'Stuck in neutral'?
Not sure 'stuck in neutral'
is the right metaphor for Obama. The race is too fluid to describe it that way, as Obama's poll numbers grow then contract
. Reader No. 1 really liked this morning's David Brooks column
: "This is the most perceptive analysis of Obama to date, for my money - particularly the last 3 paragraphs (which are admittedly Brooks' speciality)." I thought the column was OK. But my problem with Obama is seemingly more banal: There doesn't appear to be much substance behind the style. He's done a good job identifying and articulating the national zeitgeist: Many voters want to move beyond the hyper-partisan Culture Wars era, etc., etc. But then Obama serves up tired ideas, the latest being a windfall profit tax on oil companies, something, due to the way he would distribute the money, wouldn't do a damn thing to solve the nation's energy problems. There's a sense he's spent a lot of time figuring out how to be appealing -- but not enough time developing truly bold and refreshing ideas. ... P.S. -- McCain's candidacy is even worse: There doesn't appear to be much substance behind his crumbling facade of style. ...Update
-- A Hub Blog friend went to the Obama event last night and was adamant afterward that Dems are on verge of repeating the "same old-same old'' of '88 and '04 -- overly confident about the general election, dismissing the notion the election could be razor-thin close again, not appreciating the effectiveness of Republican attacks outside Massachusetts, etc. etc. Though the 'stuck in neutral' metaphor doesn't work for me, I immediately thought of Alan's warning
that Dems better start counter-punching.