In its quest for fairness, the media puts a little too much focus on the negative. And if one favorite critique is taken away, they'll quickly find another to replace it. The trick is, I guess, to make sure that the critique you get stuck with is reasonably innocuous.

In this day and age, you can't avoid unfair criticism, because the vast majority of people in the press are pretty bad at their jobs, and won't bother taking the time to figure out what someone's non-superficial shortcomings might be. So we get lazy nonsense like 'not substantive enough', or 'ridiculous wonk', which could be used against anyone.  

they said Obama was too professorial and lectured in his town halls.  He was too much of a policy wonk but didn't connect with the audience.  It didn't take long for the media to switch to the substanceless empty suit idea.

his duty as president-commander-in-chief is to have the vision to see beyond the details/tactics in order to make wise decisions.

This outlook is what he emphasized in his speeches while on his recent tour of the mideast and Europe.
Likely, he is now emphasizing "substance" and then bringing this substance together to paint the big picture of his vision of his goals.

Another important point he often makes is that it require small steps sometimes to reach a goal.

In the primaries, they said he had no substance, and that he was too "professorial," because he went into too much detail.

Sometimes they said that in the same paragraph.

to follow what the candidate is saying:

[They] label Barak a policy wonk without a big picture view

When reporters pretend something is too complicated for their audience to understand, it's often a cover up for the reporter's ignorance or dumbness.  

If that's not the case, then the reporter is talking down to his audience. Neither alternative is good.  Journalists should be in the business of educating their audience.  If they don't try, they're lousy journalists whether they're not trying out of ignorance or contempt.

of a wonk in some early campaign stops...I read a couple of articles when I was researching candidates where they talked about knowing a lot of details but that this wasn't going to inspire anyone.
His big rally, televised speeches do go for the inspirational and policy is in more general terms. Depending on the interests of the group he is talking to he would go into more detail on some topics on most campaign stops...and he is always willing to in question and answers.

It just isn't reported and TV talking talkers don't bother checking. In late January in the Washington Post Kurtz wrote about it in an article Team Obama Is Courting Everybody But the Press (Yes that complaint is old too)

One media narrative that seems to be taking root is of Obama as the candidate of lofty rhetoric and Clinton as the maven of pedestrian policy talk.
(snip)
But the address was saturated with proposals. Obama called for tax rebates; a one-time boost in Social Security checks; extending unemployment insurance; mortgage aid for those facing foreclosure; raising the minimum wage; protecting pensions; and college tuition credits. And that was before he got to his support for solar and wind power and biodiesel fuel.
(snip)
How, then, has Obama been saddled with an image of being long on inspiration and short on details? The answer is that journalists are not accustomed to covering a candidate who moves crowds the way Obama does (snip) Sen. Clinton already owned the policy-wonk slot, so by default, Obama was cast as the poetic one.

I watched candidates town halls as often as I could. (the only thing I like about CNN is that they stream all the events) I read policies.
ll the common gripes about no detail, about 'he says change but never says what kind of change', 'he can't speak without a teleprompter' and the like do not do that. That is a shame when it is the media

when he took questions from Congress.  That he reminded him of Bill Clinton in that he could answer any question thrown at him without breaking a sweat with a depth and magnitude that was unmatched.

Dem spokespersons on TV?  Where are they?  Why are there so few?  Who chooses the spokespersons?  

Do the TV stations deliberately go for weaker Dem talkers (like Fox pitting mousey Colmes against booming Hannity) or are these people in some kind of Dem speakers bureau vetted by the Dem party?

I really think it's a serious problem that we have so many lame spokespersons.  

The only really good ones I can think of right now are Rachel Maddow and Catherine Crier.  

Susan Rice is terrific, but she is not so much a Dem spokesperson but rather one of Obama's spokespersons on international affairs.

class, John McCain.  And his cheerleader wife. (No offense meant to cheerleaders everywhere, but I do admit that she reminds me of that Texas mother who hired a hitman to kill her daughter's cheerleading competition...)

they're on CD. You can download them on iTunes.

Of course, they'd have to listen to Obama reading them.

He DID win two grammys for that, you know.