(Updated below)

First came news that Alaska governor Sarah Palin wouldn't run for re-election, confirmed by CNN around 3 pm ET. Minutes later, Alaska television station KTUU reported that Palin had actually announced she will resign her office at the end of the month.

In an angry, rambling press conference that will rival Gov. Mark Sanford's as a stunning example of a bizarre public meltdown, Palin basically blamed her decision on her national critics, who she said were blocking her agenda and costing Alaska taxpayers money.

"You are naïve if you don't see a full court press right now on the national level picking apart a good point guard," Palin said, a reference to her days as Sarah Barracuda, high school basketball star. What does a good point guard do? "She drives through a full court press protecting the ball, keeping her head up…and passing the ball so her team can win. I know when it's time to pass the ball for a win.

"I really don't want to disappoint anyone with this decision," Palin continued. "I cannot stand here as your governor and allow millions of dollars to go to waste. I don't know if my children are going to allow it either…This decision comes after a lot of prayer and deliberation." Palin said all of her children endorsed her decision, and she closed by complaining about people mocking her Down's Syndrome son Trig, with little Piper standing by her side.

"In the words of General MacArthur, we are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction," Palin said, as she turned the podium over to the apparently shocked Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

There was rolling hilarity and a total news vacuum on television for about 10 minutes after the news first broke. CNN's Rick Sanchez wondered aloud if Palin could be pregnant again – shocking Candy Crowley – before interviewing Frontiersman reporter Andrew Wellner, who says the press conference came as a total surprise to local reporters.

"She didn't take any questions, she said she could be more effective outside of government," Wellner said, reading his notes to Sanchez. Then CNN got tape of Palin's announcement.

This is very weird. We'll update when we get more information.

Update: Getting weirder. CNN is now running the entire speech; earlier, it only ran a clip from her resignation statement onward. It's crazy stuff. For the first 10 minutes or so, Palin rambled weirdly about all the good things she's done for Alaska, on energy and budget issues, sounding kind of like a Furby who memorized a lot of information but has no idea how to repeat it in a human-like way.  The tone and inflection were completely off.

Then she began her list of grievances with national critics.

"Over the last nine months I've been the subject of all sorts of frivolous accusations...The state has wasted millions of your dollars" investigating those accusations, Palin complained, blaming "the politics of personal destruction." Suzanne Malveaux is desperately asking Candy Crowley to "make sense" of this. Crowley's talented, but she's not up to this task. Sense will be made only when we get the back story.

Update II: According to Think Progress, the spectacularly wrong Palin supporter Bill Kristol phoned into Fox News to say: “If I had to guess, we just saw the opening statement of the 2012 campaign.” Meanwhile, on MSNBC Andrea Mitchell says she's hearing from GOP sources Palin is out of politics "for good." Who do you believe?

And here's the Palin speech video:

As CBS News reported Wednesday, Salon's coverage of Sarah and Todd Palin's ties to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party sparked a lively e-mail spat between Palin and McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt. The climax is a withering note from Schmidt to the vice-presidential nominee -- AKA "rogue diva" -- rejecting her request that the campaign essentially lie about Todd Palin's seven-year membership in the secessionist group. 

I wanted to clear up one question the CBS News story raised for me: whether Palin or her staff had gotten media inquiries about the Alaska first couple's involvement with the fringe party. Certainly Salon asked about it multiple times, and got no reply from either Palin's staff or McCain's, but I can't speak to whether other outlets also asked about the story. All I know is, they should have. 

Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair story opened the door on this new round of reporting on the Palin-McCain feud. But where Purdum's piece was long on juicy gossip from anonymous sources, the CBS News story delivers names, dates and clear details on exactly what Palin and Schmidt were fighting about: in this case, Palin's effort to whitewash her husband's long association with the fringe group. 

