Hillary Clinton & Sarah Palin On Sexism

It's All Over But the Crying

Obama declares victory, but Clinton won't concede

As of today, the Democratic party seems to finally have its Presidential nominee, as Barack Obama claimed the majority of delegates necessary to claim the nomination.

"Our primary season has finally come to an end," he announced. "I will be the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States of America."

In Obama, the Democrats have made a very worthy choice in nominees. If anyone can give John McCain a run for his money, it will be Barack Obama.

But he'll have an uphill battle to fight. While the Democrats have been slugging it out with one another, McCain and the Republicans have been raising funds and putting their larger campaign strategy in place. And while Obama is considered by many to have the advantages of youth and charisma, one also remembers that it's McCain who's being seen in all the right places.

While the Demorats had a monopoly on earned media, they had an opportunity to diffuse McCain by ignoring him, and portraying the race for the Presidency as between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as much as possible.

They blew that opportunity by taking turns trying to play the tough guy with John McCain.

When addressing McCain this evening, Obama struck all the right chords, equating McCain as closely with Bush as possible. Which is easy to do so long as McCain insists on giving the man hugs.

There's no question that, from this point up until November, the campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America will be a dog fight. Obama has yet to ever be in a feirce one. McCain has before, and may hold an edge in this department.

Certainly, Hillary Clinton has yet to concede. But that's largely immaterial. Just as Mike Huckabee refused to drop out after McCain claimed his majority, it will be less than shocking if Clinton does likewise.

One thing, however, is certain: the real contest begins now. It's all over but the crying.

The Stupidest Fucking Thing in the World To Say

Clinton ices any last slim hopes of being president

If Hillary Clinton had any hope, however slim, of being the Democrat nominee for President -- let alone being elected President -- she has certainly whittled that away with some recent and ridiculously stupid comments made while on the campaign trail.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," Clinton noted when asked about the possibility of her dropping out of the race.

Of course, it's hard to believe that comment had nothing to do with the recent health problems befalling the incomparable Senator Ted Kennedy.

Clinton picked the wrong time to try and pander to the Kennedy family, and in the worst possible way.

Clinton's apology aside, it's hard to look at this as anything but the final nail in her campaign's coffin. What a way to throw even the slimmest hope away.

Clinton's Foreign Policy Casts Shadow Over Potential Superticket

Bill Clinton's legacy of lax foreign policy poses dilemma for Obama/Hillary ticket

With the Democrat Presidential nomination pretty much decided -- the prospects of a Hillary Clinton comeback are very dim indeed -- the biggest question on many people's minds is: who will Barack Obama's running mate be?

Although one has cause to wonder whether or not the intensity of the ill will between the Clinton and Obama camps will prevent it, many people have been speculating on the appeal of an Obama/Clinton superticket -- among them Fidel Castro.

But considering the challenges facing the United States at this time (in particular, the war on terror), an Obama/Clinton superticket would have one key -- possibly insurmountable -- weakness: foreign policy.

While it's extremely difficult to find a US President who doesn't compare favourably to the current President in foreign policy, Bill Clinton is actually only barely one of them. Bill Clinton's foreign policy legacy will certainly not be what Clinton wants to be remembered for.

To pretend that Bill Clinton wouldn't be a fixture in any administration his wife is involved with smacks of naivete. And that is why Clinton's foreign policy record will be so troublesome for a potential superticket.

Some key episodes in Bill Clinton's foreign policy record include withdrawing US troops from the Peacekeeping mission in Somalia, ineffectual responses to Al Qaeda terrorist attacks (although one would be remiss to fail to mention that Clinton made Osama Bin Laden a top priority for US intelligence services), failing to respond to genocide in Rwanda, credibility-demolishing flip flops in regards to Bosnia-Herzegovina and rejected Haitian refugees after a coup d'etat in that country.

Clinton also failed to submit the Kyoto protocol to the Senate for ratification -- a move that is devastating to his credibility vis a vis climate change.

Clinton did have some successes. He manged to bring Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Kosovars to a halt, effectively contained Saddam Hussein in Iraq and fostered some key peace agreements in the Middle East.

But if Clinton's foreign policy record looks strong compared to that of George W Bush, it's only because he's being compared to George W Bush.

Of the lowlights of Clinton's foreign policy record, the most damning is his response to US casualties in the battle of Mogadishu. When public opinion in the US turned against the peacekeeping mission in Somalia, Clinton withdrew American troops from Somalia, posing the UN mission with a serious credibility issue.

It would later be discovered that the militants who perpetrated the ambush that set off the incident had been trained by Al Qaeda. Though Clinton certainly took Al Qaeda seriously enough later in his Presidency, his early failures cast a shadow over his entire presidency.

