Sarah Palin, as often, sent ambivalent signals in her interview on Fox News last night.
The clip that everyone is buzzing about last night and this morning as a sign that she's leaning against a run:
"I'm going to keep repeating though, Greta, through my process of decision-making with my family and with my close friends as to whether I should throw my name in the hat for the GOP nomination for 2012: Is a title worth it?
Does a title shackle a person? Are they -- someone like me, maverick, you know, I do go rogue, and I call it like I see it, and I don't mind stirring it up.... is a title and is a campaign too shackling? Does that prohibit me from being out there, out of the box, not allowing handlers to shape me?"
I say "ambivalent signals" because, as I posted earlier, her stump monologue for Herm Cain sounded suspiciously similar to one she'd make for herself.
The counter is that she was indicating that she might endorse him.
But, in the past, she's said that she'll only support someone who's both a constitutional conservative (check for Herm Cain) and electable (no check for Herm Cain).
Palin, last November.
"I'm certainly going to take a good lay-of-the-land look, and see if there are others out there, who are electable, who are willing to make the tough decisions, won't care what the heck the media says about them, but will do the right things and shrink the government so the private sector can thrive.
If there are others out there, willing to do that and make the sacrifices, then I'll support them. If there's nobody else, I would do it."