Salon took the lead in reporting on the Palins' ties to AIP, from David Talbot's interview with Palin-admiring party leader Lynette Clark to the Oct. 10 investigative piece that set Palin off: Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert's deep exploration of how AIP members aided Palin's rise to power, and how she paid them back, from firing Wasilla city employees they opposed, to trying (unsuccessfully) to appoint one party leader to the Wasilla City Council. 

When CNN covered Blumenthal and Neiwert's scoop, Palin demanded that the McCain campaign respond. "Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today -- two reporters, a protestor's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party," Palin wrote to Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace and Rick Davis. "It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it ... Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed." Schmidt fired back: "Ignore it. He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america." 

(Although Schmidt comes off as the stand-up guy here, it's nice to see that the GOP default, even when accused of supporting occasionally violent secessionist whack jobs, is always simply "We love America," as though Democrats don't. The implication is: "Todd Palin loves America -- unlike that Jill Biden!") 

But that wasn't enough for Palin. She dragged out the Big Lies -- secession isn't what the AIP's about, and anyway, Todd wasn't really a member. 

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan. He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed." 

Admirably, Schmidt wasn't having any of it. 

"Secession," he wrote to Palin. "It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country. 

"We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this." 

It's not quite true there were "no media inquiries" on the links between the Palins and AIP; Blumenthal and Neiwert did, in fact, contact Palin's staff, as well as the McCain campaign when Palin didn't reply. "I contacted Palin’s staff personally, explained the nature of my query and who I was writing for, and gave them my contact info," Neiwert confirms in an e-mail. "I never heard back from them. I also sent an e-mail, which I’ve forwarded to you." The e-mail, to press@mccain08hq.com, laid out in detail what the pair found about Palin's ties to AIP extremists. They got no reply. It's hard to believe no other reporters queried Palin and the campaign about her ties to extremists, but then again, looking at the lackluster, personality-driven reporting on the 2008 election, maybe it's not that hard to believe. 

Still, it's nice that even if Schmidt and the campaign wouldn't talk to us directly about the story, they weren't willing to lie about Palin's ties to the AIP, as she requested. It's also fascinating that Palin chose to focus on the passing reference to her husband's ties to the party, when the story was about her own. With Mark Sanford and John Ensign out of the 2012 race, Palin supporters had to be hoping her star would rise. But while the 2008 GOP infighting makes everyone involved look bad, in different ways, one thing comes through clearly: Palin is both deeply uninformed, as well as arrogant about being clueless. It's a deadly combination, and her GOP enemies are likely to stop her before Democrats have to.

OK, it's official: Any sympathy I had for South Carolina's philandering Gov. Mark Sanford -- and I surprised myself by having some after his teary stream-of-consciousness confession to adultery last week -- is gone. In Sanford's latest self-indulgent soliloquy, this time to the Associated Press, he called his Argentine lover his "soul mate," confessed to more trysts with her than he admitted last week, and also blabbed about "crossing the line" with other women romantically -- but stopping short of sex.

Thanks for sharing, Mark Sanford. Now go away.

Just like former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman finally did, Sanford must eventually realize it's time to go. Not only did he deceive his staff, his state and his family about his Buenos Aires sojourn last week, now he's admitting he lied when he publicly and dramatically confessed to those earlier lies. Republicans used to insist their jihad against President Clinton over his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about his lies, not about the sex, but that was never true: It was always about politics. With Sanford, it's the reverse. The growing number of reasons for the governor to resign are in fact about his lies – and more than that, they're about Sanford's capacity to do his job – but the state GOP's failure to pressure him to leave is all about politics.

Leaving his staff and other state officials in the dark about his whereabouts last week, unable to reach him even in an emergency, was a clear breach of Sanford's duties, and that alone would seem to have been reason for impeachment, or at least for party leaders to ask him to resign. His apparent slow-motion crackup this week, unburdening himself to reporters about his midlife crisis/love affair, providing details nobody needed to know -- dancing with other women on boys' nights out and other weekend-bachelor getaways -- raises major questions about his judgment and stability.