Clinton demonstrated he is not willing to pay a political price in order to support his country's interests abroad, or even to do the right thing. He would confirm it when genocide broke out in Rwanda, when American officials insisted that 100,000 Rwandans would have to die in order to justify risking a single American life.

Given the particular foreign policy challenges the United States faces today, Bill Clinton's foreign policy record will pose a lot of uncomfortable questions in the -- admittedly unlikely -- event that Hillary Clinton is named Obama's Vice Presidential nominee.

John McCain will certainly continue to face uncomfortable questions of his own. But at least he can offer a consistent answer to those questions: something that neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton have done.

This is perhaps only one more reason why the superticket -- or "Frankenticket" -- may not come to pass.

Contest Over

Edwards endorses Obama

As the months-long campaign for the Democrat Presidential nomination has drawn on, contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both been looking to land that perfect knockout punch -- either at the polls, or in terms of key endorsements.

Yesterday, Barack Obama has probably landed that punch. It was rumored to be months in coming.

As reported at length virtually everywhere American politics is reported on, yesterday former candidate John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama for president.

"Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I," Edwards announced.

"There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up," he added. "There is one man who knows in his heart there is time to create one America, not two ... and that man is Barack Obama."

Edwards took some time out to lavish some praise on Hillary Clinton, whom he reportedly considered endorsing.

"What she has shown ... is strength and character, and what drives her is something that every single one of us can and should appreciate," Edwards said. "She is a woman who, in my judgment, is made of steel, and she's a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done."

Clinton has put up a very respectable struggle, but Edwards' endorsement may have knocked her campaign down for the last time.

In terms of the delegate count, Edwards' endorsement is largely inconsequential. He has a grand total of 19 pledged delegates. None of them are obligated to support Obama, and they aren't nearly enough to secure a decisive victory.

But with Obama ahead in the popular vote, pledged delegates and even superdelegates (which Clinton had looked to as her last, best hope), Edwards support should be enough to swing enough of his supporters to transform Hillary Clinton's already-uphill climb into a sheer 90 degree grade.

Of course, given the numerous calls for Clinton to quit the race so Democrats can focus on John McCain, and Clinton's steadfast refusal to quit, to presume she'll finally throw in the towel would be more than a little bit premature.

At least we can presume Edwards finally got his Jet ski.

Hillary Finds the High Road

But can she walk it?

As the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has drawn on, it has typically become even more contentious and even more divisive.

Hillary Clinton finally spoke out on that particular topic today, as she noted that she would prefer her supporters vote for Barack Obama should he secure the Democrat nomination.

"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton announced.

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is -- obviously I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Senator Obama," she added.

Yesterday, Clinton won the West Virginia primary in a 41-point victory dismissed by some as irrelevant -- a win Clinton desperately needed to justify staying in the race.

But with the vast majority of observers insisting that the race has largely been decided in Obama's favour, one has to wonder if Clinton has finally found the high road so she walk it, or so she can use it to travel to a Vice Presidential nomination.

After all, one remembers some of Clinton's recent rhetoric, and remembers how low Clinton was willing to stoop in order to get -- or at least maintain -- an edge over Obama in West Virginia.

But if Clinton is resolutely determined to actually walk the high road, the prospects of a Democrat president in 2008 may have just brightened significantly, as those helping to turn the lights down on that possibility -- entrenched Clinton and Obama supporters unwilling to vote for the other candidate -- may have just been given cause to think twice before voting for John McCain.

Obama Expects to Have Nomination In the Bag

Barack: Two weeks to a finish

Barack Obama believes he's two weeks away from being able to get serious about his campaign to become the next President of the United States of America.

The magic date Obama's looking forward to is May 20. "If at that point we have a majority of pledged delegates -- which is possible -- then I think we can make a pretty strong claim that we have the most runs and it's the ninth inning and we've won," he insists.

Some estimates put Obama as few as 175 delegates away from an outright victory.

However, considering the Democrat practice of dividing delegates up proportionally, it's unlikely that Obama will achieve the 2,025 delegates by that date -- West (May 13) Virginia has 39 delegates at stake and Kentucky and Oregon (May 20) have 60 and 65 delegates, respectively.

Claiming the 175 delegates he needs to close the race basically depends upon Hillary Clinton throwing in the towel, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Recent estimates indicate that Clinton has sunk her entire Senate salary and all the proceeds from her book into the race.

"This is a little like déjà vu all over again," Clinton said. "Some in Washington wanted us to end our campaign, and then I won New Hampshire. Then we had huge victories on Super Tuesday. Then we won Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania. And I was never supposed to win Indiana. Well, I am running to be president of all 50 states."

Meanwhile, Clinton has indulged herself in some potentially damaging political rhetoric.

