And I posted a (somewhat OT but worth the possibility of a BTD boot to the @ss) suggestion upstream.

I really hope Obama supporters -- and potentially supportive superdeez -- begin to see him for what he really is. I still have scorch-marks from arguing that "Dems" like Whiny Joe LieberDem was no asset to party unity or stability.

At this point, wouldn't an Edwards endorsement be golden for Obama?  If he is the nominee maybe Edwards will come out and campaign hardcore for him.  That might help.  But at the moment it's just him and his staff (which has been making some strange comments re: the white working class lately).  Based on accounts of Obama and Edwards meeting though, their philosophies did not seem to mesh.  So maybe it's Obama who is keeping Edwards from helping Obama.

If Obama is the nominee, having the array of Dem personalities out there campaigning for him may be helpful with all demo pops.  But endorsements haven't really done jack lately.  Casey endorsed, and Clinton won 70% of the Catholic vote.  Springsteen endorsed (hahaha...before PA people thought this might actually matter) and I fail to see the Springsteen bump.  I don't know what it will take to turn Obama into just the "Dem guy," an identity which might actually help him at this point.  

If Obama depicts Clinton's economy as just as bad as BushII, it's going to be "You don't know what you're talking about. I had things a lot better when Clinton was president.  

Going after Obama in NC doesn't stop him from winning the nomination, it just hurts Obama's chances in NC in November.

I've come to believe that our Dem "leaders" (with some notable exceptions, like Robert Wexler, Barbara Boxer and The Mustache of Doom, Henry Waxman) are simply lazy and entitled. Obama's mushy Kumbaya approach would guarantee that they would have to do as little work as possible to keep their cushy jobs.

You're looking for a dictator who does things the way you would do them.

I mean it has to be considered, our revolutionary forefathers ironically designed a system by which change could be administered in small doses, which would in effect lead to change, but never revolutionary change.

And it appears to me what you're saying is that the trajectory America is on right now, that the only way to change that trajectory is to implement a whole new language and policies that would be most accurately described as a revolution.

The system, however you want to describe it, would be burnt down, and something would take it's place.

America never got over its infatuation with its own greatness after WWII, becoming slave to its self-absorbed, self-destructive fantasies of infallibility. Unfortunately America has a long way to fall yet before it can begin to recover.