A reader writes:

I'm a Clinton supporter - most of the objections I had to her have faded, for some of the reasons offered by other readers you have quoted, such as her obvious competence and willingness to work hard.  These days, certainly, I don't need warm and fuzzy in a President.  But for those, like yourself, who can no longer abide the current crop of Republicans but who are desperately looking for an alternative to Hillary, on paper Obama may well be the most desirable option - he provides a fresh and calm global perspective, one much more likely to earn vital cooperation from abroad; a new and thoughtful articulation of what has gone wrong with our politics and how to right it; credibility on the problems of our inner cities; and a much greater sensitivity to the economic, health, and educational issues that ordinary Americans confront every day.

But he's not going anywhere, and here's why:  His inexperience is not only a hurdle in itself, but carries with it the added burden that after the disaster of the Bush years, voters just aren't going to take another chance on another inexperienced candidate.  That's the real reason his poll numbers haven't moved.  Obama is ahead of his time, and in four or eight years his moment may come.  But for now, however unfortunately and unfairly, Bush has made Obama impossible.

And yet it could also be argued that Bush has made Obama essential. But that's an argument for another day. I'm working on it.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.