There's the kernel of an excellent article hidden somewhere in the midst of a lot of silliness and snark here. His points about Obama are interesting, and so is the Euro-perspective...but he weakens his case with cliched remarks like the following: "His message of hope and change seems to thrive in environments where people drink latte macchiatos and read the New York Times."

An opinion strongly based on a small portion of primary "wins" and groups deemed as the three most important, conveniently leaving out other important groups. This writer started with a conclusion then gathered "evidence" that only supported his conclusion. What is more probable is that John Edwards will drop out at some point and his people will be choosing between Hillary and Obama. No one really knows to which candidate they will align themselves. I find the Democratic race to be very exciting.

I have mixed feelings about this piece. On one hand it presents a sobering analysis of Obama's electoral weaknesses, though I certain wish more sourced data was presented. On the other hand, I feel the author got carried away in his punditry. Especially after New Hampshire one would think political pundits would acknowledge that all the slicing and dicing of demographics and poll numbers in the world can't accurately predict what voters actually do in the polling booth.

I have to agree with another reviewer. There are a lot of generalities in this story with no data to support them. For example, how can he say a candidate who won in Iowa, and served in Illinois gets a cool reaction in the "center of American society"? How can he assert that Clinton is attracting women and older people when many of the older women I know (myself included) are actively working against her? This isn't journalism as I understand it, but an opinion piece.