The pundits are right. Barack Obama can't land a knockout punch against Hillary Clinton. What the pundits haven't been able to identify is why exactly this is the case. Well I have the answer.
THE ANSWER BELOW THE FOLD
Because this isn't a damn boxing match!!!
The analogy of the primary to a boxing match -- or any other sporting event -- is ludicrous. A primary victory by Obama doesn't cause Clinton's eyes to close. A primary victory by Clinton doesn't cause Obama's legs to tire. At this point the money issue marginally hurts Clinton, but her name recognition is already so high that it is far less important than if Obama was running on economic fumes.
When it comes down to it, the writing has been on the wall for a long time: Obama's "natural" constituency (and I put "natural" in quotes because it is partly a result of the media's early framing of Obama's candidacy) is more populous in some areas of the country; and Clinton's "natural" constituency (in quotes for the same reason) is more populous in other parts. In any given state, about 15 - 20% of the voters that were leaning towards Clinton three to six weeks out ultimately vote for Obama (even more in the early states, probably); and the voters who remain undecided up until actual voting day break for Clinton about 60/40.
These trend lines have been remarkably consistent (and, in fact, there is no reason to believe the trend lines would have differed in Florida and Michigan had actual campaigns been run there, which makes it absurd in my view for Clinton to boast about her 15 point "victory" in Florida). And the conclusion can only be this: Obama is the more preferred candidate by an historically narrow, but still statistically significant and obvious margin. The only argument -- and it's a bad one -- that Clinton has that she should be the nominee is that her constituencies are "more important" than Obama's and therefore should somehow count for more.
Why the media is obsessed with sports analogies is beyond me. At this point, I'm pretty certain everyone here on this board could pretty accurately predict the results of the remaining primaries: Obama +15 in North Carolina; and +10 in Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. Clinton +20 in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico; and +5 in Indiana. The end result is that we're pretty much exactly where we are today. With Obama holding a 125 - 150 pledged delegate lead and some sort of popular vote margin.
This isn't the back nine at Augusta National circa 1986. This isn't the the Bills vs. Oilers. This isn't a fucking sporting event. There is no such thing as a knockout punch. Clinton's voters are not all of the sudden going to stay home, and neither are Obama's. College kids are not all of the sudden going to move en masse to Clinton. White senior citizens are not all of the sudden going to move en masse to Obama. The trend lines will stay the same, and Obama will in the end be just enough better than Clinton to have every moral and mathematical claim to the nomination.