Rich Lowry's note is a valuable caution, but I wouldn't go so far as to say this. There are many aspects to the amorphous "Bush Doctrine" besides preemption, including treating terrorist sponsor states as terrorists, so I don't think we can conclude automatically that she didn't know anything about it.
Lowry and the rest of his ilk inside the Beltway are policy wonks who smugly like to trot out their knowledge of the details and the nuances of foreign affairs. It really doesn't matter a tinker's damn. A President will have access to that information at his/her fingertips. The President is the CEO who must then make the decisions after reviewing the information. HST was a complete neophyte when it came to foreign affairs [he was a history buff] and assumed the Presidency without much preparation. He did a remarkable job in fashioning our foreign policy and national security infrastructure that eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union and communism. Thank God Henry Wallace was not kept by FDR as his VP.
That said...as the interview went on she caught on quick to the condescending tone trick and came out strong in the end. Of course the last part of the interview was not as widely looked at because they didn't put out the video until yesterday...
Here it is..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/sarah_palins_2020_interview.html
“The fact still remains that she very likely didn’t know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine.”
You’re making yourself look foolish there, Rich. Palin replied to that question with: “In what respect”, or something close to that. There is no precise, limited and widely understood definition of what the, or a “Bush Doctrine” is. And your acting as if there is exposes your ignorance, and puts you at odds with some very knowledgeable commentators who’ve also addressed this portion of the interview.
“Bush Doctrine” is actually a term that was used often the first year or two after 9/11, but has declined in usage significantly since.
And Lowry cannot at all say she very likely didn’t know any of the definitions for “Bush Doctrine.” Sounds like Rich wishes to denigrate Governor Palin for some reason.
I think she did beter than this writer perceived. Sure, she is not a foreign policy wonk like say, Presb Bush the elder, but she has the mental aptitude for it. She will likely ask hard questions of her advisors, should she be fortunate enough to become VP.
Political junkies and policy wonks viewed this interview one way and normal people viewed it much differently. The junkies and wonks worried about missteps or gaffes about policy and bits of minutiae. Normal people wondered about her judgment and character. Normal people are far less concerned with her ability to recite arcane details but wanted to know if she sounds smart, can maintain her composure under pressure, hold a position and remain respectful and likable.
As it turned out she did fine on the recitation of details (and the junkies were right to worry about this because had she screwed up big the leftist media would have gone into full obsessive attack mode about it). But she did very well indeed in the image/character/likability part of this and THAT is what is really crucial in all this.
We’ve elected our fair share of likable ignoramuses in the past. Gaffes are pretty much overrated and only have a real impact if they are really serious. But unlikable wonks rarely get themselves elected - witness Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore or (the epitome of the unlikable wonk) John Kerry.
In Governor Palin we have a person who is obviously intelligent and capable as well as poised and likable. It is no accident she has such huge positives in her state and is establishing these nationally.
Her actual answers were far better than the Pravda edited version released.