Here are a few contrary thoughts on Palin.

1. Although Rich Lowry's Neocon Review has stabbed Palin in the back, it is the only conservative voice I know to have done so. Lots of MSM's are going on about the "conservative revolt," but so far, with NR, it appears to be a revolt of one.

2. I agree the Couric interview could have been better, but a little perspective is in order for Charlie Gibson. I and many others had no idea what Gibson meant by Bush Doctrine (I thought he meant the axis of evil; lots of other informed guesses have been propounded). Yet, in volleyball parlance, that was a bump and a set that became an SNL spike the very same weekend. Is it "pity" to point out that journalists and network clowns often work together to bash conservatives? I suppose so, but truth is also a defense.

3. On some of these issues, you really do have to look at context. Take the recent Pakistan flap, for example. Palin pointed out, quite sensibly, I thought, that we would work "with" the Pakistani government to interdict cross-border terrorists. She explained quite cogently tonight on CBS what she meant by that. McCain, who was sitting beside her, seemed to fidget and be concerned that this could be construed as contradicting his absurd contention that Obama wants to "attack" Pakistan and if so, we must do so very quietly. Whatever the merits of this, it does not reflect poorly on Palin, from where I sit. It seems McCain is flustered by the fact that Obama has out-hawked him on Pakistan, just as Kennedy did to Nixon on Cuba in 1960.

4. Speaking of CBS tonight, I think Palin finally transitioned from defense to self-confidence. I hope she brings that to the debate.

Look at the Charles Krauthammer columnn in the Washington Post entitled "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe." Krauthammer pointed out that he himself coined the term Bush Doctrine in 2001, pre-Iraq preemption, and he explained several iterations to it since that time. I would go toe to toe with most anyone on current events, but when Charles asked what do you think of the Bush Doctrine, I too thought to myself -- o.k., it's been an eight year presidency with lots of stuff (with us or against us, axis of evil, preemption, stay the course, surge, freedom around the world). What he is looking for?

Fyi, and this is a serious, non-argumentative point, I also think the term "Bush Doctrine" may have greater currency among Bush detractors than most Republicans, because the absence of WMD and the failure of preemptive war is a very big concern of Bush detractors (rightly so). Let's assume you are a conservative who forms their opinions from the Wall Street Journal editorial page or the National Review. You aren't going to see many references to something called the Bush Doctrine, unless it is a rose tinted tribute to Bush's insistence he will someday be remembered fondly for his overall toughness like Harry Truman. That may a problem with your scope, but it does not make you stupid.

Two quick points. First, I did mean to imply that Rich Lowry himself has condemned Sarah; only that he made space in his magazine for this Parker woman to do so.

Second, you are right that Palin has seen some drop in numbers. ABC reported over the weekend that her favorables have plummeted from 58 to 52, leaving her dangerously close to Biden. Rasmussen's poll last week on a hypothetical Biden vs. Palin presidential match up showed Palin winning by 3-5 points. I don't know if that is a decrease --- it is the first poll of its kind I have seen.

This column puts me in mind of the pre-debate period of 2000, when Paul Begala told the press Al Gore had one debate goal: demonstrate that there was only one candidate for president, not two. Ideology was not the issue. What mattered was that George Bush did not belong on the stage. Knock him off, metaphorically, and one candidate remains.

Gore lost that election, in part, because he failed to understand that if you are a nominee of your party (and have the title of governor, senator, etc.), the country is going to cut you quite a bit of slack. Even Dan Quayle, who was beaten senseless by the JFK crack in his debate, survived without a single point drop in the polls because the country just didn't credit the qualification issue.

The truth about Sarah Palin is that she is reasonably bright, though not a Rhodes scholar like Clinton, she has no federal experience (cf. Reagen, Carter, Clinton, and Bush II), she has a decent amount of total governmental experience (more than Ferraro, Quayle, Edwards, or Bush II), and she has some learning to do in B.S.'ing the media, although to her credit she signed up for more time with Katie after being panned the first go around. Her interview tonight was pretty good. She also has a good head on her shoulders -- unlike Lop Eared Lyndon, a demonstrably unstable character who rose from VP and plunged the country into an unwinnable war.

I understand the concern about the learning curve here, but also think a deep breath and a bit of context and optimism are in order.

I'll take your word for it if you tell me there are polls showing Palin's favorability decline. After the week she had with SNL, it is probably unavoidable.

But -- go to the Rasmussen website. There, on page one, you can link to a Sept. 24 poll showing Palin with 54% favorable and Biden with 49%. They also mention the hypothetical, non-Obama, non-McCain presidential race between just Palin and Biden, where Palin would win 47% to 44%.

That really says something if you think about it. Put aside what it means to be "favorable" or suited to be a "heart beat away" -- both very ephemeral concepts. Majority thinks Palin would be a flat out better president.