Worth Fighting For

As a tepid Conservative supporter in the last election and a former Liberal party member, I can call each as I see it and this week I'm disappointed in both.
The Tories, staying true to their Reform roots, want to do away with the $1.75 the parties get for each vote they receive in elections. Beyond their ideological motives, Harper is doing this to kick his opponents while they are down. The Conservatives do a better job raising funds from private citizens, so they need the public funding less. Clearly, their strategic calcualtions lead them to conclude that cutting out this per-vote funding will only hurt them while it decimates the other parties. So much for Harper's claim that he wanted a better relationship with Parliament. He has a duty to earn the confidence of the House, and if he's not even going to try, what is he there for?
The Conservatives have been misrepresenting this issue. First, it is not a "subsidy." It is a grant to parties based on vote share. Nobody who voted Conservative is seeing their money go to the Bloq or the NDP or the Liberals and vice versa. And if you do not vote, you send no money anywhere. So it is essentially a donation to a party of your choice. Secondly, it is not the only source of public financing the parties receive. Nor is it the biggest. Parties that get more than 2% of the national vote get 50% of their election expenses reimbursed. And candidates that get 10% or more of the vote in their riding get up to 60% back from the government. This amounts to more than the per-vote money. Why aren't the Conservatives cutting this? Considering that they spend more than any other party during elections, they benefit the most from this.
Public funding of parties may sound distasteful, but it is integral to our political process. We have banned unions and corporations from donating and have severly restricted private donations in an effort to ensure that our politicians aren't bought. Undoing this would be a terrible idea. Most democracies follow this path and we have done it for years. If you want to debate the merits of this, fine, but do not sneak it into a fiscal update and make it a confidence motion as the Conservatives have done. By doing this, they deserve the backlash of the parties. And if voters were more educated on this matter, they'd have to deal with backlash from them too.
I'm disappointed that the Liberals have been unable to find an MP who can communicate this to voters. They have pretended that they are angry with the economic update. And while that does leave much to be desired, the real reason for all the coalition talk is the cuts to party funding. The Liberals should not be afraid to say so. If they could manage to communcate their ideas to voters, perhaps they wouldn't be in the dire situation they are in now. They allowed their leader, Dion, to be defined for a year before they bothered to communicate what he was all about. They let the Green Shift get bad mouthed for a year without ever explaining it to Canadians. If they can't explain why election financing is good, then they don't deserve to form government in a coalition. A fight for election financing is worth bringing down the government for, especially since it was snuck in to an economic bill that it had no place being. Don Martin wrote in the National Post that "while the merits of political funding might be worth a debate during calm prosperous times, it has no place on an agenda that should now be devoted to important decisions." The NDP and Liberals should not be afraid to tell Canadians what they are standing up for. If they don't, then there's no way Canadians will stand with them.

Old is the new Black

With the election of Barack Obama, America proved a few things to the world. It showed that it has moved beyond its divisive racial past and showed that it was both ready and willing to elect a black President. This is despite the endless lecturing we all had to endure about the resilience of the racist, white American. During the presidential campaign, Obama insisted that John McCain would play the race card, and try to tell voters to stay away because he didn’t look like the other Presidents on American money and in American history books, even though the honourable McCain never did. Pundits insisted that Obama’s race was an obstacle in his way to the White House. CNN spent many nights probing the effects of “race in the race” and how it may impact Obama’s electability. And voters had to watch news clip after news clip where reporters would dig up some idiot who said they can’t vote for Obama because of his middle name, and then insinuate that this is indicative of a larger trend. In the end, all of this worrying, hand-wringing and race-baiting was for naught. On Election Day, Obama’s race helped him. The exit polls show that only 9% of voters said race was an important factor to them. Not exactly a huge racial barrier for Obama to have to overcome. But of those people for whom race was important, 53% of them actually voted for Obama. Obama benefitted from being black! So much for racist America, eh? Unfortunately, the candidate who actually had the societal handicap was not the black candidate, but the old one. While nearly absent from the discussion during the campaign, age turned out to be a much greater factor in this election. A whole 15% of voters said it was an important factor to them and 77% of those people voted for Obama. Whereas Barack Obama’s race actually helped him, John McCain suffered greatly because people didn’t want to vote for a person of his age. But where were the nightly specials on age discrimination? Where were the advocates for the aged? Our society was so preoccupied with the potential for racism to hold Obama back that it missed ageism completely. Yes, with the election of Barack Obama, America proved to the world a few things. Sadly, first among them was that while America won’t judge you on the colour of your skin, it will judge you on the number of wrinkles in it.

The Great Double Standard

I have been shocked in the last few weeks at the outrageous double standard that is present in the media coverage of the US election. The media has lashed out at everything Sarah Palin and John McCain do while ignoring negative stories about Obama.
The media was quick to report that there was a shout of "kill him" at a Palin rally when she mentioned Obama's name. For sure, this is a disgusting comment. Or, rather, it would have been, had it actually occurred. The Secret Service investigated and found no evidence of it. Secret Service agents were at the Scranton rally and heard no such thing. Agents also investigated claims made about a Florida rally, where "kill him" was indeed yelled, but directed clearly at Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist. This fact was not only unreported, it was distorted so that it appeared the comment was directed at Obama.
The media was quick to pounce on the "kill him" report and it flooded newscasts, websites and magazines. Now that it turns out the two stories that started it all didn't happen, the media has been remarkably absent in setting the record straight. They have also been absent in covering the numerous attacks on Palin, from the Obama supporters' crude tshirts, to the warning by comedian Sandra Bernhard that Palin would get gang raped if she went to New York to the art exhibit where you can grab a gun and pretend to shoot her.
Where is the outrage over these examples? If a conservative comedian or radio host warned that Obama should stay out of Alabama lest he be beaten and hung, would the media be silent? If there was an art exhibit where you could "assassinate" Obama, would the media ignore it? This is outrageous! These are just a few examples of a double standard that is both unfair to the McCain campaign and to the American voters, who deserve a balanced and unbiased news media.

