Asked about the circumstances that might allow for the use of nuclear weapons, Palin seemed to panic and gave a comically hollow answer involving something to do about nukes as "the end all and be all" and how evil regimes must not have them. 

Then Gwen Ifill allowed her to change the subject to Afghanistan, whereupon Palin implied that Barack Obama cast the conflict there as some kind of a war against innocent civilians. For good measure, she seemed to suggest that's it's not even true to say that US air strikes there have killed a lot of civiians, which of course is has been a major tragedy and strategic problem there.

I think Palin is giving a cosmetically strong performance so far, but on the substance it's a horrorshow. 

Meanwhile, note her extremely heavy reliance on notes--up to three or more glances per answer. At moments during her Afghanistan exchange she seemed to be reading directly from them.

Update: Here's her answer. It reads slightly less nonsensical than it sounded--her point is that nukes exist for deterrence, which is the standard line.

Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.

Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.

--Michael Crowley