From Charles Krauthammer to conservatives blogs, the growing right-wing consensus is that Charlie Gibson was just so mean and arrogant for thinking that anyone would understand the "Bush Doctrine" to be the right to pre-emptively attack any nation that might pose a threat at some point.
Their line of thinking is that the Bush Doctrine wasn't written down, so it could mean ANYTHING. It could mean, they say, the right to go into countries that harbor terrorists. It could mean, they say, not talking to leaders who don't denounce terrorism. Heck, it could mean drinking near-beer instead of alcoholic brews.
But, they maintain, only a complete simpleton would EVER fall for this so-called "trap" that Charlie Gibson set up. That only an uneducated idiot would presume that the Bush Doctrine is understood to mean the right to pre-emptive attack. So, in that sense, they argue, Sarah Palin showed an amazing grasp at the intricacies of our foreign and military policy with her meandering and stumbling as she tried to find an answer.
Because, they say, only an idiot when asked what the Bush Doctrine is, would say....
So, seriously, if conservatives want to make this argument - that John McCain is less worldly and understanding of recent history than Sarah Palin, well, hey, let them keep making it. I'm not sure how this helps their candidate, but I would suppose most Democrats would be thrilled that they want to make this argument:
McCain: Less Ready Than Sarah Palin.