Why this Election was a Game Changer

Although conventional wisdom is that the Canadian federal election was an unnecessary, $300 million exercise in futility, it was in fact a game changer. How so? Because of the October 14 results, Canadians have seen the last of all of the major party leaders. The election of 2008 will go down as the last for Dion, Duceppe, Layton and Harper. The next time Canadians go to the polls, the political scene will look nothing like it does today. Everyone already knew that this election was Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s last, even before he announced his eventual resignation this week. Dion ran a disorganized campaign, allowed himself to be defined by Conservative ads for months, and was unable to connect or convince voters as his party was defeated. There are no consolation prizes in electoral politics, especially when you finish with the lowest number of seats in a generation and the lowest vote share since Confederation. Dion is done and the next election will see a new leader for the Liberals, likely chosen within the next few months. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Quebecios leader will not run in another election either; he barely ran in this one. Duceppe made it clear in 2007 that he wanted to get out of federal politics and lead the provincial Parti Quebecois in Quebec and only hung around for this federal election after another took the PQ position. Throughout this campaign, and especially during the debates, Duceppe seemed tired and uninterested. After 5 elections, I suspect Duceppe is tired of the political game in Ottawa. He’ll be gone come the next election. The NDP’s Jack Layton is finished too. Despite his best efforts to appear as Canada’s white, mustachioed Barack Obama, Layton was unable to realize the major gains he had foretold, gaining only 8 seats and improving the NDP vote share by less than 1%. The NDP had high hopes for Quebec and BC but was unable to win big in either. This was Layton’s 3rd election and there are rumblings that the lone Quebecois NDP MP, Thomas Mulcair may be itching to replace him. There are others in the party who say Layton has moderated the party too much and has abandoned their ideals. Either way, Layton will have a hard time staying on as leader; he’ll be gone by the next election. Finally, I predict that Conservative leader Stephen Harper will face a challenge to his leadership. Harper has run in 3 elections now, and while each showing has improved upon the last, he was unable to win a majority government when given the dual gifts of a vote split between four left wing parties and the most unappealing, ineffectual Liberal leader in decades. If Harper could not deliver a majority in this election with this political climate, will he ever be able to? You better believe that this question is being asked by conservatives across the country. Harper has done a good job building the party around himself, leaving little room for others to flourish. But he can only run a one-man ship for so long before challengers like Peter McKay, John Baird, or perhaps Peter Van Loan begin questioning his leadership, especially if the Liberals select a dynamic leader to replace Dion and the probability of a Harper-led majority declines. Whether he is forced out by a leadership review or he steps down when the writing on the wall becomes clear, Stephan Harper will be gone by the next election too. Many Canadians were exasperated with this election. Many found it unnecessary, many thought the platforms and campaigns were largely uninspiring and there was little change in regards to the composition of the House of Commons. But Canadians should be thankful for having an election this year! Sure it may have been our fourth election in eight years, and sure it may have been dull compared to the drama of the United States’ election, but because of the 2008 results, our next election is bound to be more interesting: the political landscape will change dramatically and four completely new party leaders will be ready to vie for our votes. And there’s nothing boring about that.

In Defense of Bottled Water

This month the issue of banning bottled water has resurfaced in Metro Vancouver. Vancouver city councilor Tim Stevenson has come out in favour of a ban on bottled water at city facilities and is urging city council to pass a bylaw to that effect. And there’s talk at school boards that schools should be free of the bottles as well. Environmentalists and sanctimonious politicians have gotten out their soapboxes and are beginning to lecture us on the virtues of good old tap water. These activists insist that bottled water is evil. Water bottles are littering our cities and filling up our landfills! Producing bottles wastes energy, burns fossil fuels, and contributes to global warming! Then they charge that British Columbians are so shallow that we only drink bottled water because it’s cool. And for a final argument, they have even dragged out the old adage that Evian spelled backwards is naïve. What clever wordplay! Clearly this palindrome proves the necessity of such a ban! This idea is ridiculous and this campaign against bottled water is absurd. Firstly, it isn’t 1998; nobody drinks bottled water because it’s cool anymore. In fact, isn’t being eco-friendly all the rage right now? If so, then drinking bottled water is about as hip as leaving your Hummer idling while you go club a seal. People drink bottled water because it is convenient. Somehow this point escapes the anti-bottle zealots who keep informing us of the quality of our tap water and the necessity of bringing our own bottles from home. But sometimes I get thirsty and don’t have my reusable bottle (a stainless steel one at that) available. If I forget my bottle, all the high quality tap water in the world isn’t going to help. If I want to get some water to take with me to class or on the bus, bottled water is my only option. And some people simply do not like the taste of tap water or prefer their water to have bubbles or minerals or flavours and that’s a choice they should be allowed to make. The environmental arguments for a ban are flimsy too. Are our landfills really filling up with water bottles that should have been recycled? Encorp Pacific, the not-for-profit company that runs our beverage container recycling programs, recently disclosed that 73% of plastic beverage bottles are brought back to their depots and recycled. That’s a very high level of recycling participation by British Columbians and the last 27% could likely be captured by increasing the bottle deposit and adding more recycling depots and bins. Water bottles seem like even less of a problem when you look at the recycling rates of other waste items, such as dead batteries. Batteries can be very harmful to the environment but, according to Statistics Canada, only about 25% of them are disposed of properly. Where’s the outrage over this? Why isn’t Tim Stevenson calling for a battery ban? And as for the fossil fuel argument, I suggest we adjust our priorities. With all the environmental problems in the world, should bottled water be at the top of the list? If we are concerned about excessive burning of fossil fuels, then our governments need to improve transit, increase our hydroelectricity production, and make electric and hybrid cars cheaper and more readily available. These are real solutions to climate change; a bottled water ban is not. The politicians in our city councils and on our school boards should drop this silly idea, move on to tackling the challenges that really matter, and leave us free to drink what we want.