"You know, there was just an [Associated Press] article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans - white Americans - is weakening again, and how the whites in both states [Indiana and North Carolina], who had not completed college were supporting me," Clinton said. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

It isn't too hard to look into that statement and read "white voters are going to decide the president". Those who are looking at this contest along racial lines are all too likely to read precisely that.

Racial tensions in the race have already exploded numerous times already. Most recently, on Tuesday, Clinton supporter Paul Begala insisted the Democrats "can't win with eggheads and African Americans".

This, of course, can't help but devastate the Democrats' claim that they are the party of "black America" and that they are the party of racial equality.

Certainly, Begalia, like Clinton, couldn't have intended the comments the way they sound. Unfortunately for them, however, those comments will all too often be treated the way they sound. And they don't sound good.

The Obama/Clinton contest has, at this point, been misplayed too entirely to benefit anyone but the Republicans. If Obama does manage to get this contest wrapped up in two weeks time, it will likely be to the benefit of the party.

Just don't expect Hillary Clinton to go quietly. She simply won't.

Hillary Clinton is Not Going Home

Hillrod to stay in the race despite major setback

After her big win in Pennsylvania, many people were beginning to think that Hillary Clinton's campaign was beginning to grow some real wins.

One day after a big loss in North Carolina and a narrow victory in Indiana, Hillrod's prospects of securing the Democrat Presidential Nomination are beginning to look continuously dimmer, as Barack Obama continues to nurse a narrow lead in terms of both pledged delegates and the popular vote.

To give herself an extra push, Clinton has loaned her campaign another $6.4 million. She had previously lent her campaign $5, meaning she has, to date, sunk $11.4 million of her own funds into her campaign.

Hillary Clinton is not going home.

Up until yesterday, Clinton's strategy was to erase some of Obama's lead in pledged delegates and popular vote enough to draw enough superdelegates to her side to offset the difference, and emerge the Democrat Nominee at the Democratic National Convention.

Even her chances of that are looking ever-slimmer as George McGovern -- a man who will certainly hold a considerable amount of sway amongst the party-elite-selected superdelegates -- has urged her to drop out of the race.

"It certainly was not out of any less respect for Senator Clinton," McGovern announced. "I think she has waged a really courageous and valiant campaign. She will have my affection and admiration for all of my days. But I think mathematically the race is all but won by Barack Obama and the time has come for all of us to unite and get ready for the general election in the fall."

McGovern, who previously supported Clinton, has now decided to back Obama.

It's hard not to admire Clinton for choosing to soldier on despite the extremely slim odds, and it all really comes down to one of life's simplest maxims: continue to fight so long as you can win.

Even though her chances may be slim indeed, Hillary Clinton very much can win this contest. While the party elite may not necessarily agree that prolonging the primary process is in the party's best interest, at least Clinton will make things interesting up until the very end.

Hillary Clinton Stayin' Alive, Stayin' Alive

Race not over yet, Clinton declares

Going into today's Pennsylvania primaries, Hillary Clinton needed a margin of victory of 10% to justify staying in the race for the Democrat Presidential nomination.

As the last precincts in Pennsylvania report, it looks like she just might have gotten her wish, by virtue of a 55-45% win over rival Barack Obama.

"It's a long road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and it runs right through the heart of Pennsylvania," Clinton announced during her victory speech. "I'm in this race to fight for you ... You know you can count on me to stand up strong for you every single day in the White House."

Obama still leads in the Primary Election, but Clinton hopes her strong performance in Pennsylvania -- coupled with what she hopes will be strong performances in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina -- will help to sway enough superdelegates to lure the nomination away from Obama at the convention.

Intriguingly, however, word within the Democratic party is that they want to decide their nominee well in advance of the Democratic National Convention so that they may use the Convention as an opportunity to stage a dramatic rally around them.

With party brass clearly pulling the strings in the Democratic party, it will be interesting to see which way the party elite will push the nomination.

Clinton currently maintains a slim lead in superdelegate endorsements, although enough remain to still swing the Convention in favour of Obama -- that is, if the contest makes it that far.

So for now, Clinton is still alive in the Primary Election. But if the extremely undemocratic superdelegate process discards the democratically-expressed will of rank and file Democrat voters, whether or not the Democratic party survives her will be another story entirely.

Painful Pandering in Presidential Election

McCain, Clinton, Obama embarrass themselves on Monday Night Raw

In a historically unprecedented move, all three Presidential candidates appeared on Monday Night Raw last night.

