The most interesting aspect of the Obama revolution (and it is a revolution) is that his followers are poised to take over the Democratic Party’s organizational apparatus. This is certainly true if Obama is elected, but it is also true if Obama gets above 40% of the vote. The fact is that his supporters are energized and he can direct them to challenge the old guard for control of the Party. And chances are, he will win.

This should be the news. But even more important is the underlying reason why a showman like Obama can do this. Many posts ago I observed that with the decline of the hard left and the invasion of its ideological core by the peripheral forces of sexual pleaders, faddists and utopians its memetic DNA had decayed to the point where an 8th century religion became competitive with its message. Plainly put, neither Obama nor Osama would have much appeal in the left in the days of Lenin, Mao and Borodin. But in today’s Big Top it is not only possible but natural for a man like Barack Obama to take over the party.
/////////////
The paragraphs above are the money lines in this thread imho.

hello edward said.

So is it better for obama to get below 40% in which case hillary comes back in 2112 and McCain is emboldened to declare amnesty for all the illegals thereby handing the democrats a working majority in the USA for as far as the eye can see?

Or is it better for obama to get above 40% thereby washing out the old guard in the democratic party and replacing them with edward said’s heirs. (ie loot america for its own good and to give vicarious satisfaction to the slum dwellers in Sao Paulo Lagos and Bangladesh. no need to change their actual conditions.)

(I don’t think obama will win.)