It seems pretty clear the Left will be going after her for asking for a clarification of the term, "Bush Doctrine." For my part, I don't think it's out of bounds to ask for a clarification on a very broad question about a very broad concept. The "Bush Doctrine" is defined by Wikipedia (a decent source for the CW on a given political term, which is almost certainly weighted in the Left's favor if anything) in no fewer than four different ways. ABC's own archives also show quite the variety of definitions.

The headlines about her interview, however, are pretty kind, particularly in swing states.

NYT: In first big interview, Palin says 'I'm ready for the job.'

Chicago Tribune: Palin: War possible if Russia invades again

Guardian: Sarah Palin shows hawkish streak in first interview

Telegraph: Palin interview: Pundits give mixed reviews

Cincinnati Enquirer: Palin returning to Cincinnati (no mention of the actual interview)

Akron Beacon Journal: Hey, why didn't anyone ask Barack Obama these questions?

Denver Post: Palin took VP slot on the spot

Rocky Mountain News: Palin defends her qualifications, says she's 'ready'

Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: Palin leaves war option with Russia open

Jacksonville Times-Union (which has a conservative editorial page, but was harshest in its headline): Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview

A notable exception is the Washington Post headline, which Bill Kristol has already helpfully debunked.