Overall I thought the interview was decent.  Sarah Palin did look nervous, at least compared to her composure at other events.  She also looked nervous in the beginning of her convention speech but grew more comfortable as time went on.  I sensed this same increase in comfort level as the interview went on.  This is a big interview for her and she is a newcomer but it seems like she was easing up as she realized Charlie Gibson is just some dolt in a sweater vest.  I liked how She pushed back when Gibson was sweeping aside her emphasis on the importance of a leaders will to reform government.

I thought her answer as to whether she was ready to be Vice President was well worded, but her body language suggested nervousness and may lead some to believe there are conflicting messages there.  Her line about "not blinking" was well delivered however and impressed me personally.  His accusation of Hubris was a bit of a cheap shot but she handled it well.

Her emphasis on energy, an area of obvious expertise for her, strengthened her image when it comes to foreign policy.  Whatever lack of knowledge she may have in other areas, energy and American dependence on foreign oil is absolutely one of the most important aspects of foreign policy and national security.  Charlie Gibson seemed like he tried to brush this aside but she pressed back and good for her, energy is directly related to alot of the vulnerabilities America has to hostile regimes.  Sorry Gibson, it's not climate change. 

Her response to Israel was a disciplined response.  When talking about a potential nuclear war, you need to stick to a rigid stance and not say anything during a campaign which could ignite further tensions.  Gibson pressed her on this, she stood strong.

Gibson pressed her hard on Pakistan and again, she was disciplined in her answer.  She can't say too much on such a fragile issue.  She didn't take any options off the table but did not give anything away either.  Good answer, though Gibson seemed unsatisfied he couldn't bait her into contradicting McCains stance on not invading our ally.

Her remarks about defending Georgia against Russia are already being taken out of context by blogs.  Ukraine and Georgia should be in NATO, that is her stance and under Article V of the NATO treaty if any member is attacked the others must come to its defense.  Putting countries like Georgia and Ukraine in NATO would be meant to deter Russia from reasserting their influence over them.  If Russia did attack one of the countries and a war started as a reult, that would be Russias fault.  In no way was Sarah Palin war mongering or suggesting we should invade Russia.  Perhaps some people just don't know exactly how NATO works or how dangerous Putin is.

The Bush Doctrine question will most likely be the one the blogs pick up on but I saw it as a gotcha question.  I follow politics and world affairs pretty closely and I didn't even know what the Bush doctrine was exactly.  I thought it had to do with zero tolerance for nations who harbored terrorists but Gibson is under the belief it is a promotion of pre-emptive strikes and war.  He could have just told her that when she first asked, but he went for the gotcha moment.  He wasn't looking for a true answer at that point and came across rather condescending.  I personally don't think it was a big deal, i doubt the regular voter will give a damn, she gave her answer and the real issue here is how she would approach foreign policy.

The question about her statements in church about Gods Will was misleading.  They cut out what she said and made her sound like some kind of holy warrior, a term Gibson even referred to which was unfair I thought.  She explained herself well, especially with the reference to Lincoln but Gibson seemed relentless in trying to get her to admit that God said to her in a dream that we must go around invading countries.  He was looking for another Gotcha moment.  I believe he failed, especially since he took her original words completely out of context.  Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and so many other leaders have referenced God's will in a similar way, that God is not on our side but that we be on Gods side.

her exact words were:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I got the impression that Charlie Gibson was a professor giving an oral exam to a student he expected to fail.  He came across as condescending and smug.  Palin did look initially nervous but seemed to ease up as the interview went on, I look forward to the next two parts.  Overall Gibson gave a decent interview, I want Palin to face tough interviews, but his attitude and dishonest and inaccurate mis-quote of her speech in church gave hints of a hatchet job.  Tough but fair is what I want.

Is there a way we can just divide the nation up? Once the red states are torn into poverty and debt since the blue states control 75% of the GDP, they'll come begging back. They'll miss our entertainment too, left to consume hours upon hours of country and christian music.

The above text was posted in response to an article on Politico.  I have heard this sentiment quite a bit from those on the left, especially those in well off liberal areas normally located in Northern California.  Though some in my area of New England have mused similar thoughts.  If their candidates can't win in our Democratic system (which must be broken or corrupt!) and their judges can't legislate from the bench (to bypass the "flawed" democratic system) then perhaps the more enlightened Blue States of America should dump the excess baggage that are the Red States and go at it on their own.  I take it these people are not fans of Obama's 2004 Convention speech.  You know, the one about one nation, no Red or Blue States but the United States?

These people seriously undervalue and underestimate the importance of Red State USA.  The economies in the Red States are easily outpacing the Blue States and the cost of living is much more reasonable.  I reside in Connecticut and if it wasn't for my family I would get the heck out of here in a heartbeat.  We have two Sanctuary cities in this small state and a Puerto Rican friend of mine told me the other day that written on the walls of bathrooms in San Juan are messages urging people to go to Connecticut for a "free ride".  The social services in this state are easily abused and it's killing us.  I love New England, and I would miss this historical area of the country, but at the same time I would not look back if I left.

So some want to divide the country?  Ok lets work this out then, I'll speak directly to the Blue State secessionists on this plan.  You can have the Northeast which includes New York and New England (poor New Hampshire) and you can also have Maryland, Delaware, D.C. and part of Pennsylvania such as the Eastern part.  You can also have the Rustbelt states of Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and I'll even throw in Iowa for you.  Hands off Ohio and Indiana, those are our babies.  You can also have the left coast, except for southern California.  All California territory south of L.A. will belong to the newly founded Red Faction since they will need access to a pacific port.  Washington State and Oregon are yours though.  Maybe Northern Virginia as well can go your way, they've been acting strange lately with all the Carpetbaggers moving in.

