It had been more than six months since President Barack Obama held a formal news conference, and, although his surprise appearance in the press briefing room of the West Wing today isn't what would normally pass for one, the White House today declared, in the aftermath, that this indeed had been a news conference.

A conference in which the president both acceded to the reality of the new political situation he faces with health-care legislation mired in a political divide, and in which the president also voiced "eternal optimism'' about briding that divide on big issues.

When it was over, the president declared himself satisfied: "That was pretty good.''

With only about a dozen questions fielded in the 33-minute encounter -- held without any prior announcement offering reporters a chance to ink their questions on the palms of their hands -- this was the first news conference since one held on July 22.

The president confronted the reality of the health-care situation, when asked if he acknowledges that neither the House-passed nor Senate-passed bills will become law.

"What I agree with is that the public has soured on the process that they saw over the last year,'' Obama said. " I think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills.

"I think it is important for all of these issues to be aired so that people have confidence if we're moving forward on such a significant part of the economy as health care, that there is complete transparency and all of these issues have been adequately vetted and adequately debated,'' he said. " And this gives an opportunity not just for Democrats to say here's what we think we should do, but it also gives Republicans a showcase before the entire country to say here's our plan; here's why we think this will work...

"That indicates that if all sides agree that we can't just continue with business as usual then maybe we can actually get something done..''

This applies to other fronts as well, such as energy, with the development of traditional alternatives to coal such as nuclear power as well as new "green'' energy.

:"Let's be practical and let's do both,'' Obama said. "Let's not just do one or the other; let's do both... Over time I think the transition is going to be more and more clean energy and over time fossil fuels become less prominent in our overall energy mix. But we've got to do both.''

How confident is he in such a consensus?

"I am just a eternal optimist,'' he said to laughter, "and so -- it's the right thing to do.''

See the entire news conference here:

The meeting did go well, and I appreciate them making the trek. We had a good and frank conversation and it's one that I hope we can continue on a more regular basis.

We all understand that there are legitimate and genuine differences between the parties, but despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree. That's what the American people are demanding of us. I think they're tired of every day being Election Day in Washington. And at this critical time in our country, the people sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics.

That's why I'm going to continue to seek the best ideas from either party as we work to tackle the pressing challenges ahead. I am confident, for example, that when one in 10 of our fellow citizens can't work, we should be able to come together and help business create more jobs. We ought to be able to agree on providing small businesses with additional tax credits and much needed lines of credit. We ought to agree on investments in crumbling roads and bridges, and we should agree on tax breaks for making homes more energy-efficient -- all of which will put more Americans to work. Many of the job proposals that I've laid out have passed the House and are soon going to be debated in the Senate. We spent a lot of time in this meeting discussing a jobs package and how we could move forward on that. And if there are additional ideas, I will consider them as well. What I won't consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country.

We also talked about restoring fiscal responsibility. There are few matters on which there is as much vigorous bipartisan agreement, at least in public, but unfortunately there's also a lot of partisan wrangling behind closed doors. This is what we know for sure: For us to solve this extraordinary problem that is so many years in the making, it's going to take the cooperation of both parties. It's not going to happen in any other way.

I'm pleased that Congress supported my request to restore the pay-as-you-go rule, which was instrumental in turning deficits into surpluses during the 1990s. I've also called for a bipartisan fiscal commission. Unfortunately this measure, which originally had received the support of a bipartisan majority of the Senate and was cosponsored by Senators Conrad and Gregg, Democrats and Republicans, was blocked there. So I'm going to be creating this commission by executive order. And during our meeting I asked the leadership of both parties to join in this serious effort to address our long-term deficits, because when the politics is put aside, the reality of our fiscal challenge is not subject to interpretation. Math is not partisan. There ought to be a debate about how to close our deficits. What we can't accept is business as usual, and we can't afford grandstanding at the expense of actually getting something done.

During our meeting we also touched briefly on how we can move forward on health reform. I've already announced that in two weeks I'll be holding a meeting with people from both parties, and as I told the congressional leadership, I'm looking forward to a constructive debate with plans that need to be measured against this test. Does it bring down costs for all Americans as well as for the federal government, which spends a huge amount on health care? Does it provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry? Does it make coverage affordable and available to the tens of millions of working Americans who don't have it right now? And does it help us get on a path of fiscal sustainability?

We also talked about why this is so urgent. Just this week, there was a report that Anthem Blue Cross, which is the largest insurer in the largest state, California, is planning on raising premiums for many individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent. If we don't act, this is just a preview of coming attractions. Premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance; millions more will lose their coverage altogether; our deficits will continue to grow larger. And we have an obligation -- both parties -- to tackle this issue in a serious way.

Now, bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both Democrats and Republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country. I won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience. We talked about this as well, particularly when it comes to the confirmation process. I respect the Senate's role to advise and consent, but for months, qualified, non- controversial nominees for critical positions in government, often positions related to our national security, have been held up despite having overwhelming support. My nominee for one important job, the head of General Services Administration, which helps run the government, was denied a vote for nine months. When she finally got a vote on her nomination, she was confirmed 96 to nothing. That's not advise and consent; that's delay and obstruct.

One senator, as you all are aware, had put a hold on every single nominee that we had put forward due to a dispute over a couple of earmarks in his state. In our meeting, I asked the congressional leadership to put a stop to these holds in which nominees for critical jobs are denied a vote for months. Surely we can set aside partisanship and do what's traditionally been done to confirm these nominations. If the Senate does not act -- and I made this very clear -- if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess, because we can't afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government.

My hope is that this will be the first of a series of meetings that I have with leadership of both parties in Congress. We've got to get past the tired debates that have plagued our politics and left behind nothing but soaring debt and mounting challenges, greater hardships among the American people, and extraordinary frustrations among the American people. Those frustrations are what led me to run for President, and as long as I'm here in Washington, I intend to try to make this government work on their behalf.

So, you know, I'm going to take a couple of questions, guys.

Major.

Q After meeting with you, John Boehner came out and told us, "The House can't pass the health care bill it once passed; the Senate can't pass the health care bill it once passed. Why would we have a conversation about legislation that can't pass?" As a part of that, he said you and your White House and congressional Democrats should start over entirely from scratch on health care reform. How do you respond? Are you willing to do that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's how I responded to John in the meeting, and I've said this publicly before. There are some core goals that have to be met. We've got to control costs, both for families and businesses, but also for our government. Everybody out there who talks about deficits has to acknowledge that the single biggest driver of our deficits is health care spending. We cannot deal with our deficits and debt long term unless we get a handle on that. So that has to be part of a package.

Number two, we've got to deal with insurance abuses that affect millions of Americans who've got health insurance. And number three, we've got to make health insurance more available to folks in the individual market, as I just mentioned, in California, who are suddenly seeing their premiums go up 39 percent. That applies to the majority of small businesses, as well as sole proprietors. They are struggling.

So I've got these goals. Now, we have a package, as we work through the differences between the House and the Senate, and we'll put it up on a Web site for all to see over a long period of time, that meets those criteria, meets those goals. But when I was in Baltimore talking to the House Republicans, they indicated, we can accomplish some of these goals at no cost. And I said, great, let me see it. And I have no interest in doing something that's more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it.

So I'm going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. What I will not do, what I don't think makes sense and I don't think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues; another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there's a lot of posturing. Let's get the relevant parties together; let's put the best ideas on the table. My hope is that we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if I don't get every single thing that I want.

But here's the point that I made to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell: Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want, and that's the price of bipartisanship, right? But that's sometimes the way it gets presented. Mitch McConnell said something very nice in the meeting about how he supports our goals on nuclear energy and clean coal technology and more drilling to increase oil production. Well, of course he likes that; that's part of the Republican agenda for energy, which I accept. And I'm willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway. But there's got to be some give from their side as well. That's true on health care; that's true on energy; that's true on financial reform. That's what I'm hoping gets accomplished at the summit.

Q Do you agree the House and Senate bill can't pass anymore?

THE PRESIDENT: What I agree with is that the public has soured on the process that they saw over the last year. I think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills. I think it is important for all of these issues to be aired so that people have confidence if we're moving forward on such a significant part of the economy as health care, that there is complete transparency and all of these issues have been adequately vetted and adequately debated.

And this gives an opportunity not just for Democrats to say here's what we think we should do, but it also gives Republicans a showcase before the entire country to say here's our plan; here's why we think this will work. And one of the things that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell both said is they didn't think that the status quo was acceptable, and that's, right there, promising. That indicates that if all sides agree that we can't just continue with business as usual then maybe we can actually get something done.

