AP: Snippets From "Going Rogue"; Update: AP Changes the Number; John Ziegler Says the 'AP’s synopsis is a joke'

From the AP via CBS News:

The rumors are true, according to Sarah Palin: The McCain-Palin campaign was not a happy family.

In Palin's "Going Rogue," Palin confirms reports of tension between her aides and those of the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain. The vice presidential candidate confirms that she had wanted to speak on election night, but was denied the chance and says she was kept "bottled up" from reporters during the campaign.

[...]

She writes about the "jaded aura" of professional campaign aides and how McCain's entourage limited her access to the media, leading to allegations - unfounded, she says - that she was avoiding reporters.

And she says that most of her legal bills were generated defending what she called frivolous ethics complaints, but she reveals that about $500,000 was a bill she received to pay for the McCain campaign vetting her for the VP nod.

She said when she asked the McCain campaign if it would help her financially, she was told McCain's camp would have paid all the bills if he'd won; since he lost, the vetting legal bills were her responsibility.

[...]

She writes that ABC newsman Charles Gibson, who had an early interview with her, seemed bored by "substantive issues" stemming from her time as governor and that while speaking with her he "peered skeptically" at her over his glasses like a disapproving principal.

She writes at length about Couric. She says that the idea to meet with Couric came from McCain campaign aide Nicolle Wallace, who told Palin that Couric - also a working mother - liked and admired her. It would be a favor to Couric, too, whom Palin notes had the lowest ratings of the network anchors. Wallace said Couric suffered from low self-esteem. And Palin replied that she almost began to "feel sorry" for Couric.

She alleges that Couric and CBS left out her more "substantive" remarks and settled for "gotcha" moments. She writes that Couric had a "partisan agenda" and a condescending manner. Couric was "badgering," biased and far easier on Couric's Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden.

More here.

Related: A sneak peak at the governor's interview with Oprah here.

Update by Mel: In the article quoted above, the Associated Press said:

And [Palin] says that most of her legal bills were generated defending what she called frivolous ethics complaints, but she reveals that about $500,000 was a bill she received to pay for the McCain campaign vetting her for the VP nod. [emphasis added]

The AP has since changed that sentence to read:

And [Palin] says that most of her legal bills were generated defending what she called frivolous ethics complaints, but she reveals that about one-tenth of the $500,000 was a bill she received to pay for the McCain campaign vetting her for the VP nod. [emphasis added]

So, the AP now says that the vetting bill discussed in Going Rogue is $50,000, not $500,000.

An anonymous McCain official (are they ever not anonymous when they're bashing Palin?) says that the campaign did not bill Palin for her vetting fees. And an anonymous "senior McCain campaign official" said to NBC's "First Read" blog:

This senior McCain campaign official says they considered the $500,000 bill from Palin’s lawyer to be exorbitant — plus, even if they wanted to, they couldn’t use their general-election funds to pay for it (remember that McCain accepted some $84 million in federal funds for the general election).

“Everyone thought it was ridiculous,” the senior McCain official tells First Read.

So, the first version the AP story that hit the wires said that Palin says in Going Rogue that the McCain campaign billed her $500,000 for vetting fees. Then, apparently going off that erroneous number, other media outlets picked up the story. "First Read" quoted an anonymous "McCain campaign official" as saying that the campaign felt that $500,000 was exorbitant. But the AP now says the number is $50,000. So, where does that "First Read" story stand now? Amazing how quickly erroneous reporting snowballs isn't it?

Since I don't have a copy of the book (not being able to purchase it on the blackmarket, as the AP evidently did), I'll have to wait until November 17th to get Governor Palin's side as Meg Stapleton refuses to confirm or deny the AP's article. She told CNN that "“The book remains embargoed. The Governor will appear on Oprah first to discuss the book’s contents.”

Update II by Mel: The AP also says:

She alleges that Couric and CBS left out her more "substantive" remarks and settled for "gotcha" moments.

A while back, I took a look at the transcript of the second day of interviews Katie Couric conducted with Governor Palin, and compared the unedited transcript to what aired on CBS News. Here's the pdf of the comparison. Make your own judgment.

Update III by Mel: John Ziegler says:

Even grading on the “Palin Scale” of media bias, the AP’s synopsis is a joke.

[...]

In short, the book that the AP supposedly read sounds like it is full of self-serving whining and almost totally lacking in substance. That is not a remotely accurate evaluation of “Going Rogue.”

[...]

If you are interested in this most amazing of all modern political stories, I urge you to read the book for yourself and not let those who want Palin destroyed to continue to dictate your perceptions of her. Her book may be the only way for you to know the real Sarah Palin. Don’t let the AP read it for you.

More here.

Update IV by Mel: Allahpundit at Hot Air quotes (via The Atlantic) McCain campaign general counsel, Trevor Potter, as saying:

“I can confirm that she was not billed for any vetting costs by the campaign,” said Trevor Potter, the campaign’s general counsel. “I do not know if she was billed by her own lawyer for his assistance to her in the vetting process, but from the excerpt that has been read to me by the AP, it sounds as if that is what she is describing.”

Some of this was first hinted at back in the summer. Things are no clearer now, as we still only have second-hand accounts of Palin's side. As Allahpundit says:

Without a quote from the book itself, it’s impossible to tell how much of a dispute there really is here.

We should all find out for sure on November 17th.

*Post bumped up.