The Nasty Campaign

"...Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race.

Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the "race card"). When there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was--preemptively, on at least two occasions--warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping.

His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about Obama's past with racism. Second, for about 3 months all we've heard are references to McCain's age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can't remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc.

Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden's email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don't think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a 'messiah' or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on."

-Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/jumping_ship.html

McCain Seizes Coal Gaffe

The McCain campaign has released this new web ad that capitalizes on the contradiction between the official Obama-Biden platform (pro-coal) and the words of Joe Biden himself (anti-coal). The McCain web ads have usually been better than his tv ads and if I was giving him advice, this is one that should definitely get moved to the television sets of Pennsylvania and the other Appalachian states (Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia) as coal is an important aspect of those states' economies. Plus, this ad is just plain effective. You've got clips of Obama, secret footage of Biden, and a catchy tune to boot! Roll this ad out Senator McCain. You'll be glad you did.

Buck Up, Canada!

The Canadian federal election, after an agonizingly slow start, has now kicked into high gear. With the politicians crisscrossing the country campaigning, the party websites up and functioning, and the airwaves filled with partisan ads and commercials, it must be time for the traditional wringing of the hands over the negativity of our political campaigns. The media partakes in this willingly: our newscasts offer up polls on who is the ‘nastiest’ leader and our newspapers run columns denouncing the mean-spiritedness of the campaign so far. And individual Canadians are again complaining that our politics is too dirty, too harsh. This is absurd. This campaign has offered little in the way of negativity, with the exception of a pooping puffin. There has yet to be anything in the way of a controversial attack, a personal insult or a smear campaign—nothing. Canadians seem to hold this ideal of a friendly and civil campaign, but we must remember that on October 14 the country is holding an election, not a harvest ball; we are not electing a homecoming queen, we are electing a head of state. And in this contest there is no prize for congeniality and there’s no award for good sportsmanship. Only one person can claim victory on election night and it should not be based on who ran the campaign with a smile. Elections must be adversarial as they are competitions to see who is most capable to lead our country. The leaders have to display to us why they are the best choice (by presenting their ideas and qualifications) but they must also demonstrate why the other choices are wrong (by attacking and undermining the other guys.) Some people tend to confuse any ad or comment that questions or challenges the opponent as wrong. But this is not dirty pool, its politics and politics is meant to be a contact sport. By making those who seek office compete for our votes, we can see how our perspective leaders will handle challenges. If a candidate is confronted during the campaign, it is an opportunity for him to showcase his knowledge, wit, political skill and fortitude. If a party leader can’t handle a criticism during the campaign, how is he going to handle similar criticisms or attacks when they come from an aggressive Russian President, an angry European envoy, or a protectionist American Congress? The Prime Minister’s Office is not the place to first see how our leaders handle adversity; the campaign trail is. Our electoral system depends on allowing candidates to draw these kinds of distinctions between themselves and their opponents without being labeled as ‘negative’. If we were to do away with all kinds of negativity and make our politicians play nice, our elections would be even duller, our candidates less tested, and our democracy worse off. So buck up, Canada! The campaign has just started and if you think it’s too rough-and-tumble now, it is just getting warmed up.

The Consortium and the Censorship

The so-called media 'consortium' that decided today NOT to allow Green Party leader Elizabeth May into the leader's debates should reconsider. If in 2008 the Green Party cannot break into mainstream Canadian politics, then it will likely never be. When has the environment ever been such talked-about, high-profile topic? The answer is never. Global warming and climate change are gigantic issues and the Greens speak directly to those voters who see them as paramount. With neither of the two dominant parties having done much of anything on this front for years, it is completely acceptable to allow another party their chance to campaign on the environment.
The Green Party of Canada ran a full slate of candidates (308) in 2006 and will run another full slate (minus 1, as per the agreement with Liberal leader Dion) this time around. That's much more than the Bloq Quebecois ever runs. In fact, the BQ has never run more than 75 candidates since they only run in Quebec, yet they are routinely included in the national leader's debate. This leads to the absurd situation where millions of Canadians are watching a leader debate for whom they cannot ever vote for. The Greens, however, are a national party. They received nearly 4.5% of the vote last election and now have a sitting member of Parliament in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast MP Blair Wilson. In fact, as May points out, it was the existence of the one lone Bloc MP that helped then-BQ leader Lucien Bouchard nap a spot in the leader's debate in the 1993 election. With 5% of the vote, a sitting MP member, and an central issue that has never been so pressing or so palpable, the time is right for the Green Party to enter the leader's debate. Let Elizabeth May in.

