Voters have had yet another chance to make clear their opinion of Barack Obama.

The press announces he's a wonderful candidate who will provide the country with unity and purpose and most of all healing. And a new direction taking people where they want to go. Hope and fulfillment.

The press provides a stick to go with the carrot: Obama has the nomination. Voting for another candidate is a pointless waste of your time. Stay home, stop damaging the party. You don't even like Hillary.

The public reads and listens and hears. The resources of Obama's campaign push them to acceptance.

Then they go out and smash Obama as hard as they can. They may not be approved in the press, their opinions may not be heard or treated with respect. The press spins before the votes are in.

But these Democrats prove their ability to shout No! No! No!

Barack Obama has given the rest of us - another - good reason to be proud of this country. We, people from all over, will not be browbeaten or intimidated or told what's best for us and ordered to either get behind those in charge or give up and go away.

Hillary Clinton, with her negatives and uninspiring campaign, is not the point here. Well, as a woman, yes, she's a point. But the significance of the rejection loud and unarguable of Barack Obama is the hope it provides for the country's future.

In a year of record-high voter turnout, the turnout in PR was teensy. I think the only thing we can really conclude is that, despite an all-hands-on-deck effort by the Clintons, Puerto Ricans know what everybody else knows. The race is over.

Not because the media says, or because Obama says. Just because it is.

I think you make a bit too much out of this one elections meaning for Barack. However I do agree that the utter lack of "momentum" in this race has been refreshing. I remember the disgust I felt in 04 when everyone voted for Kerry just because he won Iowa and NH. Everyone said "I don't really like him, but I think other people will".

So voters making up there own minds is indeed great news. As for the media really being in the tank for Obama, you might want to go check out the new Pew research.

WAH WAH WAH I DIDN'T GET MY WAY SO I'M GO TO JUMP UP AND DOWN AND STAMP MY FEET AND CRY LIKE A FOUR-YEAR-OLD WAH WAH WAH

Give it a rest.

Obama won easily in Oregon. He's leading in both Montana and South Dakota. The only places the voters have "smashed" him have been in a couple of Appalachian backwaters and Puerto Rico.

Puerto Ricans don't pay federal income taxes, can't vote in November, and pay almost no attention to mainland politics. Her win was based on low turnout and name recognition, and that's about it. Nobody gives a particular rat's ass about it, here OR in Puerto Rico, except for Hillary partisans looking for another reason to do some more pathetic whining.

I think she also bought a few rounds of beer while she was there.

If she keeps trying to prove her proletariat bona fides; she's going to wind up in rehab when this thing is finally over.

Philidor ... what the hell are you trying to say?

This post makes no sense ... "Obama loses by a landslide"?

Senator Obama ... 15 months ago the America public could not pronounce his name! The biggest, baddest, most experienced, best funded campaign, ACTIVELY supported by the most beloved living former President of the USA ... Sen Hillary Clinton's campaign... LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!

HA HA HA HA !!!!!

She seems to already be in a twelve step program.

The problem is she is stuck on the denial phase.

Hi, my name is Harold Ickes, and I am a Rage-aholic!

Hi Hal

If Hillary Clinton were winning after good organizational work in the caucuses but substantial failure in primary votes, I suspect she would have lost by a landslide in Puerto Rico.

The candidates are generating a response from Democrats, and that response shows a great deal of rejection. The article to which I responded was blase about the situation, heedless of the significance of this vote at this time, and anxious to see the competition end so that the preferred candidate can start to seem inevitable.

The imporatnt concerns to me here are reactions.

The race is over.

With nothing at stake and a candidate chosen, voters went to the polls and embarrassed the candidate-to-be.

How would you explain this result, here and elsewhere?

... rather than because of a decision about which candidate is the most likely to succeed. That's what makes Obama's devastating defeats so encouraging for the political future of the US.

Whatever.

The candidates are generating a response from Democrats, and that response shows a great deal of rejection.

I think you confuse a preference with a rejection. Just because I choose A over B doesn't mean I don't like B.

Moreover, there is not as much "rejection" as demography at work. Each candidate has won just about everywhere that candidate has been expected to win, with the exception of Iowa. Obama appeals more to some groups, Clinton to others. Obama was always favored to win Virginia, Wisconsin, North Carolina. Clinton was always favored to win Ohio, Kentucky, Puerto Rico. So the swings we've seen have not been responses to what the candidates have or have not done during the campaign as much as the quirks of the primary schedule.

Since demography has pretty much predicted the primary outcomes, let's not read too much into the results.

Hillary Clinton was supported even after she was defeated for the nomination. That's determination not to vote for Mr. Obama, and in fact to make certain that the determination of those voters not to approve Mr. Obama was heard.

That we can identify those voters by demographics does not reduce the significance of their actions. In fact, to me the anti-Obama vote are impressive because they're so widespread geographically. The candidate can truthfully claim to have produced a national unity among various groups of voters. In opposition... make that antagonism to him.