Lest we forget Part II: The Bush Doctrine. Palin was dealt an unfair blow in a crucial and high profile interview.

Forget the little stuff like the clothes; remember the important things. And for the what-its-worth department, I still like the woman. I had followed her for a couple of years as governor of Alaska before she got the veep nod.

And never forget this: McCain sought her out. She did not seek the spot. But oh what a disaster it was.

But on one thing she truly got a most unfair rap, and that was her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was. Hell, who did, and further, what the hell is it?

You remember the settting. Palin was having her first interview (pre-Katie you recall) with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson.

Palin seemed puzzled when Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the "Bush doctrine." I turned to my wife Sally and said "the what. What in the hell is that?" Sally knew that if I didn't have a clue what he was talking about Sarah Palin did not.

She handled it OK, replying "In what respect, Charlie?" And he kept trying to go in for the kill.

After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country.

Although the cable and network news and pundits played this over and over and the liberals were saying this indicated her thin grasp on foreign policy, as Tom Friedman would later write (later I note, not on the next day when he should have) in The New York Times: "No one really knew what it meant." Thank you Tom.

It turns out that this idea was enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document. Geez Uncle Charlie!! Get real, and in an interview in front of a national audience; at least be fair.

I like Charles Gibson and watch him most evenings after watching NBC Nightly News. But the truth of this matter is that because he is perceived by his fellow newsmen as being soft and easy on interviewee situations such as Palin -- and without question this is why the McCain campaign allowed this first interview to be with him -- he wanted to show his fellow newsmen that he could be tough and hard hitting. But being tough does not mean not being fair.

An article in The Washington Post quotes Peter D. Feaver (who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council) as saying had counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines.

And this article also quote Philip d. Zeilikow (who was actually one of the drafters of the above-noted document and later served as State Department counselor under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) as saying "I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine."

Anyway, and for the record, this first interview was most unfair, and can best be summarized by the heading of the article in The Washington Post -- Palin's Confusion in Interview Understandable, Experts Say.