Yet as much as there's an expectation of unity, there's also the question of loyalty. In 2004, there were some resentments among those who had stayed with John Kerry throughout the primary when suddenly, as the general election approached, backers of Howard Dean and other candidates seemed to swoop in and steal the show. The Obama camp wants to make sure that those who stayed with the campaign through thick and thin won't be aced out of high-profile roles in the general election.

But even as some pundits write off Clinton's prospects, there has been surprisingly little team switching so far.

Avant believes Clinton supporters eventually will back Obama, or vice versa if that's how things end up.

"The goal now is to finish what we started, unify the party and prepare for a victory in November," she says.

Naturally, that will be on the minds of many when DNC chairman Dean meets with Los Angeles fund-raisers May 14. He previously gathered supporters of both camps to a March event at Rivkin's home, and, despite some tense moments, no one stormed out vowing to vote for John McCain.

But a period of catharsis awaits those in the losing camp -- even if they rally behind the nominee come summer.

Marge Tabankin, executive director of the Streisand Foundation, says that among Clinton supporters, "There is a sense of reality settling in, that it will be really hard for her to pull this one out. But they are not giving up."

Ironically, the predictions of Hillary Clinton victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, and an Obama win in Oregon are premised on the very information underlying the Clinton argument--Obama draws very narrowly from black and very liberal constituencies. No one expects him to develop any crossover appeal in the next few weeks.

So why continue to insist that Obama is not only inevitable but a shoo-in for the general election?

Democrats consider that Hillary voters will "come around".

I'm more dubious about that prospect. If Hillary voters were going to come around, wouldn't they have already done so? Why continue to hang tough this late in the game?

In my mind, this is the big question surrounding the Clinton-Obama rivalry. Bill Kristol commented yesterday that unlike the Reagan-Ford primary battle that went to the convention floor, the Democrat candidates don't really have any significant policy differences, which makes it likely, in Kristol's view, that the Democrats will all end up singing Kumbaya. Yet Kristol is perhaps falling into a bit of cultural myopia, which he is frequently wont to do--the Democrats don't have the same political culture as Republicans do--its always been less about ideology for them than raw, naked power.

The Republican party is a coalition of somewhat compatible ideological perspectives, ranging for social conservatives, to economic and foreign policy conservatives--its all about philosophy. The Crats are a coalition of special interests. Tell me--what do gays and lesbians have in common with the black constituency? What do either of those have to do with unions?

Right--absolutely nothing except their petitions for special consideration at the expense of average Americans.

This is the key to understanding the Democrats, and the key to understanding the intense rivalry between the Obama and Clinton camps. You didn't really think that all those Chinese dishwashers in Nassau county contributing massive amounts to the Clinton campaign was just some statistical anomaly, did you?

Both Clinton and Obama have spent years pandering to various interests groups, building a political coalition that not only brings them to power, but their "people" as well. This is a complicated process under the best of conditions, making sure that your supporters are also mutually supportive. It gets even more complicated when you win, because integrating your rival's constituencies into your own network is problematic to say the least. The Clinton's failure to make "everyone happy" explains the rise of Obama--remember when David Geffen, formerly a Clinton stalwart, publicly castigated the Clintons for trying to and failing to cover "every base"?

Barry Obama is going to face the same an even more daunting prospect and with far less political experience in doing it.

The likely reality of a post-nomination fight is that Obama falls far short of "unifying the party". What has to be recognized is that in spite of the rhetoric, the Democrats don't have a unifying heme. Anti-war sentiment is pretty much a spent force. Bush hatred is similarly old hat. Democrat prescriptions for the economy are apologetics, not persuasion rhetoric.

Its an opportunity for John McCain, but more on that in a later post.

Others blogging: Dan Riehl:

Gee, if Barack Obama is such a wonder candidate, why is he trailing by double digits in polls out of both Kentucky and West Virginia?

Liberals can scream racism all they want. But while simply race may be a factor for some, Obama's liberal ideology and negative associations also figure into those numbers. And those numbers add up to a potential disaster for Dems in the Fall when it matters. They are on the verge of nominating a candidate destined to drive Reagan Democrats back to the GOP for yet one more election. And you realize that the local pols in those areas aren't going to want an Obama and Me meme going on in their own races, right?