The WashPost's Chris Cillizza recently toasted Sarah Palin's ability to speak in soundbites, and noted that successful presidents in the past, such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, were able to chisel their political philosphies into pithy phrases. It's all true, and there's no denying that soundbites are part of modern day American politics.

And yes, Cillizza stresses that Palin has a gift for the craft. She's “mastered the art”:

Palin grasps that concept intuitively and has spent much of the past year -- via Facebook -- dropping all sorts of soundbite hits on an Obama Administration that has repeatedly tried to explain their own policy proposals with a nuance and subtlety lost on many Americans.

But then Cillizza (to his credit) notes that Palin isn't actually that popular. (Her polling numbers continue to be a disaster.) So doesn't that pretty much kick the legs out of his argument that Palin's scoring points via soundbites? Meaning, if the soundbite strategy actually worked, wouldn't Palin be popular and respected? But she's not, which suggests her soundbite strategy is a failure.

So why is Cillizza toasting it as being “extremely effective”?

UPDATED: Cillizza's opening leaves me scratching my head:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as mastered the art of the political soundbite and has used it to devastating -- and some would say irresponsible -- effect since emerging on the political scene in the fall of 2008.

But what has Palin done “since emerging on the political scene in the fall of 2008”? She was part of a GOP ticket that lost in an electoral landslide. She walked away from her job as governor, and is now viewed by most Americans as being wholly unqualified to lead the nation.

Bu other than that, I suppose her soundbite strategy has worked wonders.