I agree with you about his connecting, but I also agree with Sherman on the first point about variation in tone. In formal speeches, press conferences, and on the stump, Bill Clinton was usually just as disciplined and focused as Obama is (his temperament problems mostly appeared in his decisions and in behind the scenes tantrums). But where Obama has come close to mastering the concerto, Clinton mastered the symphony: with instinctive, pitch-perfect modulation he employed righteous anger, sympathy, wonkspeak, southern charm, sports talk, humor, and diplomatic formalism, among many other important modes of communication. Of course his talent got him there, but his 12 years of state-level executive experience, dominated by those same speeches, press conferences, and campaigning, allowed him to practice and hone his abilities to the point of mastery. Obama really has a long way to go. But he clearly has the deep talent necessary to get there. You can't really say that about any other national figure right now.

This is the second piece from this reporter suggesting that Obama is too cool and the second piece to rely on Ms. Sherman's expert analysis to buttress that conclusion.  While it sounded like a plausible analysis the first time, what we've seen is that the voters are viewing Obama's performance in these debates more favorably than the pundits or many nervous partisan cheerleaders.  This suggests to me that it's time for this reporter, and Ms. Sherman, to consider another theory: that voters *like* Obama's coolness, his steadiness, his calm, his reserve, his seriousness, etc.  All of those qualities say presidential, especially in a time of crisis, and they stand in sharp contrast with both the McCain campaign's portrayal of Obama as "dangerous" and with McCain himself, who is projecting nothing so much as erratic judgment and irritability lately.

If the complaint is that Obama does not warm to the Clintonesque therapeutic pain-feeling approach, perhaps the current times do not call for that style.  (The "economy, stupid" was in far less danger then.)  Dare we hope that serious times have forced the electorate to grow up just a little?

To be fair to Clinton, he made a very powerful case for Obama when he was in Florida recently (at least in the chunks of his speech that I saw on TV.) And Hillary has been campaigning for him in the battlegrounds. These efforts have no doubt helped Obama to increase his exposure and to catch the attention of some voters who might otherwise be wary of him. So the Obama team should put any frustrations aside and stay gracious.

Hemlock:  I note that the article does not quote the advisers on the Clinont point, but rather summarizes them.  The point might have been made more graciously.  I doubt they meant to express any frustration with Clinton about his recent somewhat tepid comments.  They were responding to a reporter asking them, Why isn't your guy more like Clinton?

Noam,

Obama connected with you.  He connected with lots of articulate, intelligent, well-educated analytical types - people who can actually listen effectively to an argument that takes more than 10 seconds to express.  It is a mistake to think that this is appealing to many of your countrymen and women.  

Neil

You're probably right, jhildner, and maybe "frustration" isn't the right word. (I was just reacting to Noam's opening sentence which, to me, suggested that their statements might reflect some lingering negative response to Clinton's tepid interviews.)

But I do think Team Obama should make an effort to be gracious when talking about Clinton (and to avoid being tone-deaf.)

Going to see Bill Clinton speak here in my beloved pissant whitebread mountain town of Roanoke, VA Sunday evening.  Curious to see if he is "tepid" or "powerful."  (Hoping for the latter, of course).