The Palin interview

Looking at the transcript of excerpts. After two weeks of pigs, lipstick, pregnancies and rumors, it's kind of a nice thing to see a focus on -- whaddya call it -- actual issues before the government. But there are a couple more days of interview to come; I imagine we'll get some silliness before it's all over.

That said: It is what it is. Palin's a conservative Republican, and she sounded conservative Republican themes. If you like that kind of stuff, you like that kind of stuff. If you don't, you don't.

Some thoughts, though:

• Working on pipeline issues in Alaska really isn't foreign policy experience. Yes, energy policy will be a factor in our foreign policy, but it isn't actually foreign policy. Palin looks silly trying to pretend she has credentials in this arena when, clearly, she doesn't.

• I'm not sure what to make of this, except to believe that Raymond Shaw is the kindest, gentlest, best human being on the face of this earth:

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

So, do we think that Palin's position is that we can't second-guess Israel's steps in its own defense?

The thing is: Sure we can second-guess Israel's steps. And to some extent, we should. An Israeli attack on Iran wouldn't be carried out in a vacuum. It would have ripple effects -- probably very large ripple effects -- throughout the Middle East. And the United States would almost certainly feel those effects in a painful way. There may come a point where that pain is less than living with a nuclear Iran, but we shouldn't pretend like Israel is acting on its own -- particularly when we subsidize their military. It's in our interest to keep strong tabs on what Israel is doing, and to offer strong advice.

• I think Palin struck a weird note here:

GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

This sounds more like talking points than a considered position. You can argue there are lots of changes that Americans want in foreign and domestic policy, and that they might see entrenched politicos obstructing those changes. But I'm not sure that most Americans would consider it a negative for top officials to have met a head of state. We're not to the point where have experience and expertise is automatically a bad thing, are we?

Never mind. We probably are.

There are more thoughts. But I'm sleepy. And this should probably start the conversation.