Yet so far Republicans have been slow to pressure Sanford to resign -- and that's politics.  The only reason some of the state's GOP leaders aren't riding Sanford out on a rail is they don't want fellow Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer to succeed him. Bauer was expected to vie with other party members for Sanford's job in a GOP primary next year (Sanford will be term-limited out of office) and he'd get a leg up if he got to run as the incumbent. Attorney General Henry McMaster, one of Bauer's expected GOP primary opponents, wouldn't even agree to investigate whether Sanford used public funds to travel to see his mistress (according to the New York Times, his staff was caught Twittering that Bauer had to be prevented from becoming governor: "Cannot allow a disaster to be replaced with catastrophe," said Trey Walker, a McMaster aide.) On Tuesday came word that McMaster is now looking into the possible abuse of public funds.

If I've lost all sympathy for Sanford, I have a little bit more for his publicly humiliated wife, Jenny -- but not much. In a dramatic but feeling-free public statement last week, she agreed to try to work things out with her husband but sounded creepy Christian right themes, reminding him from Psalms 127 that "sons are a gift from the Lord" (if they had daughters, his cheating would be less abominable?) and sounding more like she was reconciling with a business partner than a lover. And perhaps she was: Sanford is a talented political operative in her own right, running her husband's campaigns. Maybe she needs to take a page from Hillary Clinton and stop subordinating her own ambition to his.

At the very least, I wish she'd stop the public scoldings. "He was told in no uncertain terms not to see her," Sanford told the AP, about her insistence her husband not visit his mistress. "We'll just see what kind of spirit of reconciliation he has." I'm not betting Sanford will be able to save either his job or his marriage -- but I really only care about his job.

To me Sanford deserves the most scorn and shame not for his affair, but for his cynical effort to reject federal stimulus funds due to his low-income, high-unemployment state. Even Republicans criticized him for grandstanding, trying to get a jump on a rumored presidential run in 2012. Just as South Carolina teenager Ty'Sheoma Bethea became the public face of the state's "Corridor of Shame," the decrepit low-income majority-black schools that generations of governors have let decline, Sanford became the face of conservative white privilege and indifference. He's hurt his party twice, first with his cruel political showboating and now with his histrionic midlife crisis. But if his stimulus rejectionism wasn't enough to ruin his career, his behavior in the last few weeks may well be.

I've resisted writing about the Sanford spectacle to date because it was tawdry and, really, I'm tired of having to talk about sex scandals in either party. Life is hard, marriage is harder, and we all need to grow up about modern love, or at least stop judging. Unfortunately, some political sex scandals are worse than others, and more newsworthy, because of the way they pull the politician's staff, family and public agenda down with him. (I really hope that when Sanford leaves the public stage, he'll take John Edwards with him.)

Still, even if adultery is a nonpartisan problem, it's hard not to notice how the worst family-values hypocrites tend to be Republicans, from Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, to Mark Foley and Larry Craig, to David Vitter, John Ensign and now Sanford. If they can't practice what they preach, maybe these Republican hypocrites should at least stop preaching. (They could at least open marriage up to gay people, since they're botching the institution so badly.) Mark Sanford destroyed his 2012 presidential chances last week, and he's putting his current job at risk every time he talks. His party should help him do the right thing, and resign. 

There's been some speculation on my whereabouts. I am not hiking the Appalachian Trail, visiting Buenos Aires, or using Dick Cheney's abandoned bunker since he's crawled out of it. And it probably looks really suspicious that I'm surfacing the same day as Gov. Mark Sanford ...

But I am, in fact, on vacation --- and my staff and family members know where I am, I promise! See you all next week.

AP/Kamran Jebreili

Iranians in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, light candles in front of the image of Neda Agha Soltani, who was reportedly shot to death during a protest in Tehran Saturday.

