Because Palin said in this same bareknuckle interview, that Russia was "unprovoked" in the Georgia conflict.  Unprovoked was the word she used. And said that Georgia and Ukraine should be in NATO.  And expressed perfect willingness to wage war with Russia if that's what the NATO admission were to bring.  

That charge was so effective against Reagan and W.

First, she was not well-prepared for personal questions like her decision to accept the offer. Gov. Palin has had months to think about becoming the VP of the United States, since the first request for vetting materials. She could simply state, I made that decision the day I agreed to John McCain's request to consider me for the vice presidency.

Second, domestic vs. foreign policy (energy independence). The historical precedent here is FDR (though will a Republican remember him fondly?). In the midst of the Great Depression - when both fascists and communists in Europe were looking outward for colonies and more territory - FDR made it Americans' goal to reform the US government and political economy. In the midst of economic crisis, the U.S. looked relatively inward at a time when other nations became bellicose, and the reform-mindedness and character of our president was no small part (strike against McCain, though). She could have emphasized that the reasonableness - and the flexibility - of our foreign policy options often begin at home, and the crisis facing Americans today is energy independence ("The world becomes more threatening the longer we remain dependent on foreign oil. The more independent we are, the more we can change the threat level throughout the world. For that, I am uniquely qualified as...").

Third, the "Bush Doctrine" segment looks more damaging in clips. In the midst of an interview with an unfriendly (and at time condescending man), her colloquialisms and her accent help carry  her through this land mine. I side with those who see this as classic redirect. In the process, she uses the phrase "imminent strike" rather than "imminent threat." Is she backing off the Bush Doctrine? That is not something a grizzled Republican insider is going to step out on a limb to answer, so I do not anticipate an Alaskan political tyro to the national stage to go there. It was a careful response.

He felt those seeing the evening news version would probably have a much worse opinion of her than those seeing the other version. So, your take on the interview seems to fit with what this caller experienced.

When people have time and access to the internet, they can form opinions based more on reality--but, I bet even those longer clips have been edited--and the edits will favor the MCM interviewer and the MCM take on things.

That's why some pols won't go on shows which are taped and edited to be shown later. They've been burned once too often.

The power to shape what people see is an immense one. We need more and better journalists and much less journamalism.