The Distasteful Attacks on the Palin Pregnancy

John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, deserves to be fully vetted and researched and questioned like all who seek public office, especially the 2nd highest position in the land. However, the absurd and bitter attacks against her and her family regarding the news of her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy are hitting new lows. First, this story all grew out of internet rumours that swirled a conspiracy theory ripped right from a Desperate Housewives script, claiming that Governor Palin's new infant is not hers, but rather her daughters, and the Governor was pretending to be pregnant to cover up this teenage mistake. The fact that this story, spun by some liberal blogger grew so fast and gained such momentum is shocking. Even more shocking is the vitriol that has been spewed in the days following the Palin's announcement that their daughter is indeed 5 months pregnant. To Barack Obama's credit, he has maintained that the family of Palin should be off limits, but that has not stopped his supporters, surrogates and other liberals and democrats from going on the attack (a move Obama perfected during the primary where his supporters attacked Hillary Clinton while the candidate himself was able to masquerade as staying above the fray.) There has been a barrage of insults levelled against Sarah Palin, from her hypocrisy for supporting 'family values' while having a pregnant teen, to the quality of her judgement for not refusing the VP spot knowing her daughter is in this sticky situation. But no attack has been so harsh, so unnecessarily vicious as Obama supporter Ed Shultz's words on Larry King Live last night. Not only does Sarah Palin apparently lack judgement for not dropping out, not only must she be a hypocrite for having a pregnant teen, but she is also a terrible mother? According to Shultz, its important to ask, "What kind of mother is she?" Apparently, teenage indiscretion equals bad mothering. Schultz even went so far as to muse that "most professional gardeners have a really nice yard, you know what I mean?" Thus, Shultz insinuates that if there is a problem in her family then it must mean Sarah Palin is a miserable mother and a pitiful leader. Does this mean that the woman who is cheated on is a bad partner and terrible wife? If a kid fails in school, does it follow that the parent is also an underperformer or unintelligent? This discourse is absurd and it's nonsense. And the Obama campaign better be careful, because with millions of independent-minded, moderate voters up for grabs in this election, attacking this mother for the choices of her children might drive many Americans into Sarah Palin's corner. Palin's best attribute is her down-to-earth, 'neighbourly' feel. Americans want to elect leaders to whom they can relate, and I'm willing to bet Americans can relate quite well to a strong, working mom who's family has its share of problems, just like everybody else's.

Hillary's Convention Home Run

Hillary Clinton demonstrated what makes her a political force in America with her speech at the Democratic Convention last night. She silenced the critics who said she wasn't helping Barack Obama enough, she gave tribute to her supporters and her own history-making campaign, and she showcased the skill, wit and grace that will ensure she has a role to play whether in an Obama administration or a Democratic Congress. She did everythign she can for Barack Obama, the outcome of the election will rest on what he makes of it. But whatever the result, the best of Hillary Clinton was on display last night, and here's hoping there's more where that came from.


"If you here the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they're shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going. And even in the darkest moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going. I have seen it." Hillary Clinton, paraphrasing Harriet Tubman of the underground railroad.

Cone of Absurdity

Barack Obama and John McCain participated in a forum at the Saddleback Church with Rick Warren (of "Purpose Driven Life" fame) to answer questions about politics, leadership and God. Obama performed decently, but it was McCain who outperformed all expectations while appearing vigorous, succinct and straight-forward. Thus, since Obama was 'beaten' in this exchange, it was time for his supporters to light the Barack-Signal and call for the most absurd, belittling attack to be launched. And here it is: McCain violated the 'Cone of Silence'. It not only sounds like the name of a low-budget sci-fi movie from the 80's, it is also an unfortunate and pathetic attempt to undermine John McCain's strong performace and attack his credibility and character. NBC's Andrea Mitchell started this all by reporting that some "Obama people" were questioning whether McCain had been able to hear the questions Warren asked Obama, thus explaining how prepared and capable he was in asnwering them when his turn came around. There was a room with no audio or video feed which was suposed to hold whichever candidate went second so that the questions would not be known in advance. McCain was in this "cone of silence" for the final two-thirds of Obama's time on stage. For the first third, McCain was not in the green room, but was instead en route in a secret service motorcade. McCain inists he had no knowledge of the questions, his staff and campaign insist he was not watching the forum while in the car, and there is no evidence from either during the debate or after that suggests McCain knew what questions were coming. The only reason this claim has risen is because McCain did so well. This charge underscores the absolute arrogance of the Obama campaign by charging that the only way McCain could outperform Obama is if he cheated. This is character assassination at work and its wrong. Considering that Barack Obama and his supporters have spent 2 years lecturing voters to ignore all the baseless claims and accusations levelled at him, its discouraging to see them so eager to spread similar charges against McCain.

How Bush is Winning the White House for McCain

George W. Bush, once the albatross of John McCain's campaign, once the greatest obstacle for John McCain to overcome, is helping McCain win the election. The Bush Administration is undermining Barack Obama's most fundamental and defining political positions in an effort to aid McCain's White House bid. And I suspect it will be successful.
Although Obama's greatest weaknesses are foreign policy and defence, it is in these arenas that Obama has most fundamentally defined his candidacy. Obama's position on Iraq (will end it in 16 months) and on diplomacy (we must talk more to our allies AND our enemies) has been a central characteristic of his campaign thus far and was the central thrust in his attack on and defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama's cosmopolitan world view, his diplomacy-first policies, his bring-the-troops-home position, are the bedrock of his candidacy. And that is where President Bush has been undermining him, chipping away at the foundation of the Democratic candidate's platform.
In the last 4 weeks, Bush has made gigantic course changes on Iraq and foreign relations. Most of the media has called these moves flip-flops or as The Guardian puts it, a "remarkable turnaround". However, these moves are in fact constructed, nuanced changes designed to weaken the Democrats' positions going into the Fall election. Last month, Bush moved to adopt a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, reversing what was once a set-in-stone position against such a move. This will allow both the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign to adjust their positions on the increasingly unpopular war. McCain can now (and he has) suggest that troops CAN come home as the situation on the ground improves. With this, Obama's central position disappears. By using the vague language of "time horizon" Bush allows McCain and the Republicans to minimize the difference between Obama and themselves and appeal to independent voters, while not alienating the Republican base. This move seriously undercuts Obama's charge that McCain will not bring troops and wants a never-ending war.
A similar move by the Bush White House on diplomacy is undercutting Obama's central tenant of talking and negotiating with our enemies: Bush has announced a hundred new diplomatic hirings; the Administration has decided to station a diplomatic mission in Iran (the first in 30 years); Condoleeza Rice entered talks with Iran last month regarding their nuclear ambitions; and Rice personally delivered the Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement to the Georgian President this week. Suddenly, George Bush has discovered the diplomacy that Obama has been campaigning for. And just as suddenly, Obama's calls for more talking and more negotiating don't seem so new and exciting; they no longer count as a "new form of politics" if the Bush government has already adopted them.
What these two abrupt changes by the Bush Administration represent is an effort to move the Republican Party closer to Barack Obama's core positions on foreign policy so as to eliminate those as viable reasons to vote for Obama. This election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and the perceived "riskiness" of electing an untested and inexperienced politician. If the Republicans can eliminate a few of the differences between Obama and McCain that may have driven voters into the Democrat's column, then Bush will have helped McCain win what should have been an unwinnable election. Voters have short attention spans and most Americans will just begin tuning in to the campaign in the next few weeks and THEN start making their decisions. If, come election day, there's increased diplomacy by the Bush government and McCain's talking troop withdrawal, it won't matter that Obama thought of them first, what will matter is that Obama will have lost his central thrust, he will have lost his campaign's foundation as a tenable issue, and he will have lost the election. And of all people, it will be thanks to George W. Bush.

