Barack Obama continues to hold a 4- to 5-point national lead over John McCain in a race where the economy and change are the two dominant issues for the electorate. Questions about Mr. Obama’s experience continue to hold back the Illinois senator and have kept the race relatively close in an election where Democrats have the clear political advantage. These words could have been used to describe the presidential campaign back in June as well. Despite all the back-and-forth of the last month on the campaign trail, the fundamentals of the race are much the same and the impressions of the two candidates are largely unchanged from the beginning of the summer.

This steadiness is not by happenstance. It reflects the effectiveness of Mr. Obama in crafting a consistent campaign message that is resonating with voters. After back-to-back election cycles in which Democratic nominees seemed unable to maintain a compelling narrative for their campaign, Mr. Obama has shown a level of message discipline that is striking.

This stands in sharp contrast to Mr. McCain’s continued inability to craft a coherent narrative for dealing with the issues affecting voters; a point bolstered by his call today for suspending his presidential campaign because of the financial crisis. It’s a move that seems more like a one-off political gambit rather than a sober and serious solution to the country’s economic problems.

To some, the consistency of the race may seem counterintuitive. After all, didn’t John McCain’s “celebrity” ads in August change the narrative of the campaign? Well, not really. According to the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 percent of voters think Mr. Obama “understands the needs and problems of people like yourself,” and 66 percent think he “shares the values most Americans live by.”

What about the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate; didn’t she change the dynamics of the race? Actually she may be having the opposite effect. While Ms. Palin has helped Mr. McCain solidify his support among conservatives, she is not having the same impact on independents -- indeed, her numbers have declined precipitously among this key voting bloc.

The intense political coverage of recent days and weeks is reflective of the quadrennial tendency to overdramatize day-to-day political events and miss this larger narrative of a campaign. Ronald Reagan didn’t win the 1984 election when he joked about his opponent’s, (Walter Mondale) youth and inexperience. He was most likely always going to win. Michael Dukakis was certainly unwise to ride in that tank, but the strong economy and his weak campaign were far more responsible for his defeat. And in 1992, George H.W. Bush didn’t lose when he checked his watch during a presidential debate -- candidates who receive 38 percent of the vote on Election Day have bigger problems than time-telling.

It is not the blips on the radar screen that matter in a presidential election and rarely does any one event during a campaign fundamentally change the direction of a race. Instead, it is the slow but steady that generally wins the race. This year, Mr. Obama is the proverbial tortoise having successfully portrayed himself not only as an agent of change but also as more in touch with the country’s economic woes.

He continues to be seen -- by a 28-point margin over Mr. McCain -- as the candidate who would most likely bring change to Washington. The economy remains the No. 1 issue for voters and here again Mr. Obama is favored, as he largely has been since June.

And what about the familiar refrain from the Obama camp of “more of the same?” Well, that’s working too. The number of voters who think that Mr. McCain will continue the same policies as President Bush is practically identical to what it was in the beginning of August. Nearly 6 in 10 voters view Mr. McCain as a “typical Republican.” Considering the great effort expended at the Republican National Convention to cast Mr. McCain as a maverick this must be particularly galling to the Arizona senator’s advisers.

Yet, none of these figures should seem terribly surprising. “Change,” “more of the same” and the fragile state of the economy were the key themes in Mr. Obama’s acceptance speech last month and his entire campaign since the end of the primaries. It’s hardly accidental that his political fortunes have improved since the financial crisis that emerged last month. For months, he has focused his campaign messaging on the economy and his plans for fixing it. Voters had associated him with this key issue and so when crisis hit, Mr. Obama reaped the benefits. It isn’t surprising that in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll Mr. Obama has a 24-point advantage on the question of which candidate better understands the economic challenges that voters are facing.

Conversely, Mr. McCain is paying a delayed price for his failure in St. Paul to lay out a clear economic message. Mr. McCain’s campaign made the decision to run on their candidate’s personal narrative as a prisoner of war and an American hero; but when the financial crisis hit last week Mr. McCain was caught flat-footed. First, he declared that the fundamentals of the United States economy are strong. The next day he called for a 9/11-style commission to examine the crisis. Both statements were met with derision and fierce counter-attacks from Barack Obama. Later Mr. McCain announced that Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should resign, which led even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page to push back against the G.O.P. nominee. Now, Mr. McCain believes the financial crisis is so serious that he announced his leave from the campaign trail to shepherd a bailout plan through Congress.

The Republican nominee has been bedeviled by his inability to find a consistent message for his campaign, jumping from issue to issue and narrative to narrative, buffeted by press scrutiny highlighting his campaign’s frequent mistruths. Today’s latest announcement is another example of the almost schizophrenic and reactive nature of the McCain campaign.

So why then does the race remain relatively close? It’s the experience, stupid. Indeed, if there is one familiar negative polling result for Mr. Obama it is the low rankings that voters continue to give him on the question of whether he has the requisite experience to be president -- 48 percent versus 71 percent for Mr. McCain.

Yet, here again these numbers are largely unchanged from the summer. On the question of experience, Mr. Obama has not closed the deal, but then neither has Mr. McCain raised sufficient additional doubts, and his efforts to do so were almost certainly undercut by the selection of Ms. Palin as his running mate.

All of these elements make the presidential debates so crucial for Mr. Obama -- and so potentially dangerous for Mr. McCain. Unlike an acceptance speech before a partisan crowd or campaign advertisements, debates are the single best opportunity for a relatively inexperienced presidential candidate to show the electorate their qualifications for America’s top job. Indeed, Mr. McCain’s debate performance will be of almost secondary importance. If Mr. Obama, who already has the political wind at his back, is able to show that he has the proper facility with the major issues of the days to go head-to-head with Mr. McCain, he will go a long way toward erasing the doubts that many voters still have about his experience.

Since June this election has been Barack Obama’s to lose. Because of his consistent message discipline, Mr. Obama has ensured that with approximately 40 days until Election Day, this is still the case.