Not to belabor this, but I want to return to the Palin interview and the Bush doctrine question, since there’s been so much bunk on this. Asked about the Bush doctrine, Palin shifted uncomfortably in her seat and stalled by asking “In what respect?” and then, “His worldview?” She didn’t say, “Oh, you mean unilateralism?” Or, “Are you referring to pre-emption?” Or, “You must mean democratization?” No, she said, “His worldview?” She then launched into the vaguest description of Bush’s fight against Islamic extremism that couldn’t reasonably be considered a description of any of the possible Bush doctrines. Only when cued by Gibson did she talk about pre-emption. So it’s pretty clear she had no familiarity with the Bush doctrine(s) whatsoever. Even Krauthammer–in a heck of a “to be sure” line–admits as much in his column attacking Charlie Gibson. The debate about how many versions of the Bush doctrine there are is serving as fog to distract attention from the fact that, on any reasonable reading, Palin didn’t know. I don’t see why we all have to be so resistant to admitting this. Let me try to demonstrate: She is totally new to these issues and has a lot of learning to do. There. Is that so hard?