Why I Have Little Empathy for Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr was front and centre in the news this week as tapes of his interrogation were released and Canada's army of bleeding hearts and ultra-liberals called for him to be returned to Canada immediately in light of the "torture" he was enduring in Guantanamo Bay. In truth, the interrogation footage I've seen is mild. There's no screaming or violence. The interrogators are calm. Khadr is fed and has had access to medical care. I see no torture. All I see is a young extremist being forced to lie in the bed him and his family have made.
I admit, Omar Khadr is young, having been captured in Afghanistan at the young age of 15. However, I do not consider him to be a child soldier. Child soldiers are recruited by brutal regimes around the world, from the Sudan to Burma, and they are usually not 15 year old extremists who are sympathetic to the cause. Child soldiers are young children (note: not teenagers) who are forced to fight. Khadr is and has been a willing participant in his families disgraceful and dangerous association with Osama bin Laden and Muslim extremists. There are videos of Omar Khadr helping construct bomb materials for use on Western forces (including Canadian soldiers) in Afghanistan, and he was captured after an hours-long firefight, which ended when one of the two American medics who were checking for survivors was blown up by a grenade tossed by either Khadr or one of his comrades, killing 28 year old Christopher Speer. Khadr was and is an enemy combatant, an extremist and a terrorist. Yes, he was only 15, but he remains those things nonetheless. 15 is not a child. At 15 years, you know right from wrong, and Khadr knew that he and his family were out to fight the Western world, to fight all those who did not follow Islam.
Omar Khadr undoubtedly was shaped and influenced by his parents, especially his father. But does that excuse his actions? Do we let him go, patting the scamp on the head while chuckling "boys will be boys?" No. We must treat him as the terrorist he is, regardless of how he got to this point. Why his family is allowed to live in Toronto to this day, espousing their hatred and doctrine to others is another story. It is a disgrace that the Khadr family is allowed to live freely in Canada, and is allowed to bleed our health care system of tens of thousands of dollars to pay for their other son, Omar's younger brother Abdulkareem, who was paralyzed during another firefight in the Middle East, this time alongside Papa Khadr.
Omar Khadr's story is a sad one. It is terrible that more was not done to prevent the parents of this twisted family from indoctrinating their children and transforming them from innocent boys to Muslim extremists. However, it is now done. Omar Khadr is now a 21 year old extremist sitting in a detention centre for being involved with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. No one in Canada should be held without trial or charges or access to a lawyer. Those are rights we hold dear and if this were to happen to any Canadian anywhere in this great country, it should be stopped immediately. But this is an different circumstance. This is war. This is terrorism. And Omar Khadr should have thought of that before he helped kill troops in Afghanistan. Canada should request that the United States proceed with a trial immediately, as those legal rights are fundamental. But it is the United States' jurisdiction to hold the trial, as it was their national who was killed. Beyond that, Canada should not seek to get Khadr returned, as I doubt he would get the severe treatment that he deserves. I can far too easily imagine the image of young Omar being returned home to his family in Toronto after Canada's backwards legal system set him free and allowed him to return to his family of spies, saboteurs and terrorists. Khadr's lawyers, his family, and the bleeding hearts in this country would like to see Canadians, awash in sympathy and empathy, demand that Omar be brought home. But luckily, there are a few too many Canadians who share opinions like mine for that to happen.

The 2008 Electoral Map: 275 - 263

With today being July 14, there are still 113 days until the 2008 United States Presidential Election. But despite that great length of time, during which anything can happen to change the race, I'm prepared to make my early prediction on the shape of the electoral map. In the race to 270 electoral votes, Barack Obama will indeed put some current previous red states in his column, namely Ohio, New Mexico & Iowa. However, there will not be a reshaping of the political landscape as his campaign insists. In fact, McCain will hold most of the Bush states and will pick up both New Hampshire and Michigan, putting him over the top and into the White House.

<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

The electoral map is particularly difficult for Obama, because even if he can manage to pick up say, Montana or Nevada, or if he can hold New Hampshire, McCain still wins. I doubt very much that Obama will pick up any surprise wins for the Democrats. Colorado will stay red, it didn't even vote for Clinton in 1996, when he won his biggest victory. The Carolina's will stay Republican, despite Obama's popularity among black voters. And Obama was trounced in the Appalachian states during the primary, so he'll struggle to win Ohio and Pennsylvania, let alone Kentucky or West Virginia. I suspect Obama will make a lot of states closer races than they have been before, especially in the South, but he will be unable to win more than a handful.
For McCain, I'm giving him Michigan because he is polling a strong second right now, and with native son Mitt Romney becoming more and more likely to be his VP choice, Michigan will flip to red. But even if it doesn't, he still can win if he holds Ohio, which Bush won in 2000 and 2004. A lot rests on Florida for McCain, however, and that is a state he must win. If Florida goes for Obama, McCain could win Ohio AND Michigan and still lose. He must win Florida and Governor Christ, a strong supporter needs to be employed to make sure he does. The only potential coup for McCain is New Jersey, which I predict will be a lot closer than it has been in the past. I don't expect it to go to McCain, but it remains a possibility.

