According to The Page:

Kansas Gov. Sebelius and Arizona Gov. Napolitano will outline Obama's economic agenda.

Ohio Gov. Strickland and Pennsylvania Gov. Rendell will talk about how they believe the past 8 years hav weaked the economy.

Pennsylvania Sen. Casey and Massachusetts Gov. Patrick will discuss how voters' ideas, stories have influenced Obama's economic policy.

Montana Gov. Schweitzer, former Denver Mayor Federico Peña will discuss energy and the economy.

Unless he does something crazy and names Powell.

"the whole crying now before every primary? You've got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I'd be embarrassed for her."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/michelle-obamas.html

Speaking of Governor Schweitzer, there's an interesting article in the Billings Gazette today about him telling voters (both Dem and Repub apparently), that if they don't like Obama on guns, McCain's no better, and they ought to vote for Bob Barr:

"If guns are your primary issue, you're probably not going to like either of these guys," Schweitzer said during an telephone press conference put on by the Obama campaign.

Hah!  Now that's a rousing endorsement.  This is clearly Schweitzer's recognition that Obama will be toast with a large segment of the Montana population once the NRA starts running ads after the Dem convention, and reflects his hope that he can help deflect some of the anti-Obama vote to Barr rather than to McCain.  Are we seeing a new "western strategy" at work here?  Admit Obama is "bad" on guns but say McCain is too?  It won't work, IMO.  As the Gazette article also points out:  

"The NRA has given Barr a grade of A-plus, while handing McCain a C and giving Obama an F for their votes on gun-related issues in Congress over the years."

So much for a western stratgey.  You can't win in the west with an "F" from the NRA, particularly against a westerner and war hero who has received a passing grade.

No one else comes close.

And sorry -- Monday -- McCaskill?  What has she ever done that's remarkable for the Democrats?

I'm pretty sure that the powers-that-be in the party have deluded themselves into believing that the crowds attracted by an inexperienced candidate with the gift of gab, who is long on hope and short on substance, was evidence that what we want and need is a watered-down, wishy-washy, can't-we-all-just-get-along party, when what we really want is a party that sharpens the focus, fights for what is right and takes no prisoners.  

When people realize that the result of buying what Obama is selling will only prove Ralph Nader's assertion that there isn't any appreciable difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, there is going to be severe malaise.

And it really hasn't let up.

That's unfortunate because this isn't about hate at all, for many of us it's just a realistic view of a candidate we don't think measures up.

and Senator Hillary Clinton, who is a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today,

far more so than the presumptive nominee, who can't even be bothered to come up with an original policy position, but instead leeches off of sen. clinton's.

i suspect, if the DNC had its way, the clintons would just conveniently disappear. as it is, they both make everyone else in the party look shabby by comparison.

how did the democratic party come to this low level, in a year when taking the white house and congress should have been a walk in the park? they're getting ready to nominate a third-rate poseur for president; why?

We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all
intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of
our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.

So, how does that square with allowing Michelle Obama's brother a plum speaking slot at the convention, after Craig Robinson said this about Hillary Clinton:

Try and spin THAT, DNC.

PS... I hope your candidate loses...

Won't matter.