Unfortunately, what transpired should properly be considered an agonizingly humiliating experience for all three candidates, as they took an opportunity to promote themselves to wrestling fans as an opportunity to shamelessly pander:



Which was followed by a parody wrestling match between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama impersonators. Unfortunately, these things are always pure death:



And one of those three individuals will be leader of the free world. It just makes a person feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

John McCain Too Old to Start His Jedi Training

Jack Murtha says so

At 75 years old, Rep. John Murtha thinks John McCain -- three years his junior -- is too old to be President.

"This one guy running is about as old as me," Murtha insisted. "And let me tell you something, it's not [an] old man's job. I mean the campaign, the stress, so forth."

Of course it's unsurprising that Murtha, a Democrat, would prefer a younger candidate to McCain. Then again, Hillary Clinton, whom Murtha reportedly supports, is 61. If Murtha really preferred a younger candidate, he should probably think about supporting Barack Obama, who is 47.

But at least we know Murtha's been watching the Colbert Report.

Hey, Weren't Republicans Supposed to be the Religious Ones?

Just asking...

If one were to ask certain observers of American politics, they would probably be told that the American Republican party was at the forefront of mixing religion in politics.

Much has been made about George W Bush's religiosity. "Concerned parties" everywhere objected to Mike Huckabee and his belief in creationism. Some have even insisted that the combination of Christianity and conservative politics has put the United States on the road to fascism.

So if this is the case, and Republicans are so religious, and this is such a bad thing, why is it that the Republicans' presumptive presidential nominee barely mentioning religion at all, and the remaining nominees for the Democrat nomination battling it out on the topic of religion?

In fact Clinton and Obama made a direct appeal to religious voters at a weekend debate at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's Messiah College.

Meanwhile, John McCain has remained remarkably quiet about his religious beliefs (for the record, he's an Episcopalian-turned-Baptist), to the extent that the Evangelical community -- another target of "concerned parties" and traditionally a reliable source of support for Republicans -- is largely split over whether or not they'll support him.

Right now if religion is much of an issue for anyone in the 2008 Presidential campaign, it's the Democrats. Yet there seems to be remarkably little criticism of this particular religious turn, and the worst criticism seems to be directed at Clinton and Obama by one another.

One has to wonder where the "interested parties" are on this particular matter. But then again, one is hardly surprised, either.

The Kids Are Alright

All the height of Jon Stewart and all the funny, too

Watch out Stephen Colbert, America has a pint-sized answer to you.

Calling themselves Swift Kids for Truth, these prepubescent pundits have taken aim at the art of negative campaigning, reminding us that some of the "sophisticated political messaging techniques" being pushed by political consultants these days were mastered on schoolyards everywhere long, long ago.

The ads mostly take aim at Hillary Clinton (who may have called this on herself with her "3AM" ads), and most importantly, they're funny as hell.

Hillary Clinton - Anti-cookie:



Rudolph Guiliani - Says "9/11" a lot, so it's important:



John Edwards - Metrosexual:



Hillary Clinton - "Holy shit! She's a dude!":



Barack Obama - His name is hard to say:



Hillary Clinton - Whitewater!:



And, a quick message from the Swift Nannies (for Truth!):



Of course, it would be facetious to suggest these kids hatched this entire idea on their own. All the more likely, the Swift Kids are the brainchildren of Larry Gibbard Jr and Terry Nathers. They probably have their own political agenda, but in the meantime, the comedy is fantastic.

Ironically, they've been around since at least December 2007. But CNN just caught on.

Iraq War: Worth the Cost?

Bush defends Iraq war on five-year anniversary

Five years ago today, the first American and British bombs began to fall on Iraqi targets, as the two states launched a war that has, to many, become a symbol of everything that is wrong with the state of global affairs today.

Despite numerous "mission accomplished" pronouncements and promises of victory, the War in Iraq continues today, five years after what was supposed to be a quick war with coalition troops being greeted as liberators.

Five years later, the reality is very different.

"The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated," US president George W Bush admitted in a wednesday morning speech. "But it is a fight we must win."

Bush noted some of the most recent successes in Iraq and attributed them to the recent 30,000 troop surge in the country. "On this anniversary the American people should know that since the surge began, the level of violence is significantly down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down, attacks on American forces are down and U.S. forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives," Bush said. "The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around; it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror," he announced, but noted that these successes still need to be solidified. "We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast — the terrorists and extremists step in, fill the vacuum, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage."

Yet Bush continued to demonstrate his ability to miss the point and his inability to concede that the American presence in Iraq has actually created more problems than it's solved.

"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much. In recent months, we have heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war," he continued. "No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."

But one has to seriously ask themselves whether American intervention in Iraq has prevented terrorists gaining the strategic victory he's alluded to, or actually opened the door for them.