Final Electoral College Result: McCain - 275 Obama - 263
As those 113 days tick away, these predictions may become laughable, but they may just as likely become laudable. We'll see how I do in November.

Are There Alarm Bells Yet?

So the Democrats have had over a month to digest the fact that Barack Obama clinched the presidential nomination. Certainly by now all the wounds have been salved, the hurt feelings have been repaired and the rift with Hillary supporters has been more or less bridged. But unfortunately for the Obama campaign and its ardent supporters in the media and the DNC elite, that doesn't seem to be the case. A recent poll out has shown a widening gap between Hillary supporters and Obama, it shows still falling support for Obama and it shows a resilient commitment to the Clinton candidacy which is all but extinguished. (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.poll)
A month ago, before Hillary Clinton ended her bid and backed Obama, 60 percent of her supporters said they would support Barack. Now that number is down to 54%. More than 4 weeks ago, just over 1 in 5 Clinton supporters claimed they would not vote at all if their choice was Obama or McCain. Now nearly 1 in 3 say this. And way back in the beginning of June, 35% of all Democrats preferred Clinton be the nominee. Now, after his flip-flopping, his surge to the centre, after the slap-in-the-face hiring by Obama of Patti Solis Doyle, that number has climbed to 43%. The potency and resilience of those voters who do not support Obama is proving to be incredible, if not unprecedented. Can anyone hear the alarm bells ringing yet? Couple these new numbers with the fact that Obama's own internet network of supporters is now becoming a bit disillusioned with his policy changes, especially towards telecommunication spying, (apparently the largest group on his Facebook-style site is committed to getting him to change his mind on this issue) and you've got to expect that there's some alarm in the Obama campaign. And if there isn't, there should be.

The VPs: Joe and Claire

It's likely to be weeks or months still before Obama and McCain annoucne thier vice presidential running mates. But The Fledgling Blog has the scoop: these are the two people who will be on the tickets come November:

Barack Obama: He will choose Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri.Barack should be deciding between two politicians from swing states: Governor of Ohio Ted Strickland and Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Ohio would be the bigger prize to take on election day, but Strickland may not have the power to deliver the state the way Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell delivered his for Hillary during the primary. In the end, Obama will choose McCaskill, who will help him carry Missouri in November, will strengthen his message of "change" and will go a long way to helping him with women who may be distant after Clinton's defeat. Come November, I predict an Obama-McCaskill ticket.

John McCain: McCain's running mate should be Joe Lieberman. Nothing will blunt Obama's message of change and bi-partisanship more than having a Democrat turned Independent on the ticket. When Obama claims to be ready to 'reach across the aisle' and work with Independents and Republicans, McCain will be able to point to Lieberman and say "Done." He will be able to counter a major theme of the Obama candidacy if he makes this VP pick. Additionally, Joe Lieberman is Jewish, which may be able to help McCain win support of that ethnic group. There has already been rumblings of trouble between Obama and Jewish Americans, and putting Lieberman on the ticket could turn that group to McCain. With sizeable Jewish populations in the swing state of Florida as well as in several Northeastern states (including the potential swing state of New Jersey) this could be a big electoral windfall for McCain. When voters head to the polls in November, I predict there will be a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

The Residential Schools Apology

As a rule, I do not favour governments issuing formal apologies for past deeds. It does us no good to drag up past mistakes and grievances. For the most part, we all know certain things were done by governments of the past that were inappropriate and sad: the persecution of the Dukhobors, the internment of Japanese Canadians in WWII, the Komagata Maru incident. But the years that have passed allow us a perspective not available to the people at the time, and to condemn those who made such decisions is to ignore all context and history. Yes, what was done looks horrible to us today. But some of our decisions will likely appear barbaric or idiotic to future generations and no good comes from bashing those who came before you. That being said, the aboriginals who were sent to government supported residential schools absolutely deserve an apology. Children were ripped from their families and their culture and were emotionally, physically and in some cases sexually abused. Instead of welcoming First Nations into the broader society, we sought to viciously assimilate them by means of abuse and torture. This was not a single act perpetrated years and years ago, nor was it a policy thought up during war time like the examples above. The residential schools remained open well into the 1980's. The schools ran for decades upon decades, pushing tens of thousands of aboriginal youth through their process of cultural erasure. And now there are generations of First Nations who do not know their culture, their language, their customs, or in some cases their family. It is understandable that the government wanted to bring aboriginals into the greater society, to welcome them into the fold like we do with so many immigrants today. But they did not integrate them, or welcome them, or work with them. Instead, they attacked and abused them for decades. The results of this exercise are grim and are present in today's society. Canada's treatment, even today, of some of its aboriginal peoples is an embarrassment for us all. This apology will go a long way to reconciling Canada with its aboriginal population, it will expedite the healing process, it will begin to bring aboriginals back into the rest of society, and this apology will help us bridge the wide gap between our violent past and an eventual bright future.