Q Mr. President, one of the reasons Anthem said -- Anthem Blue Cross says that it's raising its premiums is because so many people are dropping out of individual coverage because the economy is so bad and that leaves the people in the pool who are people who need medical care driving up costs. One of the reasons why businesses are not expanding right now, in addition to some of the credit issues you've talked about, at least according to business leaders, is they say there's an uncertainty of what they need to plan for because of the energy bill, because of health care. That's what they say. I'm not saying it's true or not, but that's what they say. What do you say when you hear that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the biggest uncertainty has been we just went through the worst recession since the Great Depression and people weren't sure whether the financial system was going to melt down and whether we were going to tip into a endless recession. So let's be clear about the sources of uncertainty in terms of business investment over the last several years: A huge contraction, trillions of dollars of losses in people's 401(k)s; people have a lot of debt coming out of the previous decade that they still haven't worked out; the housing market losing a whole bunch of value.

So the good news is that where we were contracting by 6 percent the economy is now growing by 6 percent. The CEOs I talked to are saying they are now making investments, and I anticipate that they're going to start hiring at a more rapid clip. What I've also heard is them saying that we would like to feel like Washington is working and able to get some things done.

There are two ways of interpreting the issue of uncertainty. One way would be to say, well, you know what, we'll just go back to what we were doing before on, let's say, the financial markets. We won't have the regulations that we need; we won't make any changes in terms of "too big to fail." That will provide certainty -- until the next financial crisis.

That's not the kind of certainty I think that the financial markets need. The kind of certainty they need is for us to go ahead and agree on a bipartisan effort to put some rules of the road in place so that consumers are protected in the financial markets; so that we don't have banks that are too big to fail; that we have ways of winding them down and protecting the overall system without taxpayer bailouts. That requires legislation. The sooner we can get that done, the better.

The same would be true when it comes to health care. A lot of CEOs I hear from will say, boy, we'd like you to get health care settled one way or another, but they will acknowledge that when they open up their latest invoice for their premiums and they find out that those premiums have gone up 20 percent or 25 percent, that's the kind of uncertainty that also tamps down business investment.

So I guess my answer would be this: The sooner the business community has a sense that we've got our act together here in Washington and can move forward on big, serious issues in a substantive way without a lot of posturing and partisan wrangling, I think the better off the entire country is going to be. I absolutely agree on that.

What I think is important is not to buy into this notion that is perpetrated by some of the business interests that got a stake in this who are fighting financial reform, for example, to say, boy, we'd be doing fine if we just didn't try to regulate the banks. That I think would be a mistake.

Q Just to play devil's advocate on that -- a small business, let's say, not somebody who's going to be affected by the regulatory reform, small business -- you have proposed, you would acknowledge, a bold agenda. And a small business might wonder, I don't know how the energy bill is going to affect me, I don't know how the health care reform bill is going to affect me -- I'd better hold off on hiring.

THE PRESIDENT: The small businesses I talk to --- and I've been talking to a lot of them as I've been traveling around the country over the last several months -- their biggest problem is right now they can't get credit out of their banks so they're uncertain about that. And they're still uncertain about orders -- do they just have enough customers to justify them doing more.

It's looking better at this point. But that's not the rationale for people saying, I'm not hiring. Let me put it this way. Most small businesses right now, if they've got enough customers to make a profit and they can get the bank loans required to boost their payroll, boost their inventory, and sell to those customers, they will do so. Okay?

Let's see, let's get a print guy here. David.

Q You heard McConnell talk about nuclear power, offshore drilling, free trade -- that's a lot of Republican stuff. Is your party going to go for that if you decide to support that --

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that on energy there should be a bipartisan agreement that we have to take a both/and approach rather than an either/or approach. What do I mean by that? I am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy -- solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal -- that country is going to win the race in the 21st century global economy. So we have to move in that direction.

What is also true is that given our energy needs in order to continue economic growth, produce jobs, make sure our businesses are competitive around the world, that we're going to need some of the old, traditional energy sources as we're developing these new ones and ramping them up. So we can't overnight convert to an all-solar or an all-wind economy. That just can't happen. We're going to have needs in these traditional sources.

And so the question then is, are we going to be able to put together a package that includes safe, secure nuclear power; that includes new technologies so that we can use coal -- which we have in abundance and is very cheap, but often is adding to our greenhouse gases -- can we find sequestration technologies that clean that up; can we identify opportunities to increase our oil and natural gas production in a way that is environmentally sustainable? And that should be part of a package with our development of clean energy.

And my hope is that my Republican friends, but also Democrats, say to themselves, let's be practical and let's do both. Let's not just do one or the other; let's do both. Over time I think the transition is going to be more and more clean energy and over time fossil fuels become less prominent in our overall energy mix. But we've got to do both.

Q How confident are you there will be that kind of consensus for that double-edged approach?

THE PRESIDENT: I am just a eternal optimist -- (laughter) -- and so -- it's the right thing to do. And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what's right for the country and assume that over time people, regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth. Okay?

I'm going to take two more. Let's see --

Q How about the back? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just want to make sure that I was getting a balance here, so -- go ahead, Chuck.

Q Awwww --

THE PRESIDENT: Why is everybody moaning about Todd?

Q He's too good. His questions are too precise. (Laughter.)

Q Iran -- we got the news today that they're doing more of these -- trying to enhance this uranium even more. Obviously Secretary Gates today in Paris was quoted as saying basically the dialogue seems to be over and now the question is sanctions. Where are we on sanctions? How close is this? I know you had sort of an end-of-the-year deadline when you stood up there with Sarkozy and Brown. It's now February. How quickly is this moving along?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's moving along fairly quickly. I think that we have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and reenter as full members of the international community.

The most obvious attempt was when we gave them an offer that said we are going to provide the conversion of some of the low-enriched uranium that they already have into the isotopes that they need for their medical research and for hospitals that would serve up to a million Iranian citizens. They rejected it -- although one of the difficulties in dealing with Iran over the last several months is it's not always clear who's speaking on behalf of the government, and we get a lot of different, mixed signals. But what's clear is, is that they have not said yes to an agreement that Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States all said was a good deal, and that the director of the IAEA said was the right thing to do and that Iran should accept.

That indicates to us that, despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization. And that is not acceptable to the international community, not just to the United States. So what we've said from the start was we're moving on dual tracks. If you want to accept the kinds of agreements with the international community that lead you down a path of being a member of good standing, then we welcome you. If not --

Q Haven't they responded, though? I mean, by deciding to do what they did, with these --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm getting to that.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And if not, then the next step is sanctions. They have made their choice so far, although the door is still open. And what we are going to be working on over the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole.

Q What do you mean by "regime of sanctions"?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, meaning that there's going to be a --

Q Some will be U.N. and some will be --

THE PRESIDENT: We are going to be looking at a variety of ways in which countries indicate to Iran that their approach is unacceptable. And the U.N. will be one aspect of that broader effort.

Q China will be there? You're confident?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- we are confident right now that the international community is unified around Iran's misbehavior in this area. How China operates at the Security Council as we pursue sanctions is something that we're going to have to see. One thing I'm pleased about is to see how forward-leaning the Russians have been on this issue. I think they clearly have seen that Iran hasn't been serious about solving what is a solvable dispute between Iran and the international community.

All right? I'm going to make this the last question. And I'll take somebody from the back -- yes.

Q Me?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Thanks for doing this. It's been a while. (Laughter.) On health care, the Republicans are asking whether the February 25th session will include economists and public interest groups and people supporting your side, or will it just be the members of Congress? And on Anthem Blue Cross, do you have the authority to go in and tell a private company they can't charge that -- how will you stop them?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't have the authority as I understand it -- I can't simply issue an executive order lowering everybody's rates. If I could I would have done that already and saved myself a lot of grief on Capitol Hill. That's why reform is so important. That's why the status quo is unacceptable.

But there is no shortcut in dealing with this issue. I know the American people get frustrated in debating something like health care because you get a whole bunch of different claims being made by different groups and different interests. It is a big, complicated, tough issue. But what is also true is that without some action on the part of Congress, it is very unlikely that we see any improvement over the current trajectory. And the current trajectory is premiums keep on going up 10, 15, 20, 30 percent. The current trajectory is more and more people are losing health care.

I don't know if people noted, because during the health care debate everybody was saying the President is trying to take over -- a government takeover of health care. I don't know if anybody noticed that for the first time this year you saw more people getting health care from government than you did from the private sector -- not because of anything we did, but because more and more people are losing their health care from their employers. It's becoming unaffordable. That's what we're trying to prevent.

We want people to be able to get health care from their employers. But we also understand that you've got to fix the system so that people are able to get it at affordable rates and small businesses can afford to give their employees insurance at an affordable rate. And that's not happening right now.

To your question about the 25th, my hope is that this doesn't end up being political theater, as I think some of you have phrased it. I want a substantive discussion. We haven't refined exactly how the agenda is going to go that day. We want to talk with both the Democratic and Republican leaders to find out what they think would be most useful. I do want to make sure that there's some people like the Congressional Budget Office, for example, that are considered non-partisan, who can answer questions.

