadays is the gotcha, trip-up questions, and I just have to be prepared for it and overcome it. (emphasis added.)
Why would someone who did not intend to seek the Republican nomination say “I”?
If she weren’t planning to run–notwithstanding how she makes everything about herself–wouldn’t she have said “they?”
Dr. Fraud, where are you now that we need you? ...
This is the problem: People can't believe that Palin is a liar, an unreliable narrator or speaks "word salad" and at the same time believe what she says, unless they're willing to embrace inconsistent ideas. Think about that!
Her statement may have been a failure to completely express a conditional or subjunctive statement, like, "If I run, I just have to be prepared for it ["gotcha, trip-up questions"] or "If I were running, I would have to be prepared for it." How can we know without asking a follow-up question?