Inside the bubble of college campuses, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has enormous, almost messianic support. Outside of these institutions, Democratic primary voters are far more skeptical. Despite adulatory, positive media coverage, the real world has not bought the Obama rhetoric in the way that college students have. Obama trails Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a far more conventional candidate, by 20 points or more in all the early primary states besides Iowa.

Back in January of this year, Obama got the jump on Clinton and announced his candidacy before she did. This put the Clinton campaign off-balance, and Hillary hurriedly announced that she was running for president a few days later, during a low point in the media cycle. That was probably the last time Obama was in control of the tone and direction of the race to the Democratic nomination. It has been all Clinton ever since.

What is remarkable about this Democratic presidential race is how stable it has been. For all of the talk of “electability” and “high negatives,” Hillary Clinton has been in control of the race since March. In February, her national poll ratings reached 40 percent, and most surveys now show her in the high-40s range. Obama sits around 25 percent by most reliable indicators and has not significantly budged in months. Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) can’t break 15 percent. Edwards’ failure to move up is certainly understandable — he is highly belligerent, panders to the left and doesn’t come across as a credible Commander-in-Chief. Obama’s inability to improve his poll numbers, however, is far more interesting.

The problem might lie with his message. His talk of the “politics of hope” and being a “post-political president” has earned him a messianic following among college students but has inspired few other demographics. His ideas are compelling, but would be far more convincing if he were running as an independent; his talk of bringing people together rings hollow as long as he’s running as a Democrat and advocating policies that Republicans are unlikely to support. He has kept pace with Clinton in terms of fund-raising and draws huge crowds wherever he goes, but he hasn’t been able to turn all that money and attention into political support. Even as his name recognition increases, his poll numbers haven’t moved.

Despite months of saturation coverage, if Obama’s candidacy and message have not caught fire by now, there is little chance for a surge of support before the start of the Iowa caucuses. Despite an initial boost in the polls, his campaign has been stagnant for months. Most forays into Clinton territory, such as announcing that he would unilaterally bomb Pakistan if he saw the need, were ridiculed by both the Clinton camp and most media commentators. Clearly, certain things in Obama’s campaign need to change if he’s going to make up a 20-point gap in the polls. Obama for President, as it is now, will not win Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina, and the charismatic Senator will be left to reject a VP invitation from Clinton (which he will).

Obama’s positions are quite different from Edwards’ and Clinton’s, and they can’t be changed now. Radically altering course would be tantamount to admitting that his message has failed to sway voters. Simply attacking Clinton, which Edwards seems to think is his ticket to winning Iowa, will not work. The Clinton campaign has already proved successful at asking, “What happened to the politics of hope?”

Obama needs to tweak his message. He needs to run as a conventional Democrat, interested in advancing Democratic ideas and values once in the White House. The talk of the “politics of hope” means much less to the working class than it does to idealistic college students. Obama needs to put being a Democrat above being non-partisan; otherwise, how can Democrats trust him not to pander to the right in the interest of building consensus?

Obama also needs to present himself as a credible Commander-in-Chief. Even John F. Kennedy — who had more Senatorial experience when he ran than Obama has now — out-hawked Nixon on the Soviet “missile gap” issue. While most Americans oppose the Iraq War, Obama has to be assertive on other issues such as Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela. Agreeing to meet with the leaders of hostile nations without preconditions, like he has promised, certainly wouldn’t go over well in the general election. If someone like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), with his Vietnam service and decades of experience, wins the Republican nomination, he could easily draw a contrast between himself and Obama on national security issues. This is the same problem Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) faced in 2004. Even Democrats care about national security, and Hillary Clinton has won, hands-down, on that front. So far.

Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls even after a mediocre performance in the most recent debate. Obama has yet to win the battle with Edwards to determine who is the best alternative to Clinton, something that he should have done months ago. Edwards had to vanquish Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and all the others before he could make it a two-man race with Kerry. There are still two months left before Iowa. Obama needs to come down from the clouds of hope and post-partisanship and assert himself as a real alternative to Clinton without tacking too far to the left as Edwards has.