Yesterday's news broadcast reported yet another drop in gas prices, for the 20th day in a row. Good news for sure, but plenty of room for more improvement there. After all, with gas still so high it's premature to do any celebrating. Still, falling gas prices is a good trend.

So what's causing prices to drop?

It isn't speculators, that's for sure. Speculators have been blamed for rising prices, but they are no more than investors gambling on which way prices will go down the road. They're smarter than the slot-machine jockeys you'll see in Atlantic City or Reno too -- if they bet prices will go up, that's because there's a good chance prices will go up. It's a cause-and-effect thing lost on many of our Congressmen, who seem to think that prices go up because the speculators "bet" it up. By that thinking, will black come out on a roulette wheel because I bet the farm on black? I don't think so...

It isn't Iran either. Sanctions remain in place, with talk of additional ones, due to continued intransigence over their nuclear plans. In the past, skittishness over this subject has goosed up prices. Didn't happen this time, though. 

Think back a bit, what happened about three weeks ago that could have caused this steady drop in prices?

On July 14, when a barrel of oil cost $144, President Bush reversed the executive moratorium on offshore drilling. It meant little at the time, we were told, because Congressional and state bans were still in place. Besides, as many Congressmen assured us, we can't drill our way out of high gas prices. Drilling wouldn't bear fruit for ten years, they said.

Curious how quickly "ten years" have passed, though. Prices started dropping almost immediately on this first step by our government down the road of "we're not going to take it anymore." Poll after poll shows the American voter overwhelmingly wants this drilling, if only to help reduce prices. Congress, meanwhile, has utterly failed to do anything to help. Plus, in an ironic twist, the ban they refuse to consider voting to lift may expire from their inactivity.

By the way, a barrel of oil is down to $118. 

Have I mentioned that I'm really not happy about Congress, or that our only two real choices for President -- McCain and Obama -- are Congressmen?

An idea has been percolating in my brain over the past few weeks, as I witness the media event that is the Obama world tour. I'm watching him continue his domination of the news with little real substance, and yet McCain is still on his tail in the polls. This has to be troubling the Democratic Party leadership.

Then it hits me... there's something going on underwraps, and I'm going to blow the lid off it.

Except that I'm not the only one who's been thinking, and someone else beat me to it.

When the Democratic Convention gets underway at month's end, there could very well be some serious drama up to, and possibly including, a nomination for Hillary Clinton as Democratic candidate for President.

Think back, her delegate total wasn't that far short of Obama's. His big lead was on the superdelegate side -- those government and party bigwigs that are focused above all on taking back the White House and have no problem switching allegiances. In fact, if Hillary can get a hundred or so supers to switch positions or even just sit out the first vote, Obama won't have enough votes to get nominated on the first try. After that, the "pledged" delegates can vote for whoever they feel like.

In a further show of arrogance, Obama is calling for party officials to fully seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan and grant them full voting rights. Apart from potentially causing chaos next primary season, this move increases Hillary's pledged delegates and makes it easier for her to blindside him. I love this quote from the article:

This is proof that the man should not be negotiating with Ahmadinejad. If he cannot think strategically and recognize his vulnerability to a last minute ambush at the convention, he would be eaten alive in big league world affairs.

This convention is going to be more interesting than any of us realized...

The Democratic National Convention is upon us, and tonight Hillary Clinton will address the crowd. What will she say?

She put up a long, hard primary fight and blew what almost everyone considered a lock for the nomination; she stands at a crossroads now, and none of the options look very good. She wants to be President, almost as badly as Bill Clinton wants her to be President. BUT...

I mentioned in an earlier post about a possibility for a last-minute Clinton move that could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The pieces are falling into place as I predicted:

• Barack Obama got the Florida and Michigan delegations full voting rights
• Obama picked Biden as his VP -- an establishment old white male (hardly indicative of "change")
• Clinton supporters are angry over his apparent dismissal of Hillary as a VP choice
• Hillary will be voted upon as a nominated candidate
  
• Bill got dissed in his speech topic (national security instead of the economy, which he believes he excels at)
  
• The vaunted Obama lead in the polls over John McCain has vanished

Her options at this point are few:

1. She throws full and active support behind Obama, and when he wins resigns herself to the fact that she'll never become President.
2. She throws half-hearted support behind Obama, and when he wins resigns herself to the fact that she'll never become President.
3. She throws full and active support behind Obama, and hopes he loses so she can run in 2012.
4. She throws half-hearted support behind Obama, and hopes he loses so she can run in 2012.

Well, #1 and #2 won't cut the mustard. As for the other two, hoping Obama loses is one thing but helping that happen with half-hearted support will royally piss off the Democratic Party, and she can kiss goodbye any election chances in 2012. That leaves #3, but it'll be hard to work hard for an outcome she doesn't really want.

The alternative to #3 is to pull off the Clinton Ambush. Convince her followers to vote for her nomination, while convincing a hundred or so superdelegates not to vote for Obama on the first ballot. That opens up the floor to the real question -- is Obama really best positioned to capture the White House and lead the country?

Both options -- work hard and hope he fails, or pull off the Clinton Ambush -- are fraught with peril. If she wants to be President, though, she'll need to make a hard choice. Still, making hard choices is the hallmark of a good President, isn't it?