The story of the nomination has been Barack Obama beginning strongly, but then losing his Jimmy Carter-like ability to make people think he was saying the right things to them. Hillary Clinton made a comeback.

Then, quietly, in caucuses and not especially prominent elections, his organization gathered enough votes to put him in the lead while the public waited for the contest to begin again.

And then, with the country paying attention, he lost badly, dramatically in almost every major contest. His reaction: somberly, I have the votes, she can't hurt me.

And there's Hillary Clinton, campaigning while the press gloats over Obama, shouting at the Democratic electorate the race is over, your vote doesn't matter unless you vote for Obama and end the primaries.

Low on money, without a good image except for her determination in difficult circumstances, she wins again and again.

Are these votes for her? Yes, to a degree. But a public which has been described as treating politics like a horse race instead of an expression of beliefs and principles, these people are shouting back at the race callers We don't want Obama. You won't force him on us while we can vote.

And so the super delegates will move to Obama against the highly visible trend in Hillary Clinton's favor, making the nomination look like a back room deal ignoring the most dramatic elections.

Barack Obama will stand before the general electorate with his wife and his pastor (visible or invisible) and his lapel bare of a flag pin and he will announce: I will unite the country. And those who wanted another candidate, those who wanted someone inspiring rather than a drab player of ordinary politics will wonder where he got that idea.

The press will applaud, the self-righteous elite will speak of the triumph of the country that a black candidate represents. But how many in the public will consider the election already a failure from the Democratic side?

Barack Obama's substantial defeats piled one atop the other are the image of the reaction to his character. And when some people have begun to wonder whether he even likes the US, he has a huge challenge becoming a viable candidate.

That about the worst, most distorted version of the history of the contest and the current situation as I've read.

Then, quietly, in caucuses and not especially prominent elections, his organization gathered enough votes to put him in the lead while the public waited for the contest to begin again.

Gee, I was under the impression that the states that were voting were, you know , voting. But apparently I was wrong. Obama stole in like a thief in the night and quietly stole 11 primaries and caucuses in a row. The cad!

And then, with the country paying attention, he lost badly, dramatically in almost every major contest. His reaction: somberly, I have the votes, she can't hurt me.

Hmm, lets see about that one. The "major" states to vote after the 11 states in a row Obama won were Ohio (solid Clinton win), Texas (split decision with Clinton winning the primary very narrowly, but Obama the caucus and more delegates), Pennsylvania (solid Clinton win), North Carolina (very solid Obama win) and Indiana (very narrow Clinton win).

So apparently "lost badly, dramatically in almost every major contest" to you actually means one major win, one effective tie, one very narrow loss, and two solid losses (but neither by as much as his major win).

Wow, very impressive. How can he possibly survive?

Oh right. He still has 160 more delegates.

North Carolina in the General Election?

@ Philidor:

Clearly you forgot the headline of just a week ago: "Hillary Clinton lost again, very badly". Clinton lost the nomination a week ago when she was crushed in North Carolina.

Yes, if you ignore all of Obama's wins and only count Clinton's wins, Clinton is deserving of the nomination. But in the real world outside of your retroactive fantasy posted above, Obama is already the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Obama 08!

"But how many in the public will consider the election already a failure from the Democratic side?"

If Michigan and Florida are ignored, that's exactly what it is.

There is going to be some degree of backlash over the conjoined efforts of the press and the DNC to hand Obama the nomination against the will of the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

I really don't know if it will be enough of an edge to put McCain into the office or not, however. Also you need to remember that as soon as the DNC finishes handing the nomination to Obama, Hillary will begin actively campaigning for Obama and pleading with her supporters to vote for him.

Now, since most of the mainstream is looking at this rigged nomination process as a direct insult to them rather than an insult to Hillary, I rather doubt that she is going to convince enraged democrats to kiss up to Obama and the corrupt DNC after all. But only time will tell.

One thing I DO KNOW FOR A FACT is that the GOP has already begun laying the groundwork for wooing those enraged mainstream democrats into either staying home on election day or actually crossing over to vote for John McCain. I caught one of their missives on talk radio last week and it WAS devastatingly effective.

Finally, we need to remember that millions of essentially pie-in-the-sky college students fully intend to vote for Obama essentially because they look at it as a big joke to play on their elders . . . and because they can. that is, IF, unlike what they did to John Kerry they actually CAN find the motivation this time to shrug off their hangovers and go out and vote.

So it is going to continue to be one very weird election process.

Personally I think it's ultimately going to be decided by the mass media. Traditionally they campaign [subtly] for the republican at the expense of the democrat, and so they are quite likely to BEGIN turning on Obama once the DNC officially declares him the nominee winner.

