Score One For Joe Biden

What a great performance from Joe Biden last night! He managed to steer a comfortable, authoritative course between bullying and deference to his opponent's gender: he did neither. He was courteous and gracious as well as exceedingly well-informed and firm in his rejection of her relentless attacks. What surprised me about Palin was that very relentlessness. Trouble was, her words rang hollow, and came across as attack for attack's sake. With her constant reiteration of rote talking points and her failure to respond to the majority of questions that were put to her, she was unable to project any real grasp of the issues or any independence or flexibility of thought. The gratingly aggressive quality of her tone of voice and her frankly fatuous smile did nothing to redeem what I thought was an empty performance.

I have to say that I was disappointed in Gwen Ifill. I do like her so much as the host of her weekly political magazine, but in this circumstance she seemed so attached to her program of questions that she failed to follow through with anything like persistence. In particular, she too often tolerated the complete avoidance of her questions in favor of obviously prepared pieces of stump speech and sound bites. She should, in my opinion, have taken the time to insist that her question be directly addressed, and to have pointed out when it was not. The problem with the "debate" was that it was never really a debate, but rather a platform for political propaganda.

I reread some of my comments from yesterday's entry, and found that I was not far off-base in my expectation that Palin would be projecting a lot of "masculine" energy. While she returned repeatedly, at least in her rhetoric, to that "hockey mom" role that has proved so successful, the pit bull in lipstick image fit her last night's performance a lot more accurately. Unfortunately--or fortunately, depending on your view--her bark lacked bite. For substance, Biden came off so far superior that there was really no contest.

(Interestingly, in this context, my friend Carly just emailed me this horoscope for Palin:

As for Sarah Palin [...], her chart data seems pretty definitive and despite being a Uranian-ruled Aquarian, she has not only the Sun -- and this is crucial -- she also has Mars and Saturn all conjunct each other in that sign. This is indeed a maverick chart, but of a very ambitious, assertive, repressive, tough-minded, hard-headed sort, and very conservative too in a knee-jerk kind of way, while also being admirably disciplined, disciplining and intransigently stubborn. There is a very masculine spirit denoted with her powerful Mars. It is also a very self-protective chart. Children figure hugely in her chart and can be a problematic factor and also a large and humbling learning curve for her. Aquarius can be ruthless, detached and unwavering in its revolutionary convictions, whether left or right. She has a Libra ascendant, which is attractive and Venusian, but indicates an iron fist in a velvet glove. With Venus and Jupiter in Aries, there is also great confidence and a very "don’t mess with me" ambience denoted. Neptune in her second house of money squares the conjunction natally, giving a populist glamour and also indicating much lack of clarity over financial issues. Currently, Neptune has moved to directly conjunct her three conjoined Aquarian planets in her chart (a once every 165 year phenomenon), bringing extra glamour, fantasy and a desire for heroics. It is in fact the seeming "fairy tale." However, some inevitable disillusionments are part of the outcome. It also brings a strong likelihood of revelations, probably about finances, coming out of the woodwork, thick and fast. All is certainly not as it seems. This is not typically a chart of a national leader, but of a person not to be crossed and certainly wishing to make a stance and her mark, but in reality this power looks as if it belongs in a more parochial context.

Well, yes! Thanks, Carly.)