In this whole health care debate I'm reminded of the story that was told about Senator Moynihan, who was I guess in an argument with one of his colleagues, and his colleague was losing the argument so he got a little flustered and said to Senator Moynihan, "Well, I'm entitled to my own opinion." And Senator Moynihan said, "Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." I think that's the key to a successful dialogue on the 25th or on health care.

Let's establish some common facts. Let's establish what the issues are, what the problems are, and let's test out in front of the American people what ideas work and what ideas don't. And if we can establish that factual accuracy about how different approaches would work, then I think we can make some progress. And it may be that some of the facts that come up are ones that make my party a little bit uncomfortable. So if it's established that by working seriously on medical malpractice and tort reform that we can reduce some of those costs, I've said from the beginning of this debate I'd be willing to work on that. On the other hand, if I'm told that that is only a fraction of the problem and that is not the biggest driver of health care costs, then I'm also going to insist, okay, let's look at that as one aspect of it, but what else are we willing to do?

And this is where it gets back to the point I was making earlier. Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That's not how it works in any other realm of life. That's certainly not how it works in my marriage with Michelle, although I usually do give in most of the time. (Laughter.) But the -- there's got to be some give and take, and that's what I'm hoping can be accomplished. And I'm confident that's what the American people are looking for.

So, all right?

Q Jobs question?

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, since there wasn't a jobs question --

Q Well, I just --

THE PRESIDENT: I'll make this the last one, jobs question.

Q At the stakeout, the Republicans were saying, well, the jobs package we've seen, it's not really ready yet, we're a little worried about the cost. Are you satisfied that there is something that can be quickly moved through Congress on jobs?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my understanding is -- first of all, the House has moved forward a jobs package that has some good elements in it. My understanding is, is that there is bipartisan talks taking place as we speak on the Senate side about some elements of a package.

I think there are some things that a lot of people agree on. Just to give you an example, the idea of eliminating capital gains for small businesses -- something we can all agree on. I talked about it at the State of the Union address. My hope would be that we would all agree on a mechanism to get community banks who are lending to small businesses more capital, because that is something that I keep on hearing is one of the biggest problems that small businesses have out there.

So I think that it's realistic for us to get a package moving quickly that may not include all the things I think need to be done, and it may be that that first package builds some trust and confidence that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill can work together and then we move on to the next aspect of the package and so forth. It may take a series of incremental steps, but the one thing I'm absolutely clear about is, is that we've got an economy that's growing right now, a huge boost in productivity -- that's the good news. The bad news is, is that companies still haven't taken that final step in actually putting people on their payroll full-time.

We're seeing an increase in temporary workers, but they haven't yet taken on that full-time worker. And so providing some additional impetus to them, right as the economy is moving in a positive direction, I think can end up yielding some good results.

All right? Thank you, guys. That was pretty good, thanks.

One of the hottest Senate races on the horizon - the Florida Republican primary fight between Gov. Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio of Miami -- could be heading for spring training in March with a televised debate.

Rubio, a Miami Republican and conservative giving a long-popular governor and political moderate an unexpectedly tough contest, has agreed to take part in a debate sponsored by FOX News, The Swamp has learned.

Crist, the governor, former state attorney general and state lawmaker long popular in Florida but suddenly facing heated competition within conservative ranks of his party, has not accepted the challenge yet, The Swamp understands.

If the governor agrees, Chris Wallace, host and moderator of FOX News Sunday, stands ready to moderate the debate between the two Republicans ion his Sunday morning news show in either Florida or Washington, D.C., on March 28.

The two are seeking their party's nomination for a Senate seat which Republican former Sen. Mel Martinez forfeited before the end of his term. Sen. George LeMieux, a Florida Republican and confidant of Crist appointed as a placeholder for the governor, has been serving since the departure of Martinez, a fomer Republican National Committee chairman whose own ratings had slid midway through his term.

Rubio, a young Cuban-American who rose quickly to leadership in the Florida Legislature, has the backing of the Club for Growth and other conservative interests who complain that Crist has acceded to Democrats -- with the governor's outspoken support of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus and appearances with the president angering Republicans in a state that helped elect Obama to the White House.

The president's own approval ratings had slipped below 50 percent in Florida last year before they did nationally, and Crist, long popular among voters of all stripes, faces a fight. Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami and former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre are seeking the Democratic nomination. The primary elections are at summer's end.

Not long after emerging from a meeting with congressional leaders this afternoon, President Barack Obama unexpectedly took over his press secretary's daily briefing for reporters to give his own view of the state of bipartisanship -- declaring that he would set aside some Democratic "preferences" on some issues but warning that Republicans would also have to makes sacrifices, too.

"Bipartisanship depends on both Republicans and Democrats" giving in a little bit, Obama said, adding that he "won't hesitate to condemn obstinacy" where it crops up -- whethere it's on healthcare, fiscal responsibility or presidential nominations pending approval by the Senate.

But bipartisanship doesn't mean that "I have to agree to everything they want," the president said, or that Republicans have to given in completely.

The president's unusual appearance in the press briefing room in the West Wing of the White House came on the heels of what Obama says will be a regular bipartisan meetings with congressional leaders. Today's was held in the president's Cabinet room.

Republican leaders, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), came out of the meeting also pointing to places for possible compromise. Boehner said Republicans are "considering" the possibility of appointing members to Obama's fiscal commission, and didn't rule out the possibility of participating in a healthcare summit with the president later this month.

Still, GOP leaders signaled that they are not warm to the idea of simply tweaking the healthcare plans in their current state, and instead want to start from scratch and build something entirely new.

"We're interested in a bipartisan conversation," Boehner said, but a "bipartisan conversation ought to be that from the beginning."

For one thing, he pointed out that his nominee to head the General Services Administration was held up for weeks in the Senate and then was approved easily.

"That's not advice and consent," the president said, but rather delay and obstruction.

He said that, if Republicans play politics with other nominees, he will consider making recess appointments -- nominating appointees during congressional breaks, side-stepping confirmation.

There are "legitimate and genuine differences" between the parties, the president said, but there's also "political posturing."

Americans, Obama said, "are tired of every day being Election Day here in Washington."

"Talk to the hand.''

That could be the big one-liner of the next presidential debate, the way the political body language is working lately.

Taking a palm-cue from Republican Sarah Palin, who penned the talking points of her address to the TEA Party convention on the inside of her hand over the weekend, the White House press secretary arrived at today's press briefing armed -- or handed -- with notes of his own.

Only Robert Gibbs appeared to have something other than a political debate on his mind -- or in his hand -- with the scrawling of a black marker on his palm: "Eggs... milk... bread...'' (He crossed out bread, figuring he'd make pancakes for his son instead.)
.
Or was he in fact scoring some points? Ever the Obama team-player, Gibbs also had included some basic thematic messages on his palm, "hope'' and "change.''

In case you missed it, this was how Palin played her own hand:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Palin, for her part, is still getting over the ribbing for penning "Energy... budget.... tax'' and more on her palm in Nashville. Which also has raised the question if, had some of the great speeches of our time been delivered with palm notes, the memorable lines would have been much shorter: "Nothing to fear... Ask not.... Tear down!''

That billboard in Mnnesota picturing former President George W. Bush asks the world: "Miss me yet?''

Well, now we have the world's answer: Not so much.

President Barack Obama has had a tough first year dealing with domestic issues, but according to the latest polls, he has chalked up a success in how the rest of the world sees the United States.

The U.S.-Global Leadership Project, a partnership between the Meridian International Center and Gallup, found that a median of 51 percent of the world approves of the Obama administration's performance -- up from 34 percent approval of the previous administration's performance in 2008.

According to Gallup, the global median approval of U.S. leadership remained relatively steady from 2005 to 2008. In 2009, it hit 51 percent for the first time since Gallup began asking the question worldwide in 2005.

The latest poll confirms much of the feelings about the last years of the Bush administration and the first year of Obama's.

Bush and his administration were increasingly disliked as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars dragged on, and there were continuing questions about U.S. leadership on economic and environmental issues.

Obama, who campaigned against the Bush legacy, was treated with rock star status during his overseas campaign trips and was awarded a surprising Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office.

According to Gallup, the latest poll data showed significant improvements in how the United States was seen in all four major global regions, with the largest year-over-year increase in Europe, a particularl thorn in Bush's side. Median approval of U.S. leadership increased by 28 percentage points, Gallup found.

The highest approval came in Africa, where approval is historically high. However, the northern, mainly Arab areas such as Egypt, remained low, while sub-Saharan Africa were high.

The billboard sitting along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., displaying a photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: "Miss Me Yet?" apparently is a sign in search of an author. Though a Minnesotan friend is getting near the bottom of the billboard mystery.

At National Public Radio, they reported that Minnesota Public Radio reported that it's the real McCoy: They had seen this sign. (See the photo here from MPR.)

But "there's no readily apparent claim of ownership on the billboard,'' NPR's The Two Way reported, and the good folks in Minnesota were looking into that.

