Ouch, you decide.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3356193.eceMr Obama now faces the steepest of political hills if he is to survive Super Tuesday on 5 February. For now, he remains well ahead in South Carolina, where Democrats vote next Saturday. But his support is weak among white voters there, as it is in the South generally. The shifting momentum of the primaries battle risks losing him a lot of African Americans as well as they retain a residual affection for all things Clinton.
Many rank-and-file voters who attended the caucuses appeared to agree – seeing in Hillary Clinton a woman with the toughness and the determination to face down the Republican attack machine and strong-arm Congress into enacting a presidential agenda.
Whether or not they like her realpolitik approach – the reason many Democrats distrust or dislike her – has become only a secondary consideration.
Mr Obama demonstrated a marked lack of toughness on the campaign trail in Nevada, never more so than during last Tuesday's televised debate, when he gave an honest answer to the question of what his greatest weakness was. He was, he said, terrible with paperwork, and then looked hurt when the others held his answer against him.
Nobody doubts he is a sincere guy, but that may no longer be a plus point, especially since his campaign pitch appears so long on inspiring rhetoric and so short on substance.
"By promising 'new politics'," The Boston Globe wrote yesterday, " Obama has staked a claim on the passions of Democratic voters. But there are signs his cry for change may be sounding hollow or, worse, like a typical political slogan."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/20/obama_needs_to_add_more_substance_to_his_call_for_change/But there had been signs even then that his stump speech - a stirring call to change, with direct allusions to the historic nature of his candidacy - had struck some voters as a little presumptuous. And Clinton was seizing every opportunity to portray his message as shallow.
Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, pointed to two worrisome signs for Obama in yesterday's Nevada result: The loss of a state with a large Hispanic population, suggesting that he does not connect as well as Clinton with that growing voting bloc, and a problem attracting the support of working-class voters.
"Despite all the talk of her having had eight campaign slogans, Clinton managed to connect with working-class Democrats," Scala said. "Obama did not, with all the appeals to hope and change. That's part of Obama's problem; he appeals to
voters who have the luxury of thinking about reforming the nation's politics. For working-class voters, it's more about healthcare."
But there are signs that his cry for change may be sounding hollow or, worse, like a typical political slogan.