(Originally posted at 12:03 AM. Moved up for visibility.)

In appraising Thursday's vice presidential debate, let's first point out where the candidates were on equal footing.  They are both charismatic and genuinely appealing personalities, in my opinion, and those qualities shown through during the event.  The energy on stage was definitely in contrast to the tone of the first Obama-McCain debate.  It's not hard to see why voters who are voting on likability alone would be attracted to either Joe Biden or Sarah Palin. 

Where Biden really proved himself to be a cut above was in his dexterity.  Some of his best moments came when he pivoted off things Palin said, particularly in the latter half of the debate.  The "maverick" rebuttal was the best example of this.  Also, his response to her words on Iraq -- "I didn't hear a plan," he said -- was really sharp.

On the flip side, Palin's initial answers to each new round of questioning were solid from the get-go.  She was clearly well-prepared and I imagine that immediately put many on the right at ease. (Part of me was also relieved to see her in command tonight.  Her stumbling in the CBS interviews was so uncomfortable to watch, I couldn't imagine sitting through an hour-and-a-half of it.)

That being said, she seemed hesitant to take on Biden's specific statements, instead steering the discussion back to broad talking points.  When she did attempt to respond directly, she ran into trouble.  For instance, I was genuinely surprised when she came back at him regarding the U.S. commander in Afghanistan's comments regarding the efficacy of an Iraq-style surge in the country.  Her response was assured and seemed to knock Biden back a bit.  But now we learn that the expression on his face may have simply been one of confusion: it turns out she not only got the general's name wrong, but also her contention that Biden was somehow misrepresenting what McKiernan said doesn't appear to be a particularly valid one. 

While her handle on all the issues may be broader now than it was five weeks ago, it still appears shallow.  She can give a good answer to expected questions.  But when it comes time to get into a discussion, a real back-and forth, she doesn't proceed confidently.  The perception that her knowledge lacks depth came through -- painfully -- in the Couric interview.  I don't think tonight's performance did anything to dispel it.  And my guess is polls won't move much as a result.

Greg Sargent also makes a good point.  Biden was simply more forceful and convincing in making arguments against McCain.  He writes: "Even on those issues where Palin did score with base-pleasing hits on Obama or Biden, the unshakable reality underlying all this is that public opinion agrees with the Obama-Biden view on the core questions discussed tonight."  Palin repeatedly went after Obama with claims (not all of them accurate) about his particular positions on taxes, Iraq, health care, and so on, but never managed to wrap those into a broader theme. 

By contrast, Biden not only had a handle on the specifics, he was also able to paint a broader picture.  Again, dexterity. 

To conclude, here's an example in which Biden responds to Palin's assertion that the Democratic ticket is "constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game."

Look, past is prologue, Gwen. The issue is, how different is John McCain's policy going to be than George Bush's? I haven't heard anything yet.

I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush's.

It may be. But so far, it is the same as George Bush's. And you know where that policy has taken us.