Minnesota Public Radio's Bob Collins checked in with the mayor of Wyoming, Sheldon Anderson, who replied by email: "Wish I could take credit for it. Calls every day asking if it was me. If you find out let me know.''

And now Collins has heard from Mary Teske, general manager of Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising, who reports that "The Bush Miss Me Yet? billboard was paid for by a group of small business owners who feel like Washington is against them. They wish to remain anonymous. They thought it was a fun way of getting out their message."

Apparently, it's been a slow week in Lake Wobegone.

But the question looms: Miss him yet?

(with special thanks to Bob Collins of MPR for his photography and generosity.)

The "party of no'' is sounding today like the party of maybe - or maybe not.

With the White House planning a Feb. 25 summit of bipartisan congressional leaders to discuss health-care legislation, the House's Republican leaders have warned the administration that they may not be able to attend if the White House insists on pressing its same agenda.

"If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Cantor) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) wrote to the White House.

"'Bipartisanship' is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan support require bipartisan means,'' they wrote last night to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has responded maintaining that the administration has been and remains open to Republican ideas. But he has not relented, in his response to the Republican leaders, on the issues which the president considers essential.

"He's been very clear about his support for the House and Senate bills because of what they achieve for the American people: putting a stop to insurance company abuses, extending coverage to millions of hardworking Americans, getting control of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reducing the deficit," Gibbs said in a statement issued.

The Washington Post has transposed the Republican letter and the White House's response in a counterpoint worth reading this morning.

President Obama may also have a chance to break a little ice today, with Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joining Democratic leaders at the White House this morning to talk about the job-creating measures that the White House also is seeking as it starts the second year of the president's domestic agenda with an added push for economy recovery.

The first lady has embarked on a cause, as anyone near a television set today will see: Michelle Obama will appear on Good Morning America and a run of other shows through PBS' Newshour tonight with a wake-up call for families overlooking childhood obesity.

The first lady also has acknowledged the "guilty pleasure'' she finds in French fries, which is to say that she gets the whole temptation thing, too. "I love burgers and fries,'' she says. "The question is, how do we balance that all out.''

With an estimated one-third of all American children carrying too much weight, the first mom is launching a campaign today to change the way millions of Americans eat. Watch for Cabinet secretaries to follow up with appearances on the networks later this week.

(With the federal bureaucracy facing its second day of office closures today -- D.C., digging out of one blizzard, is bracing for another onslaught of snow this afternoon -- Tuesday's Swamp has arrived early with a preview of the first lady's TV campaign. GMA and the other morning news shows start at 7 am EST.)

"Thank God it's not going to be solely up to me," Obama said recently of this new campaign, underscoring the need for parents, schools, businesses, nonprofit groups, health professionals and governments to take the cause seriously.
.
At the White House this morning, President Barack Obama was signing a memorandum on childhoold obesity, markng the official start of the administration's effort to confront a problem through policies and publicity. All acknowledge it's no easy task.

The president, in signing an executive order, said it will set in motion a 90-day plan that "provides optimal coordination" among federal agencies to fight a national epidemic of childhood obesity.

"We think this has enormous promise," the presdient said of the first lady's project to promote healthy eating habits and exercise. One of its goals is to "help parents make healthy choices," he said.

Michelle Obama stood behind her husband with an arm draped over his chair as he penned his signature, then patted him on the back and said, "Good job."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar were on hand for the initiation of a program involving several Cabinet agencies.

"You don't just go from epidemic obesity to epidemic leanness," Dr. David Katz, director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center, says, noting that the first lady has the pulpit to "shift the massive momentum of our society in the right direction."

Clyde Yancy, president of the American Heart Association, says the first lady's focus will help generate the "noise" needed to change attitudes. "Anything she can do would be helpful because the burden of the problem is just that profound," Yancy says.

There is no shortage of solutions: Increasing federal spending for healthier school lunches for impoverished children, improving nutrition standards for school lunches -- and getting chips and doughnuts out of school vending machines -- expanding time for school recess and physical education, using federal incentives to encourage low-income families to buy healthier foods; prodding food makers to stop targeting children with ads for high-calorie treats on TV and in online video games; getting more restaurants to print nutrition information on menus; increasing medical screening for obesity in children; improving food labeling; improving counseling for overweight children, and more.

The school lunch program, due for an overhaul by Congress this year, is one area of focus. President Barack Obama's proposed budget calls for an additional $1 billion a year for child nutrition programs. Last year's economic stimulus package included $500 million for one-time grants to help states and communities tackle smoking, obesity and various preventable health problems.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. The clip above comes from ABC News' Good Morning America.

Rep. John Murtha, decorated Marine and powerful veteran of Capitol Hill, was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress, a force to be reckoned with in the House, and he was, when all is said and done, an imperfect and longtime servant.

Murtha, a "tough-as-nails'' Democratic hawk and for two decades the ranking member of his party on the House subcommittee that controls defense spending, also had become an outspoken and influential critic of the war in Iraq.

He died today at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va., a spokesman for the congressman said. Murtha was 77.

Murtha was first elected from Pennsylvania in 1974. On Saturday, his office said, he had become Pennsylvania's longest-serving member of Congress.

. He had been among the members of Congress who voted in 2002 to authorize then-President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq. But by November 2005 he was calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised,'' Murtha had said at the time. "It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.''

Murtha had sweeping control over defense spending, as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and he would face questions for the influence over spending that he wielded on the behalf of campaign contributors.

"He understood the misery of war," said Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "Every person who serves in the military has lost an advocate and a good friend today."

"Jack was a devoted husband,'' President Barack Obama said in a statement issued today, "a loving father and a steadfast advocate for the people of Pennsylvania for nearly 40 years. His passion for service was born during his decorated career in the United States Marine Corps... Jack's tough-as-nails reputation carried over to Congress, where he became a respected voice on issues of national security.''

Murtha's great-grandfather had served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, his brothers in the Marine Corps.

He left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marines and became a drill instructor at Parris Island, S.C. Moving to Johnstown, Pa., he remained in the Marine Reserves until volunteering to go to Vietnam, where he served as an intelligence officer from 1966 to 1967. He received a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.

IThe late Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania is pictured above in a July 2006 file photo by Cheryl Senter / AP)

In 1990, he retired from the Marine Reserves as a colonel.

"Ever since I was a young boy, I had two goals in life -- I wanted to be a colonel in the Marine Corps and a member of Congress," Murtha had written in a 2004 book, From Vietnam to 9/11.

Murtha's own criticism for the war in Iraq included an accusation that Marines had murdered Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" at Haditha. He was accused of incriminating the Marines before an investigation. His words were used against him in the 2008 election. He won an 18th term.

Murtha also suffered criticism for ethical lapses ranging from his entanglement in the Abscam corruption many years ago to more recent criticism for a connection between "earmark'' spending and campaign contributions. He maintained that his constituents benefitted.

In the Abscam probe, in 1980, the FBI captured Murtha on videotape in a sting operation turning down a $50,000 bribe offer while holding out the possibility of taking money in the future.

In 2007 and 2008, Murtha and two fellow Democrats on the subcommittee directed $137 million to defense contractors who were paying a lobbying firm to get them government contracts. Between 1989 and 2009, Murtha collected more than $2.3 million in campaign contributions from the firm's lobbyists and corporate clients, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money.

"We do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't," Murtha had said on the tape.

Six congressmen and one senator were convicted. Murtha was not charged, but the government named him as an unindicted co-conspirator and he testified against two other congressmen.

We're having to hand it to Sarah Palin today, because she really has played her own hand this time.

After telling the National Tea Party convention that it doesn't really need a leader -- while telling the TEA Partiers that they also don't need a "charismatic'' leader who leads from a TelePrompter, a "law professor'' lecturer -- the charismatic, palm-prompted Palin has taken a considerable amount of heat for taking her own cues from the pen-written notes on the inside of her hand.

It was during a question-and-answer session on stage after her speech to the convention in Nasvhille on Saturday night -- a speech read from a script before her -- that Palin could be seen consulting the palm of her hand for a few prompts of her own.

"Energy.... budget... tax'' and more was scrawled in her hand.

Hands down, one of the priceless political pictures of the season (see the CBS News analysis above, and the AP photo by Ed Reinke here.)

The Republican Party's 2008 nominee for vice president and former governor of Alaska was offering no back-handed compliments for the president in this appearance, but rather a big thumbs-down for the Obama administration. And indeed in an appearance on FOX News Sunday the next morning Palin was saying that "I would'' consider running for president if it were right for her family and that "it would be absurd'' for her not to consider a candidacy or some other leadership role.

Every politician is known to consult a Palm Pilot from time to time, and who hasn't, for lack of a notepad, scrawled a phone number at the base of the life-line from time to time? (We won't ask anyone to talk about any high-school math tests here.) But the idea of keeping a few issues at one's finger-tips in the course of a public appearance might be more understandable if the issues weren't as basic to the current political debate as "energy.... budget... and tax.''