The history of the Iraq war has been repeated ad nauseum, and so needs not be reiterated again here. But the question simply must be asked that, given that Iraq clearly had no weapons of mass destruction to distribute to terrorists (alhtough evidence clearly indicates they were trying to acquire them), and given that there were no credible links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida (Osama Bin Laden regarded Hussein as a socialist and unbeliever).

Certainly, as Bush noted today, Hussein was paying out Iraqi oil money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Putting a stop to that at least takes some of the incentive away from those who would otherwise be more than content to strap a few pounds of dynamite to their torso in the name of profitably killing Israelis.

"Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision, and this is a fight America can and must win. The men and women who crossed into Iraq five years ago removed a tyrant, liberated a country and rescued millions from unspeakable horrors," Bush insisted. And he's right about this.

There is value inherent in having removed Saddam Hussein from power. The international community has no business allowing any dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own country's population to continue to govern.

But the United States, in its mismanagement of a war that, considering the priorities of the day (the war on terror) it had no business launching in the first place, has made quite a mess in Iraq. Whether those who are opposed to the continued presence of US troops in Iraq like it or not, they have a responsibility to clean it up.

It has a responsibility to ensure that peace and stability reign supreme in Iraq. They have a responsibility to ensure that individuals as bad as Saddam Hussein or worse cannot come to power there.

"Because we acted the world is better and the United States of America is safer," Bush announced in a statement of absurdly extreme hyperbole.

"Five years ago tonight I promised that in the struggle ahead we would accept no outcome but victory," he added. "Today, standing before men and women who have helped liberate a nation, I reaffirm the commitment. The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary and it is just and with your courage the battle in Iraq will end in victory."

Of course, that's easy for Bush to say. He isn't the one who will have to worry about delivering victory in Iraq -- that task will fall to either John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton.

Of course, whether or not Clinton or Obama are serious at all about achieving victory in Iraq has yet to be seen, but that's another story for another time -- and one that has yet to be told.

Obama and Clinton May Want to Hold Their Abrogatin' Horses

Renogotiating NAFTA may be a good idea, but it may not be what Americans really want

In a presidential campaign in which -- depending upon whom you ask -- the Democrats appear poised to seize the presidency (that is, if they can maintain their momentum of the past four years), it was only a matter of time before the North American Free Trade Agreement came up.

And now it has.

During last night's Democratic debate both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama declared their intention to abrogate NAFTA unless it's renegotiated.

"I have put forth a very specific plan about what I would do. And it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards," Clinton announced.

"I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right," Obama agreed. "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced."

As noted previously, Obama and Clinton actually have a pretty good point there. NAFTA is in definite need of labour and environmental standards. To this end, it isn't alone: most free trade agreements do.

Solid environmental standards implimented via, and enforced by, NAFTA, could be infinitely more effective in curbing such issues as climate change than dead-end treaties like Kyoto could ever dream of.

And any changes to NAFTA that would make it more difficult for short term profit-seeking corporations from shipping manufacturing jobs abroad into the world's cheapest labour markets would be a boon not only to the American and Canadian middle class, but ironically to those companies themselves (although shortsighted profit-seeking motives blind them to it).

There is, of course, one other excellent reason to renegotiate NAFTA -- one that no American president should be altogether comfortable with. That reason is that the Americans themselves have rarely fully abided by it.

American economic protectionism -- particularly under Democrats -- has long been established. And while such protectionism generally springs from mercantilist modes of economic thought that are actually incompatible with the concept of free trade, that hasn't stopped the allegedly pro-free trade Americans from refusing to abide by their own agreements.

The softwood lumber dispute is the greatest case in point. While the American government accused Canada of maintaining an importing advantage by allegedly indirectly subsidizing Canadian lumber by keeping stumpage fees low.

Various trade commissions ruled in favour of Canada, all while the United States continued to defy virtually every ruling, ocassionally deferring back to their own trade commissions for rulings that -- quelle suprise! -- tended to be in their favour.

Thus, the position that the Americans would find themselves in under the conditions of a renegotiating of NAFTA: their economy desperately needing imports of Canadian resources (lumber, steel, oil and water, amongst a myriad of other items) and simply having not engendered the good will with their trading partners to wrestle any disproportionately favourable conditions out of them.

Of course to pretend that Canada or Mexico should be eager to put a squeeze on the Americans in a NAFTA renegotiation overlooks the undeniable interdependence of our three economies. After all, having resources is one thing -- you have to be able to trade them, and it's a looooooooong (and expensive) boat ride to China.

Which is precisely why we as Canadians -- as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- should accept Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's words of caution.

"[They] should recognize that NAFTA benefits the U.S. tremendously," Flaherty warned. "Those who speak of it as helpful to [just the] Canadian or Mexican economies are missing the point."

