Prior to the Democratic National Convention of 2004, Barack Obama was a total unknown, except within the Democratic National Committee which selected him to give the keynote address. He was a candidate for the US Senate at the time, no prior national exposure, but was the only black candidate for the Senate that year and the DNC was in dire need of the black vote if the Democratic Party wanted a "win."

The Kerry campaign - regarding the selection of barack Obama as Keynote Speaker, stated: “More African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans, and Hispanics will attend the Convention than ever before.” That announcement came on the same day that the DNC launched $2 million worth of media ads targeting black voters.

To his credit, Sen. Obama took full advantage of the 2004 limelight - an opportunity well-thought-out and strategized by the DNC.

The past year's worth of beauty contests (the primary/caucus process) culled the Democratic field from ten to two, and just recently to one. Realistically, the field trimmed itself more than anything else, as many of the candidates brought with themselves reputations (baggage) based on past positions and exposure. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton were the two "most clean" candidates of the bunch, each for different reasons.

As far as who influenced the Florida/Michigan situation the most, the DNC did that on their own early in the game, and backpedalling later would have been a self-induced power erosion. The DNC is not chaired by political children, and changing its own "dictates" would have brought its own penalties. ((it was dumb to make these "dictates" in the beginning, but it did happen)). Neither Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton spoke against the FL/MI debacle when it happened, and only when there was a possibility that there would be political gain did Sen. Clinton try to take the "high ground" on this issue. So, it was not because the "newbie from Chicago" was more powerful than the Clinton machine, but rather the DNC put itself between a rock and a hard place.

Sen. Obama, as a savvy politician, recognized that the eviction of FL and Mi was to his advantage, so he was more than happy to throw the voters of FL and MI under the bus and disenfranchise FL and MI Democrats. The self-claimed Change candidate of the people could have embraced FL and MI Democrats in spite of the DNC, but chose not to - either out of electoral greed or to not embarrass the DNC. Whichever the reason, FL and MI Democrats are now worth to the DNC and the Obama campaign half-a-vote. That's some change!

Out of all the potential change VP candidates out there (Bill Richardson, Bill Nelson, Janet Napolitano, Tim Kaine, Henry Cuellar, Henry Waxman, etc. etc.) the selection is Sen. Biden ? Delaware is about as "blue" a state as you can find, so the selection sure wasn't to win marginal electoral votes. A 36-year Senator, 65 years old, and key figure within the Democratic Party Washington circuit is first choice for leading the change charge?

On the http://www.barackobama.com/index.php website there is the highlighted quote "I'm asking you to believe..not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours." So, the 36-year Washington insider is Sen. Obama's choice to be co-pilot of the change ship?

I guess I'm just not that naive, or more cynical than the average person. With the amount of money being spent, and the "power" to be gained (meaning, more money), those who most control the campaign fund faucet decide how it's turned.