Obama rarely expresses the outrage a lot of us feel, and that's why he seems unsubstantial.

(this has been posted in other threads, but the question of why people have issues with Obama comes up so often, that I figured it deserved to be an OP).

Obama comes across as unnatural because we've all been horrified repeatedly over the past seven years to the point where it may be that some feel like if they had a chance to get up and talk to crowds of thousands, they'd just start raging about the multitude of outrages committed by the Bush clan. Edwards embodied that outrage, and Hillary sometimes does as well (and she gets hammered for it, because she's a woman, and because she's Hillary Clinton). Obama rarely does, and that seems unbelievable, because how could anyone who claims to love America, and care about its people, not be ready to scream in frustration at this point?

If Obama feels as we do, and wants to express it as a normal human would, he can't. He has to keep it bottled up inside, or he'll fall victim to the "angry black man" stereotype. So its perfectly excusable, but if you aren't thinking that way, it can come off as naive, or detached, or insincere. In other words, it can be perceived as feel-good fluff without substance. The substance we are looking for isn't really policies, because of course he has policies. The substance we want to see in Obama is our own anger and pain over what has happened to America reflected in him. These past couple of debates, he's started to let it out a little, like when he hits McCain and Romney. He looks and sounds good while doing it, and it's really helped me, personally, to warm up to him.

He has a well of anger and strength to pull from, the American People. He will naturally fight louder and stronger going into the General.

The man is very smart. He has made an incredibly fast rise, and knows what he is doing.

Hillary's your candidate.

I suspect Obama is as angry as any of us, but he realizes what it will look like if he shows it too much, and he also realizes that running a campaign that looks too angry runs him the risk of being painted as a "vengeful" person who is "living in the past" rather than coming forward with sound ideas to move us into the future. Therefore, he's keeping the focus on the positive, on the ambitious, and on talking about what he (and we) can do or want to do rather than what "they" did.

This causes some to be incredibly moved and inspired, and others to angrily write him off as a purveyor of "pie in the sky when you die by and by."

his speeches aren't about railing away at the Bush administration is a perfect example--those are devices that opposing-party candidates who are less-gifted HAVE to rely on. They HAVE to use them to whip up a sense of injustice and emotion. Obama doesn't need that, and it doesn't fit with his message of reaching out to people of all political stripes anyway. Obama is able to talk about the future, and what he's about, and what WE can be as a country--he doesn't have to rely on political cheap shots and retribution, satisfying as that might be to some.

As someone else put it, "millions of Americans disagree" with what I have written. Others agree with me that the traits you laud can make him seem out-of-touch, too abstract, the candidate of feel-good fluff.