Mr. Gibson, who sat back in his chair, impatiently wriggling his foot, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee but doesn’t believe she merits admission.

Image Charles Gibson of ABC interviewed Gov. Sarah Palin in Alaska. The first part aired Thursday on World News. Credit... Donna Svennevik/ABC

When he asked her, slowly and solemnly to “look the country in the eye” and say whether she truly felt qualified to be vice president and possibly commander in chief, Mr. Gibson seemed to expect Ms. Palin to express at least a moment of humility and self-doubt. Ms. Palin said she had no doubts when asked to be Senator John McCain’s running mate. (“I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.”) Mr. Gibson suggested that her brash, unwavering confidence sounded like “hubris.”

That first portion of ABC’s three-part interview, broadcast on “World News,” was meaty, touching on Iraq, Israel and Russia and her Christian faith, but it is unlikely to end the debate about her qualifications or the Republican complaints about news media bias and sexism. Mostly, it supplied all sides with fresh material.

It was the first real test of Ms. Palin’s ability to handle questions about foreign and domestic policy, but almost as much of a challenge for Mr. Gibson. The McCain campaign chose him for the interview partly because he is seen as courteous, mild-mannered and unlikely to play “gotcha” with such an important “get.”

His was a tricky course to navigate. If Mr. Gibson were too soft, Democrats would accuse him of being afraid of the Republican news-media-bashing machine, which has been scouring the press and Senator Barack Obama’s speeches for any hint of sexism or elitism. If his questions were too tough, he would be very likely to stir up charges of sexism or elitism. While his questions were trenchant, they were fair game; he was careful in the first day of interviews not to ask anything too frivolous (there were no questions about lipstick, pigs or juggling family and career). But his attitude was at times supercilious: He asked if a nuclear Iran posed an “existential threat” to Israel, as if it were the land of Sartre, not Sabras.