In that frame, both Biden and Palin were professional actors, albeit of two very different kinds. Biden was like a Shakespearean actor capable of handling multiple roles and appealing to different kinds of audience. Palin, on the other hand, was like a porn star or a professional wrestler - who can play only one role that appeals to only one kind of audience. Both played their respective roles rather well, but what set them apart was a range of roles they can play well. Biden has depth and breadth enabling him to play many roles for different audiences. Palin is one-dimensional, capable of playing only one role over and over again to one kind of of not very sophisticated audience.
Biden showed a strong perfomance in playing the role of an experiences and thoughful statesman - which appeals to educated and cultured audiences, and an equally stroong perfomance in playing the role of the tribune of the "common man" - which appeals to less educated and culturd audiences. Palin, otoh, showed a strong perfomance - of a kind - playing one role only - that of the tribune of the "common man" - and either did not attempt to play the role of a statesman, but looked pathetically weak, shallow and unconvincing on a few occassions when she attempted to play that role. What is more, her acting style was characteristic of that found among porn stars and professional wrestlers - exaggeratedly intense and literal (or hyper-real as Umberto Eco would say,) always loud and "forte," devoid of subtleties and understatements. Even when she attemped understatements she does it with the grace and subtlety of a professional wrestler.
(PS. I find that acting style, complete with her saccharin smile and idiotic winking her left eye when she tries to "connect" to the common man, fake, annoying and unconvincing - but then I am not a "common man of Amerika" but rather "Eastern elite" and proud of it.)
Since people who frequent professional wrestling and porn joints typically do not frequent Shakespearean plays - Palin's perfomance was adequate to the role she was assigned - to mobilize the "common man" who loves his country but cannot pay his bills. It would be utterly wrong to think (as the Nation seems to suggest) that her appeal is mainly among fundie x-tians. She appeals - or rather intends to appeal- to the "common man" of rural and small town America, whose mind may be a mish-mash of faux on-my-sleeve religiosity, rah-rah-rah patriotism, and cocky smart alec individualism, sprinkled with bigotry, xenophobia, and resentment of "New York and Washington elites" - that form a much larger set of people than x-tian fundies.
It remains to be seen how successful her appeal to the "common man" of Amerika is. However, a far more interesting observation is that this kind of appeal is not limited to the US, and can be observed, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent - in Europe and, I suppose, in non-European societies. This brings us to the question that James Heartfield once asked on this list - why can't the Left appeal to the "common man" and bring him to their side.
My answer to this question is that the Right mastered playing the populist card and stands head-and-shoulders above the Left in that capacity, so the Left does not stand a chance playing it. It is not asmuch a result of the purported "weakness" of the Left (insuffcient "organizing" effort etc.) but rather the fact that the playing field is not exactly level. The Right faces a huge advantage here, because populism by its very nature is more reactionary than progressive, as the "common man" demands the extension of elite privileges to himself, but he his quite unwilling to grant them to those whom he perceives as standing below him. To demonstrate that one needs to look no further than blue collar / redneck racism in this country.
The "old Left" of Europe understood that quite well, it dubbed it "false consciousness" and dealt with it by embracing vanguard party politics. However, I do not think this solution stands a chance today. A better way is to separate popularity contests and politics. Parliamentary systems of Europe that combine the proportional representation principle with indirect vote (i.e. through political parties) for the government (prime minister and cabinet) may be one example.
The bottom line is, however, that the US Right has mastered the art of manipulating populism, and it is going to play that card to its advantage in the foreseable future. They do not need mobilize huge masses that way - only enough people to get 50% + 1 vote. Their opponents - progressives, liberals, and Democrats in general - must either play the same game or kiss goodbye to their chances of seeing the inside of the White House and other halls of power in this country. This is why Amerikan politics looks like putting lipstick on the pig of populism (which tends to be reactionary,) and it will likely be that way in the foreseable future, economic misfortunes notwithstanding.
Wojtek
--------------------------------------------------------------- "When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost. [...] All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men." - HL Mencken ----------------------------------------------------------------