I've seen a lot of defenses of Sarah Palin's botched response to Charles Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine. (Her response in a nutshell: "Doctorin'?! Is he sick?! Yeeeeeee-haw!!!!")
The defense of choice seems to be: there really is no one definition for "Bush Doctrine," but in fact many, so it's no wonder she was confused. Ehhrrrm, not quite. Palin's response appeared to indicate that she's never even heard the term. Basically anything you could think of would have been a better response:
1.) She could have said "which Doctrine" for the win.
2.) Based on what I've been reading, she could have guessed almost any aspect of Bush's foreign policy and been correct -- "Oh, you mean Bush's belief that democracy will spread in the MIddle East? Well I think..."
3.) How about a general statement that doesn't pull punches (and thus throws Gibson off): "I'd like to say I agree with the Bush Doctrine, Charlie, but look where it's gotten us."
Instead, she looked like a deer in the headlights of a helicopter full of hunters who are totally allowed to shoot her in the abdomen.
Ug. I think i'm the only one who thinks this
1. does not matter at all
2. has no bearing on her quality as VP
3. bush doctrine is a made up phrase that gives him false credit and
4. actually is the sort of pointless sniping the Republicans have been accusing the Dems of since Palin was announced.
Let's all go back to reminding everyone about the dozens of actual horrific problems with her, eh? (no, this is not just because I have/had no idea what it was last week either.)
I'm not saying that it's RIGHT that her flub is making waves. I'm saying that it's not the content that screwed her, it's the fumbled delivery. I'm just watching this one from the sidelines, but like a coach whose team just got an unfairly favorable call from the refs, I'm mixing my metaphors with perverted glee.
ufgodtmnhyumgpqfsktllzvuirmixp