But a talking point in hand was worth two terms for George W. Bush. And Palin, it appears, knows the issues like the front of her own hand.

By the numbers, neither President Barack Obama nor the incumbent members of Congress are looking very comfortable these days.

But then, it takes someone to beat someone - which is why the public discontent with incumbent members of Congress registered in yet another poll today leaves open the question of who will be challenging those incumbents in November, not to mention the question of a challenger for Obama in 2012.

The president's public job approval among registered voters nationwide has slipped to 44 percent in the Marist Poll out today - with disapproval running at 47 percent. It was running 46 approval, 44 disapproval in Marist's December survey.

"Disappointer-in-chief,'' Marist is calling the president today.

As in other surveys, the president's loss of support among independent voters is what stands out today: "For the first time since taking office,'' Marist reports today, a majority of independents surveyed - 57 percent - disapprove of the job that the president is performing, with just 29 percent approving.

The partisans remain polarized: 81 percent of Democrats voicing approval of the president's performance, 80 percent of Republicans disapproval.

""If attracting Independents and bipartisanship are the aim, then the president clearly has a lot of ground to cover in year two," says Lee Miringoff, director of The Marist Institute for Public Opinion.

For members of Congress, however, there is a lot less time to repair relations with frustrated voters. Among registered voters surveyed, if the election were held today, 44 percent say they would vote to elect someone new, while 42 percent say they'd stick with their representative. Among those swing-voting independents, half say they would vote against the incumbent.

"The winds of change are still blowing around the nation,'' Miringoff reports. " If your working address is the U.S. Capitol, you have to watch these figures closely.''

See the full run of the Marist Poll today.

Oh, when the Saints come marching in to the White House, where the fan-in-chief had placed his heart with New Orleans, but still his head with the Colts, in the Super Bowl that ended with a come-from-behind victory for the team from Louisiana.

(They receive college champs on the South Lawn; maybe they'll make room for the NFL this year.)

But while they're at it in the West Wing, they may want to consult with The Who's Roger Daltrey on his opinion about Medicare (which, of course, he doesn't need, because he lives in a country with nationalized health care.) The front man from one of the big bands of the 1960s is 65, and his voice showed every year of it in the Super Bowl half-time show.

Even Daltrey admitted that it could have gone better, as ESPN reports from the locker room - or actually the tunnel to the sky boxes.

"I thought it went OK,'' the singer told an interviewer. "I was so blinded that I couldn't see. "And I really wished the crowd would have gotten into singing the songs with us more. That's how it is in Europe for our soccer matches. I wanted more banter."

At his age, even spending the night in Miami had its certain disappointments -- "Miami is so different these days. It's not just a retirement community," Daltrey said nostalgically, in his post-show talk with ESPN. "Now Miami is fun and hip, and I'm too old to enjoy it."

"We won't be fooled again,'' Daltrey, showman Peter Townshend and company sang at the close of their 12-minute Super Bowl show - which could, in fact, serve as a theme song for events unfolding at the White House this week.

President Barack Obama has invited the leaders of what his own associates have dubbed "the party of No'' in for a talk about health-care. The Republicans are signaling that, yes, they are ready to be heard.

This week's summit is being billed at a high gesture of bipartisanship. With Democrats lacking the votes needed to muscle anything through the Senate now, it could take some measure of bipartisan cooperation to pass any health-care legislation - unless the House simply caves to a Senate-passed bill or some additional deal is done by budget reconciliation, ala House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan.

But the president also has signaled that he wants to see some "details'' about questions such as: How to insure some 30 million people without health insurance. Neither the tort reform nor sale of insurance across state lines which Republicans have advanced offers much headway on that front. The GOP is talking about starting from scratch.

So there is a good chance that the most that the White House is able to find in the bipartisan health summit are some sweeteners which may offer the GOP an opening to sprinkle some votes on health care.

It's unlikely that the GOP will find a White House willing to concede the concept of what it considers real "change,'' having gotten this close to passage of a plan. The House has passed a bill, with the help of just one Republican member. The Senate has passed a bill, without support from any Republicans. The trick is passing one plan which both can accept, and which the president can sign and represent as reform.

No one wants to get fooled again.

President Barack Obama, vowing to press his case for health-care legislation in a difficult new political environment, says he will sit down and talk with the Republicans.

But for whatever talks they initiate this week, any agreement on a common way forward is likely to require talking beyond the talking points that both parties have staked out since the beginning of a months-long debate now mired in a partisan divide.

"What I've been doing is consulting closely with the leaders in the House, the leaders in the Senate, on the Democratic side,'' Obama said in his pre-game Super Bowl interview with CBS News. '"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues.

"What I want to do is ask them to put their ideas on the table,'' he said of a meeting planned this week, "and then after the recess, which will be a few weeks away, I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, and then go forward systematically with all the ideas out there.''
.
Does this mean starting from square one, CBS anchor Katie Couric asked the president. And, from the remarks that both the president and Republican leaders made today, the answer probably is no.

Obama said he will be asking Republicans: "How do you guys want to lower costs?... How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don't have health insurance can get it?''... What are your ideas?''

Republican leaders, in response today, said their ideas start with getting the Democrats to back away from the legsislation that has cleared the House and Senate.

"If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill, and with it their goal of slashing a half trillion dollars from Medicare and raising a half trillion in new taxes,'' Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement issued today. "Setting these goals aside would be a sign that the administration and Democrats in Congress are listening to the country and are truly interested in a bipartisan approach.''

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said: "The American people have overwhelmingly rejected both of the job-killing trillion-dollar government takeover of health care bills passed by the House and Senate.... The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.''

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was holding his ground today, too: "As we continue our work to fix our broken health care system, Senate Democrats will not relent on our commitment to protecting consumers from insurance company abuses, reducing health care costs, saving Medicare and cutting the deficit."

The president suggested in that pre-game interview -- in which he stood by his sentimental choice of the Saints, but suggested the Colts were favored to win -- that a bipartisan approach should help expedite matters on the health-care front.

"There's no reason, procedurally, that we can't do it faster than last year,'' the president said. But there probably are a lot of reasons it won't move much more quickly.

Which got us to thinking about an old song:

President Barack Obama, while rooting for the New Orleans Saints in the Super Bowl today, allows that the Indianapolis Colts "have to be favored.''

"I think the Colts probably have to be favored, mainly because they have the best quarterback in history. Peyton Manning is unbelievable,'' the president said in a pre-game interview just now with CBS News. "I do have a soft spot in my heart for New Orleans, mainly because of what that town has gone through....

"The Colts have to be favored,'' he said, confessing that he could be bearing a grudge in today's match: "One other factor that I have to confess here - when my Bears went to the Super Bowl several years ago, it was the Colts that beat them.''

The president also signalled another play in the pre-game interview: He plans to meet with bipartisan leaders of both houses this week on the stalled health-care legislation. And Republican leaders greeted that word with a cautious welcome today.

CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric interviewed the president as part of the network's pre-game coverage of the Super Bowl. The talk was aired starting at 4:30 pm EST, a little over an hour before kickoff.

On a sunny but cold day on which Washington was digging out from a couple of feet of snow - as much as 32 inches out at Dulles International Airport far west of town, but less than two feet in town - the president was holding a Super Bowl party at the White House with congressmen from the home state teams, Louisiana and Indiana, as well as some injured veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He was wearing an open-collared dress shirt.

They talked about more than football -- chiefly, health care:

"They're going to be coming into the White House next week, and what I want them to do is put their ideas on the table,'' he said.

"Part of the reason we can't back off on this,'' he said, is that major insurers already are increasing premiums. "That's a portrait of the future... We're going to have to do something about it....

"What I want to do is look at the Republican ideas that are out there - how do you guys plan to lower costs... how to you intend to insure that the 30 million people without insurance get it,'' the president said.

Republicans responded with a ready signal:

"We always appreciate the opportunity to share ideas with the President, particularly on an issue where Americans have spoken so clearly,'' Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after the interview. "If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill, and with it their goal of slashing a half trillion dollars from Medicare and raising a half trillion in new taxes.

"The American people want lower costs, not Medicare cuts and tax increases,'' McConnell said. "Setting these goals aside would be a sign that the administration and Democrats in Congress are listening to the country and are truly interested in a bipartisan approach.''

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said: "I am pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care. The American people have overwhelmingly rejected both of the job-killing trillion-dollar government takeover of health care bills passed by the House and Senate. The problem with the Democrats' health care bills is not that the American people don't understand them; the American people do understand them, and they don't like them.

"The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access,'' Boehner said in a pre-game, post-interview statement. "The House Republican alternative, which would lower premiums by up to 10 percent while increasing access for Americans without health insurance, would be a solid starting point.''