Hillary's Best Bet is to Reject VP

The calls for a unity ticket with Clinton as Obama's running mate is growing, stoked (supposedly) by Hillary herself. But Hillary should take this piece of advice: stay as far away from that ticket as possible.
Throughout this campaign we have seen the tendency of the Obama campaign, its supporters and much of the media to turn on Hillary. A gaffe is suddenly an attack, perseverance is now blind ambition, a hard-working Senator is instead a cold, hard bitch. There is absolutely no reason to believe this will stop if Obama picks her to be Vice President. And if Hillary still has hopes of becoming President in the future, which is certain, then being Obama's VP is likely to cripple any such future effort. Imagine how this would play out: as Vice President, every word, every action, every look, will be combed over for hints of antipathy and ambition. If it is leaked that VP Hillary opposed Obama's Secretary of State choice, for example, it will be seen as her undermining him. If she misses a fundraiser or makes an error, she will be accused of gunning for his job. Everything she and Bill do will be scrutinized. Hell, the Huffington Post will probably secretly record Bill in candid moments like they did last week and use it to bash the Clintons. If an Obama administration fails to live up to the hype, you can be guaranteed that much of the blame will be laid at the feet of Hillary Clinton--and she'll never get the party's nomination after that.
And that's IF Obama wins. Imagine the outrage and hatred that will spew forth if he loses with Clinton on the ticket. An Obama loss won't be his doing. It won't be blamed on his shortcomings or gaffes, it will most certainly be Hillary who is crucified for this. She'll be blamed for hurting him too much in the primary campaign, she'll be accused of not working hard enough to bring her supporters over to him. I wonder what kind of "special comment" Keith Olbermann will have for her then? If an Obama-Clinton ticket fails in November, it will dash any hopes of a Hillary Clinton presidency in the future.
So, Hillary, please take this advice: stay away from the Obama ticket. You should, and you must, campaign for him: hold joint fundraisers, give speeches, raise his hand in unity, and the like. Not doing these things will make you a pariah in the democratic party. But if you hold any aspirations of still being the first woman President, your best bet is to reject the VP.

The Bizarre Behaviour of the Superdelegates

For the Clinton campaign, one of the most bewildering and maddening events of the Democratic primary season has got to be the behaviour of the superdelgates. I suspect that Hillary and Bill and all in their campaign must be flabbergasted that the superdelegates did not move to Clinton's side despite swells in momentum and some huge and important wins:
Take March 4th for example, the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won both states, with a big blue-collar win in Ohio, only 4superdelegates endorsed her in the following 2 weeks. In fact, she only gained 6 superdelegates in the month that followed. But Barack Obama, who lost big in Ohio and couldn't take the Texas primary, was endorsed by 15 supers in just the 2 weeks that followed his losses.
April 22 was the next big showdown, with the Pennsylvania primary. Another big state, another big win for Hillary Clinton, who beat Obama by 10 points and more than 200,000 votes. This primary also cemented Obama's problems with working class voters and rural Americans, a point highlighted by his infamous 'bitter' comment. But the supers? In the 2 weeks following that Clinton win, 15 supers went to her--but 18 went to Obama. This had to have had the Clinton campaign furiously perpelexed. She wins big in a crucial contest that will be a battleground state come November and Obama gets more endorsements?
Finally, there was West Virginia on May 13. Yet another state, one that may be a critical swing-state in November, overwhelmingly backed Clinton: she took every single county and won the state by 41 points. Going into West Virginia, Clinton had 270.5 supers to Barack Obama's 275. Coming out of West Virginia, another lopsided victory under her belt, Clinton gained 6 superdelegates while Obama got the support of 22.5. Puzzled? I bet. Clinton wins a swing-state by 41 points, more than half the voters say Obama is not trustworthy and 30% say they would back McCain over Obama, and the supers come out nearly 4 to 1 for Obama?
The behaviour of the superdelegates has been most unusual. Their job is to pick the candidate that is most able to win and that best suits the party. That they have ignored Obama's stumbling to the finish line and have thrown their support behind him is mind-boggling. Maybe they just got too swept up in the mindless excitement; maybe they are fearful of angering the rabid Obama supporters, some of whom are already planning to campaign against those members of Congress who backed Clinton. Whatever the reason, one of the biggest mysteries of this primary season is why they did not show up for Hillary Clinton. And I think that's one puzzle that will be on the Clintons' minds for a while as this campaign wraps up.

Appeal the Safe Injection Site Ruling

The federal government is right to appeal the BC Supreme Court decision that stated closing the Vancouver safe-injection site would be unconstitutional. The judge, Mr. Ian Pitfield, felt that it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny addicts the site for safe injection-drug use. The addicts' Charter rights guarantee life, liberty and security, and the court felt that closing the site and forcing these people into the streets and alleys would violate those rights and put them at risk. Justice Pitfield stated in court that "there is much to be said against denying addicts health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition". The court got this one wrong and the government should move to appeal this immediately, not because of the injection site itself, but because of the precedent this ruling sets and the preposterous claim that injecting illegal drugs with immunity from the law is a Charter right. The fact is that there are many services available for addicts and the health care system is open to them if they need any medical attention whatsoever. Contrary to what the judge believes, drug addicts are not being denying health care services. They can go to a walk-in clinic, they can go to a hospital, they can go to a detox program, they can get any number of services if they so wish. Perhaps there would be a case for arguing that there should be more money spent on such services, but equating a cubicle used for injecting drugs with vital health care services is a flawed assessment. 'Insite', the safe-injection site, is not a constitutional right. Society should not be bound to enable and assist drug addicts by the court's interpretation of our Constitution. That being said, 'Insite' should be granted another year-long exemption from drug laws. It is a noble experiment that is saving lives, slowing disease and reducing harm while we search for better solutions. But it is not a Charter right and the government is right to move quickly to appeal the decision that it is.