I haven't been able to shake the image of the Iranian martyr, 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan, dying, live, on a cellphone video in Tehran on Saturday. The way her eyes follow the camera -- follow us, the global bystanders, seeming to demand that we do something -- has haunted me ever since.

I'm not the only one: Neda is a hero worldwide, a top search term on Google, a trending topic on Twitter. I mostly agree with Kate Harding that over-identifying with Neda is silly -- we are not Neda, and mourning her isn't exactly bringing down the Iranian government -- but she's catalyzing a crucial global reaction nonetheless. Even the late news that Neda herself wasn't terribly political, just a philosophy student who loved to sing, doesn't blunt her impact. Women are banned from public singing in Iran.

Paradoxically, I want the world to stand up for Neda -- and stand with all the other Iranians, especially the Iranian women, fighting and dying for freedom this week. But I think President Obama has had nearly perfect pitch in his statements on the struggle there. Now he's holding a Tuesday press conference that most people believe will feature some new statement on Iran. We can only hope he will recast his already strong statements condemning the Iranian government's "unfair and violent" crackdown and pledging to "stand with" the Iranian protesters. Amid the din of braying Republicans, which has somehow become as big a story as the Iranian uprising itself, no one seems to be listening to Obama.

Instead, unbelievably, people seem to be listening to deranged neocons and Republican opportunists demanding Obama do more. Guys like William Kristol and Michael Ledeen, who are wrong about everything. Paul Wolfowitz, who with Kristol and Ledeen sold us the Iraq quagmire, compares Iran to the Philippines, and says we should do what we did to Ferdinand Marcos and tell him it's time to go. Is Wolfowitz really so blinkered that he doesn't remember Marcos was our ally? How do we make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Ali Khameini step down?

Congressional Republicans, though, have been the worst. Neocon grifters are paid well by think tanks and the Washington Post to be wrong; Congress members, who have to face election, should be a little bit smarter and more honest. Sen. John McCain in particular should be ashamed of himself; he really knows better. The callow Eric Cantor may in fact not know better; he's a camera hog and an opportunist. The Republicans calling Obama "weak" and "passive" have no formula for an effective U.S. reply to the protests. We have no diplomatic relationship with Iran, so we can't call home our ambassador and staff there. On "Hardball" today, GOP Rep. Mike Coffman said Obama should be demanding a "recount," as though Iran's Guardian Council would listen. Even the recount the council completed, which showed that in 50 cities there were irregularities -- more people voted than live there -- only led the Council to reaffirm the election's validity.

In Congress, Sen. Richard Lugar has been the lone informed GOP voice backing the president; we can only hope others listen. And really listen, because Obama's been saying more than he's getting credit for. In Friday night's conversation with CBS's Harry Smith, these two paragraphs didn't make it onto the broadcast -- but the White House posted the full exchange on its blog. It's a strong defense of the protesters claiming their civil rights and condemnation of state violence:

What you're seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and -- and seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. And, you know, already we've seen violence out there. I think I've said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.

And I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is -- and is not.

When that statement got ignored, the White House released this one on Saturday:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

What more is Obama expected to say? We'll find out Tuesday. Robert Gibbs gave a hint in Monday's briefing. "I think he has been moved by what we've seen on television," Gibbs said, adding that the president was particularly affected by images of women braving the crackdown "to speak out and be heard."

So expect to hear that Obama was moved, especially by the women of Iran and their bravery. I'm sure some reporter will ask Obama if he watched Neda die, and his answer will be interesting, and likely both moving and circumspect. I think Obama has said all he needs to say on this issue, and he's right about the bigger stake: The U.S. can't be seen as meddling. The Iranian story is still unfolding. Stay the course, Mr. President, stay the course. 

I'm in New York this week for meetings and it's been hard to carve out time to write. But I also confess to wanting to pause before replying to the overwhelming reaction to my clash with Bill O'Reilly last week, positive and negative.

