Ok, last one for the night. This is getting tedious, but I am up to the challenge.

Today's Couric interview reflects badly on McCain, not Palin --it does not support faulknerjr's thesis that she is clueless. (I agree with him that she has a learning curve here on federal and international issues, and that Gibson/Couric have revealed that -- I just disagree that it can't be quickly overcome).

Your note refers to Palin's "mistake" on Pakistan. What is the mistake? She said she would work with Pakistan's governemnt to interdict terrorists. I frankly don't understand McCain's position on this. First, several months ago, he went berserk when Obama claimed he would drop bombs on Bin Laden's head in Pakistan, saying this would be an "attack" on a sovereign country. Then, in the debate, he lectures that it's okay to cross borders to do what you gotta do, but be quiet about it. Palin did not say anything in that restaurant about giving the middle finger to Pakistan's government and invading it against its will, yet McCain seemed to criticize her statement in his This Week interview, and then did a creepy speakover tonight on CBS. He might well be worried about Palin, but on a standalone basis, nothing she said either in the restaurant or in tonight's interview sounded objectionable to me.

Again, I just think fairness warrants consideration of whether a "mistake" gets added to the "list." Any mistakes today, in terms of P.R. management, were McCain's.

If we put aside ideological issues such as who should be appointing people to the Supreme Court, and just focus on how should be the president, here is how I would rank some of our recent entrants:

Completely Comfortable, in Order:

1. George H.W. Bush

2. Bill Clinton

3. Al Gore

4. Lloyd Bentsen

5. Ronald Reagen

6. John McCain

7. Walter Mondale

8. Bob Dole

9. Sarah Palin

10. Jack Kemp

11. Dan Quayle

12. Geraldine Ferraro

Not very Comfortable, in Order:

1. George W. Bush

2. Dick Cheney

3. Michael Dukakis

4. John Edwards

Ok, this is like the godfather movie where I keep getting dragged back in.

I think if you took most governors in America -- particularly those thousands of miles from Washington, and to spice it up further, let's assume Palin has not been following international issues at any close range -- and on two weeks notice asked them to sit in front of Charlie Gibson and answer questions about whether we ought to be doing cross-border incursions into Pakistan and whether Israel ought to be unleashed to knock out Iranian facilities -- recognizing that the answers could (i) end up setting embassies on fire in some far flung corner of the world; or (ii) result in a Tina Fey impersonation on Saturday Night Live, and further add in the fact that you are a normal human being who might be susceptible to nervousness when you are going from a small town to an international stage, you might . . . give an answer or two which are less than perfect -- or at least less than the non-answer answer B.S. which our establishment politicians have perfected. (Remember John Roberts, Supreme Court justice, who amazed Senators with his amazing intellect -- that was funny, because during his hearings he steadfastly but cleverly refused to answer any substantive questions at all).

So, I do not see that interview as evidence of anything bad, re: Palin. In fact, it was about what I expected from a person of her background and experience. You ask a different question, though. Put aside arguments over the "bad"; what evidence is there of "good." I suggest a truce. Let's see how she does on Thursday night, and then debate the matter further.

You're right, Jack Kemp probably deserves a higher ranking in my list. It was late when I typed it up. I have the recurring image in my mind of Kemp throwing footballs around airport tarmacs everywhere he went back in 1996, and using quarterback metaphors to answer every political question. The annoyance has not entirely worn off, although obviously Kemp is a smart, capable guy.

You evidently have a higher opinion of politicians, and what they do, than I do.

Incidentally, I had a chance to meet a Congressional candidate and his campaign manager this year and spent a couple minutes asking them questions -- semi obscure stuff (to them, not me) about policy and history they probably don't get asked every day. If there had been a film crew there to see it, it would have been ten times gorier than anything people think they have seen this year with the media and Sarah Palin. Yet, this candidate otherwise comes across as well in the pertinent media as any of our national stars. It proves my point: what you see on TV, good bad or otherwise, is largely a product of what our Media Filters have chosen to cover up, amplify, or expose. You can't take it at face value, or too seriously.