I’ve been creating and maintaining web sites for about 13 or 14 years now. In the mid-to-late 1990’s, setting up a new site was fairly straightforward as there were very few providers to choose from. In general, hosting companies also tended to be somewhat expensive.

Nowadays there are many good providers and some great hosting prices. But which provider is reliable and how long will they last?

The blog hosting company I used before I found my current provider was a mess. Run by a single person who seemed too depressed to respond to simple questions like, why is my blog not working properly?

I realized then reliability was just as important as price. And as knowledgeable as I am when it comes to the web, even I can’t keep up with all the changes. The fact is hosting prices and services offered, as well as levels of support, changes CONSTANTLY. It’s maddening, but it is what it is.

You can give up or you can find good sites that can reliably rate web hosting resources for you. One that I found recently, that I can also highly recommend, is Web Hosting Geeks, a web hosting rating site which rates resources on a variety of factors, so that you can find what you are looking for, all from a single site.

If you are looking to get the best bang for your buck, they have a page called “Best Budget Hosting.” If you’re an avid blogger like me — or want to become one — they have a great page on the best rated blog hosting companies.

It’s a great site and I highly recommend it.

The Atlantic Monthly’s Joshua Green published a phenomenal analysis of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign. Pointing out that “Hillary Clinton’s campaign was undone by a clash of personalities more toxic than anyone imagined,” Green goes on to outline in the most minute detail I’ve yet seen exactly what happened to Senator Clinton’s campaign.

I think what is especially powerful about this article is that Green’s analysis is backed up by a series of memos and emails that he was given access to by campaign staffers. I have to think there were many hard feelings held by former Clinton staffers for them to turn over this kind of information.

There is a such a wealth of documentation, Green could easily write a book on all of this. For any who, like myself, love this stuff, you can find electronic copies of everything Green was given here.

What I find interesting, however, is that despite being ultimately defeated in the primaries, Senator Clinton continues to show her influence, both with her party and in particular with Senator Obama, who is allowing Senator Clinton a roll call vote at the upcoming Democratic convention. I’m not an expert here, but if Senator Clinton garners a significant level of support, won’t voters see that as a sign of weakness?

Finally, I find Green’s analysis of the Clinton campaign strategy to be fascinating in that I believe the Senator’s plan made sense. One of the first and primary constituencies Senator Clinton looked to for support was women. And, personally, having spoken to a family member (who shall remain nameless) who is a woman and is in her late 60’s/early 70’s, it became clear to me how sound a strategy this was.

This female family member of mine confided that she has been looking to Senator Clinton as one who would, once and for all, show that women could do whatever men could do. She had voted for Senator Clinton twice during the Senator’s congressional campaigs and voted for her again in the Democratic primary. She was saddened by Senator Clinton’s loss to Obama, and while I do not know for sure, I don’t believe she will vote for Senator Obama in the general election.

One last little thought. It looks to me, and to Joshua Green as well, that Senator Clinton’s greatest weakness was not her opponent’s strength or her own lack of ability, but the egos that seemed to predominate within the senior levels of her campaign organization. Conservatives often paint Senator Clinton as arrogant, but if she is, it pales in comparison with some of the ego-driven personalities working for her campaign.

While Senator Clinton had some extremely talented people working for her, the lack of a definitive head, and the Senator’s seeming inability to clamp down on her senior advisers when necessary, went a long way towards sinking her campaign. People love to criticize President Bush for appointing strong leaders like Karl Rove to lead his campaign efforts, but now the wisdom of this strategy becomes apparent. You must have a strong leader who can harness the talents of senior advisors, focus their efforts, and set a clear direction when appropriate.