Since we’re back on the Palin interview, I’d like to chime in one last time. I basically agree with the three Rs (Rich, Ross and Rod) that her interview performance was disappointing in parts and as I said initially after the first foreign policy snippet on Thursday, there’s lots of room for improvement. For those, including me, with very high hopes for Palin it was probably foolish to expect Palin to come across perfectly polished on foreign policy in her first interview. As Bill Rusher likes to say, politicians will always disappoint you.

But a few points need to be made.

First, if the extended interview had been edited differently and aired in different order, the impact would be very, very different. ABC ran with her weakest performance on her weakest area (foreign policy) in what was a very high stakes first interview. It was for many the equivalent of a first impression (though technically, that first impression was made — successfully — a couple weeks ago).

Second, while she absolutely needs to talk about these things with more fluency, the talking and fluency are not synonymous terms. Foreign policy talk isn’t necessarily a code, but it is a sort of lingo all its own. That Sarah Palin doesn’t have the lingo down is kind of obvious, but what that fact actually says about her grasp of the basic concepts and principles is still unknown.

What is clear, however, is that the ability to talk like a State Department cookie-pusher is not a great political asset (just ask John Kerry) nor is it a sign that you’re automatically right on the issues (Just review John Kerry’s, Joe Biden’s, Bill Clinton’s, or Jimmy Carter’s records). Warren Christopher talks like he’s being simultaneously translated from the French, but I would rather have Phil Graham, invoking Dickie Flats and all that, setting our foreign policy objectives.

I don’t want to be read as saying that an inability to speak diplomatese is a good thing in and of itself. I’ve generally disliked the argument on the right in Bush’s behalf that a general inarticulateness should be celebrated simply because it passes for “speaking American.” Good communication skills are very important for politicians and, particularly for conservatives, who have to be able to explain why so much liberal conventional wisdom is wrong.

Where Palin figures into this remains to be seen. My own gut, plus what I’ve seen and heard from Palin, suggests that she actually will be an effective communicator of foreign policy even if she never completely masters the lingo. But only time will tell.