A brief thought or two after the "Nightline" continuation with Gov. Palin and Charles Gibson . . .

 

     First, Palin was very free and natural in her response to the ANWAR question, and was able to graciously say something that few, if any, Veeps have ever allowed themselves to do:  her and McCain have agreed to disagree about drilling there, and she's going to continue to work him over on the subject.  This suggests an easy and open relationship between the pair, and indicates that there will be a real exchange of ideas within a McCain-Palin administration. 

 

     The exchange also shows Palin's fundamental confidence in her own role as McCain's running-mate.  Whatever her learning-curve, she's not going to stand in silent awe of McCain or serve as window-dressing for the ticket in the way so many liberal antagonists suggest.  She will be a voice, at least in private, that offers its own candid views and works to be helpful on important policy.

 

     Gibson made himself a tad ridiculous in his efforts to underplay the significance of energy in our foreign policy.  If Hitler suffered repeated nightmares about his prized Ploesti oilfields burning in the night, that should remind us something about how energy is an absolute necessity in our security, in our very warmaking-capabilities, and by virtue of her familiarity with energy issues (which as governor of Alaska is a forthright part of her job description) she will be an important voice on national security. 

 

     Likewise, the Pakistan question is the kind of thing that no public servant can give an up-or-down answer on.  Palin has never been called on before to train herself in the Diplomatese that every ambassador, State Department official, or member of a Senate committee that has dealings abroad must observe.  She understands that her comments are already fair game for parsing by foreign leaders as a way of interpreting what could be official American policy in the months and years to come.  That struggle to put things into the properly ambiguous terms must be a constant struggle for any public figure-- and historians continue to parse the possible errors of nuance in official statements that might have encouraged, for instance, the Kaiser's prosecution of World War I.  Palin did what she had to do, and we saw her tires spinning as a result.  She cannot be faulted for declining to commit herself in black-and-white terms over what to do about removing Russian 'peacekeepers' from South Ossetia or going after Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.  To do so would be folly, as well as being, in Obama's inimitable trope, "above her pay-grade."

On the first installment of the Gibson-Palin "conversation":

 

     This is not Palin's finest moment, and plenty of liberal gawkers are going to jump all over it, but it's no kind of irretrievable disaster either.  Let's consider . . .

 

     Gov. Palin, in the first installment opening the 6:30 broadcast, was clearly in the opening moments of the first of what will be (win or lose in November) very many such conversations.  If we can find the footage for Obama, Biden, or John McCain's first stabs at "Meet the Idiots" (as a gentleman-professor of mine calls it!) or "Face the Nation" I'm sure we can find similar bouts of awkwardness.  Come to think of it, Sen. Obama has taken plenty of sweet time getting around to a lot of the "hurdles" expected to be run by a national figure.

 

     Now, Charles Gibson didn't condescend to ask nakedly "gotcha" questions at the reductio ad absurdum level ("Can you name the capital of Uzbekistan?"), but then-- when was the last time the Bush Administration invoked the "Bush Doctrine" by name?  Was Palin paling in the headlights?  well, so was I.  If Gibson wants to talk about preemptive war, pro or con?  why not simply ask, "Do you support the current President's doctrine of preemptive war?"  And does anyone doubt the answer to that?  You don't have to pick up the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs to know that McCain is going to uphold the idea that preemptive war can be justified on actionable intelligence about imminent threats to the United States.  And I don't think anyone seriously wonders that Sarah Palin disagrees on that one either.  At any rate, I'm sure she's gotten the memo about upholding her running-mate's policies.  And finally, when McCain's in office it's not going to be the "Bush Doctrine" any longer (did George H. W. Bush invoke the "Carter Doctrine" when Saddam invaded Kuwait, hum?).

 

     In short, asking about "the Bush Doctrine" is being rather pretentious in 2008-- and it's playing "Gotcha!"

 

     On the NATO front, Gibson seemed to be wondering if Palin understood the obligations of the treaty.  Again, I don't think anyone can imagine she doesn't understand the single thing that EVERYONE understands about the NATO treaty.  And since Ukraine and Georgia's entrance into NATO has been an idea long under discussion (Thatcher in her 2002 book "Statecraft" weighs in con-- which  personally I agree with, but that's negotiable!).  Certainly Palin showed her awareness of their membership-track status, and there's nothing inherently controversial about supporting their admission, as the Bush Administration and a goodly majority of the foreign policy establishment back that idea.  And the way she affirmed "Ukraine-- and Georgia" demonstrates some awarness of Ukraine's greater geographic proximity to the European heartland and its priority as a potential power and allie.  And I think she warmed into the question by insinuating (though she would have won the engagement had she quietly and overtly insisted upon the point) that one of the perks of Georgia's membership would be stability-- Russia can't mess with them precisely because we WOULD go to war for them.

 

     Insofar as she equivocated on whether we really would go to war for Georgia-- well, that's an equivocation that's patently more and more warranted as NATO expands.  Implicitely, I would argue, that's already become the case as the prospect of fighting World War III becomes increasingly less urgent the further removed the conflict would be from the English Channel.

 

     On the veepstakes question itself, right off the bat:  very strong, appropriate message about "not batting an eye."  Gov. Palin sends the signal of readiness, willingness, and a sense of moral clarity about the "mission."  All of which is clearly spontaneous and felt, and will make a connection with her viewers.  Also, it's exactly the kind of thing that bodes so well for her incumbency and her power to learn and wield authority on the national and international stage. 

 

     In the interview's 2nd installment, I think Palin handled very well the potentially much-more inflamatory question about her providential beliefs.  Now, philosophically and theologically speaking, many people, both today and among the great thinkers of the past, have held some version of a providential theory of history.  I think Palin made clear enough that her version does not deny man's free will, nor does it assure us of the confidence that we can act "with God on our side."  She avoided that kind of hubris staunchly, and made her case forcefully that the goal is for us to act "on God's side" and also to hope that our actions (in Iraq, specifically) work toward the end of achieving the Greater Good.  What she said, in fact, would have resonated quite well with the deistic philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers as well as with the views of evangelical Christians today.  Everyone's going to be tearing into this segment of the interview, and I think it was both potentially much more damaging for Palin, and much more successful for her.  Also, she had clearly warmed into the interview surroundings and was speaking more naturally and begining to find her thrust in the conversation. 

 

     And since Gibson was assuming the grim manner of an MIT prof on doctoral examination duty, it's not like his own "performance" will be free of criticism, and caricature.  If Palin sounded too academically insistant upon her allusion to Abraham Lincoln, well,  I assume she knows her Lincoln.  In a pinch, that sure works better for me than knowing your JFK!

 

     --Also, she was effectively insistent in her comments about her son's deployment to Iraq with his Stryker brigade.  And that underscores, too, that this is a very emotional and difficult day for her!  She can fairly respond to criticism by humanizing this little mini-ordeal, as is only fair, and underline the points she wants to come back to from her on-air responses.