The problem with ever taking you seriously in these matters is that you are anything BUT a dispassionate observer. You so desperately want Obama to lose, and lose badly, that it clouds your judgement regarding what is likely to be a wildly unpredictable general election. Equally importantly, you are so frantic to be seen as prophetic, as especially insightful, that you can't even wait until the Democratic nominating process is over before you call the general election. Once again, even if you turn out to be correct, your approach is unsound.
One thing these interminable elections have taught (some of) us, is there are far too many twists and turns to call the game well in advance. Did you have Barack Obama taking the nomination from Clinton after she won The New Hampshire Primary? Did you have Mike Hickabee lasting longer than your darling, phony fat cat Mitt Romney. I, for one, am fascinated to see who the voting public chooses once they have seen McCain and Obama in debate. Imagine a tall, youthful and unflappable Obama juxtaposed against a short, aged and cantankerous, McCain. Who is going to be the most attractive to the voter just based on physical presentation? Recall that Kennedy outperformed Nixon in the televised debate but lost on radio.
And mark my words, by the time the general election comes around the economy will be in far worse shape then it is now. Who do you suppose, if anyone, benefits from that? Who loses? Have you considered that whoever gets elected is probably the greatest political bagholder of our time, since that smuck you voted for, not once, but twice, has things royally FUBAR?