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.