The head at the expense of the heart

Here's Roger Simon of the Politico comparing Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's respective speeches over the weekend in New Hampshire.

[T]he difference between the two candidates was never more apparent.

Obama delivered a compelling, almost mesmerizing, speech, did not talk about any issue in detail and took no questions. His event lasted just over half an hour.

Clinton talked about issue after issue in almost mind-numbing detail and answered question after question in an event that lasted more than an hour and a half.

Simon notes that at the beginning of each event, both candidates drew large crowds, but not for long. While Obama left his audience close to ecstasy, Clinton's crowd slowly diminished as she went on and on and on.

According to team Clinton, the speech was an effort to highlight her experience and her deep knowledge of public policy.

If so, it's heartening to see a campaign pursue substance over style, but Clinton's speech sounds like a double period with that pretentious professor who talks down to his students rather than trying to inspire them.

Unfortunately for Clinton, Obama's that cool professor who has students that didn't sign up for his class standing in the back of a packed classroom.

Substance matters Senator Clinton, but you can only say so much to the head before the heart starts dozing off.