The Bible Belt, the Sun Belt, Rocky Mountain States, Midwest, Deep South and Sotheast will all go to the Red Faction.  The Canadian Provinces of Alberta and possibly Saskatchewan may want to join in as well because the good people of The Red States would not want to limit their energy and oil production like the elitists in Ontario, plus they share alot of the same social values as the Red voters.  Alberta especially clings to guns and religion.

Taxes will be low, cost of living will be reasonable and free market businesses will flourish.  Foreign companies such as Toyota and Subaru are already building massive factories in Red States such as Indiana and Alabama to avoid the stranglehold of unions such as the UAW and with out the Rockefeller Wallstreet Republicans calling the shots from Manhattan, true conservatives in the Red States can end this obsession with large corporations and unmonitored free trade and focus on small business and fair trade.  Some states will be socialy conservative while others will take a more libertine approach to these matters, either way it will be their decision without some unelected, unaccountable activist judge writing fairy tales into law and calling it constitutional.

Soooo, if you really think seceding from America is in the Blue States' best interest, take a closer look at your folly.  The Blue Faction would be divided up into three sections, only accessible by air while the Red Faction would be a powerhouse controlling all of North America's Natural Gas, Coal, Oil and Oil shale Reserves.  The majority of the American Armed Forces is made up of Red Staters and the citizens happen to own all the guns as well.  As for entertainment, the South has produced Blues, Jazz, Rock, incredible food, don't limit Casinos to Indian reservations (not every Red stater is a fundamentalist who hates gambling) and a new Hollywood could be formed with movies focusing on action and guns instead of gay cowboys, white guilt and self hating Americans.  John Wayne and Steve McQueen were Conservatives and it would be nice to see actors like this return to the Big Screen and replace the likes of Ben Afflek and Matt Damon. 

Go ahead and secede though, maybe Ontario will join you?

Or maybe you can just learn to love your country unconditionaly, no matter how "stupid" you might think the people are.  I am no Obama fan and personally feel he would be a disaster as President but if he were to be President I would take a cue from John Wayne and say, "well I didn't vote for the guy, but he is still my President and I hope he does a good job."  Sure I would be frustrated if my candidate of choice didn't get in, I might blame the liberal media and all the liberal academic hacks indoctrinating our youth, but I still trust the American people to do what they in their hearts feel is right.  America has faced tremendous challenges throughout its history and the only thing other than the resolve and spirit of the American people that got us through these challenges were truly exceptional leaders.  Distinctly American leaders.  Elected leaders such as Washington and Lincoln as well as Civil leaders who spoke under the protection of the first amendment.  All the troubles we have faced and all the progress we have made and yet I hear people not so jokingly talk about secession?  Because their guy didn't win?  Absurd.

I admit that when I first heard the pick I was surprised and skeptical, and her speech started off slow and shakey but like during her speech, as time goes by I warm up to her. I personally thought Mitt Romney should have been the pick, no matter what his economic status is.  A successful man (or woman) should not have to make apologies for achieving the American dream.  If McCain went with a woman I figured Carly Fiorina would have made a great VP because she struck me as the female version of Mitt Romney.  A smooth confident talker with an expertise in economics, though I am unsure about her stance on abortion. Sarah Palin does have limited experience, no name recognition and is involved in an investigation. At the same time however, as I learn more about her, she seems like an ingenious pick. A fresh, young and female face which will appeal to the mainstream independent voter, particularly women. A pro life, pro gun and pro god record which will appeal to traditional conervatives as well as swing voters in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada and Colorado. She has a maverick reform oriented image which matches and complements McCains and most importantly, she can point to major legislative accomplishments which Obama and his supporters can not. Obamas biggest claim to fame is his 2004 convention speech, other than that we can't really point to any significant legislative accomplishments of his.  Sarah Palin took on her own party, pushed ethics reform, ousted a corrupt incumbent Republican Governor and fended off a strong Demcoratic challenge in a Democratic year. She is in favor of domestic drilling but is also a conservationist having taken on the Big Oil companies and demanding they equally share their wealth.  She was head of the Alaska National Guard and has executive experience where she cut the budget and turned down pork barrel projects (unlike Obama) offered to her by the Federal Government.  She also has distanced herself from Republican Senator Ted Stevens, seeing him as corrupt.  So she has a true record of bipartisanship compared to Obama.  She has a true record of reform and taking on her own party while Obama just followed what the Democratic machine wanted him to and she has real accomplishements to point to during her limited political experience.

As for her limited political experience, The Obama campaign is playing with fire if they want to ridicule her for this because she arguably has the exact same amount as Obama himself, but with more achievement. I can see the ads already saying that Obama's ticket is backwards or that Obama and Palin would both make great VICE Presidents. It is a risky choice, no doubt, but I don't think John McCain, a man who has faced both personal and political adversity before in his life, is showing panic. He saw something in Governor Palin that he liked, maybe America will see the same. In the end, we vote for the candidate at the top of the ticket.

I would like to edit one more observation in, this pick has already been successful in the short term by all the buzz it has created.  Here we are, the day after Obamas historic acceptance speech and all the blogs and media outlets are buzzing over Sarah Palin.  So far it looks like this "Hail Mary" play ended up in the right hands.