Democratic National Convention - the speeches

The four days of the DNC will bring many speeches. I listened to a couple last night and read another just now. The response is overwhelmingly positive at the convention, as can be expected. The Republicans are trying to jump on anything they can, which is expected. Generally, I lean left, but there are some items which I've got problems with.


Bill Clinton's speech was good. Really, really good. Clinton is probably the best orator of our time. Instead of delivering the speech to the camera, which I find odd and annoying, he spoke to the crowd assembled. It's a lot like American Idol, most people who perform or speak before a live crowd and television would benefit by forgetting about the camera. A transfixed stare into the camera is disconcerting. Take care of the people who are actually standing in front of you, and it will translate just fine to television.


The content of Clinton's speech was good, as well. He drove home that he and Hillary are fully behind Barack Obama while seeming sincere. McCain and the Republicans were a target, but he wasn't chippy. Paralleling Clinton's quick rise to the presidency with Obama might win over some Democrats with questions about Obama's (lack of) experience.



While Obama will surely benefit from the whole-hearted endorsement by Clinton, the biggest result of the night might have been Bill Clinton's ascension to the Democratic Party patriarch. The ovation he received was surprising, especially since he had been campaigning for Hillary. Also, his events had begun to draw smaller crowds toward the end of the primary campaign. Just when it seemed as though interest in Bill Clinton had waned, he came roaring back.


Joe Biden is feisty. He showed some fire in his speech, unfortunately, he had to follow Clinton. It will be nice to have someone in the campaign who isn't quite so scripted. Ultimately, I can't remember him saying anything that I thought was too disagreeable.


Some are making a big deal about the stage set up for Obama's speech. Seeing the columns, I didn't immediately think of Romans and Greece or any of that, but apparently pundits did. Seeing it everyday, they must forget that Washington, D.C. is full of columns. Much more pretentious was Obama introducing Biden (after kicking off his campaign) in front of the old Illinois state capitol, the same place where Lincoln cut his political teeth. It is my assumption that Obama was trying to parallel his run with the significance of Lincoln's presidency. Indeed, Lincoln was rather green, having only served at the state level briefly and then nationally only briefly before becoming the president. Obama's analogy is a little much. While Obama's nomination has already been historic, it was what Lincoln did in office that was special, not how he got there.

Obama's speech was pretty decent. He offered some more details than I'd seen before in his speeches. I think he could have spoke more about expecting more out of Americans, but it was good he mentioned it. Republicans see Democrats as advocates of handouts and that's what sours a lot of people to the Democratic party. He reminds listeners that they are the party of Roosevelt, they are the party of Kennedy. Roosevelt helped thousands through the Depression with his alphebet soup, but he made them work for it. The WPA, CCC, TVA and others put Americans in direct employment by the government. Money wasn't handed out, it was earned and the government wasn't a charity. These projects (Hoover Dam, hydro electricity in Tennessee) benefited the nation. Kennedy told citizens to ask what they could do for the country. The space race leaned heavily on hard-working, intelligent Americans in pursuit of something worthwhile. Obama should suggest that America demand more of its citizens.

Overall, Obama's speech was good. All of the speeches at the convention were good, with Bill Clinton's being the only one I'd consider great. It would have been nice if everyone who spoke elevated beyond the politics of criticizing John McCain, but that's probably a naive thought. The convention was a good show, and one that apparently appealed to many Americans.

Houston Texans 2007 Season Wrap-Up

By almost any account, last year was the best season ever for the Texans. They finished with their best record ever, 8-8. After fourteen different weeks last year, they had their best ever record at that point in the season. (That might not make sense, take a look at the records spreadsheet.) Four weeks were spent over .500 in 2007, after only three weeks over .500 in the previous five years of Texans football. They spent 11 weeks at or above .500, after only 9 weeks at or above .500 in 2002-2006.

It was a banner year for the QBs as well. They set records in yardage, touchdowns, and rating. Individually, both QBs were at the top of Texans' records. Rosenfels threw the second most touchdowns in a season, despite only playing in nine games and throwing 240 attempts. He managed this by throwing at least one touchdown in every game in which he appeared. Schaub, was consistent, if not spectacular. His 87.2 passer rating set a record for Texans QBs, however, he only threw nine touchdowns in 289 attempts, a TD% of less than half of Rosenfels' record 6.3%. Schaub's Texans record 7.75 yards/attempt proved he was trying to move the ball vertically, which is a good sign.

The rushing "attack" was feeble last year, even by Texans standards. They managed only 12 touchdowns and 1586 yards on 3.8 yards/carry. Not very good at all.

The record last year was something to be proud of, especially since they played playoff teams nine times. I don't see Schaub's TD% exploding this year, but if he stays healthy, he should get more attempts. 500 attempts at 3.2% would be 16 TD passes. That's ok, but not spectacular. 7.75 yards per attempt times 500 attempts would equal an impressive 3875 yards.

The Texans look like they will try running the ball more this year. More attempts, but I'm not sure where the yds/carry will end up. They should be on track for at least 1700 yards rushing. Rushing TDs are tougher to predict, but anything less than 13 would be an absolute dissapointment.

NL Central

So much is made of how crappy the NL Central is year in adn year out. I am here to set the record straight this year. Currently the Central has four out of six teams with winning records. The fourth place team, the Houston Astros, would be winning the West and woudl only be three games out of first in the East. In the Central? They are 12 games out. For anyone that is going to give the Cubs crap for playign in a bad division can you know what. Keep in mind that if the playoffs were based on record not division, the Central would have three teams out of four. This is even with them all beating each other up. All that I am saying is the Cubs schedule hasn't been as cake as thoguht. Their September schedule is brutal with only 9 home games and endign with four in NY and three in MIL.