Barack Obama's substantial defeats piled one atop the other are the image of the reaction to his character.

Ah, they're just the consequences of the happenstance of scheduling.

Any attempt by either candidate to play out this process as one of voters reacting to this or responding to that is just spin. Each candidate has won just about everywhere that candidate has been expected to win. Demography seems to be determinative. There has been no real "momentum," and it's certainly not about "character."

If Obama wins Oregon next week by a hefty margin, will that signify that voters have now rejected Clinton? No; only that the demography of that state favored Obama. And the demography of Kentucky favors Clinton.

And most of these voters will end up supporting the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

he has a huge challenge becoming a viable candidate.

If so, why does he poll just as well against McCain as Clinton does? There is no evidence showing that he's not just as viable as she is. And he does better with moderates and independents than she does. So it would seem to me that these attacks that he's not a better candidate to unite the country are unsupported.

The most surprising thing about this election has been its consistancy. In contest after contest, Hillary and Obama have had consistent support from their constiutencies. Hillary wins voters who are uneducated, older, working class, white voters. Obama wins educated, affluent, younger, independent, black, and new voters. They're both large constituencies which Democrats need to win in the fall, Obama's is simply larger.

The last time I checked, it's not a back room deal to award the nomination to the person with the most delegates. A back room deal would be to say that every vote should count until Hillary gets "close enough" then it's up to the super delegates to overrule Obama's "small" margin of victory.

times that researches tend to get the answers that they wanted to get in these research polls. It all depends on precisely how the questions are worded. All college level government courses go into this.

It is also known that most voters progressively make up their minds as election day approaches, and this is particularly true of swing voters; and it is always the swing voters that determine the outcome of major elections.

The question is, will mainstream democrats remain loyal to the Party that has deliberately spat in their faces during this nomination process or will they swing?

That answer will be determined by how successfully the GOP manages to smear Obama while wooing those mainstream democrats. If they do it just right then Obama is toast. If they are clumsy then Obama wins.

Oh, and national press bias [which does exist despite what jubilant Obamacrats are currently maintaining on this issue] will also seriously affect the attitude of the swing voters.

Here, the depiction appears accurate.

Whatever the views of ownership, the press is solidly of the secular left. Barack Obama won them over early, and that's why every story about a substantial Clinton victory includes the sub-headline that because she won the election was meaningless.

The press - media - will continue to campaign for Obama during the general election, with many pieces about how well he communicates and how voters have been won over. That's when reporters are able to choose their own stories.

But the other part of media coverage is the sensational material that draws ratings. A situation like that of the Rev. Wright is too lurid to overlook. There'll be stories about McCain having a nutty pastor supporting him and how black churches have their own rhetoric, but the story will be thoroughly covered.

The people who made the debate about Obama's most recent skeletons were liberals in good standing, but they brought up the topics viewers wanted raised. They had no choice. And the chance to skewer a politician is satisfying to them, my impression, even though they want the politician to win.

As long as Obama continues to have to deal with revelations that make him respond like a stunned deer, the hounds will keep pressing him, hard.

Hillary Clinton is herself a flawed candidate. Voting for her became the means of announcing that Mr. Obama was unacceptable - less acceptable? - but she is not I think the leader of a loyal movement. She did also benefit as the first woman candidate with a realistic chance and from her work to win over feminists, but that support is probably not hers to keep for years to come. Or even to give to a candidate in the general election.

So I think that support for Mr. Obama should not be taken for granted among Clinton voters, no matter what she does.

You observe correctly that Clinton voters can be described demographically. Those are people who have been won over by a Republican candidate in the past or who have rejected Democratic candidates and stayed home. So identifying the demographics is not reassuring for Mr. Obama, but highlights how difficult his job will be.

Yes, consistently voters in certain demographic groups have chosen not to vote for the winner coronated by the press and not to stay home in disappointment. They have insisted on voting even when told their vote is meaningless. That is an important indication of their feelings, most likely in large part about Mr. Obama.

And a back room deal may also be thought to occur if Mr. Obama has not won enough dlegates to obtain the nomination from open choices, but is instead selected by the private choices of the super delegates.

A Clinton win would be seen as even more a back room deal. And would be at least as disappointing to Obama backers.

But all Democrats watching the convention, if they can bring themselves to do so, will watch those they did not send choose the candidate. Unfair as that impression may be - and Mr. Obama is the victim of a number of unfair impressions - it is inevitable that such a selection process will occur.

We differ on why the press does what it does, but we agree on what the general press activities will consist of during the general election process.