If Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate in her own right, then Bill should get out of the way and let her run. He's beginning to piss me off, getting into the act, when he had his run already.

If Bill has confidence he will stay quiet. That he can't stay away means either 1) he does not believe Hillary can get by without his help, and/or 2) Hillary can't persuade him to stay out of it.

I guess I can be grateful he doesn't butt in during debates, but I don't see those anyway, not having cable TV service. (BTW, why do I have to pay to hear a debate?)

Up to now, I can only think of one mention of Michelle Obama's remarks, and one radio interview with Mrs. Edwards. Bill, give us a break. The current fairy tale of the "Mod Squad"* candidates should not become a family tragedy of a struggle to regain lost glory.

Try writing another book, Bill.

*Credit Stephanie Miller.

Don't you dare, Mr. Nader. Show up at the convention, stump for policy, put fear into the candidates, but don't run for President.

Nader says he is mulling the prospect and will decide soon.

The January issue of Scientific American has a detailed plan for switching to predominantly solar power by 2050, and entirely solar by 2100. The article, "A Solar Grand Plan", addresses important details such as how to supply the hardware and how to pay for it. This is a cautious and conservative plan, and includes only a 10% contribution from home and business small solar installations.

It is precise in its estimates of future demand, and how to pay for the subsidies needed to make the shift. The proposed cost, approximately $10 billion per year for 40 years, is less than current farm subsidies, and less than 1/10 the running cost of Iraq.

The wholly achievable goal is this:

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.

Given the cautious assumptions found throughout the article, there is reason to believe this goal could be exceeded by a large margin. For example, the authors do not presume improved energy storage systems beyond existing designs, mainly compressed air in underground caverns. This is already in use, and costs about half as much as lead-acid batteries. But not included are likely huge leaps, from designs such as flow batteries and ultra-capacitors.

Also, only the very modest goal of 14%-efficient cheap photovoltaic modules is factored in. Since one can buy 21% efficiency right now, at higher cost, low-cost 14% seems safe to assume. Theoretical work suggests efficiencies of over 50% are possible.

Also not assumed are solar farms on the ocean, and wind-turbine farms in remote locations, both delivering power through chemical storage shipped to population centers. And at some point satellite power will be developed.

We do not include any technological or cost improvements beyond 2020. We also assume that energy demand will grow nationally by 1 percent a year.

But aggressive refitting of buildings and houses to achieve better efficiencies would improve the outlook by reducing that demand rise. And it is extremely cautious to assume no improvements in cost or design past 2020. The only reason to project this conservatively is that the actual improvements are hard to predict. But is it reasonable to assume zero? No. Still, being this careful protects the plan from any accusation that it expects the unlikely.