In light of the way the health-care debate has played out, does the president wish that he had waited until the economy was stronger before undertaking his health-care reforms, Couric asked Obama.

"No,'' he said.

His administration was working on economic stimulus last year, "and, having taken those steps very quickly at the front end, at the beginning of the year, it was also very important for us to start focusing on issues that middle class families have been struggling with...

"It was the right thing to be done then,'' he said. "It continues to be the right thing.''

"What is absolutely true is that getting something passed through Congress, with 535 members, is hard,'' the president said. "Each legislator, they think they're doing what's best for their state or their district... What we have to do is make sure it is a much more clear, transparent process... The end product, he said "will benefit millions of people.

"I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and it didn't have any legislative fingerprints on it,'' the president said. "That's not how it works in our democracy... What we have to do is a lot of negotiation... Cumulatively, it looks like each individual legislator is looking out for his own... My job is to look out for that bigger picture.''

The president maintained that he is running a more transparent administration than ever, with full disclosure of who is visiting the White House. "All these things take time,'' Obama said. "You're not going to transform a culture in Washington in a year... You've just got to keep chipping away at it. ''

Couric asked a cab driver's question about the deficit.

"The biggest... most important thing we can do about deficits is to get a health insurance package passed,'' the president said. "If we can start bending the cost curve on health care, that's the biggest thing we can do... in the long term.''

The president defended the administration's handling of accused terrorists and maintained that some can be held in maximum security prisons - such as the one that the government wants to purchase from Illinois, the Thomson Correction Center, to house detainees.

"It is a virtue of our system that we should be proud of,'' he said. "It's important for us to recognize that, when we're dealing with al Qaeda operatives, they may have national security intelligence that we need,'' and the approach to handling them is not the same as dealing with a drug dealer. On the proposed trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in New York City, he said, "we have not ruled out anything.''

Sarah Palin, fresh from an appearance at the TEA Party Convention where she derided President Barack Obama for "the politics of personality,'' insists that the nascent political organization is just fine without a leader.

"It's much bigger than any charismatic guy with a TelePrompTer,'' says Palin, who read her speech from a text in Nashville on Saturday night and could hear people in the audience calling, "Run, Sarah, Run.'' "It is the people's movement. It's about the people and I'm proud to be a part of this.''

Yet, she says, "it would be absurd'' for her not to consider playing some leadership role, potentially as a candidate for president.

In an interview aired this morning on FOX News Sunday, Chris Wallace also managed to get a "you betcha'' out of the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and former governor of Alaska who resigned after her party's ticket lost to Obama.

"You betcha,'' she obliged.

Would she consider running for president? "I would if I believe that that is the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family,'' she told Wallace (the two pictured here in a photo from FOX News.) "It's going to be thankfully a lot of time to be able to make such a decision. Right now, I'm looking at.. other potential candidates out there who are strong. They're in a position of having the luxury of having more information at their fingertips right now...

"I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country,'' Palin says. "I don't know if it's going to be ever seeking a title, though. It may be just doing a darn good job as a reporter or covering some of the current events.''

If she is not offering herself as a leader for the TEA Party, however, Palin has plenty to say lately about the president.

"He has some misguided decisions that he is making that he is expecting us to just kind of sit down and shut up and accept, and many of us are not going to sit down and shut up,'' Palin, a FOX contributor, told Wallace in the interview. "We're going to say no, we do not like this..''

"Wait, wait, where's he saying sit down and shut up?'' Wallace asked.

"In a general just kind of general persona I think that he has when he's up there at, I'll call it a lectern,'' Palin said, reiterating a line from last night about a president whom she calls "a law professor.''

"When he is up there and he is telling us basically, 'I know best, my people here in the White House know best, and we are going to tell you that, yes, you do want this essentially nationalized health care system' and we're saying, no, we don't.''

"And the messages are not being received by Barack Obama,'' Palin maintained. "So I think instead of lecturing, he needs to stop and he needs to listen on health care issues. On national security, this perceived lackadaisical approach that he has to dealing with the terrorists.

"We're saying that concerns us and we're going to speak up about it and please don't allow this persona to continue where you do try to make us feel like we need to just sit down, shut up and accept what you're doing to us,'' said Palin, who had a lot more to say about all of that. Read on:

