Sarah Palin in January 2009

Sarah Palin is back with a new interview.

The issue looms as to whether she could be a viable presidential candidate in 2012. I have expressed some admiration for her in the past. After several weeks of further reflection, here is what I think:

The big issue with Sarah Palin is that she's really "folksy." Folksiness is a 2-edged sword: her populist appeal gives her star power, but while folksiness doesn't necessarily imply lack of intelligence, it can suggest it depending on the person's overall record.

Her record is actually very good. But it's as if Andy Griffith were running for president. Andy would have been considered the "cream of Mayberry." But would he have been too "folksy" for the presidency?

The answer is not necessarily "yes." Same with Sarah.

Interview II

I remarked before that I was somewhat disappointed at Sarah Palin's performance in the Charles Gibson interview. During the day, while I was trying to get some Actual Work done, it nagged at me that I should not have left Gibson's (and ABC's) performance go unremarked.

Of course, Vladimir Putin won't treat Sarah with kid gloves, so I think I was correct in emphasizing her performance. However, I should point out the following:

The editing by ABC was so amateurish that I thought I was watching a "What's Up, Tiger Lily"-style asian martial arts movie. Shame on ABC.

But most important, Charlie Gibson, or perhaps the punk-intern who wrote his questions for him, truncated Palin's prayer before a group at the Wasilla Assembly of God church to make it sound like Sarah was calling upon the Almighty to sanction some sort of Christian version of jihad. As the context makes clear, she asked that God help them all act in conformity with His will. Gibson left out a crucial clause, and then said he was quoting her exact words, rendering her prayer as the aforesaid call to jihad. This makes Gibson either a knave or a fool (for not checking the context himself), and henceforth to hell with him in my book.