The positive reaction to my tangling with the Fox host over his four-year crusade against the murdered Dr. George Tiller has been heartwarming: sometimes surprising (thanks, Gawker!) and sometimes more predictable (I think everyone in the crowd at the Women's Media Center awards Wednesday night had seen the encounter; I got many hugs from strangers). I was moved by the love from family members who disagree with me on abortion, but who called immediately after the show to tell me they were proud of me and loved me.

On the downside, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't horrified hearing O'Reilly say, "You have blood on your hands," given that the last person he accused of that wound up dead. My fear probably reflected a little bit of grandiosity; I don't think I'm in danger. But it was shocking to hear those words in my ear and to know they were going out to O'Reilly's huge audience.

About my own performance, I'm fairly self-critical. I didn't expect to go into a debate on late-term abortion, or the details of Dr. Tiller's practice. I was asked to discuss my reasons for criticizing O'Reilly's crusade against Tiller, and why I hoped he would turn down his rhetoric. I was sandbagged, but that's the O'Reilly game plan. I should have been prepared for anything. Confronted with the testimony of "Dr. Paul McHugh" that Tiller approved late-term abortions for frivolous reasons, I couldn't retort with the fact that McHugh is notorious for defending Catholic priests charged with sexual abuse; is a founder of the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation," which publicized the notion that frequently, memories of child sexual abuse are false; a crusader against the transgender movement and an abortion opponent. McHugh is hardly the renowned and dispassionate Johns Hopkins scholar O'Reilly depicted.

And while I gave O'Reilly credit for running the interview in full on Friday, I should have been prepared for him to hit me again Monday, when I couldn't defend myself, with selective re-editing that took out my criticism of him and made me look evasive and/or stupid. I wasn't surprised by Mary Catherine Ham playing his ally, but I was slightly saddened that Juan Williams joined the pile-on. Oh well. Live and learn.

A lot of people have asked me, Do I regret it? and Would I do it again? I don't regret it, but I wouldn't do it again. As I wrote last week, I thought it was important to accept O'Reilly's challenge since I'd criticized him on Salon and on "Hardball." I stand by that. I also thought it might advance my goal of turning down the heat on violent, demonizing, dehumanizing rhetoric that may be part of the uptick in vigilate violence we've seen, from the Pittsburgh gun nut who killed police officers in April to Dr. Tiller's murder to the Holocaust Museum shooting last week. That was probably more grandiosity on my part. I don't have enough charm, charisma or personal persuasive power to make someone like O'Reilly turn down the heat or engage in dialogue. But I'm still glad I did it, because it showed people, particularly women, that you can stand up to bullying and survive.

Almost a week later, I'm still getting a fair amount of e-mail about it. It's a great spiritual exercise to try to focus on messages like this (and there were dozens):

I have to admit going into the interview with O’Reilly Friday night that I was on his side; I don’t think you should have called him whatever it was you called him on another news channel (it seems so insignificant now after that "interview" with him!).

But … it is clear you are a sensible, thoughtful individual who believes what she says, and I think O’Reilly WAY overstepped his bounds in this "interview" that was clearly a hit-piece from his side.

I have mindlessly followed him for years, but after Friday night’s attack on you, I don't know if I will ever feel the same way again. And while I disagree with your view on late-term abortion, I APPLAUD you for not being intimidated into changing your mind to accommodate the blasts he directed to you. 

And not like this (and there were hundreds):

I Can only hope that when your children or their children are born they have an egg beater shoved into their Skull and their brains scrambled after they leave the Uterus. I heartfelt hoped it could have been you.

You can read lots of other comments like that on my Friday blog post. We had to close the thread early (after 1,386 posts) because it got so ugly. O'Reilly must be proud to have such educated and compassionate viewers.

But I'll try to make this my last word on O'Reilly for a while. My outrage is just oxygen fanning the flames of his hatred, and if it's really my goal to turn down the heat, I'll avoid talking about, thinking about and certainly watching O'Reilly for the time being.  And I'd advise others who share that goal to do the same.