CRIS WALLACE: Governor Palin, welcome to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
SARAH PALIN: Thank you so much.
WALLACE: How do you see yourself as a member of the Tea Party movement or a member of the Republican Party?
PALIN: Oh, I think the two are and should be even more so merging because the Tea Party movement is quite reflective of what the GOP, the planks in the platform are supposed to be about. Limited government and more freedom, more respect for equality. That's what the Tea Party movement is about, so I think that the two are much entwined and I'm happy about that.
WALLACE: So what's wrong with the Republican Party that these Tea Party activists feel they have to go outside the GOP?
PALIN: Because both major parties, the "D" and the "R"s have both kind of lost their way in some respects. The GOP has some very strong planks in the platform that build a platform that I believe is best to build a strong, safe prosperous nation.
When the GOP strays from the planks in the platform, a people's movement like the Tea Party movement is invited in to kind of hold these politicians accountable again and remind them of their constitutional limits there on the federal level and it's a beautiful movement. I'm proud to get to be a part of it in terms of at least hearing from those in the Tea Party movement and sharing with them what I believe are some common sense solutions to the challenges facing us.
WALLACE: You say you are happy to be or proud to be a part of it. Some people think you want to be the leader of the Tea Party movement.
PALIN: No, I would hope that the Tea Party-ers don't believe that they need some kind of well-oiled machine, some kind of replicate of the GOP or the Democrat Party and instead they remain a movement of the people uprising and saying, listen to us, we have some common sense solutions that we want our politicians to consider and to implement and this is much bigger than a hockey mom from Wasilla.
It's much bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter. It is the people's movement. It's about the people and I'm proud to be a part of this.
WALLACE: You recently stirred up some controversy as you often do, even when you endorsed Rand Paul as the Senate, he's running in the Senate primary in Kentucky the GOP Senate primary. And Bill Kristol, your long-time supporter was upset with you because one of the things he pointed out, Paul wants to close Guantanamo. He wants to send the detainees back to Afghanistan. He wants to repeal the Patriot Act. He wants to do away with any federal role in either gay marriage or drug laws, leave it to the states. Why would you support a guy like that?
PALIN: Because he's a federalist and he wants the states to have more say and as we respect the 10th Amendment in our Constitution, he wants the states to have more say in a lot of these issues. But nobody is ever going to find a perfect candidate. There are things that I don't agree with Rand Paul, and yet his domestic policies for the most part, I do agree with. He wants limited government. He wants the Feds to start taking their hands off states issues and I respect that and I'm proud to support him. Again, never finding a perfect candidate, no doubt he disagrees with me on a whole lot of issues. But proud to support him and others whom I can believe in.
WALLACE: What do you think of Barack Obama's presidency so far?
PALIN: He has some misguided decisions that he is making that he is expecting us to just kind of sit down and shut up and accept, and many of us are not going to sit down and shut up. We're going to say no, we do not like this...
WALLACE: Wait, wait, where's he saying sit down and shut up?
PALIN: In a general just kind of general persona I think that he has when he's up there at, I'll call it a lectern. When he is up there and he is telling us basically, I know best, my people here in the White House know best, and we are going to tell you that yes, you do want this essentially nationalized health care system and we're saying, no, we don't. And the messages are not being received by Barack Obama. So I think instead of lecturing, he needs to stop and he needs to listen on health care issues. On national security, this perceived lackadaisical approach that he has to dealing with the terrorists. We're saying that concerns us and we're going to speak up about it and please don't allow this persona to continue where you do try to make us feel like we need to just sit down, shut up and accept what you're doing to us.
WALLACE: Let's talk about national security. During the campaign, you said this about Mr. Obama. "Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."
The president has escalated the war in Afghanistan. He has launched more drone attacks in his first year than George W. Bush did in eight years. Given what he's done as president, do you take back palling around with terrorists?
PALIN: No, I don't, because his associations with Bill Ayers and with others, he never really has, I think, adequately addressed why in the world he would have a relationship with a type of person like that, who had such disdain for America that he would want to bomb, harm, hurt, kill, Americans.
WALLACE: But has he done a good job in protecting the country?
PALIN: So the things that he has done right now as president in protecting the country, more power to him. We appreciate that he kind of went there fully with the commanders on the ground asking for more reinforcements in Afghanistan. Couldn't get there all the way with these guys, but kind of went there. Good, more power to you. And I speak as a military mom, too, saying thank you. You're giving me a little bit more of a secure knowledge that you're looking out for our troops and the things that their commanders are asking for. I'm thinking kind of, of my son in this situation. Thank you for doing that. However, there are many things that he is doing today that cause an uneasiness in many, many Americans, I'm one of those.
Who looks at the way that he is treating the trials of these terrorists and kind of as gosh, they're on a crime spree right now. No, we are in war. These are acts of these war that these terrorists are committing. We need to treat them a little bit differently than an American who is worthy -- an American being worthy of our U.S. constitutional rights. I don't think the terrorists are worthy of our rights that people like my son fight and are willing to die for.
WALLACE: The unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent in January. The growth rate of the economy, 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter. Doesn't President Obama deserve some credit for that?
PALIN: Very happy to hear about that miniscule decrease there in the unemployment rate, but better that than a growing unemployment rate. The point is though that we have lost millions and millions and millions of jobs as we have incurred greater and greater debt and deficit, debt that I believe is immoral because we're handing the bill to our children. They're going to have to pay for our needs and some of our wants today and I think that is unfair.
The point being, millions of jobs have been lost because, I think Chris, what's coming from the White House is just a fundamental difference from a lot of Conservatives in our belief that government is not the answer. The bailouts, the takeovers of the private sector-- that's not the answer. That is not what built this great country into the most prosperous, healthiest, safest country on Earth.
No. It -- it is free enterprise. It's the innovation, and work ethic of our small businesses, and -- and our entrepreneurs.
Empowering them to be able to keep more of what they earn, and reinvest according to their priorities. And then be able to create jobs -- one -- one job at a time with the principles that are free market -- free enterprise based.
I don't think that is what we're seeing coming out of the White House. It -- it's quite fundamental -- the difference there.
WALLACE: Let's turn to Sarah Palin, because there are some questions quite frankly I've wanted to ask you for a while now.
In your book, "Going Rogue," you said that when you first heard that you were pregnant with Baby Trigg, you wrote this: "I'm out of town.
No one knows I'm pregnant. No one would ever have to know."
You made the choice to have Trigg, and it obviously -- you were showing me earlier pictures of him -- it was the right choice for you. Why not allow all women to make their own choice?
PALIN: Well I believe that these babies in our womb have the right to life. And that's what I stand on. And I did. I -- I honestly, candidly talked about that in my book when I said, "I can understand the sensitivity of the issue," because I've been there.
I've -- I've understood why that fleeting thought would enter a woman's mind.
And then when I found out that after ultra sounds, after tests, that Trigg would be born with Downs Syndrome, of course that thought occurred to me again. Wow, this is why a woman would be fearful of less than ideal circumstances, and maybe think that a quote, unquote, "problem," could just be swept away.
And instead I was able to kind of ratchet back my fears very quickly, and -- and remember that no -- so many of us who have that fundamental belief in the sanctity of life and the potential for every human innocent life, I got to fall back on that. And -- and that did lead me to make the right decision in allowing this baby to be born. And this baby now turning out to be the best thing that has ever happened to me and my family.
WALLACE: But can you understand where some women...
(CROSSTALK)
PALIN: Of course I can understand. That's why...
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: ... some people would say...
PALIN: ... I wrote about it.
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: ... I applaud your choice. Let me make my own decision.
PALIN: And that's why I wrote about it as saying that I understand why those thoughts would enter their mind. I want to empower women though. I -- I want -- and -- and if Trigg is an example, and if Pam Tebo's (ph) son, Tim Tebo (ph) is an example of the potential for every human life, then so be it. Let Trigg be that example.
I want women to know that they are strong enough, and they are smart enough to be able to do many things at once -- including carrying a child. Giving that child life. And then perhaps if they're in less than ideal circumstances or they're carrying a child while they're trying to pursue career, or avocations, or -- or education opportunities -- less than ideal circumstances.
Giving that child life which it deserves, and then perhaps looking at adoption, or looking at other circumstances after. But not snuffing out the life of a child.
WALLACE: The second thing is your decision to resign as governor of Alaska...
PALIN: Yes.
WALLACE: ... with 17 months left in your term. You said, "I wasn't going to run for reelection. So I was going to be a lame duck." You said that the state was being paralyzed, because all of your opponents were filing these lawsuits." Didn't you let your enemies -- your opponents drive you from office?
PALIN: Hell, no. Thankfully I didn't. What's -- what we did was we won, because the state today -- it's not spending millions of dollars to -- to fight these frivolous lawsuits, and -- and frivolous ethics charges. Ethics charges like me wearing a jacket with a snow machine logo on it. And getting charged for an unethical act for doing such a thing.
Little piddly, petty things like that that were costing our state millions of dollars. And costing me and my administration-- my staff members -- about 80 percent of our time fighting those things. "No," we said, "We're not going to play this game."
We picked our battle. And we said, "We're going to get out there, and we're going to fight for Alaska's issues," which usually involve energy independence. We're going to fight for these issues on a different plane. And we're not going to let you guys win.
You're not going to let...
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: But -- but...
(CROSSTALK)
PALIN: You're not going to...
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: ... they're going to think they won, cause you're no longer governor. Let me -- let me just make...
(CROSSTALK)
PALIN: I don't think that they...
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Let me just make this...
(CROSSTALK)
PALIN: I don't think that they think I -- look it. I'm sitting here talking to Chris Wallace today. I think some of them are going, "Dang, we thought she'd sit down and shut up after we tried to do to here what we tried."
WALLACE: Yes. Well I don't know that that's going to be-- instead of this...
(CROSSTALK)
PALIN: And now we get to talk about energy independence.
Now we get to talk about those things that are important to Alaskans, and our country.
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: OK. But wait a minute. When -- before we were talking about Ronald Regan, do you openly admit he was your political inspiration...
PALIN: Yes.
WALLACE: ... really a formative figure in your...
PALIN: Yes.
WALLACE: ... developing of political consciousness?
Regan during his entire second term as governor of California was a lame duck. Regan in that second term was being sharply attacked by anti-war radicals. I can tell you, Ronald Regan would never have quit.
PALIN: It's a big difference between just getting political pot shots fired your way. I can handle those. I get those-- shoot I -- I got more of those this morning. So what? That doesn't matter. But when it adversely affected the people that I was serving, that's bull. And I wasn't going to put up with that. Again millions of dollars -- a paralyzed administration. My staff not knowing what they could do or say, because the adversaries were continuing to obstruct.
No way. I love Alaska too much to put them through that.
So in that last -- in that lame duck session I'm like no. I'm going to hand the reigns over to the lieutenant governor. He's as conservative as I am. He can progress our agenda -- a common sense conservative agenda for our state. And we can all get on with life.
