What's going on is what I brought up rather frequently a few monthts back--there's no there there.

Of course, my parents back in 1960 supported Humphrey over Kennedy for the same reason.  And they were right.  Sometimes it's enough to have a charismatic figure whom people can read their own content into.

Provided they organize like hell on their own.

well, he ain't Dean, but is that necessaruly bad?

Yeah, I would agree that if Obama's going to show up at various interest-group settings, he really should come prepared to talk about the issues.

Which, in my opinion, is the big hurdle that Obama faces: I think he is quite possibly the best general election candidate we have in the primary right now. But he's got to make it through the primaries first.

Hillary Clinton had a health care plan for 14 years.   14 years a failure.  Clinton was in office for 8 years and no universal healthcare.  John Edwards promised to raise taxes for his healthcare plan, Great way to get elected......hahaha!

Obama did not PANDER to the crowd, unlike the rest of the field.  Of course he has a healthcare plan, he will unveil it when he is ready.

This IS a long campaign, and like a lot of campaigns in the past, the person you see at the start is not often the person you see at the end. Soon enough he does have to start figuring this stuff out, because he can't afford to have too many appearances where the attendees really felt let down or disappointed after his speech.

Most definitely he'll start to make real progress once his campaign really kicks off, and he gets his policy proposals in order to present to the masses. Unfortunately for him, he just wasn't as prepared to campaign this early when compared to Clinton and Edwards especially, who have their message down pat.

That'll be the key...if Obama can step it up, he'll be right there at the end. If not, he'll prove his critics right. We have some time before we start seeing which way.

I'm rather encouraged though because the guy is pretty smart, and giving speeches that bombed followed by a speech from Clinton that rocked will not sit well with him. Look for him to show how competitive he really is.

I think part of this is that Barack Obama is, in so many ways, atypical candidate.  He gets attacked for "not standing for anything" but it's very telling that he's willing to show up at events like the DNC and the firefighters and not pander.  Clinton knows what those audiences want to hear and crafts her message to them.  Obama knows what he believes and will share it with every audience.

Very constructive conversation...I'm liking.

I don't think Jerome's point was that Obama doesn't pander.

I think his point is that for all the hype about the Obama candidacy, there isn't a lot of meat there.  The candidacy is an idea.  And when he gets an opporunity to present specifics, he doesn't.  He didn't have to lay his health care policy all out, but why on earth would you go to a forum on health care and NOT talk about your plans?

Instead you talk about "a new kind of politics."  Pandering is telling people something they want to hear when you don't believe it yourself.  Being prepared to talk about the subject you were invited to discuss is something else.  By that metric, Obama failed.

At the DNC winter rally, I too remember how... boring his speech was.  It was cooly received by the crowd and his campaign didn't do the right amount of advance planning.  I felt like I was in lecture.

I remember your early comment after the DNC Winter Meeting that Obama was underwhelming -- and (gasp!) didn't arrive with a bunch of stickers, etc.  This despite much coverage elsewhere that Obama blew the room away with his un-stereotypical approach to the event (i.e. Feldman's account on Kos -- and many others) that apparently didn't alter your assessment of his performance that day.

The point being that there are plenty of people who find his fairly consistent lack of typical politician-like behavior refreshing.

The appeal of Obama is subjective. But, apparently not so uncommon that he can't draw huge crowds around the country.

So, when I read that x person said that Obama was underwhelming in front of x event, I can't help but think a similar dynamic to the DNC speech is at play.

And, for whatever reason, people seem to enjoy the role of suggesting that Obama's not absolutely 100% perfect -- at a level that far outstrips similar posts on other candidates (except for Clinton, of course, but that's a given in netroots circles). And often prototyping what will likely be RNC spin should Obama win the nomination.

After the ~300th post/article that suggests the shine is off of Obama, I wonder what the likelihood is of reading a front page post here about the widely held feeling by many Democrats that Edwards comes across as a lightweight cheesy used car salesman. Or the likelihood that even mentioning the sizable anti-Edwards sentiment wouldn't get you branded as an RNC troll.

So, I think there is something going on here.

But, I tend to think it has more to do with the subjective leanings of some observers than any failings in Obama's political abilities.

  That's disappointing to hear.  I've been waffling between Obama and Edwards these last few months.  I think I'll vote for the one that is closest to (or leading) Hillary, since I may actually have an important primary vote.

It seems to me that this post is about Obama not capturing the moment and not so much about pandering.  Those at the conference wanted to hear about Obama's health plan that day, not tomorrow or sometime within the next ten months.  When the conference participants think of health care, they are going to think of what they heard when they saw the candidates in person and could ask questions. If the participants at the conference left saying that Obama said he would tell us about his plan later, that's not good.  

I agree for the most part, Obama hasn't really addressed anything, and his Liebermanesque call for more bipartisanship is somewhat tired.  

Uh you have a bi-racial candidate and you think there would be substance?

Does anyone talk about Tiger Woods' actually game on golf. No it's about the "damn there's a black (and Thai) guy playing the whitest of white sports".

Moreover, this is exactly like what happened in '99 with Bush. The big money didn't want to have the candidate cast in any particular light other than the favorable one he had naturally by being "Junior". He ran on "tax cuts" for what, a year?

It won't be long before Obama reveals himself, and then he will either rise to the top or fall apart.

He would be offering specifics if he had run an agency, business, or a govenment, or had been a cabinet member like Richardson was. When you are in charge you think about solutions & policy all the time. You hone your skills - it's not just about crafting the message.

