I think Palin was probably thinking to herself: (a) if I take the position that we can carte blanche invade Pakistan, that is probably a diplomatically incorrect answer and certainly not one we would wish to publicize and (b) if I say we will NOT cross into Pakistan to take out Bin Laden (assuming Pakistan says no), that's not quite right either. So, she punted, but survived with a decent summation.

The bigger question is: why didn't dopey Charles Gibson spend time trying to elicit real information that might tell us something new about Sarah Palin. These professional journalists are vastly overrated. I would have asked her: are you a fan of nonfiction history and if so what books have you enjoyed and how did they help you develop your view of the world? That would have been much better than a hypothetical re: cross-border incursions into Pakistan.

Boy, I really have a problem with all the "dream" questions for Palin floating around the net.

Tonight, Charlie Gibson gave Palin a pop quiz. Not a "gotcha" pop quiz, mind you, focused on naming foreign heads of state. Rather, a "can you repeat McCain's talking points" pop quiz. Repeat them verbatim and you pass. Fail, and you're Dan Quayle. What a waste of time.

The questions Ms. Walsh summarizes are little better. Sure, if you ask Palin how long the prison term should be for a rape victim who chooses abortion, you may get an answer many will regard as ghastly. In turn, you may get a bump for Obama (if that's your preference). BUT WE ALREADY KNOW SHE IS STRONGLY ANTI-ABORTION; THUS, THE QUESTION ELICITS NO NEW INFORMATION.

Here are the questions Palin should be asked: 1. How did you become a Republican; 2. Who were your early political heroes; 3. Have you ever been much of a reader or fan of National Review, or similar conservative publications; 4. Where do you go to get your national news and information today; 5. What historical figures do you most admire and why; and 6. What works of historical non-fiction most impressed you and why. I don't care whether those questions get asked by an MSM or by Sean Hannity -- they would tell you something about the PERSON. Again, what a waste this ABC excursion has been.

Just watched the full Nightline interview (cf. the truncated 6:30 version) with my undecided Democratic spouse. She had, by far, her most favorable reaction yet to Palin. Also asked: what's the deal with Charlie Gibson?

Sure, Palin will not be confused with Metternich tonight. But how could one expect otherwise, when she had no experience (until two weeks ago) on foreign policy? I thought she played well, under the circumstances. If you wish to dump on someone, criticize McCain for choosing an "outsider" instead of a State Department wonk who can talk Shiites and Sunnis all day long. But remember: if you picked the wonk, you wouldn't have 23,000 people lining up to see McCain in Fairfax. Politics is funny that way.

As for Israel, of course they are likely to bomb Iran. It is, after all, their problem, not ours. We did not fight directly for Israel in 1948, 1967, or 1973, and there is no reason for us to start now. I am less sure I care two wits about Georgia and Ukraine, but Palin's answer on Israel was undistilled common sense.

Whoopi was apparently unaware that (i) the 13th Amendment to the constitution prohibits slavery and (ii) one can therefore strictly adhere to said constitution without reverting to said slavery. Because abortion -- the real target of Whoopi's question -- is not mentioned in the constitution, one can be for or it or against it as a constitutional right without implicating chattel slavery. Again, say what you like about McCain, but debating a preschooler would be more enlightening than an hour with dim wit Goldberg.

Ok, let's get a few things straight about slavery. Prior to the 13th Amendment, it was of course legal -- the constitution did not prohibit it. Prohibition was done through amendment rather than statute, in part (but only in part) to prevent states and/or future Congresses from allowing it back (more on that below). The 14th Amendment dealt with the corollary problem of "black code" statute books in re-admitted southern states. Equal rights for men of all races. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dred Scott did not legitimize white supremacy, as some anti-abortionists would have it (in calling Dred and Roe v. Wade twin evils). It was much more convulted -- and misunderstood -- than that. Basically, the British had used a "compensated emancipation" for its colonies in the early 1800's. That could not happen in the U.S. because compensation would be too expensive (thus, Lincoln's quixotic interest in Liberia). Yet -- and here is the important part -- the Supreme Court made clear in the 1850's that emancipation could not happen without compensation under the 5th Amendment. Ergo, emancipation was effectively dead, politically (absent war).

Again, we come back to the radicalism of the 13th Amendment -- it effectively overrode the 5th Amendment, and said yes, slavery can be ended without paying the masters.

So, there you have it, fans of the "View." Whoopi's understanding of all this was -- to put it mildly -- underdeveloped.