thebatter wrote:
Kay wouldn't pretend to know what Charlie was asking about either. Anyone who is honest knows it's too complex to answer the question "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine" without clarifying "which part" or "in what regard". Exactly what Palin did. He had to tell her which part he wanted to discuss (which of his interpretations he was going with that day, since he's even had different ones himself). You're assuming Kay is stupid. She isn't. If Palin were even smarter she would have asked Gibson which of his own interpretations he wanted to dicuss.

The problem wasn't her answer. The problem is with the people who don't understand the complexity of the Doctrine pretending that they know why she said what she did, and attacking her for it.
No, I'm assuming Kay is better informed. When Gibson mentioned the Bush Doctrine, I thought of Bush policies for countries harboring terrorists and the right of preemptive strikes. That's the extent of my knowledge of the Bush Doctrine. Only foreign policy experts, politicians, historians and policy nerds would be able to elaborate. The "complexity" of the Doctrine is news to me. You're right that Palin should have asked Gibson what he meant, instead of giving an answer that certainly seems to indicate that she didn't have a clue. She could have said it a thousand different ways that would have shown she understood the question.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the Republicans would have been saying the same things we are, if Palin were the Dem. VP candidate.


The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell