The Real Palin Effect

I am sad to inform you that it's PAY-lin, not PAL-in. Or is it?

My wife and I were sitting in an undisclosed Arizona Motor Vehicles Department office, switching our licenses and registering our vehicle, when, of course, the dude at the window started talking politics. It makes sense--we registered to vote (except there was a problem with mine) and we were obviously Mormon and therefore conservatives, even though neither of us registered as a member of a party.

He said, "So, my brother-in-law is always watching Fox News--now everyone says Fox News is biased, but, you know, they're out there on their own, and you know, it's usually the lone wolf out there that's the one that's right--so, and I saw McCain's running mate, that Sarah ['pejlIn], and you know who she reminds me of?"

I was really hoping Elaine from Seinfeld. I really think she looks like Elaine.

"You know, Lynda Carter from the old Wonder Woman days? Yeah..."

"I always thought she looked like Elaine from Seinfeld."

"Hey, that's a good one, but I think she's way better-looking than Elaine from Seinfeld. So, you know, dress McCain up in his military uniform and ['pejlIn] up in the Wonder Woman outfit, and it's like Major [Steve Trevor] and Wonder Woman--"

"What a presidency!"

Yikes. a) Yikes. b) Cindy would transform into a thing that makes the Cloverfield monster look like Barney and eat Washington whole. And I wouldn't blame her.

Yes, my friends, this is the Palin Effect, other than torquing me royal 'cause I think it should be pronounced ['pælIn]. Comparisons to the girl next door, to Elaine, and to Wonder Woman. Life into people who were afraid to be Republicans. It's as if Bob Dole were to have been given Adam Sandler as his VP candidate instead of, wow I really have to look this up, Jack Kemp! Right! Kemp! All of a sudden, McCain's gone from boring old guy to boring old guy with cool running mate.

Anyhow, that's the Palin Effect--making Slate writers coach Biden in fear. Making the polls look neck-and-neck. Making "lipstick on a pig" comments inappropriate. Making DMV workers say really strange things. Is it "Star Power" or just a flash in the pan? The world will only know in November.

The New Numbers

Why reports about national polling numbers can be safely ignored.

Big news! Polls taken after the Republican National Convention have John McCain up by as much as ten points! How can Barack Obama possibly recover from this? Is the election already wrapped up?

Hardly. Pundits tend to emphasize national polling numbers as a way of taking the pulse of the nation as a whole, but that's not the way presidents are elected. As we learned in high school civics class, the electoral college is responsible for choosing a new president, and those electors are chosen on a state-by-state basis. It's the individual state polls we need to look at, and those mask a significant advantage for the Barackstar.

Pollster.com is a great source for analyzing current numbers for any of the states. Using that as a guide, we see that Obama holds statistically significant leads (at least five points) in enough states to account for 243 electoral votes. That's huge, considering a candidate only needs 270 to win. John McCain, on the other hand, can only claim safe leads enough to pick up 179 votes. That leaves 116 votes in swing states, though it's telling that most of those states have been safely Republican in recent elections. Let's examine, shall we?


Traditionally Republican Swing States (90)

• Montana (3)
  
• Colorado (9)
  
• North Dakota (3)
  
• Virginia (13)
  
• North Carolina (15)
  
• Florida (27)
• Ohio (20)
  

Traditionally Democratic Swing States (26)

• Nevada (5)
• Michigan (17)
• New Hampshire (4)

We can read two things from this. First, it's possible that since so many more electoral votes are from traditionally Republican states, Johnny Mac stands to pick up more than the Barackstar. That's certainly possible. It's equally worrisome for McCain that so many traditionally Republican states are up in the air, though. When was the last time Montana's vote was in question? Or North Dakota? It's possible that the addition of Sarah "Frostbite" Palin could shore up the conservative vote in those states, but that still remains to be seen. My evaluation is that McCain is in worse shape than the mainstream media would like us to believe. Strange though it may sound, the MSM could be biased in favor of McCain rather than the Barackstar.

One last harrowing thought - if each set of swing states holds like we have laid them out here, then the electoral vote will be tied at 269, throwing the decision to the House of Representatives. Are you any happier than I am about the prospect of Nancy Pelosi choosing our nation's next president?

Pop Politics

Is your party alignment really dependent upon what you call a carbonated beverage? Just a little bit.

While up late eating everything in our pantry, I realized this one thing: There's a cultural divide in America. What? you say. This is a big discovery, you say. I know, I know. I'm just brilliant like that. No, hear me out. There's a cultural divide in America, and it should be visible in American English. Cultural divides very often create language shifts. It seems cultural boundaries fit themselves to linguistic boundaries, and vice versa. Well, my friends, it seems that the "Pop vs. Soda" site is backing me up on this one. Note:

Places that use "soda" primarily are definitely blue (Democrat, not blue on the map, though this is the case).
Places that use "coke" primarily are definitely red (Republican, see above).
Places that use "pop" primarily are mostly red.
Places that are sparsely populated:
If they're mostly "pop" they're probably red.
If they're mostly soda, with a significant mix of either or both of the others, they're probably swing states.
Washington, Oregon, and Arizona are a little weird here, but that may be because it's an internet poll, and people like to prove their own points, inappropriately.
Indiana. What the crap?

Further, note that there's a divide, geographically between West Coast and East Coast Dems, but that there's the coke/pop divide between Red States, which corresponds mostly to the Western Republican/Southern (Christian) Republican divide apparent in U.S. Politics.

So, in the end, look at this nice county map of it all and wonder, why didn't we think of this before? I'm going to start calling Arizonans "soda Republicans" and that's that.

*Special thanks to David Bowie (not the rather more famous rock star of the same name) of University of Central Florida for apprising me of this map's existence.

Why the World Doesn't Need Google Chrome

It's because Firefox still exists!

Man, I don't know that I need to say more than that. Yes, Chrome, Google's new browser, is designed to be faster. Yes, it is supposed to keep one site from crashing the whole app. The tab shuts down, but not the browser. Awesome. Now, does it have the open-source developer support that can block the wretched banners from appearing on facebook? Answer: hecks no. Mozdev is awesome. That is all. Bye.

P.S. I still think that Google is a good company, and not the demon some people make it out to be.

Wait, What Just Happened?

Content notwithstanding, Mac's acceptable acceptance speech gets contradictory reports of review.

Id est, The Guardian, well known for reporting from the hip, claims that everyone though Mac's spiel was a one way ticket to Boresville, or more appropriately to the outlet, Borington Cross. The U.S. News and World Report says everyone liked it. Now, the USNWR is also known for being a one-way ticket to Dull County, but really, did everyone like it or everyone hate it? The Beeb says the reactions were mixed and Salon calls it empty (you can search for Salon yourself, I refuse to link to it).

Here's what he said: I'm a maverick. Let's stop spending so much. Obama, I shake hands with you before we go at it, octagon-style. It wasn't a bad speech. It wasn't a great speech. It was a decent speech, and what he mostly talked about was, strangely enough, change. It's interesting to note that Obama galvanized the primaries with Hope and Change and then switched to Explaining My Platform and Mac went from Explaining My Platform to Hope and Change. Funny things, these elections.

Obama. Biden. McCain. Sarah. None of these people is a demon.

This is what I learned from the RNC: Mac is not actually a doddering old fool. I thought he was, and I guess I listened to a lot of blue rhetoric there, but having defended Obama so hard in the past was wading through the same kind of crap, delivered by red-staters. I still don't think he's the man for the job, but if he [Mac] wins, I won't move to Canada. Necessarily. I might move to Canada anyway, but it won't be because I'm afraid of our president. It's 'cause Canada has awesome food.

Barrow

Another in an increasingly oddly named series of worbticles about Sarah Palin's ability or inability to lead. Today, it's about why the Democrats' rhetoric is misplaced, why Sarah's rhetoric is misplaced, and why I prefer to call her Sarah.

So, I've only read the text of the speech--I didn't listen to Sarah's inflection--but I'll tell you this: I don't think McCain's selection was off the cuff or anything of the sort. Gut feelings vs. safe choices aside, I think that this was thought out by the Mac Camp. Perhaps they even knew about Bristol, although I bet the seventeen-year-old didn't tell her mommy until the nomination was in the bag. That's how teenagers think.

On, on to the economy, stupids. Sarah talks about drilling Alaska. Drill Alaska, she says. That was the whole idea, but she took a long time on it. In fact, despite that CNN labels her speech an Obama-bash, the oil economy is her primary focus. Let's not deny it, this is an ingenious move if this is why Mac chose her (and come on, I'm pretty sure this is). Americans want to be rid of foreign oil dependency. I want to be rid of oil in general, but America's not ready for that, at least on the right.

So, that's a good plan, if you've got one. But, in the end, what this proves is that we can't just throw away Sarah 'cause her daughter's pregnant, and we can't throw away Mac if his plan is to Drill the Heck out of the Great White American North.

Also, she doesn't really look like a VP, but she does look like someone you'd chat with at the PTA or whatnot. Hockey mom image accurate or not, I can't call her Palin anymore, and will reserve that for the Python of the same name.

Live from St. Paul...

It's Wednesday night.

The Worb's coverage of the Republican National Convention has been a bit sparser than the DNC. My apologies - I was actually watching Home Alone tonight with my wife. In the few speeches I've taken in, however, I've noticed somewhat of a theme - national security. That's the watchword for the Republicans this year, and it's a good one. Most of America associates the Democratic Party with the phrase "soft on terror." Nearly every speaker has hit hard on the fact that if nothing else, President Bush has kept us safe, as evidenced by the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. (Personally, I don't know that he can claim such to his credit any more than he could claim credit for the attacks themselves, but that's neither here nor there.) Security, security, security. A vote for Obama is a vote for defeat. Vote for Obama and the terrorists win. It's repetitive, sure, but it's also effective. This is the party's strongest weapon, and you'd better believe they'll keep using it.

However, what you won't hear about here is the economy. As much as the Republicans would like to place the blame for the souring economy on the shoulders of the Democrat-led Congress, most of America associates the economic slowdown with the Republican Party. You heard a lot about the economy during the DNC. That's their strong point. So essentially, the election in November looks like it will come down to one issue: which do Americans value more, national security or the economy? If I'm a betting man, I'm picking the economy. After all, that's more or less how it turned out in 1992. Bush was a war hero and had successfully managed the Gulf War. People thought he was a shoo-in in November, until the economy turned south. And that's when the old catch phrase showed up: it's the economy, stupid. (Actually, if you follow that link and look at the three tenets of Clinton's campaign, you'll find that it could be Obama's campaign this year.)

In other news, the speakers at the RNC have been, more or less, stand up comedians. Everyone wants to take a jab at Obama. (Can you blame them? The DNC speakers did the same thing with McCain.) Rudy Giuliani got some nice zingers in tonight, such as, "I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that [Sarah Palin's] hometown isn't cosmopolitan enough. ... Maybe they cling to religion there." Even Laura Bush got in on the action last night, saying that her husband's accomplishments were "change you can really believe in." Ooh dang! Here's looking forward to more zingers from the main man himself tomorrow night.

Nome

More about - surprise - the Sarah Palin circus.

Ben, I hope I didn't come across as overtly criticizing Palin. I'm certainly not implying that the Obama camp should start criticizing her. In fact, she's about the one thing about the McCain campaign that they can't touch. The issue is that her inexperience and associated liabilities are very different than Obama's.

Having children in difficult life circumstances doesn't disqualify her from the vice presidency. Almost the opposite, actually - blue-collar Americans can identify with the situation she's in. I'm just worried that with all the emphasis she's put on her family lately, at some point she will choose family over duty, which is something I'd prefer not to see from our vice president. (The VP does do some important things, actually. Dick Cheney has made the position far more important and powerful than the "warm bucket of spit" the office used to be.) Obama has two young children as well, and so one could conceivably turn the tables, except that Obama hasn't made as big a deal of his family as Palin has. It's not quite the same thing.

The issue of inexperience is worth looking at, too. Both have had relatively little time in major political offices, but I'd have to give the experience edge to Obama. While he's only had four years on the national stage, his four years have come in the Senate. He knows the people he will have to work with in Congress should he become the president. He's had a chance to gain some foreign policy experience. While Palin has had experience actually governing in her two years over Alaska, one has to remember that it's Alaska. If Alaska were a metro area, it would be slightly larger than Knoxville, but slightly smaller than Akron. It's governing experience, yes, but on a far smaller stage than the national one. And while it's true that she'll only be the vice president, in McCain's case it's a real worry that she could have to take over for him, possibly even in the first term. (We all wish John McCain a long and healthy life, but you have to consider the possibilities.) Her inexperience is far more pronounced than Obama's.

Let's also apply the final smell test. Say each of these to yourself: "President Obama." "President Palin."

The real issue, though, is that this pick isn't so much about Palin's weaknesses and flaws as McCain's. This is the first big decision he's had to make as the Republican nominee, and there are some real worries about it. It's becoming increasingly clear that he made it very quickly, possibly in as little as two days. Sound a little like the Decider to anyone else? For a campaign that has been trying as hard as possible to convince people that a McCain term would not be a third term for Bush, the nominee has been more than a little off-message.

Day One of the RNC

Nothing in this world scares me more than Cindy McCain.

I mean, John's oldest son, Douglas, is only five years younger than her. She is also creepy-looking, like a cheerleader for First Lady. Just go watch the First Lady Nominee Presumptive and the First Lady banter. Say what you will about Dubya, but I still think Laura is a classy lady. She makes me feel like she's America's Mom, even when Dad is going through a steady mental decay. It's sad really.

Either way, day one was mostly a bunch of governors talking about Gustav, which thankfully did not destroy New Orleans for good. Other than that, to recap: Laura = nice, Cindy = frightening.

Anchorage

In defense of hockey mom vice presidents.

Note: Ben always has to start with "Now, I'm not really a Republican, but..."

I think my counterpart may have been a little too hard on Sarah Palin.

A couple of points: Sarah and Todd gave a great little speech about little Bristol's huge tiny mistake, which showed a) they're not afraid of this becoming public, and they were wise enough to bring the media to their backyard instead of getting invaded and b) they're nice folk whose daughters actually marry their baby daddies.

The joy of Palin for the GOP is that, like Optimistic said, they won't hit her hard over Bristolgate cause it alienates the single mother demographic. Also, if they want to avoid the "elitist" image O's trying so hard to shake, they won't say a thing. Or about her other kids, especially the one with Down's. Seriously, what are going to say? "Why did you birth a retard?" That's real nice.

Personally, I like Palin more than Biden, even though my conscience constrains me not to vote for Mac. Why? I like the hockey mom thing. I like that she's got kids at home. I like that she's like the rest of the flipping country, trying to make some sense out of their daughter getting pregnant at 17.

What does a Vice President do anyway? If Quayle can do it, anyone can.

Juneau

Even more drama to the Sarah Palin pick.

As if the Sarah Palin pick wasn't already surprising enough, there's another fun little tidbit to think about now - Palin's 17-year old daughter Bristol was revealed today to be teen pregnant. (I really wish I could claim the title of this post as my own, but it's borrowed from Slate's XX Factor blog.) This is just the latest development in the Palin candidacy that is fast becoming a five-ring circus. Who is this woman? Is she even qualified to take office? What's the deal with the state trooper she fired who turned out to be her brother-in-law? What about her son she chose to deliver, even though he has Down syndrome?

This makes a sticky situation for the Democrats, who would love to tear this woman apart, yet are afraid to do so and risk alienating their already fragile base of women voters. Even still, this bears examination under a nonpartisan microscope. Is this someone we really want to be in the White House, even as a vice president? Consider the following things that could demand her attention in a meeting:

• A young baby with Down syndrome.
• News from her son in Iraq.
• A teenage daughter with a child of her own and a teenage husband.
• Her other two children, aged fourteen and seven.

Do you think that these might demand her attention away from her job at some point? I'm sure that she could have aides deal with her children sometimes, but she's made a point of saying that she's a "hockey mom" and how important her family is to her. Experience aside, it worries me that we could potentially have a vice president whose priorities are elsewhere.

The whole saga is starting to remind me of Tom Eagleton in 1972, who accepted the VP spot under George McGovern only to retract it 18 days later after reports surfaced that he had undergone electroshock therapy for physical and nervous exhaustion. Eagleton ended up on a ticket because he was only cursorily vetted, something that campaigns go to great pains to avoid today. One wonders if McCain's campaign may have made the same mistake. Palin was probably chosen to draw new attention to the McCain campaign, but this may have been more than they bargained for.

The RNC's Boisterous Force 3 Speaker

Karma for McCain after breaking the Dead Week tradition of silence.

McCain announcing Palin right after the DNC is fair game, but his announcement mid-week that he'd made his veep selection was a little gauche. Apparently the Gulf of Mexico agrees. Gustav, the hurricane that may remove all hope of New Orleans' eventual recovery is making waves all the way in St. Paul. The GOP announced that Monday would be a reduced schedule for the convention--all business, no "rhetoric", according to reports that went in to CNN.

I personally think this is a very good move by the GOP, to try not to touch anything that involves Nawlins after the flap over the response to Katrina. The Worb will keep you updated as the RNC progresses.

Prolonging the Maverick

Why McCain/Palin need to reinvent Republicanism, or put the heat on the donkey.

Here's a statement you don't want to make on the internet: I am a registered Republican. I'm registered in Colorado, where I haven't lived since 2006, but there you have it. I would have cared enough to do this in Utah, but registering Democrat would be hypocritical of me and Republican doesn't quite fit either. Now in Arizona ("McCainland"), I'm voting Obama. I see little hope for McCain getting into the White House much less doing a good job of it, especially given his recent bent toward bushleaguing and GOP kowtowing. He is a Republican and a conservative, but has always (whether deserved or not) had a reputation of a maverick in Washington, which given my lowly month of Arizonan-ness, makes tonnes of sense. The People of the Desert do things their own way, whether you like it or not. That edge was effectively circumsized from his platform, probably due to party pressures. He's been a funny-looking maverick since then, playing right into leftsiders' views of Republicans and not really offering anything interesting to anyone. He doesn't stand a chance as is. There are two options for him, it appears:

1.) Put the heat on the Democratic Party. Having been accused of fearmongering, the Mac Camp might do well to stop pandering to the ignorant ultra-right and play more to those who are painfully straddling the fence, unsure of Obama's Clinton-esque healthcare, or a little less hasty to pull the troops out of Iraq by tonight at dinnertime. This isn't done by impugning Obama's dignity--this is done by pointing out the difference between the parties. If Mac's going to pander to the party, he'd better do some better PR. The war hero card really only pulls soldiers and vets, who are already likely to go red in November. Obama's popular and cool, but the Democratic Party has pushed some fairly unpopular legislation in its day. Most people still oppose gay marriage and other moral/religious hot topics. Bringing out the godless side of the Left would do him well.

or

2.) With the youthful Palin at his side, he could stick it to the GOP again, and shed some of the more ignorant points of the party, and start rebranding. Issues like border control become less "They're criminals and have to go home" and more "We need to secure our borders, but the way we're doing it right now isn't helping. Let's sit down and talk about it." The more deliberate center-right that's up and coming might really appreciate some aisle-crossing even if you can't say that to Republicans outright.

We'll see in Minnesota whether either will take place. Personal opinion: McCain's groupies aren't smart enough to pull either off.

Campaign Trivia

Combing through the annals of history.

With the pick of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, much has been made of the historical nature of the event. Not only is she the first woman to be nominated to the Republican ticket, but only the second woman ever nominated to a major party ticket. She's also the first Alaskan to be nominated to a major party ticket. That got us here at the Worb thinking - what other states have yet to field a presidential or vice presidential nominee?

Since the 1788, fifteen of the fifty states have yet to be represented by a major party candidate. And for those of you with insatiable curiosity, here they are:

• Colorado
• Florida
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Mississppi
• Montana
• New Mexico
• Nevada
  
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• Rhode Island
• Utah
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Some of those should come as no surprise; for instance, some the Mountain West states have been members of the union for only about a hundred years, limiting their chances. But some states (like Mississippi and Florida) caught me off guard. We've never had a Floridian on either party's ticket in 232 years? Really? Nor anyone from Vermont or Rhode Island?

One last note: while Barack Obama was born in Hawaii (contrary to some rumors), he is currently representing Illinois, so he is counted as being from Illinois.

Find any states or candidates I forgot? Leave a comment and set me straight!

Big, big surprise

John McCain ensures that all eyes are on him following Barack Obama's big speech.



John McCain was set to announce his running mate today, and by all accounts, it was going to be a fairly traditional affair. He was likely to pick someone like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney, whose names had been floating around for months. Then, this morning, everything was turned on its head.

Pawlenty announced that he would not be in Dayton this morning, the site of McCain's scheduled rally. When asked if that meant he was not going to be the pick, he told reporters that they could "draw [their] own conclusion." Romney also announced that he would not be in Dayton, leaving pundits without any names to go on.

And then, the bomb dropped - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Who? Palin is actually a very savvy choice. She ousted the old guard in staunchly conservative Alaska. She's young - at age 44, she balances the 72-years old today McCain. And - get this - she's a woman. If there was any doubt before that McCain is doing all that he can to court disaffected Hillary supporters, there isn't now. After all the tough talk about McCain not actually being much of a maverick during the DNC, he pulls off a move out of nowhere that removes all doubt. Very, very impressive move.

The Main Event

The thrilling conclusion to four days of political pageantry.

I'm pretty sure I found the song I want to be playing when Obama takes the stage: "Keep Hope Alive," by the Crystal Method. What could be more fitting than a song whose lyrics are taken from the Jesse Jackson speech of the same name?

Also, one thing I missed from the Gore speech. As expected, he invoked his own failed campaign of 2000, but he made an interesting point. He said that in that election, most people felt that the two were so similar on nearly every point that it didn't particularly matter which of them became president. (In retrospect, it mattered very much.) He warned voters of falling victim to the same line of thought. It's a point well received.

Senior Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is introducing Obama right now by reminding everyone that he did the same thing in 2004. What a difference four years make. I remember after the keynote address having a hard time remembering which of his names was his first name. ("Barack Obama? Obama Barack? Something like that, I forget.") Now he's easily one of the most famous names in American politics. The crowd is all fired up, but it's not for Durbin. I think just about anyone on earth could be speaking right now - Ben Stein, my landlord, the corpse of Grover Cleveland - and the crowd would be yelling and screaming with anticipation. He's got them all chanting "yes we can!", a phrase I haven't heard much of since the primaries. Why is that, anyway? Isn't this the phrase most associated with Obama? Where did it go?

Here comes the introductory video. They're playing up the single mother and hard-knock life aspect of him, which is in keeping with everything else in this convention. Make him a man of the people, a person just like everyone else, and people won't be so scared of him. People fear what they don't understand. By making Obama more approachable, they remove some of that fear. Even if it doesn't work like they hope, they still have the very personable Joe Biden. That said, they're doing all they can to play up this aspect of him.

Side note: while we aren't hearing much from the narrator this time (no Tom Hanks, friends), he really sounds to me like David Strathairn. No Morgan Freeman, who is in my mind, the quintessential narrator, but he's a great choice, if it is him.

I'm starting to wonder what the opening line of the speech will be. Is it going to be like in 2004, when Kerry walked out saying, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty?" I always thought that was a great line.

And here he is - and if I'm not mistaken, that was a song by Keane that he walked out to. That's an interesting choice of music. Also, it has to be deafening in Denver. 75,000 screaming Obama fans going crazy all at once. Somehow, it's just not the same over the internet.

Ooh - the crowd provided his opening line for him, chanting "yes we can!" at him. They beat him to the punch. His response, "I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States," wasn't nearly as good, but it still generated a cheer that sounded like an atom bomb went off at Mile High Stadium. He gets off right away by praising the candidate who "traveled farther than anyone else," Hillary Clinton (duh).

This was cute - when he mentioned Michelle, everyone jumped up to their feet, but one of his daughters (Sasha?) took a couple of seconds to figure it out. When she did, she looked at Michelle and said, "Hey, that's you!" I love stuff like that.

So far, he hasn't really said anything new. He's reminding people that we face tough times, economically and militarily, and that while the government isn't responsible for the problems, they certainly aren't responding or doing anything about them. His response, "We are a better country than this," is an interesting one, though. It's not just that he can do better than McCain. It's that we as a people can do better. That's a great way to make the argument. It's not about him (though it had better be eventually), but it's about us. We can do better. We must do better. Clever way to take the focus off himself, and therefore the negative image McCain has put on him.

"We love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight." "Eight is enough." That's a slogan that could go on a bumper sticker. In fact, the crowd is chanting it right now. This campaign could do with more simple statements like that. Lofty rhetoric is great and all - it inspires, and it's definitely a strength of Obama's - but simple things like that stick in people's minds more than great speeches do.

Here's another good one - "I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change," a great dig at McCain's 90% voting record with Bush. The word "maverick" is synonymous with McCain by now. Tearing that image apart is an interesting strategy. Actually, it's an awful lot like the GOP destroying Obama's image of hope and replacing it with fear.

Here he goes into taxes and the economy. "John McCain doesn't get it." I keep waiting for him to drop some specifics. I like the idea of fixing the economy, but I want to know how he's going to do it. Now would be a great time to dispense with some of that.

Here he goes again citing the Clinton presidency. Good comparison - after all, Clinton is one of only two Democratic presidents since 1968, and certainly the popular one. Reminding people what life was like during the 1990s is a great way to get them to vote for you. Times were good economically then. Times haven't been so great since them. It's the economy, stupid. Think that phrase is going to come back before November?

He just told the story of his grandmother working her way up through the ranks to middle management and all the while giving any spare money she had toward Obama's future. Boy, did that get a cheer. He then asked the audience (indirectly) if that was the sort of life celebrities lead. Very masterfully done. He doesn't look particularly elitist to me tonight.

Here's a thought - is the reason we think Obama is such a great speaker mostly because of his voice? If John McCain were to deliver the same speech, I don't think it would come off as nearly as powerful. The baritone voice that projects and inspires - that's where the power is.

"I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper." Words taken directly from the 2004 keynote speech. I was waiting for something like that. That's the way to bring back the glory of that earlier speech that launched his career.

Ooh, specifics! He's starting to say exactly what he wants to do to restart the economy - no tax raises for little people (95% of all working families), restoring domestic manufacturing jobs, eliminating the capital gains tax for small businesses, and a clear goal to eliminate our dependance for Middle East oil within 10 years. Wow, is that last one bold. If he can do that, he'd easily be the greatest president in recent history - probably at least since FDR. No idea how he can pull that off, but that's a tremendous promise. Good luck matching up to that. Also, good luck in preventing the GOP from eating that promise for breakfast. Expect to hear a lot about that line over the next two months.

Actually, he's doing a good job of explaining how he plans to get rid of foreign oil, and it sounds like a solid plan. Obama's been criticized for not providing specifics for months, and now he's finally proving everyone wrong. This is a big deal - it makes him more of a heavyweight on the political circuit. No more saying that Obama's just an empty suit with pretty words. This is serious, meaty stuff. Very impressive.

"If you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." And there's the bit about health care, which has to be the focus of this campaign. He just promised lower premiums and the same coverage Congressmen get. Citing his mother arguing with insurance agents brought a huge cheer. You can't help but wonder what Hillary is thinking, though. This has been her thing since 1992. If it were up to me, I'd appoint her to head up the health care movement as soon as I took office. She clearly knows the most about it. Let her get it done.

He's going to go through the budget "line by line" to find ways to cut spending and make things more efficient. I know it's not what he's talking about, but does this make anyone else think of the movie Dave? You know, the bit where he brings Charles Grodin in to cut the fat out of the budget? "We cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."

That was a sharp dig at McCain's temper. He's accusing him of having too short a fuse to be an effective commander in chief. That's an argument we haven't heard for a while. I don't know how relevant it is, but it's interesting to hear it again.

More focus on the war in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I agree that's more important, but I can't help but wonder if Afghanistan will turn into the new Iraq in a couple of years. Isn't that how it went for the Soviet Union? Isn't that how it went for us? We thought we beat them into the ground, but surprise surprise, the Taliban is back in power only a few years later. I don't know that it's going to be as simple as everyone makes it out to be.

Nice shot at the national security issue. "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. Don't tell me the Democrats aren't going to keep this country safe."

This is another good one - he's pledging to restore the image of America as the world's "last, best hope." I kept hoping this was going to come up, and it finally did. I still think this is one of the biggest assets Obama has to offer. Just about the entire world wants to see Obama elected over McCain. Doesn't that affect our decision at all? Don't we want to restore American prestige?

Another chorus of "yes we can!" after he throws out the line about the country not being red states or blue states, but united states. He's talking about unity - lofty rhetoric, too - while offering specific issues for people to think about. Best of both worlds here. Obama supporters get what they want - a beautiful speech, and it's been impressive so far - and the McCain camp gets what they've been clamoring for, specifics. Let them chew on that for a while. You'd better believe we'll hear a lot about them next week.

"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you run on stale tactics." Accusing the McCain camp of using fear rather than solving America's problems. That's a good point, too. I haven't heard a whole lot of ways McCain plans to solve the economic problems or anything else. Just that Obama will ruin the country if he's elected.

"What the naysayers have never understood is that this election is not about me. It's about you." Brilliant. Take the focus off himself and place it on the people. On the party. Is McCain going to attack the common people? He can attack Obama, but as long as he keeps the focus on the people, he's in good shape, I think.

Obama says he's seen the change coming. There has been a lot of change over the last year or so. He says it may not be easy, but it's on its way. Change again. That was the defining word of the primary season, and I've been waiting for a while for it to come back. Here it is, full force.

He's citing the "I Have a Dream" speech, which you had to know was coming, since it was delivered 45 years ago today. With all the references over the last few minutes, I almost expected him to say that he had a dream, too. It would have been impressive, but you have to believe there would have been plagiarism charges all over the place.

And that's it. Was it the prettiest speech he's ever given? No, I don't think so, but it might be the most important. He went a long way toward throwing out specifics and shaking the image of him as someone without substance. I think the GOP will be hard-pressed to outdo this convention. McCain can't match up to Obama in giving a speech. It's not even close. Look for a lot of demonizing and a lot of fearmongering, if you ask me. I'm not trying to color anyone's judgment of their tactics, but given how the campaign has gone so far, I don't expect anything different, unless they suddenly decide to reinvent the Republican brand.

Al Gore at the DNC

The man everyone's been waiting to see.

Al Gore was one of the two big people everyone wanted to see tonight. (I don't think any of the party faithful would be all that disappointed if he announced he was actually accepting the nomination tonight. Even Obama would probably be okay with that.) He gets off to a quick start, asking, "Will we accept this opportunity for change?" He also reminded everyone who wasn't already aware (i.e., no one) that he was robbed of the presidency in 2000, and that if he were president today, boy, would things be different. (He's right, but it's pretty much moot right now.)

Sarah Vowell gave a great characterization of Gore in one of her books, calling him the nerd to George W. Bush's jock. He's certainly showing that here - he's laying out the facts and not apologizing for them. He's arguing that if you like the conditions as they are (and he goes into depth saying why they're awful), then John McCain is your man, but if you want a change, then you'd better vote for Barack Obama. He's getting a lot of time in for his pet issue of climate change, which you'd expect. (He even mentions that climate change could affect our national security, which is an interesting connection to make.) It makes sense, too, since the Democrats have been doing all that they can to tie the Republicans to big oil. He even reminds people that Thomas Edison was a big proponent of solar energy, saying that he hoped we didn't wait until coal and oil ran out to start tapping into it.

"Big oil has a 50-year lease on the Republican party, and they're drilling it for all they're worth." I like this metaphor here - by equating the GOP with big oil, that makes the election a fight between the little guy and big business. If you're trying to go after blue collar workers, that's a pretty good way to do it.

I'm really impressed with the very factual way that Gore is going about this speech. It almost sounds like he's delivering a report for his class in school. The crowd loves it, of course, but it's very different from what we heard over the last few days.

He's speaking right to younger voters now, reminding them that they get it. Of course Obama has a commanding lead among younger voters (what 19-year old would vote for McCain?), but he's doing well to emphasize that fact. Tapping into the youth vote could turn this tight election into a blowout.

And now he's comparing Obama to Lincoln, reminding them that Lincoln only had one term in Congress and that he too reached across the aisle and was known mostly as an orator. Nice comparison. The crowd's buying into it, but we'll see if the public does.

Almost 7.00 PM, and here we have the words "inconvenient truth." We all knew it was coming.

Here we are again focusing on Obama's blue-collar roots. Remember how he was raised by a single mother who depended on food stamps? Remember how he had to fight and scrimp and save to get to college? They're trying as hard as they can to get rid of that elitist tag.

Wow, Gore can still really inspire a crowd. They're all really fired up now. One more hour until the main man comes out to accept the nomination. Stay tuned.

Warmup to the Barackstar

Passing the time before the main event.

I'm watching New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson speak to the crowd at Mile High Stadium (still can't bring myself to call it Invesco Field) as we wait for Barack Obama to take the stage around 8.00 PM local time. Richardson is a powerful speaker, but I accidentally found out that his speech is about a thousand times more exciting when Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out" is playing in the background. I look forward to listening to tonight's speeches with Modest Mouse, Interpol, and Hot Chip in the background.

As a serious side note, the venue is impressive. They've shown some cutaway shots, and it looks almost like an Olympic event. (Yeah, I stole that from NPR's Mara Liasson today. Fine.) There are nearly a hundred thousand people in the stadium, all of whom are waving American flags and yelling like crazy people. It's pretty heady. The Greek columns in the background that the McCain camp kept referring to as the "Temple of Obama" don't look pretentious at all, in my opinion. It almost looks like they're speaking in front of the White House, which I'm sure was the idea.

Last note - as Richardson started speaking in Spanish to excite the Latino crowd (to great effect), the Gorillaz' "Clint Eastwood" came up on my iTunes, and for a brief moment, I thought he was going to shoot someone. It felt like watching a cholo pumping up his gang. Weird, weird juxtaposition.

And now, I leave you at that until the big speeches tonight.

Wednesday at the DNC

Live-blogging night three of the convention.

We're back live at the Democratic National Convention. I came in late and missed Bill Clinton's speech, so I'll just be providing highlights for that.

Many were worried that Clinton would provide a less than total endorsement of Barack Obama, but tonight's speech showed otherwise. During the primary season, he was a frequent critic of Obama's inexperience, but tonight, he declared Obama to be "ready to be president," praise that means more coming from a man who held the office himself than from anyone else. Referencing his wife's comments the night before, he said that there would be two of them backing the Illinois senator - "actually...18 million of us." Sounds like it was a good speech. When I get a chance, I'll watch tape of it and make comments.

Massachussetts senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, is speaking now, and he's offering a stirring rebuke of John McCain. He gave a comparison between "Senator McCain and Candidate McCain," describing all of the things McCain was against before becoming the Republican nominee. Flip-flop tactics, no doubt, but the crowd ate it up, especially when Kerry said, "Before [he] debates Barack Obama, [he'll] have to end the debate with himself." One poignant moment came when Kerry promised that Obama would end the tactics of swiftboating - poignant because Kerry's 2004 campaign took a well-publicized hit from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You could tell the crowd caught the reference. Kerry has mostly faded into the background since his defeat in 2004, but he can still give a good speech.

While Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy speaks, let's get back to Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton made it very clear from the start why he was here: "first, to support Barack Obama, and second, to warm up the crowd for Joe Biden." (Both received wild applause.) There was a small dig at Obama when he said he was less than grateful to be speaking in the capacity he was (i.e., not a Hillary victory speech), but he said he'd do "the best [he] can." That was worrisome, but he got back on track quickly, saying he would do everything he could to get Obama elected.

This just in - retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, a "life-long Republican," is speaking and describing the Republican Party as a "failed brand." "Arrogance abroad and incompetence at home." "America can't afford more of the same." "This year a new leader has emerged who offers the change we so desperately need." If you were looking for someone to redefine the election, this guy might be it. He's a committed Republican who isn't convinced that John McCain is the answer. He's convinced that Obama can offer a fresh take on America's situation, and that this is the way we need to go. This speech reminds me of Zell Miller's speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention, where he famously all but defected from the Democratic Party in favor of George W. Bush. Pretty interesting.

Back to Bill, as we break away from a Texas Congressman. He spoke a lot about why McCain and the Republican Party have been destroying America over the last eight years. Predictably, he's focusing on the economy, since economic prosperity was one of the biggest successes of his term. I understand what he's doing, but I've been waiting for someone to speak about why Obama is a great candidate, not about why McCain is lousy. Maybe that's why I liked Hutson's speech so much - he focused on why Obama is a fresh take on America. "The third time is not the charm." Great lines from this speech. "America will have the national security leadership that we need." "Barack Obama is ready to lead." There's a couple of lines we've been waiting for. Maybe it's just me, but Bill's speech wasn't quite as inspiring as I was hoping. Granted, I was just watching highlights, but still, I wasn't as moved as I was by some of the speeches last night. Here's hoping there's better material ahead.

They're showing a video about U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. One of those videos that tug at the heartstrings. Soldiers crying for fallen comrades. Piano and string music. A narrator talking about strength in the face of fear. That sort of thing. The theme of the convention tonight is national security, and it sounds like they're trying to make the case that Obama will make the country safer by ending the wars in the Middle East.

Oh, I forgot to mention. The narrator is Tom Hanks. There's another celebrity endorsement for you, Barack.

Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth is speaking now. She ran for a House seat in Illinois in 2006, narrowly losing. She's notable as a famous soldier who was opposed to the Iraq War, and also famous for the loss of both of her legs. She's a compelling and articulate speaker, and she's not spending all of her speech saying why the war in Iraq was a bad idea. She's speaking out for veterans' care and medical reform, and it means a little more coming from her than from anyone else. Here's someone who had to go through the system (zing! there's another "mission accomplished" reference), and she doesn't want anyone else to have to go through it. She also went out of her way to mention that Obama visited her "and other wounded soldiers" at Walter Reed VA Hospital, a jab at those who accused him of skipping out on visiting wounded soldiers during his time in Europe. They're trying their best to build up Obama's credentials, but boy, they sure don't miss out on a chance to get a shot in at McCain.

As Duckworth left the stage, you had to notice two big things - first, she made a point of saying Obama would be the country's next "commander in chief" rather than president, and second, the cameras zoomed in as much as possible on her prosthetic legs.

Also, wow - John McCain just announced that he has chosen his vice presidential nominee. That's pretty bold, butting in on the opponent's convention like that. It used to be that convention time was sacred. You took a week off, and expected that he would do the same during yours.

One more thing - I've been noticing that all of the writing at the convention has been in the same typeface as the Obama campaign has been using since last year. Very nice way to subtly send the message of unity. I'm impressed.

In what may be the least surprising news of the century, Joe Biden was nominated unanimously as the Democratic vice presidential candidate. (Gosh, really?) They're showing a "salt of the earth" type video about him right now, clearly intended to balance out the image of Obama as an elitist. They're making a big show of mentioning the car accident Biden's family was in just as he was first elected to the Senate in 1972, costing him his first wife and daughter.

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't Biden have a great voice? I know he's famous for talking on and on endlessly, and I'll probably be sick of it in a week, but man, what a voice. It has just the right amount of gravel in it to sound not dominating, not forceful, not annoying, but stately. In an image that's been about image from the beginning, choosing someone who looks stately is inspired. Great job from this campaign.

And here he is, the man of the evening - Beau Biden! Okay, that's not who we were waiting for. Biden's son, the attorney general of Delaware, is here to introduce his dad and tell a bunch of stories about how devoted he is to his family. Apparently one of his earliest memories is of his father at the hospital after the accident refusing to take the oath of office (he was seriously just elected) until he knew that his boys were alright. Now Joe takes the train home to Wilmington every night to be with his family. Again, a great balance to the elitist tag Obama can't seem to get rid of. "Be there for my dad, like he was there for me." The crowd is just eating this up.

For some reason, John Kerry is on the stage, saying something to the two Bidens, who appear to be lost looking for the lectern. Maybe Biden will explain it, but for now, I'm just left scratching my head. What was that all about?

"Thank you, John Kerry!" Seriously, what were they talking about? Did he tell him that his fly was down or something?

He starts off (after saying he loves his family, aw) by praising the Clintons. He says that Bill "brought this country so far, I only hope that we can do it again," and says how honored he is to live in a country with some of the "bravest warriors in the world." Again, the focus is on bridging the gap between Obama and the Clintons. Both sides have done a bang-up job. If the campaign loses some embittered Hillary voters, it certainly won't be for lack of trying on their part.

Again with the family. He just introduced his elderly mother to America, and has spent a surprising amount of his speech talking about his family. They're really going out of their way to portray Biden as a family man. It makes sense, I suppose - America's already pretty familiar with who Barack Obama is, but this is Joe Biden's big chance to introduce himself to America. This does a lot to bring balance to the ticket. Joe just mentioned that his mother told him to "bloody the nose" of anyone who roughed him up so he could walk down the streets with his head held high. The camera cut to a shot of his mother, and she could clearly be seen mouthing the words, "It's true." This is gold for this campaign. And now he's transitioning from this picturesque scene to describing how the American dream is slipping away (thanks to who? those demons, the Republicans). Failed leadership, economic ruin, how are we going to survive?

Wow - Biden just misspoke and almost said the name "George McCain," and the crowd absolutely loved it. "Freudian slip, I guess," he shrugged. How does the campaign not use this every day until the general election?

Back to the American dream - Biden is describing Obama as the personification of that dream. Good call on this one, since that was the theme of Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 DNC. There wasn't a Democrat on earth who didn't like that speech, so anything they can do to bring back memories of that moment is a good thing.

My connection just died for a heartstopping second, but I came back to hear the word "change". That's a theme they ought to be bringing back some more. Obama won the primaries - he redefined the primaries - with that word. Why is he moving away from it now? Doesn't most of America agree that we're on the wrong track? Why promise more of the same if that's not what America wants, and if it's what America specifically voted you not to do? Biden's doing a good job of bringing this back - he has the crowd yelling "that's more of the same" along with him. Any time you can get the crowd talking along with you, it's a good thing. Brian Schweitzer had the crowd doing it last night, and he was a rollicking success. Biden's on that same track.

Whoa, a nice little dig there on the education system. He's talking about making college affordable and making education accessible for everyone. I was talking to my mother today about the election, and she said she'd vote for anyone willing to abolish No Child Left Behind. I don't think either side is quite that dedicated, but that's the closest I've heard anyone come to it for a while.

Also, nice shot at the administration for going after the wrong countries. He says we need to focus on the real threats in the world today - the economic threats, Russia, India, and China, rather than on Iraq. That's an interesting take on the national security issue. Secure the country to protecting us economically. I like it. Don't expect to hear anything like this at the RNC next week. Actually, he's doing a good job of pointing out that McCain's supposed strength - foreign policy - is actually a weakness. Remember when he kept mixing up Sunnis and Shi'ites, and thought that Iraq bordered Pakistan? What ever happened to that talk from the Democrats? I'm surprised they aren't hitting on this issue harder.

Here's another issue I've felt has been unfairly neglected. Joe says that if Obama is elected, America will regain trust on the international scene. I completely agree. That's one of Obama's biggest assets - scores of other countries would love to see him elected president. He improves America's image internationally. McCain wouldn't. How have they not said this every single day on the campaign trail? That's a huge asset that they've completely ignored.

Anyhow, that's it for Biden. He did a pretty good job introducing himself to America. I'm convinced he'd be a capable vice president, and it sounds like the people in the convention hall are, too. Now, we have tomorrow to look forward to - the Barackstar himself will speak at Mile High Stadium. This is a big chance for him to bring the campaign back to a message of hope and change rather than partisan mudslinging. We'll see how he handles it.

Speaking of which, there's the man now, entering the hall to thunderous applause. Not really the surprise they made it out to be, but it's exciting nonetheless. He's paying tribute to the four headline speakers - Michelle, Hillary, Bill, and Joe - and working up the crowd for tomorrow night. Pretty good way to end the night. Here's hoping tomorrow night lives up to it. (Who am I kidding? Of course it will!)

Live-blogging the DNC

Live coverage of the second night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

I doubt many people are reading this anymore, but I'm always happy to write for writing's sake.

The big story here at the Democratic National Convention has been the continuing feud between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton's supporters are convinced that the Obama campaign has continuously disrespected the New York senator, to the point that more than a third of them have said that they refuse to vote for Obama and will instead either vote for John McCain or stay at home. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't quite figure out what the Obama campaign has done to defame Sen. Clinton other than defeat her in the primaries. It all seems like a lot of sour grapes to me. In fact, I'm surprised that so many Democrats would rather see a Republican in office to assuage a grudge. Of course, it's more than likely that the media has made this a bigger issue than it really is. In fact, my blogging on the subject is only making it worse. Let's move on.

Virginia governor Mark Warner delivered the keynote address tonight, something that has drawn particular attention this year because of Obama's stirring and now-famous keynote address in 2004. Warner was tapped as a likely Democratic nominee until he announced that he would not run in 2007, preferring to see his daughters graduate from high school first. After listening to his speech, I really wish he would reconsider. Warner is a terrific speaker and a centrist to boot. Rather than enshrine Obama and demonize McCain, he talked about reaching across the aisle and accepting good ideas no matter which side they come from. I'd love to see a President Warner someday. He seems like someone a lot of people could get behind. At the very least, he's not someone that people could forward emails about claiming all sorts of atrocities. (Not that we have anyone like that now.)

After Gov. Warner, a parade of lesser-known governors (Ohio's Ted Strickland, Massachussetts' Deval Patrick, and Montana's Brian Schweitzer) came out and did exactly what Warner didn't - demonize John McCain. That's their job, really, but it came as quite a contrast from Warner's speech. I'll summarize their speeches here:

"As you're aware, by electing Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, we will be able to create three billion new jobs - every month! It's absolutely amazing what we could accomplish! By contrast, if John McCain becomes president, we will literally be forced by law to brutally slaughter and consume our own children. Is that what we want to see happen in the future? No! Only Barack Obama can save us from the coming apocalpyse!"

(Actually, I really enjoyed Brian Schweitzer's speech. He played up the fact that he's a simple rancher from Montana, and he really seemed to be having fun. It's a rare thing to laugh out loud during a convention speech. I did several times during Schweitzer's speech. Here's hoping we see more of him in the future.)

While I'm waiting for Sen. Clinton to come on stage, I'll talk about Deval Patrick briefly. I thought it was interesting that they invited him to speak, considering the "just words?" flap earlier in the primary season. He was a good speaker, but I cringed a little bit when he started having the audience chant "yes, we can". It seems a little bold of him to invite plagiarism back into the campaign. The McCain campaign is doing a good enough job of shredding Obama's image without him adding more fuel to the fire.

(Schweitzer is still going, and he's shouting at each state's delegation individually to get up off their feet and shout for energy independence. Man, this guy is an electric speaker!)

Before Sen. Clinton took the stage, they played a montage of her speeches and people talking about her. It was pretty inspiring, and you'd better believe they put that "18 million cracks" line in there a couple of times. Chelsea Clinton narrated the video, and she introduced her mother to the crowd, who gave her a few minutes of a standing ovation and waved a ton of Hillary posters, which seemed to appear out of nowhere. The big question, though: can she convince her supporters to (enthusiastically) back Obama?

It sure looks like she's off to a good start - she mentioned the fact that she was a "proud supporter of Barack Obama" within the first 30 seconds of her speech. Statements like "we are all on the same side, and none of us can afford to stay on the sidelines" seemed like pointed remarks to her supporters to vote for Obama already.

She's doing a very good job of reminding Democrats what the real contest is - not Clinton vs. Obama, but Obama vs. McCain. She mentioned once that Obama was her candidate and was met with grumbles of disdain, but she kept talking and shouted them down. I'm convinced she's sincere. While she's certainly disappointed that she didn't win this round (who wouldn't be?), she really wants to see a Democrat in the White House.

(Personally, I think she'll be a more powerful agent for the Democratic Party as a senator than she could have been as a president. She'd meet with a lot of strong Republican opposition as a president, but in Congress, she can be a strong voice and push things through. This is probably the best situation the party could be in at this point, all things considered.)

It's interesting that all of these speakers have stayed away from personal attacks on John McCain in keeping with Obama's vision of post-partisan politics, but that it seems to be open season on attacking George W. Bush. His name is practically a four-letter word here at the convention, becoming synonymous with "failed leadership," "economic ruin," and "short-sighted."

Wow. Hillary's finishing this speech off with a bang. She's asking her supporters, "Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for [a million stories that tug at the heartstrings]?" For someone whose public image is so much about me-first and selfishness, she's doing a good job of taking the spotlight off herself. I saw a lot of shots of tear-streaked faces of women who are still reluctant to let the dream go, but the message seems to be getting through. This is a really good speech.

Now she's implying that it's our duty as Americans to elect Barack Obama to ensure a brighter future. That's a powerful statement, and it's interesting that she was able to make the point without mentioning either Bush's or McCain's names. Very skillfully done.

That's it for the convention tonight. It looks like Hillary did all that she could to convince her renegade supporters to get behind Obama and the party in November. She wasn't wishy-washy in her support, either. She made it very clear that she doesn't want to sabotage her party's chances at the White House. Sure, you might argue that such was the politically expedient thing for her to do (could she really stand up and tell people to abandon Obama?), but the message really seemed sincere. I was impressed. But boy, would I be excited if Mark Warner were on top of the ticket. Especially if he had Brian Schweitzer as his VP. What a tremendous ticket that would be. Maybe someday in the future.

More Fun with Sports and Statistics

Or, what to do with yourself now that the basketball season is over.

Now that the NBA season has ended and the Boston Celtics have been crowned champions, I find myself with little interest in pro sports. Baseball has long been my least favorite of the three major professional sports, even when my beloved Colorado Rockies came out of nowhere last year to claim the National League pennant. Their amazing win streak last year got me thinking, though - should we have seen this coming? Is there a way that we could have accurately predicted this?

Of course, the answer is yes. Just like I did for the NCAA tournament, I created a metric to gauge an MLB team's strength. And just like the SPI, I used scoring differential as the primary method of determining power. Like I argued before, scoring differential is a more reliable tool for determining a team's overall strength than wins and losses. A team winning a majority of its games by extremely slim margins isn't necessarily a good team. More likely, it's a lucky team having a lot of things go its way, which you'd expect to level off. A team with a high scoring margin - even over subpar teams - can be reasonably expected to be a quality team. Scoring differential also factors out two weaknesses that are hidden by a win-loss record - great offense and lousy defense, and vice versa. A team with great offense but no defense could score 12 runs a game, only to give up 11. That gives them a low scoring differential. Likewise, a team that has no offense but a fantastic defense maybe scores one run a game while giving up zero. Again, low scoring differential.

I compiled some data on the 30 MLB teams (home record, road record, and scoring differential) and created a simple formula. (I'm not telling you the coefficients I used. You want a formula, go make your own.) I then added 100 to each score to keep teams from going negative, and also because a score of 102.915 seems cooler than one of 2.915. ESPN.com keeps great records, so compiling all the data was pretty simple. And once I finished it, the results were, unsurprisingly, not what common wisdom would have told you.

The entire sports world has been crowing about how amazing the Tampa Bay Rays have been this year, and they're right. They've come off ten consecutive losing seasons to post the current best record in the league. That's pretty impressive. But I think it's wrong to crown them the best team in the league based on that alone. They've scored 70 more runs than they've allowed this year for an average margin of victory of 0.787 runs per game. That's pretty good - fifth in the league. But since four teams have a better differential, four teams find themselves above Tampa Bay in the standings - Philadelphia, Boston, and both Chicago teams. In fact, the Chicago Cubs have scored 36 more runs in their differential than Tampa, putting them easily in the top spot.

There's even more we can learn from this metric. Conventional wisdom holds that the American League is far better than the National League right now. A look at my metric (I hesitate to call this one the SPI as well, but I haven't got a better name for it) shows that seven of the top ten teams in the league are from the AL. Pretty compelling. We can also learn that there are some underachieving teams in the league, and some overachievers. By looking at the SPI, you can tell how many games a team should be expecting to win based on their scoring differential. (You can extrapolate that to see how many games they should win over an entire season, but that's not accurate, as it fails to take into account trades and injuries.) Based on that, we see teams like Atlanta (currently 43-48) sitting well beneath their ability. The SPI has them six games higher, with an expected win-loss record of 49-42 and cracking the top ten. (ESPN.com's Power Rankings have them currently at 21. At the same time, you have teams like the L.A. Angels, which ESPN lists at number 3. With a record of 52-36, they look like a strong contender. However, the SPI pegs them at 48-42, with a barely positive run differential of 24.

The difference, probably, is that the SPI measures a team's potential, while most commentators measure performance. And true, we ought to be concerned with what a team is actually doing rather than what they could be doing, but with half the season left, I think measuring a team's potential still has some use. And if you're complaining to yourself about my writing another sports statistics article, then too bad, because this is my blog and I can write whatever I want unless the editors fire me.

How Cell Phones Are Killing America

It's not the phone. It's the attention span.

A law going into effect in California today prohibits the use of cell phones without hands-free headsets in cars. Violators will be fined $20 for their first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses. The law is even stricter for those under 18, who are prohibited from any cell phone usage at all while driving, including hands-free talking or text messaging. California is the first state to enact such a law, but it looks like many more states will follow suit, with legislation in the works in 33 more states. Legislators feel that cell phones cause a distraction to drivers and cause them to react more slowly to changing road conditions.

The question, however, is whether or not that's the major problem facing drivers today. Studies have been done proving that drivers talking on cell phones are as hazardous as drunk drivers. However, I'm willing to bet that slow to react drivers aren't nearly as dangerous as those who drive recklessly and impatiently, weaving in and out of traffic. And I'm equally willing to bet that increased cell phone usage has a strong correlation with such driving.

We live in a culture where nearly any information we want is at our fingertips. Want to know if your best friend really did kiss that cute boy in chemistry class? Why spend all that time dialing their number when you could just send them a text message? Tools like the internet, cell phones, text messaging, instant messengers, and others all us to get needed information quickly. But they also remove our need to wait. While patience was once a virtue, it's now an annoyance. I can be in a meeting and still check baseball scores. (Not that I'd want to, considering how this season has gone for my Colorado Rockies.) I can be having a conversation with someone while sending instant messages through Skype to someone else. We're always looking for ways to shave precious seconds from our schedule. Waiting is a thing of the past. You can see this in driving habits all the time. People fly around corners without looking. Drivers on the freeway blaze down the road darting between lanes. It doesn't save them much time - maybe a few seconds here and there - but it feels like they're going faster and more efficiently.

I dig some digging for statistics to back up my point. While I don't have exact statistics on reckless driving charges, I do have access to traffic fatalities from 1997-2005. During that time period, fatalities rose by about 250 per year, or a rate of about 0.6%. That rate seemed small to me, so I compared it to the rate of population increase over the same period. (Logically, if there are more drivers on the road, there will be more accidents.) The U.S. population increased nearly twice as quickly - just over 1% yearly. It would seem that the increase in population more than explains the rise in auto fatalities, until you see the spike between 2000 and 2001. Fatalities increased by over 1300 in one year, for a rise of 3.6%. That's six times the average over that nine-year period. However, cell phones were not released in 2001, but rather in 1999. That means that cell phones probably aren't responsible for causing the spike. Is it possible that habits associated with cell phones created the spike we see? It's difficult to say without more data, but my guess is yes.

That's not to say that California's anti-cell phone law won't have a positive effect. It probably will. But it does suggest that maybe we're treating the symptoms rather than the problem itself. Correcting the American short attention span may be more difficult than just a $20 fine.

The Democratic Primary, Take Two

Yet another race for Hillary Clinton to lose.

Now that the presidential nomination has been all but sewn up by Barack Obama (he only needs 48 more delegates to win, which he should have by next Tuesday), it's time to turn our attention toward the vice presidential race. Like the Republican spot, the names most commonly heard for the Democratic spot are those of former presidential candidates, and like the Republican spot, you can bet that most of them aren't realistic. Let's consider.

Hillary Clinton. We've heard a lot about the "dream ticket" for months now, but the possibility wasn't ever much more than remote. Clinton stands for everything Obama wants to change about Washington politics. Adding her to the ticket would help to placate the Clinton voters, certainly, but it would alienate those whom he worked to hard to win over. Add all that to the fact that she just suggested that she's staying in the race in case Obama is shot and you can count her out.

Al Gore. Wishful thinking. He's already had the job once, so there's little chance he'd take it again. Plus, he's already said that he's not interested in the White House anymore. With an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, he could have had the presidency if he'd wanted it. Let's look elsewhere.

Jim Webb. Webb is the junior Senator from Virginia who narrowly won in 2006, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The fact that he comes from a traditionally Republican state makes him an attractive option for the VP spot. At age 62, he's still relatively young (well, younger than McCain, at least), and he has experience as the Secretary of the Navy (under Reagan), which could bolster Obama's anti-terrorism image. Webb would be a strong choice, and Intrade favors him above all other candidates by at least four points. (For more information on Intrade, see my article on the Republican VP spot.)

Bill Richardson. Since Richardson's withdrawal from the the presidential race, he's appeared to be angling for the VP spot with Obama. He's talked him up in public, given his superdelegate endorsement to him over Sen. Clinton (whom he has been a personal friend of for years), and has been loudly calling for Clinton to exit the race. And as if that's not good enough, here's the kicker - he's Hispanic. Not that race should be the main motivating factor, but a charismatic Hispanic governor from the West could be exactly what this ticket needs. He brings years of experience as well as a reason for Latino voters to go Democratic. Howard Dean has been saying that the key to the presidency lies in the West this year. Richardson could be the way in. He's way behind on the Intrade market, but I wouldn't be surprised if this the guy the Democrats go with, so long as they don't mind running two minority candidates on the same ticket. (If anti-Obama racism has been bad, imagine adding anti-immigrant sentiment to that.)

Wesley Clark. Clark is a retired four-star general from the Army who ran a failed campaign for the presidency in 2004. A general on the ticket would do wonders to doing away with Obama's image as inexperienced and naive, especially with regards to the military. A few months ago, Clark led the Intrade pack, but now he hovers around $5. That could be because he endorsed Clinton last year, but it's more likely due to his low name-recognition factor. Obama's star power could easily make up for that.

The other names being tossed around are either due to wishful thinking (think John Edwards) or would only make sense with Clinton at the top of the ticket (think Evan Bayh). If you're asking me, and you clearly are, or else you wouldn't be reading the article in the first place, my top three choices (in order) are Richardson, Clark, and Webb. You can congratulate me at the convention in August when I was right.

Nintendo? More like Repeat-o

How many more times are we going to allow Nintendo to pull this kind of crap with just a couple of formulas.

Nintendo was once the leader in electronic gaming. During the days of the Nintendo, Super Nintendo and even Nintendo 64, they were on top of their game, but what happened? Well right around the Nintendo 64, something happened to Nintendo, they became self sustained and all of their developers jumped ship. This rose to two other companies joining the fray, first Sony and it's hugely successful Playstation lineup, and then Microsoft with it's XBox. Both of these systems have more then one developer working hard on different games available for either platform. Both have more content then one could ever get around to playing all of. They have regulars, and new comers. Old games and new games, these systems show no signs of slowing down. And what of Nintendo? They put out the Gamecube and then the Wii, both successful in their own right, however they have little to speak of in content, just reused formulas which work. Now most have said of these formulas, if you have them, use them, well I agree, use the formulas, make them work, but my problem with Nintendo is they only use the formulas and their systems become platforms for the next generation of the same formulas and nothing else.

Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Mario DDR, Donkey Konga, etc... What games did everyone get excited about for the Wii? Well mostly it's been Zelda, Smash Brothers, Mario Galaxy and Mario Kart. Games in which we've seen for a while Zelda and Mario since day one, Mario Kart since the super, and Smash since 64. Can you think of any other game which doesn't star a character from Smash Brothers which has been anticipated for the Wii? I can't. But yet, what is Nintendo going to do? They're not going to have much content left, but they'll wait until the next system comes out, and redo all the games again and people will buy them. So then how long are we going to allow this? Wiis are expensive and hard to find, and people buy them for just a couple of games. The other two platforms are expensive but easy to find and the money is made up easily by the amount of content. I'm still buying games for my Playstation 2, I've had so much play out of that system and will continue to do so. I submit that unless Nintendo does something different soon, we'll find them staying only in handhelds and losing money until the other two eventually make them consolidate. They're living right now because people want to see upgrades of their favorite games, but once those die down, they're going to be out of the games, and out of the business.

Then maybe Mario will finally be able to sleep. He's been telling me he's been tired since Mario 64.

Four Dollars a Gallon?!

Why oil prices are rising, and why they're unlikely to drop anytime soon.

Oil prices have been soaring for the last few years, and they're making themselves felt in nearly every facet of American life. Consumers feel it most at the gas pump, but higher gas prices translate to higher shipping costs, which makes nearly everything else go up. Understandably, people are angry and want answers, solutions, or at least someone to blame. Why are gas prices spiking so suddenly?

The answer actually has a lot to do with everyone's favorite fundamental law of economics: supply and demand. As Earth's population continues to rise, and as more and more countries become industrialized, demand for crude oil will go up. There's really no way around that. If supply doesn't increase to meet demand, then prices go up. American demand for oil hasn't risen particularly - in fact, considering the recent trend away from SUVs and other gas-guzzlers in favor of hybrid cars, oil demand is probably slightly lower than in recent years - but demand from rapidly growing countries, especially China and India, has. Essentially, the United States are seeing new competition in the global oil market from these new Asian powers, and they have to pay more for it.

Much has been made of OPEC's refusal to increase global oil supply, but unfortunately, it's not such a simple matter as turning on a faucet. OPEC's production is limited by the amount of drilling stations they have. They can't produce more oil than they can extract from the ground, and drilling new sites is extremely costly and time-consuming. Even if more drilling is profitable at over $120/barrel (and it probably is, even in difficult to refine areas like Canada), it will take time before the added supply can be felt in the global market. So we can effectively rule out increases in supply in the near future, all but guaranteeing increases in oil prices in the face of growing demand.

However, the global oil supply isn't actually static. In reality, it's been decreasing steadily over the last few years. Iraq, one of the world's largest oil producers, has seen its exports plummet since 2003 as it deals with massive civil unrest. In some cases, Iraqi oil exports have fallen over two million barrels of oil per day. That's a pretty significant drop. Nigerian unrest led to similar drops in production. Simply put, rising demand and slumping supply lead to vastly increased prices.

So why have prices gone so high lately? Average U.S. gas prices have risen about 39 cents per gallon over the last month, a rate higher than the conditions above would have dictated. The missing factor? Speculation. Investors (particularly those managing hedge funds) are buying up oil futures because they think the price of oil will continue to increase. As more and more investors buy up oil, the price goes up (think rising demand and static supply again). This creates a price bubble, similar to the recent housing bubble and the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s. That provides hope for consumers, who yearn for the day that the oil bubble bursts and prices drop again. However, the housing and dot-com bubbles both burst because of an overabundance of supply. Too many nonprofitable houses and mortgages led to a sudden drop in price. The same thing happened with dot-com businesses. However, there's no reason to think that the same will happen with oil. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. Sooner or later, supply will start to shrink as reserves run out. Some believe we've already hit that point; others think it will arrive within the next 20 years. Barring some unforeseen increase of supply or decrease in demand, high prices are here to stay, which is bad news for common people stuck paying four dollars a gallon at the pump.