[ajwharton]

He's right on, and I am willing to bet that Sarah herself agrees.

[Cicero]

OK, now let’s have Charlie grill Obama the say way he did Palin.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

Yes, but I doubt she got up and cursed to her aides. She just doesn’t seem like that kind of person.

I am pretty certain that she is a better person than I am.

[j_k_l]

Put all three of the other candidates under the same grilling and let's then we can judge who is ready to lead.

The fact that she is the only one being put on the spot like this is really telling.

[time4good]

My only hope, demand, scream is that someone OTHER than Newsbusters would put out the analysis of how deceitfully Gibson & Co. left out her valid and good answers on different topics. Hannity, given your volume, if you’re lurking, speak up on this on your shows on Monday. It’d be too much to ask for BO’R to do it.

[tips up]

Why is it that as a governor, she should have a deep knowledge and experience in foreign policy? Do US governors conduct foreign policy?

Were these issues with former governors who ran successfully for the presidency (not the VP slot) such as Reagan, Carter, Bush and Clinton? Deploying the national guard is hardly foreign policy experience.

And what foreign policy experience does Obama have? Other than his messiah tour over the summer, what interactions of substance has he had with other countries or leaders?

[aft_lizard]

You should have kept the title Rich Lowry used.

[rvoitier]

She somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question.

Lowry apparently hasn't read the Krauthammer piece.

[BigBobber]

McCain didn't pick Palin for her foreign policy expertise. He picked her to help shake things up and trim the budget in DC, and for her expertise in domestic energy matters. We all know it will take her a few months to get up to speed on foreign affairs.

Lowry didn't see the 20/20 segments where she was in her comfort zone. She was very, very impressive and showed amazing recall and understanding of the issues in her state. She will be well prepared by the time she debates Plugs. She will be well prepared by Jan. 20 for any issue, foreign or domestic.

[y6162]

“..the incredible scorn directed at her by Charlie Gibson.”

Charlie looked real bad. I hope he pays for his arrogance.

[G.Mason]

Lowry is off base.

" ... She somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question. Gibson apparently didn't want to go into full "gotcha" territory by asking flat-out if she knew what it is ..."

Just on this statement alone ... most readers have already learned how skewed that interview was, and the rest of concerned voters will know full well by next week.

Americans aren't looking for a godess, simply an honest, intelligent, family oriented American.

We've got one in Sarah Palin.

[Sloth]

Did Bill Clinton receive questioning like this on foreign policy in 1992?

< /rhetorical >

[MindBender26]

He is very wrong.

She did do much better, and ABC edited it out. Suggest review of the posts regarding what ABC edited out.

Also strongly suggest reading the WaPo Krauthammer piece on the Bush Doctrine (Dr. Krauthammer is the man who first used the phrase “Bush Doctrine,”)

[Dawn531]

Hey, it’s not proper around these parts to change titles.

“She Did Fine, but...” is the title at NRO site.

[Canedawg]

We all want to see our favorite player hit a home run every time they get up to bat. it doesnt always happen that way. She got a base hit and got on base safely during this at-bat, and I expect it will make her a better hitter the next time she has to face someone who is throwing spitballs, curve balls and high hard ones.

BTW here is a good read on the recent Invasion of Wasilla

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/524695.html

[nathanbedford]

We must understand that Palin's appeal is essentially moral and only secondarily political.

Sarah Palin and her baby are living reproaches Barak Obama. Her very being exposes Obama for the mountebank he is. She is the real deal and so transparent that people instantly recognize her to be authentic. He is a sham and her very presence utterly diminishes him on a moral scale. More, are our moral power illuminates the moral power of John McCain. This the left does not understand.

Applying this understanding to the Charlie Gibson interview, Sarah was not harmed at all because there was nothing which fundamentally undermined America's judgment that she is authentic and morally true. It does not matter if Sarah Palin is unsure about the Bush Doctrine-so is most of America-that is not the dimension which bonds her to the people. They want to know that her heart is right and that her mind is clear. They know that no one can foresee the challenges the country will face. They are not putting a fact checker one heartbeat away from the presidency. They are putting a human being with a soul in office. They want someone whose character they can trust, because they know that it is character alone that counts when the phone rings at 3 a.m.