As are we if we view NAFTA as only benefiting the American economy (and it certainly has).

The idea of renegotiating NAFTA need not necessarily be a non-starter. But both Obama and Clinton need to keep in mind what they need to bring to the table -- greater compliance, not economic protectionism -- in order to get what they want (which just so happens to be what we should want).

If they don't they may find themselves in a very uncomfortable position, even if that discomfort won't be theirs alone.

Why Stephane Dion Really Needs an Election in 2008

Submitted for your approval...

This is the world as you "know" it: the Canadian Liberal party shares its most natural affinity with the American Democratic party, while the Canadian Conservative party is more closely acquainted with the Republican party.

Now, imagine a world wherein a Conservative government in Canada and a Democrat government in the United States could get along.

Don't be so quick to assume you've stepped into the Twilight Zone. This very plausible scenario may well partially be behind all the rush by the opposition parties to attempt to force a 2008 election.

A recent poll, conducted by the Canadian Press and Harris Decima, has concluded that most Canadians will support virtually any Democrat who contests the presidency in November 2008. It doesn't even matter much if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama get the Democratic nod. If Canadians were allowed to vote in the presidential election, they could count on a significant bounce at the ballot booth.

Of course, Canadians can't vote in the American election.

Canadians polled preferred Democrats to Republicans at a ratio of 4 to 1. 49% of Canaidans described themselves as fond of Democrats, compared to a mere 12% for Republicans.

Part of these results can certainly be attributed to the sometimes-exagerated but not-entirely-unjustified perception of George Dubya Bush as an international bogeyman. When you're probably the most unpopular man on the planet, it wil certainly in time rub off on those you associate with.

And therein lies the dilemma for Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. So long as they can find something -- anything -- to equate Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Bush as closely as possible, they risk losing a massive messaging advantage over the Conservatives -- one that may well account for the Tories' inability to make way into majority government territory.

As such, there is one thing that these three men need -- an election, and pronto. A rhetorical disaster could emerge should Stephen Harper be seen by the public at large having a constructive relationship with a Democrat President.

That would certainly represent eight years of hard rhetorical slogging swirling right down the political drain.

Of course, should they lose a 2008 election (that, let's remind ourselves, is far from guaranteed to occur) this is a scenario that could come true regardless. With Stephane Dion himself languishing in the polls right along with the Conservatives -- in a statistical tie -- Dion needs to find a winning issue with which to defeat the government.

He may have a few at his disposal. Afghanistan, climate change and nuclear safety could turn out to be quite good choices to frame the next election around. Then again, considering the Liberal party's commencement and continual support of the Afghanistan mission, failure on global warming, and astounding flip-flops on the nuclear safety issue, none of these should be considered safe choices.

The Liberals will have their work cut out for them. But the opposition will only have to work that much harder should the Conservative government survive beyond November 2008.

It'll be harder for them to reinvent the world as we "know" it should they fail to prevent its unravelling.

Tonight's the Night, This is It

Iowa straw polls happen tonight

For those paying attention to the long campaign for the American Presidency, and for those select few with dreams of becoming President of the United States, the long wait has finally ended.

The Iowa straw polls kick off tonight, with the New Hampshire primary to take place in five days' time.

This is where the rubber hits the road.

Conventional wisdom suggests that Mitt Romney will win the Republican poll. He won the Ames straw poll in August. However, Rudy Giulliani, Fred Thompson (then an undeclared candidate) and John McCain chose not to spend money in that particular contest, deciding to wait until the cards were really on the table.

Tonight, they are.

In Iowa, Mike Huckabee actually holds a six-point lead over Romney, while the other Republican candidates poll at eleven percent or less.



Meanwhile, Barack Obama leads Democrat candidates with 31%, while overall frontrunner Hillary Clinton trails John Edwards 24% to 27%, respectively.



In short, neither race is over just yet.

Even beyond Iowa, looking next to the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton and John McCain claim narrow leads over their competitors.

Yet, as the primaries proceed, and the cards fall where they may, the question of who will contest the 2008 Presidential election will only become clearer.

Tonight's the night. This is it.

Barack, Make Fun of Hillary, You Should

American politics' resident Yoda offers Obama some advice

If Karl Rove were born to a single mother in a galaxy far, far, away, one wouldn't be surprised if Yoda were called upon for a paternity test.

Just look at the guy. The resemblence is actually kind of creepy.

And while he may usually act a lot more like Darth Vader, Rove took a page out of Yoda's playbook today in offering Jedi/presidential hopeful Barack Obama some unsolicited advice on how to defeat leading Democrat Hillary Clinton.

"Stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson," he wrote in an open memo published in the Financial Times. "Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way."

