Not surprisingly Sarah Palin has been heavily criticized in the blogosphere. That includes ID blog Telic Thoughts where some have been very aggressive. Charles Krauthammer wrote Charlie Gibson's Gaffe.
The whole article is linked to but I particularly liked the way he concluded. Krauthammer:
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
Unlike scientific doctrines political doctrines are intrinsically difficult to define, as Krauthammer suggests. That in turn indicates that questions about political doctrines contain an inevitable amount of imprecision, sometimes leading to lack of clarity.
Snobbery and intellectual condescension come through loud and clear in the daily attacks against Palin. Unfortunately, Gibson is merely one of many offenders. But the labels her critics try to pin on her will not stick. In fact, I think they will backfire and show Palin's accusers to be what many of them actually are- hostile, condescending snobs.