Consider that in the context of Obama's remarks about putting lipstick on a pig. The public knows what he was up to and they don't like it. But worse, it scares them because it betrays something about Obama's character which has ominous shadings at 3 a.m.

[EyeGuy]

I really don’t care about “how she did” under the punk Gibson’s loaded and hostile, pop quiz inquisition. I care less about the continuing media judgment of her performance. I do care a BIT more about her BASIC knowledge of foreign affairs.

I am much more concerned with her basic character (exemplary) and her fundamental life outlook (conservative). These are supremely more important as an indication of how she will handle diplomatic issues and relations with other countries, as opposed to defining what the media-created “Bush-doctrine” is, or the names of the Georgian diplomatic corps.

[ozarkgirl]

I disagree. Not everyone knows everything about everything. She and McCain complement each other perfectly, he knows Washington DC (gag me) and will be very good at foreign policy. She knows how to govern, how to budget, how to go after corruption. A perfect team. Also, she’s a quick study I’m sure. They’ve probably been bringing her up to date on foreign policy issues. Good grief, she’s only had a short period of time and look at all the other Governor’s who’ve become President. No, they don’t have alot of foreign policy experience.

My boss is a people person (wants to talk all the time), I’m a paper person (I want to get things done). We make a great team because we complement one another. We each do pretty well in the other’s area but have come to rely on our strengths. I feel the same with a McCain/Palin ticket. Gibson went after her on foreign policy because he knows that would be her weak point. She is strong and capable and will learn. I do not believe she didn’t make a strong showing. The only problem would be if he died suddenly after getting elected. And again, she’s a smart cookie, she would rely on advisors until she was totally up to speed. Oh, and that’s another thing about women. According to studies, they tend to rule by listening to others, men tend to rule by doing what they think is right. Sorry guys, you’re not always right, it pays to listen to others.

All in all, a perfect team. Young vs. Old. Female vs. Male. DC savvy vs. unjaded. The complement to each other is perfect. And good grief, maybe she can convince him to take on some conservative ideals.

[ccmay]

The fact still remains that she very likely didn't know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine.

I guess this is possible, in the sense of linking the description with the actual policy. But how many times have any of us read the words "Bush Doctrine" in print? I read voraciously on topics of national security and politics, and I suspect it's been three or four years since I've seen that. It is not part of the historical consciousness of the country the way the Monroe and Truman doctrines are, and quite likely it never will be.

She of course knows the essence of the policy full well. If someone asked me what the Bush Doctrine was, I'd say "Smashing terrorists wherever we can find them," which is basically what Sarah said. But I guess that would not be nuanced enough for the Beltway chin-tuggers who want their candidates to engage in mental masturbation about the seven different competing versions of the doctrine.

It is not realistic to expect her, or any Governor, to have the same grasp of foreign policy minutiae as a Washington insider, just as it is not realistic to expect a lifelong Washington legislator to have any real grasp of the executive talents necessary to live within a budget and get stuff accomplished domestically.

John McCain did not want or need someone who was a foreign-policy wonk. He can hire all of those he needs. He needed someone with folksy common sense, demonstrated executive accomplishments, and a taste for rooting out corruption. Sarah has all that in spades.

We can be confident that she has enough native intelligence, and more than sufficient drive and horse sense, to learn everything necessary for stepping into the Presidency within a few months after taking office. I agree with those who say this ambush has probably caused her to redouble her efforts to catch up on the foreign policy front, and have no doubt that this will continue all through her Vice-Presidency.

So-- by all means, we can hope and expect that Sarah will sharpen up a little on this topic, but we should certainly not feel discouraged or embarrassed. This race is not in the bag but it is clearly breaking our way, and the heavy artillery like Bill Ayers, the Annenberg Challenge, and Rev. Wright has not yet been deployed.

-ccm

[Melchior]

It is dangerous to write a column without acessing all the interview that was edited out by ABC. If the whole interview is read (see Mark Levin’s website), Palin sounds even more reasonable, intelligent, and foreign policy literate.

[omni-scientist]

I don’t know that there is in fact a “Bush Doctrine”. Can anyone point to an official document, or a complete recorded statement of the Bush doctrine that the Bush administration would approve of?

If not, then it is open to interpretation, and it would be wise not to give a direct answer to something that is undefined or has different meanings to different observers.