Rove would certainly know this pretty well. High-minded is something that his candidates have rarely been. "Mean or ugly"? That's another matter entirely.

Rove also noted that Obama should close in on Clinton's complaints that she's being "picked on". Find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on," Rove wrote. "The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation."

"Blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more."

Naturally, Rove's (actually sound) advice to Obama has raised some questions regarding his motivations. While redemption and a turn back from the dark side can't be considered impossible, this is still Karl Rove we're talking about. In other words, it isn't bloody likely.

One Clinton spokesperson predictably surmised that Rove is helping set Obama up as the Democratic candidate only to help the Republicans knock him down. "Why is Karl Rove giving Senator Obama advice on how to win? Could it be that he thinks it will be easier for Republicans to run against the unknown gentleman from Illinois?"

According to Jim VandeHei, it may merely be relevance in the current campaign that Rove desires. "If you're a gambler you want to be at the table, and he very much wants to be part of this debate," VandeHei said.

Whatever his motivations, Rove's advice is very sound. If Obama wants to make one last push as the presidency, he'd be wise to follow Rove's advice to the letter.

If the plight of John McCain shows us anything, it's that there may not be a second chance at the presidency for some candidates, no matter how strong a candidate really is.

Need a VP? Barack's The Man For the Job

Obama's mastery of Senate precedents a key skill for Vice President

If one takes polls at face value, there's little question about it: Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrats' presidential nominee.

She leads her nearest competitor, Barack Obama, by a margin of 44 to 25 percent.

As such, it's probably unsurprising that Clinton has begun searching for a running mate. However, she's had less luck than a politician in her situation should have finding one: her ascendency to presidential candidate is almost assured, and she's almost guaranteed a massive advantage over whomever her Republican opponent would be.

Yet, Senator Joe Biden has, surprisingly, turned Clinton down.

"If I don't win the nomination, the likely nominee is going to be Hillary," Biden, a fellow presidential nominee, said. "And I love Bill Clinton, but can you imagine being vice president?"

Biden currently polls at 3%. Call him brave, call him optimistic, just don't call him opportunistic.

Beyond that, Biden has said he would prefer to continue serving as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden has also noted that Bill Clinton would likely be an omnipresent, overpowering influence in a Hillary Clinton White House (insert sexist who-wears-the-pants-in-the-family joke here). Not to mention Al Gore creeping around every other corner. Perhaps not the most secure position for a Vice President.

This, of course, leaves Hillary Clinton in search of a new running mate, and she shouldn't look any further than her most immediate (however remote) threat -- Massachusetts Senator Barack Obama.

There are many reasons why Obama would make an excellent Vice President (perhaps even a better VP than President).

First off, the buzz surrounding Clinton and Obama would be positively huge. Hell, even Fidel Castro says he has goosebumps at the very thought of it.

Historically, a Democrat's choice for Vice President has turned out to be more important than a Republican's, as a Democrat Vice President has proven more likely (at least in more recent history) to have to take over the Presidency. To this end, the Democratic party would be better off to have its number-two contender serve in the role. If he were forced to assume the presidency, Obama could continue to capture the imagination of Americans in the same vital way he and Clinton do.

Most importantly, however, one of the Vice President's most important jobs is to preside over the Senate.

Obama has spent a good deal of his Senatorial career familiarizing himself with Senate precedents -- which one senior Democratic senator once described to him as "the keys to the kingdom". That alone would make him a force to be reckoned with as Vice President.

There is, of course, the argument that having Obama as a running mate would hurt her ability to attract voters from fickle conservative voters who prefer to vote for white males. This in itself is a silly argument, and for obvious reasons. Not only are the Democrats unlikely to attract these voters, but Clinton herself doubly so.

By running with a black man as her running mate, however, Clinton could reap the benefits of having the force of history as a "third running mate". There would be vast appeal to many voters knowing that not only could they elect America's first woman president, but also its first black vice president.

Of course, this argument is no less fickle than the previous. The difference for Clinton, however, is that it remains pertinent.

In the face of an ongoing campaign, Clinton may not yet be ready to admit that she needs Barack Obama. But she does.

Of course, the greater challenge may be convincing Obama to quit his campaign prematurely; something he would be doing no matter how unlikely the prospects of him closing a 19-point gap between himself and Clinton are.

In other words, both candidates would need to swallow their pride a little bit. The benefits of doing so are very tangible inded.

The greater question is whether or not the're willing to do it.

Video Game Controversy... AGAIN...

Bring On the Douchebags!!!

Remember Mortal Kombat?

Way back when Mortal Kombat first hit arcades, it sparked almost instant controversy. If you’re anywhere near as old as I am, you (like me) surely delighted in liquidating your weekly allowance in quarters, heading straight for your local mall and spending hours laying the uber-brutal smackdown on the likes of Sub-Zero, Liu Kang and Kano.

