James Fallows hits on what I believe is a very important dynamic in Barack Obama’s surge past Hillary Clinton among Democrats — the power of words:

Words and deeds. Talk and action. Poetry and prose. Presidents obviously do best when they can do both.
But only Obama captured what is unique about a president’s role. A President’s actions matter — Lyndon Johnson with his legislation, Richard Nixon with his opening to China — but lots of other people can help shape policies. A President’s words often matter more, and only he — or she — can express them. Grant led the Union Army, but Abraham Lincoln, in addition to selecting Grant, wrote and delivered his inaugural and Gettysburg addresses. Long before Franklin Roosevelt actually did anything about the Great Depression, his first inaugural address (“the only thing we have to fear…”) was important in itself. The same was true of Winston Churchill just after he succeeded Neville Chamberlain. It would be years before the Nazi advance would be contained, but Churchill’s words and bearing were indispensable to Britain’s recovery.

On the other hand, George W. Bush’s difficulty in expressing himself publicly has exacerbated the perception of a rudderless Administration. With that constant reminder over the past seven years, I’m surprised that Clinton’s handlers don’t have her better prepared to express herself well in public debates. Perhaps, as with Bush, she simply lacks the public speaking gift of her husband. But I am continually amazed at how often her extemporaneous public statements are littered with the ubiquitous “you know” crutch as she gathers her thoughts. That habit, as well as her instinct to default to a government solution on virtually every issue, fuels the perception that she lacks substance.