This time around the message is less important because people have been lied to so much. Show me! That's going to be a rallying cry. Not inspire me. Listen to me. Convince me that your plan works. What's your vision for the country, for fixing this mess, and convince me you believe what you say.

Like Edwards last time, Obama will gain experience and maturity through the campaign process, and the senate process, and will be ready next time. He'll be meeting Americans and will learn from them, but hopefully won't learn, like Clinton, how to distract listeners with charming message.

Jerome and other mainstream political pundits either don't get it or don't want to get it. They will insist on measuring Obama by their yardstick. They're entitled but what value does it have. If Obama measured up to their yardstick, I would venture to say that most of his early supporters, me included, would not have signed up. Jerome et al apparently believe that a real candidate says different things to different audiences. I prefer a candidate who speaks his mind whomever the audience. And to tell the truth if I want detailed information about an issue, my first thought isn't I better attend the annual conference of this or that special interest group. No, I would go on-line and do my own research. When Obama appears before a special interest conference, I honestly hope he speaks without notes and without a position paper. I don't want my candidate to lecture on this plan or that. I want my candidate to speak to me as an interested citizen; no more, no less. Let me end by noting that, on occasion, there is more than meets the eye.

I think Obama needs to pay attention to the criticism. He seems to have a tin ear for different gatherings. He has a set speech delivery and does a great job with it. BUt adjustability is key too in politics. Let's see how he grows. I am willing to give him time.

As far as Hillary's command over health care issues compared to Obama, no shit. This was her project during the Clinton years. So why shouldn't she be much prepared for the details? That would be like Wes Clark dominating every single Presidential candidate on military issues by a huge margin. The key thing is leadership. We are not electing best government beauracrat. Obama can hire people to do the details. That is not the main job of the President. But I am curious to see if Obama failed on the mission statement too. He needs to nail that. He doesnt need to nail down the details.

Leadership is the key here. Details are to be delegated. What use is a plan if you do not have the guts to act at key moments. That is why I am not going to give Obama the key advantage in the military issue the same way I will not give Hillary the automatic advantage in other issues because all policies are useless when you lack the guts to implement the tough ones.

Hillary has failed those crucial gut checks more than Obama. Obama better watch out. He has been right on the issues, but I am not thrilled with some of his gut check moments. I will still give him more leeway because he is a fresh face to our political scene compared to Hillary.

Jerome, I agree with much of what you are saying here and have posted some comments on this before.  I have seen many Obama speeches now including the announcement, the DNC speech, the South Carolina speeches, the Selma speech, the massive crowds speeches, and the Firefighters' speech.

My overall assessment of Obama is that he is multi-talented in the speaking department.  When he applies himself (which is not always the case) he is an excellent, adaptive speaker, adjusting his style to best suit the particular audience.  He can hit home runs with the grass roots, the young, African Americans, and the religious.

But, for almost inexplicable reasons (considering what appears to be his skill set), he can really fall flat in front of certain audiences.  His DNC speech and his Firefighters' speeches, in particular, were head scratchers.  My sense is that he just didn't apply himself to the task at hand. He went on autopilot. And when Obama goes on autopilot, he becomes a bit of a droning, verbose law professor.  Like a good law professor, he consistently demonstrates his intelligence and an uncanny ability to finish every single sentence, no matter how awkwardly begun, or how indefinitely paused...in midsentence...with...an inarguably appropriate word.  This style is impressive to some.  To others it is opaque.  (What did he just say?  I don't know honey, but it sure sounded intellligent.)

It is tempting to concur with Brownstein here:  namely, that Obama has trouble connnecting with "blue collar" voters.  But, I don't quite see it that way.  I sense that Obama has the ability to reach these voters, but so far, he is just not applying himself.  To me, the evidence suggests that Obama has intentionally written off these voters, conceding them to Edwards, and to a much lesser extent, Hillary Clinton.  In truth, blue collar and union voters are fairly solidly Edwards voters, so writing them off is not so hard to fathom.  

In the case of the Firefighters' speeches, as I saw it, Hillary Clinton and her staff spent a lot of time putting together an expert presentation.  They took this speech seriously.  Obama did not.  Obama's "fly past" of the first union forum in Nevada, and his ho-hum performance at the second union forum in Nevada continue this trend.  So, again, the evidence strongly suggests that Obama has written off union support and the Nevada caucuses.

But...I want to throw out some possibly exculpatory ideas.  Hillary Clinton's strategy is to build maximum momentum right now, today, to make her the unconquerable, inevitable candidate for the nomination.  She wants all the money and all the talk of inevitability.  As such, she is clearly trying her best to hit on all cylinders, at all times, in all speeches.  

By contrast, Obama's campaign strategy appears to be very different.  He already has a fair amount of superficial buzz pumping up his national numbers.  And, to me, it looks like he is very deliberately pacing himself, and his appeal (and actually holding back a bit!), such that, I guess, he does not peak too early. (The lesson of Howard Dean in 2003?)  

So...Obama is working, I think, with a completely different campaign strategy, a strategy that may irk political junkies who think the election is, uh, tomorrow?  It's not.  I think that Obama believes he can create a lot of buzz with his skill set, whenever he wants to, and he does not want to create maximum buzz this early in the race.  He does not want to be Mr. Inevitable.  Instead, he wants to be in a close second place spot, then he wants maximum crescendo in January and February of 2008, not Spring of 2007.  And you heard it here (perhaps not first), Obama is very very quietly assembling a database of one million supporters.  Around November, he will tap it, and tap it hard.  What will that mean?  You tell me...  :)