“Trying to get through this week was the nightmare of Democrats,” said longtime party strategist Jim Duffy. “They don't want to be seen as the party that dances to the tune of special interests.”

Never before has a party subjected its candidates to such a short run through so many constituent groups that are important to getting the presidential nomination. Aug. 4 was the liberal bloggers convention in Chicago; Tuesday was an AFL-CIO debate, also in Chicago; Thursday was black journalists in Las Vegas; and Thursday night was a televised grilling on issues important to the gay and lesbian community.

When they were finished running the gantlet, the candidates generally were satisfied they had passing grades from liberals, anti-war activists, union members, blacks and gays. But they hoped they had said nothing that could be used by Republicans to undermine their campaign in the general election in the way that Sen. John Kerry's 2004 vote against funding for the troops in Iraq plagued his campaign later.

Those with the most at stake were the three who make up the upper tier of candidates – front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Thomas Mann, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, joked that the week could have been called “pander week.” But he praised Clinton for avoiding mistakes.

“Hillary has been masterful in recent debates and forums in avoiding being pushed into positions that might hurt her in November without weakening her connections to core constituencies,” he said.

Clinton was pushed hard to renounce key policies of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, the “don't ask, don't tell” policy for gays in the military, welfare reform and the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to set rules on marriage.

But the most she gave activists were promises to “reform” or tweak some of the measures. Her answers at times provoked boos or hisses from the activists. But applause far outweighed the negative reactions.

And some party strategists were glad to hear the boos. “It's basically necessary,” said Samuel Popkin, a political science professor at University of California San Diego, who was an adviser to both President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore in their campaigns. “Always booed and never booed are trouble. There is a sweet spot. You can't be with them on nothing, and you can't be with them on everything.”

Things were different for challenger Edwards, whom Mann called “the chief panderer to the liberal base among the serious Democratic candidates.”

For Edwards, the week “was not as much of a minefield as an opportunity,” said Stuart Rothenberg, a respected independent political analyst. “Anytime he can get in front of true believers, strong partisans – people who are going to respond to the reddest of red meat – that should be good news for John Edwards.”

But Popkin said Edwards is likely to get only a short-term bump. “You get a quick boost from red meat that really hurts you later when the people who aren't paying attention start paying attention.”

More intriguing is the approach of the third major candidate, Obama. In the short term, Obama saw his message to the four groups overshadowed by continuing controversy over questions about his lack of experience and his foreign policy remarks on Pakistan and nuclear weapons.

But the freshman Illinois senator has been more than willing to tell some of the party's core constituencies things they didn't want to hear. Most pointedly, he did so when he angered the automobile industry – and its workers – with remarks in Detroit in May and when he irked teachers in July by backing merit pay.

“Obama has been doing a good job for some months in challenging the comfortable position of teachers, blacks, the auto industry, etc., while remaining very much a Democrat in good standing,” Mann said.

Keith Appell, a conservative and Republican strategist, said the GOP is ready to pounce on several things said by Democrats this past week – particularly at the gay forum.

“They were essentially saying they were pro-gay, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal; equal naturally, equal legally, even morally,” he said.

“Maybe there wasn't a lot this week,” he said. “But there have been things they've done that can be used against them. . . . They all are trying to toe that line with these different groups and the volume of comments does become a target-rich environment for Republicans.”