Qwen Ifill asked both vice-presidential candidates about a situation in which the top of the ticket could no longer fulfill presidential responsibilities (i.e., incapacity or death.) Joe Biden spoke with gravity in his voice, talking first about what a tragedy that would be, and then promising to continue Barack Obama's policies. Governor Palin briefly agreed that it would be a tragedy and then discussed to what extent she would continue John McCain's policies. But there were two aspects of her response that were unsettling. She was smiling as she considered her own ascendancy to the presidency under such circumstances. And, she talked about the need to introduce Wasilla sensibilities to governance of the country.

While there is nothing wrong with the Wasilla comment per se, her expanding on the vision of her 72 year old running mate, who has had four bouts with cancer, could not have come at a worse time, in response to this very serious question. It suggests that she has thought about this, and she would be too willing to step into McCain's shoes. Dana Milbank also found Palin's response incongruous, if not jarring:

Asked about the possibility that she would assume the presidency if the president died in office, she found herself saying, "I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C." 

It is all too convenient to argue that she consciously connected "we need" with the idea of McCane's demise. But could there be a subconscious thought process at work here?

Palin, 5 seconds into responding about a possible McCain death or incapacity

Palin, 9 seconds into a several-minutes-long response about a possible McCain death or incapacity -- was the smile insensitive? Does it suggest something about Palin's ambitions?

I'll be interested to hear what readers think about this. The only innocent explanation that i can think of for such light-heartedness while discussing McCain's possible illness or death, is that Governor Palin's response rambled a lot. She very briefly (six seconds) agreed with Biden's somber reaction; chatted about her differences ("a team of mavericks") with McCain; returned for a moment to the possible reality of death; jumped immediately to the opportunity to bring Wasilla to Washington; then drew some distinctions between families and Washington.

Viewing the photo above, however -- and given the topic she was addressing -- it struck me as too brief a period of solemnity.

You're in a position to rise to the most powerful leadership position in the world, but you would do so at someone else's expense. Think about the implications of the question -- assassination, debilitating illlness, return of deadly cancer; then count off nine seconds to yourself -- and then ask yourself, would you have such a smile, so quickly?

 http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/02/sot.vp.debate.pt3.cnn

Segment starts at 5:45 minutes.

Transcript (excerpt):

IFILL: Thank you, governor.

Probably the biggest cliche about the vice-presidency is that it's a heartbeat away, everybody's waiting to see what would happen if the worst happened. How would -- you disagree on some things from your principles, you disagree on drilling in Alaska, the National Wildlife Refuge, you disagree on the surveillance law, at least you have in the past. How would a Biden administration be different from an Obama administration if that were to happen.

BIDEN: God forbid that would ever happen, it would be a national tragedy of historic proportions if it were to happen.

But if it did, I would carry out Barack Obama's policy, his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure they get a fair break, making sure they have access to affordable health insurance, making sure they get serious tax breaks, making sure we can help their children get to college, making sure there is an energy policy that leads us in the direction of not only toward independence and clean environment but an energy policy that creates 5 million new jobs, a foreign policy that ends this war in Iraq, a foreign policy that goes after the one mission the American public gave the president after 9/11, to get and capture or kill bin Laden and to eliminate al Qaeda. A policy that would in fact engage our allies in making sure that we knew we were acting on the same page and not dictating.

And a policy that would reject the Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation and, ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest ticket item that we have in this election.

This is the most important election you will ever, ever have voted in, any of you, since 1932. And there's such stark differences, I would follow through on Barack's policies because in essence, I agree with every major initiative he is suggesting.

IFILL: Governor.

PALIN: And heaven forbid, yes, that would ever happen, no matter how this ends up, that that would ever happen with either party.

As for disagreeing with John McCain and how our administration would work, what do you expect? A team of mavericks, of course we're not going to agree on 100 percent of everything. As we discuss ANWR there, at least we can agree to disagree on that one. I will keep pushing him on ANWR. I have so appreciated he has never asked me to check my opinions at the door and he wants a deliberative debate and healthy debate so we can make good policy.

What I would do also, if that were to ever happen, though, is to continue the good work he is so committed to of putting government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington.

I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/