Palin was right about the Bush doctrine(s), too, but she came off as uncertain, so if you don't POUNCE on those things--not in a bitchy way, but in a confident way, confidence that comes from having and KNOWING the facts--you come off as uncertain. She repeated talking points within the same exchange (she gave the same response to three different Gibson questions in a row about Israel "I don't think we can second guess Israel" instead of using the repeated questions to elaborate on her position, for example) and said because she could see Russia from Alaska that means something--come on, if a Dem said that we'd be laughing at them.
When you are dealing with people who are often wrong but never in doubt - and who have the ability to edit out the parts of an interview in which they afterwards realize that they had been wrong at the top of their voices - you just naturally have a problem. You are correct that in the TV context just looking unsure next to a cocksure interviewer can be as bad as being wrong. The Reagan Administration actually pointed that out to one of the networks when they did a hit piece on Reagan, and Deaver(?) thanked them for it because the video was positive if you didn't listen to the sound!But considering that she was plucked from the Alaskan context of a small, far-flung population with scant notice, she did remarkably well. Better, actually, than McCain - who actually praised Obama in the middle of the campaign, and got booed by his own supporters! I'd have joined that chorus at that point, too! McCain was just as bad as I knew he would be. So spare me the criticism of Palin. I certainly agree with Ann Coulter that I wish I knew that Gov. Palin had read a lot of Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, F. A. Hayek, M. Stanton Evans, etc. But I think it was presumptuous of Coulter to take for granted that it would take Palin 8 years to get up to speed on the issues, because I think Palin has the right instincts and will be a quick study.
If I'm wrong about that, there is no guarantee that 8 years of study would suffice, and If I'm right, we will want her in the lists again in four years, contending for the top slot. You want to consider that no one has ever attained the office of POTUS without getting it - or at least the vice presidency - within 14 years of being elected governor or senator (which is just another reason that the McCain candidacy was a nonstarter from the getgo). Palin's window of opportunity actually will already be closed if she's not POTUS (or at least VP) by inauguration day, 2017.
Sarah Palin has the competitive instincts necessary to play in the big leagues and if she wants to return to that level of politics, she has plenty of time to fill in the gaps in her knowledge and practice dealing with hostile interviewers. She may or may not have read conservatism, but she has the obvious advantage of actually living conservatism. America needs more people like that, especially in government.