The game was incredibly violent for its time, and inspired its fair share of protest from pro-censorsip groups. But today, even those were the good ol’ days.
Yes, kids, today video games are more violent than ever. The first time I played Def Jam Vendetta: Fight for New York, I thought it was off the hook, violence-wise. Then I watched some of my friends playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Now, some people may think that there’s nothing wrong with walking into a Pizza restaurant and killing its occupants execution-style… but then again, some people also think the Earth is flat.

The point is, that video games these days have reached new heights of violence and controversy. From smashing people’s heads in car doors, (in Def Jam Vendetta), to ripping people’s innards out (in God of War), to taking part in riots (State of Emergency), modern video games have eclipsed their predecessors in terms of violence.
Despite the fact that strong evidence suggests that violent crimes amongst youths (those who pro-censorship advocates claim are influenced to violence by video games) have decreased year-by-year since as video games become more and more violent, many continue to decry the escalating violence.

And to tell you the truth, I can’t entirely blame them. I’ve never been pro-censorship, some of the violence contained in video games (which have consistently expanded their appeal across age groups ever since their inception) borders on extremely disturbing. I can honestly say that if I had children I would not allow them to play most of these video games being released today.

Of course, that aside, none of the tragedies that are allegedly caused by videogame violence (the idea of which, of course, defies that little thing we all have called “free will”) doesn’t stop people from trying to profit from it.

Take, for example, anti-violent-video-game activist (alleged) Jack Thompson. In a February, 2005 interview with CBS news, Thompson referred to ESA president Doug Lowenstein as the “Goebbels of the video game industry”. Thompson also maintains www.Stopkill.com, a site whose self-described purpose is to “is to give you the means to contact Miami attorney Jack Thompson if you know of someone harmed as a result of violent entertainment, including violent video games.”

The site also urges people to encourage their kids to “shoot hoops, not humans” (good advice, actually).

Thompson, himself, however, has been involved with lawsuits against Wal-Mart, Sony and Rockstar Games. The lawsuits concern the popular aforementioned Grand Theft Auto series, as well as Manhunter (which is fairly demented in its own right). Fortunately, he has yet to win a single one. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s been trying like the dickens. As a point of reference, he was also involved in the lawsuit regarding Body Count’s classic song “Cop Killer”.

To Thompson (among others), the “M” video game label that the video game industry consented to being placed on violent video games – which is meant to restrict the sales of these games to adults -- doesn’t mean much.

The current hot-topic controversy is over a hidden sex mini-game in the aforementioned GTA : San Andreas. Here’s how it works: when equipped with a “hot cup of coffee” code modification, the game allows the player to cruise looking for women who will share a “hot cup of coffee” with them. Guess what that’s a euphamism for? Mmmm-hm.

U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham-Clinton (whose husband, bill, you may recall, helped cast the finger of blame at Eminem and Marilyn Manson in the post-Columbine scrum) and Joe Lieberman have raised a ruckus over the feature, referring to it as “pornographic”. Rockstar games has asserted that the controversial mini-game is actually the work of “modders” – hard-core gamers/programmers who have learned how to produce modifications for games.

On that note, cue your next video-game controversy profiteer: a New York woman who claims she bought the game for her 14-year-old son without being aware of the controversy – or, apparently, the game’s rating. The rating on the game has since been changed to “AO” (Adults Only), but that changes little.

Follow me if you will: son – 14 years old. Game rated – Mature (for players 17 and older). Of course, in a lawsuit-happy land where you can sue CBS and Janet Jackson for an “accidental” breast exposure, this is business-as-usual.

Scott Ramsoomair (creator of the delightful www.VGCats.com) somewhat agrees with the concerns regarding video game sex and violence: “I’d say roughly 80% of video games contain violence, but only a very small amount of that is intense violence. Your Grand Theft Autos and Mortal Kombats,” he says. However, he strongly disagrees with assertations that video game violence inspires real-life violence: “Psychos will always be psychos; they don’t need video games to help them. Though this one time my brother punched me in the arm when I beat him in Mario Kart. Does that count?”
He also notes that often the outrage is over inflated: “Take BMXXX, a horrible game, but not for its content. It was just a very bad game. But people hear nudity and everyone is up in arms.”

While creating legislation that penalizes retailers for selling video games in defiance of their rating may not be a bad idea, one needs to be very careful when considering this. It’s actually just one step away from censorship.

Because while I can personally agree that games like GTA: San Andreas should not be in the hands of children, censorship is always a dangerous path to walk down. If the backlash over Ms. Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” shows us anything, it’s that once one gets too far down that path, it can be hard to find the way back again.