WALLACE: You talk about new potshots. I think what you're probably referring to is that NBC has gotten a hold -- I'm sure you've heard -- of hundreds of emails in which your husband -- it was during your days as governor -- your husband, Todd, exchanged views with state officials about a judicial appointee, about appointments to-- to various state boards. A labor dispute -- was what he was doing appropriate?
PALIN: Absolutely. And you know there are so few people in the political world, and the media world that -- someone like me that we can trust. My husband is -- is -- he's my soul mate. He's my best friend. He's my number one advisor. I'm going to bounce things off Todd. Nothing confidential that couldn't be shared with others out there in the public. Todd never circulated anything that was confidential, and hadn't already been circulated.
WALLACE: But it's one thing to advise...
(CROSSTALK)
PALIN: He certainly had the right to express his opinion on things too. No, what NBC...
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: But it's one thing to advise you. He was also sending emails to state officials.
PALIN: He was forwarding on emails. And here's another thing. Todd and I being in some -- in some cases thousands of miles apart. If I emailed him about something -- say I was outside traveling. Todd's home. He's -- he's there at -- at a desktop, and I'm telling Todd, "Hey, Todd. Print this off for me. I'm going to grab it on my way home." Cause I work off a Blackberry constantly.
For practical reasons it helped too.
Todd helped as Alaska's first dude with no staff, with no office, being thousands of miles away in a -- a -- during a lot of times that with his job in Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope, and commercial fishing. He helped with workforce development issues.
Issues that meant a lot to him, and -- and people, yes, out there in the real world with car hearts (ph), and steel toed boots, and -- and hard hats trying to build this country. Todd helped in that respect.
He never got into the minutia of the politics. Todd's too good for that. He hates this kind of periphery political bull stuff that we go through. He's not a part of any of that. And, no. More power to Todd for being a good advisor, and a good practical person with common sense solutions.
WALLACE: We like to do a lightening round. Quick questions -- quick answers. So I want you to play along with me here.
PALIN: All right.
WALLACE: Attorney General Eric Holder -- should he step down?
PALIN: Sure. He should. And I think Rham Emanuel should step down too. I think these guys are giving our president wrong advice, and for a variety of reasons I would like him to step down...
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: And specifically Holder -- what...
PALIN: Yes.
WALLACE: Why?
PALIN: Yes. Yes. Because of the way that we are treating these terrorists allowing them our U.S. Constitutional protections when they do not deserve them.
WALLACE: Should the rule "don't ask -- don't tell" for the Military be revealed?
PALIN: I don't think so right now. I'm surprised that the President spent that on his State of the Union speech when he only spent about nine percent of his time in the State of the Union on national security issues. And I say that because there are other things to be worried about right now with the Military.
I think that's kind of on the back burner. It's sufficient for now.
To put so much time and effort and politics into it, unnecessary.
WALLACE: White House Chief of Staff -- you mention him -- Rahm Emanuel. You called him out. He used the "R" word. He said, "retarded." He has now apologized for using that word, met with activists, said he's going to join the campaign to try to eliminate use of that word --
PALIN: Oh, you know, Rahm Emanuel, I think he had some indecent and insensitive ways of being, including his language. And as I said for a variety go reasons, giving the President poor advice and his heavy handedness. I think he should step down.
I'm not politically correct. I am not one to be a word police. But I do believe that his insensitivity, in a time when I had just promised in my GOP convention speech that those with special needs and families and those who love those with special needs would have a friend, and a advocate in the White House if John McCain and I were so blessed as to be elected.
That didn't stop me because our votes didn't carry the day, we didn't win. That didn't stop my passion, my commitment to reaching out and to helping the special needs community when they asked for it. And they did ask for it on this one. They reached out to me and said, can you kind of highlight the problem that we have the White House, with both the President and his Chief of Staff being so insensitive to the special needs community. And I said, I'm here. Send me. I will do so.
WALLACE: OK. But Rush Limbaugh weighed in this week. And he said this:
"Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards."
PALIN: He was satirical (ph) in that --
WALLACE: Wait a minute, let me finish.
PALIN: OK.
WALLACE: "I mean, these people, these liberal activists are quote, kooks."
Should Rush Limbaugh apologize?
PALIN: They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire to bring attention to what this politically correct--
WALLACE: But he used the "R" word.
PALIN: Using satire. Name calling by anyone -- I teach this to my children, you teach it to your children and your grandchildren, too.
Name calling by anyone, it's just unnecessary. It just wastes time.
Let's speak to the issues and --
WALLACE: But you know what some people are going to say, Governor, and have said. They say, look, when it's her political adversary Rahm Emanuel, she's going to call him out, he's indecent, apologize. But when it's a political friend like Rush Limbaugh, oh it's satire.
PALIN: I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with "F-ing retards." And we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. That's a big difference there.
But again, name calling, using language that is insensitive by anyone-- male, female, Republican, Democrat, it's unnecessary, it's inappropriate and let's all just grow up.
WALLACE: All right. You can are a FOX News analyst so I want you to take off your political player hat and put the analyst hat on and really try and do your best job, almost like one of the commentators of the Super Bowl.
PALIN: Oh gee, I'll try. OK.
WALLACE: Handicap the 2012 GOP presidential race for us. Who's the front-runner?
PALIN: No idea. I have no idea.
WALLACE: You're not a very good analyst.
PALIN: Fire me then, Roger. Sorry. I already failed.
But listen, no, we have some strong, some young terps (ph) in this party. Paul Ryan, I'm very impressed with Paul Ryan.
WALLACE: Congressman from Wisconsin.
PALIN: Yes. He's good. Man, he is sharp, he is smart, articulate and he is passionate about these common-sense solutions that America has got to adopt to get us on the right road.
I can name a whole lot of people.
WALLACE: Well, what about Romney and Huckabee and Pawlenty?
PALIN: As I say, I could name a whole lot of them but we don't have a whole lot of time. But I'm very impressed with many of the characters, the personalities of those with great intelligence in this party and I can't wait to see who rises to the surface, after hopefully some very competitive, contested primaries.
I'm all about competition. I'm all about, even on our local level and state level, I want to see contested primaries where we are forced via competition to work harder, produce better, be more efficient and that's what these contested primaries that I look forward to will produce.
WALLACE: You talk about rising to the top. There's a new poll out this week of Republican voters across the country and it shows someone named Sarah Palin leading the 2012 race by five points over Mitt Romney.
Aren't you the front-runner for the nomination?
PALIN: Nope. Don't know who conducted that poll and I know that polls are fickle and heck, after this interview, Chris, we may see a plummeting in the poll numbers. Who knows.
These are fickle. I can't comment on what the poll numbers mean today.
WALLACE: Why wouldn't you run for president?
PALIN: I would. I would if I believe that that is the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family. Certainly, I would do so.
WALLACE: And how do you make that decision over the next three years?
PALIN: It's going to be thankfully a lot of time to be able to make such a decision.
Right now, I'm looking at, as I say, other potential candidates out there who are strong. They're in a position of having the luxury of having more information at their fingertips right now. So that the current events that we're talking about today, they --
WALLACE: Wait, wait, wait. Because -- you're basically saying you will consider it.
PALIN: I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country. I don't know if it's going to be every seeking a title though. It may be just doing a darn good job as a reporter or covering some of the current events.
WALLACE: But you're going to consider, you're go to go through the process of thinking --
PALIN: I won't close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future. I don't want any American to ever close the door in their personal or their professional lives and put themselves in a box and say, heck, yes I'm going to do that. Or, no way I'm not going to do that, when we don't know what the future holds.
WALLACE: There's a report this weekend that you are now getting daily e-mail briefings on domestic and foreign policy issues from a group of top advisors in Washington, D.C.
How come?
PALIN: Ever since our PAC was formed, we have had good people contributing. Some -- many volunteers, I guess you would call them advisors, yes, firing away e-mails to me every morning saying, this is what's happened in Washington overnight. You need to be aware of this. Good. It's great. It's helpful.
WALLACE: Do you -- isn't that the move of somebody who is thinking about running for president?
PALIN: You mean, conventionally how someone would -- I have no idea how conventionally people do this. How they try to open a door that's cracked, if it's even open. And if that involves having a group of advisors send them e-mails every morning. I don't know how any of that stuff works. I don't know, I'm just appreciative of having some good information at my fingertips right now.
WALLACE: Would you say that you're more knowledgeable about domestic and foreign affairs now than you were two years ago?
PALIN: Well, I would hope so. Yes, I am.
Two years ago my engagement was on the state of Alaska. Largest, most diverse state in the union. Twenty percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy coming from our state, desiring to and working towards rampage up that domestic energy production. That was my focus.
Now, of course, my focus has been enlarged. So, I sure as heck better be more astute on these current events, national issues than I was two years ago.
WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?
PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.
But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --
WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.
PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --
WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --
PALIN: Then he's not going to win.
WALLACE: Not going to win?
PALIN: He's not going to win. If he continues on the path that he has American on today -- and here's the deal -- that's what a lot of Americans are telling him today and he's not listening. Instead he's telling everybody else, listen up and I'll tell you the way it is.
Well, we have a representative form of government in our democracy.
And we want him and we want Congress to listen to what those things are that we are saying. And that's what the Tea Party movement is about, too. It's not a well-oiled beautiful machine.
It's the people saying, please hear us. Congress, you have constitutional limits and we want you to adhere to those. We have free market principles that built out country. Mr. President, we want you to remember those. We want you to look back on successes in history, like what Reagan did in times of crisis. And, could you repeat those things because they are proven to succeed.
WALLACE: Word is that you're getting $100,000 for this speech this weekend. True?
PALIN: I'm not getting it. They're writing a check -- a $100,000 check. And as I've said from Day One on this, I'm turning right around and being able to contribute it back to the cause. That means to people, to events --
WALLACE: So you're going to use your PAC and contribute it to candidates?
PALIN: I don't know if it's going to go to the PAC or if it goes to some non-profit or what.
Bottom line, I'm not personally benefiting from this. And the funny thing is, as I've had a lot of people, including a couple of talented people and talent at FOX say, funny thing about these type of speeches, Sarah you're an anomaly. Nobody ever has asked, are you getting paid for this? Or, what are you going to do with the money?
But, this is the new normal I think when it comes to me, is people wanting to have me under a microscope and figure out every little detail of my life, including speaking fees.
Bottom line, Tea Party movement, I'm giving the money back to the cause.
WALLACE: Finally, regardless of whether you ever run for political office or not. What role do you want to play in the country's future?
PALIN: First and foremost I want to be a good mom. And I want to raise happy, healthy, independent children. And I want them to be good citizens of this great country.
And then I do want to be a voice for some common-sense solutions. I'm never going to pretend like I know more than the next person. I'm not going to pretend to be an elitist. In fact, I'm going to fight the elitist because for too often and for too long now, I think the elitists have tried to make people like me and people in the heartland of America, feel like we just don't get it and big government is just going to have to take care of us.
I want to speak up for the American people and say, no, we really do have some good common-sense solutions. I can be a messenger for that.
Don't have to have a title to do it.
WALLACE: Can I get a "you betcha" out of it?
PALIN: Oh, you betcha.
(LAUGHTER).
WALLACE: Governor, thank you.
PALIN: Thank you.
WALLACE: Now that you've found the way to FOX NEWS SUNDAY, I hope you'll come back.
PALIN: Thank you, I will.