The Absolutely Despicable Uproar Over the RFK Comment

Despite the words that will follow, I am speechless. Hillary Clinton recently commented that the non-stop calls for her to quit the race are unprecedented, noting that her husband's last competitor didn't drop out until June in 1992 and that Robert Kennedy was still actively campaigning in June when he was assassinated. These are just two examples of nomination races continuing into June. There are many more examples of such and other exaples of nominations that went to the convention with a much greater difference in delegates than exists today between Obama and Clinton. From this simple, innocent explanation, the media, the rabid Obama supporters and the mindless pundits have discerned that Hillary made a gaffe: she exposed that she's staying in this race because Obama may get killed.
This is sick. To twist and distort this statement to seem like Hillary Clinton is simply awaiting the assassin's bullet is disgusting. I can not believe the reaction to this. This is not a gaffe, it's not a mistake. It's history. Since when is mentioning that RFK was assassinated unacceptable? It happened. We all know it. To outlaw mentioning it is nonsense.
The less-vicious media argued that it was distasteful that she mentioned it in light of the recent health news regarding Ted Kennedy, Robert's brother. Well, why is there no anger over Vanity Fair's current cover which is emblazoned with Robert Kennedy's face. Where is the anger over all the politicians and pundits who gave eulogies despite the fact that Ted Kennedy is still alive? Why was CNN not equally angry that Sanjay Gupta went through a brain scan to illustrate exactly what Ted Kennedy's tumor looks like. But there was no anger over those. The anger, the resentment, the coverage was reserved for Hillary Clinton. She was the one to be crucified for this and the media, the Obama supporters, the pundits, were ready and eager to do so. I can only shake my head in disgust and despair.
I refuse to waste any more energy discussing this mind-boggling display. I am ashamed. I am angry. This is despicable.

Exaggerating Caucuses

John McLaughlin of The McLaughlin Group raised an interesting point last week. He said that the way the Democrats award delegates favours the winner of the small caucuses. For example, McLaughlin illustrated how in Idaho, Obama won the caucuses by a margin of 13,000 votes, and as a result picked up a net gain of 13 delegates over Hillary Clinton. But in the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton won by a margin of 200,000 votes and only picked up a net gain of 10 delegates. So that 13,000 voter advantage resulted in more net delegates going to Obama than Hillary gained by winning Pennsylvania by 200,000. And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding the conflated, bizarre and backwards caucuses. Let's not forget how the caucuses favour those voters who can spend 4 hours of their evening arguing and campaigning for their candidate. Have to work the night shift? Too bad! Sick and can't make it? Tough luck! Can't find a babysitter? Suck it up! The caucuses are overrun by the wealthy, the young and the activists who can afford to go and who live for such a partisan event. Caucuses thus result in strange outcomes. Washington state holds both a primary and a caucus: the caucus saw Obama win by 37 points, but the primary saw Obama win by just 5 points. Funny how when everyone is allowed to vote the results are incredibly different than when only those activist caucus-goers' votes are counted.

What's Up Joe?

A question I have been pondering for a while and which has never been answered is why has Joe Biden not endorsed Hillary Clinton. For this entire primary process, a process he droped out of early, he has sat firmly on the fencepost, never making a decision to go one way or the other. But Biden and Clinton clearly have a good relationship, both have served in the Senate together, and much was made of their sitting together during the state of the union address. The bait was there, but Biden never bit. Why not? Biden seems to mesh well with Hillary and his recent habit of coming to the defense of Obama on foreign policy issues rings insincere to me. We'll likely never know why Biden didn't endorse. It likely doesn't matter. None of the democratic drop-outs were able to make much of a splash with their endorsements, especially Edwards. I don't care what the pundits say about the headline-stealing power of his late move, it would have been much more effective if he had chosen earlier and perhaps driven some of his white, working class supporters to Obama. Oh well, most endorsements don't matter. Biden's likely wouldn't have. It's just funny why he never made the move, never made a commitment one way or the other. Decisiveness is a quality Joe, and it's certainly one we look for in a President.

Ending High and Ending Low

Who would have thought that as the primary season in America winds to a close, that the candidate who looks most likely the become the presidential nominee would be ending shakily while the loser would be closing on a high? It still looks likely (but not certain) that Obama will be the presidential nominee but his campaign is ending on a much lower note than Hillary's. Where there should be excitement, jubilation and celebration, the Obama campaign has lost 5 of the 6 most recent contests and is trailing Hillary in match ups with John McCain. And as Maureen Dowd points out, "Obama may have started the primary season with an inspiring win in 94-percent-white Iowa, but he is winding it up with a resounding loss in 94-percent-white West Virginia." There doesn't seem to be as much confetti and balloons lining his path to the nomination now that it seems unobstructed.
Meanwhile, Hillary is riding high, emerging from her campaign alight and alive, a phoenix-like rebirth that has granted her a convincing populist image, the adoration of millions of voters, and the respect of her competitors on both the left and the right. A day doesn't go by that CNN doesn't mention her tenacity; superdelegates, out of sheer respect, are no longer calling for her to drop out; and there's a flood of articles and blogs hailing her fortitude, her composure and her strength.
It's interesting to watch the nomination process close and see Hillary ending so positive, so upbeat, with a blowout win in West Virginia in her pocket and two more crushing victories in Kentucky and Puerto Rico on the horizon. Look out if Hillary upsets in Oregon, Montana or South Dakota, and if the Democratic Party Rules Committee seats Florida or Michigan's delegates. If those happen, then this interesting close to the primary season may get a little more lively yet.

The Dark Confessions of a Hillary Supporter

While watching the results come in from North Carolina and Indiana last night, I was struck by a sinking feeling that I had not felt since Iowa. With the polls showing a tightening race in North Carolina and a possible 5 point win by Clinton in Indiana, the actual results were disappointing. And in my gut, I realized that my candidate would probably not win the nomination. I am not ruling it out and I am not rescinding my support, but the path to victory is looking mighty dim right now. Perhaps I had gotten too used to Hillary pulling it out, winning when the chips were down and her back was against the wall. I was expecting another New Hampshire, another Ohio, another Pennsylvania. It's too bad that's not what we saw.
With this sinking feeling came a second realization, that Barack Obama would most likely be the democratic candidate come November. And here's my dark secret that I feel the need to confess to you now: I kind of hope he loses.
I know the differences between Obama and Clinton are small compared to the differences with McCain, and I know this sounds like "sour grapes," but deep down (and by 'deep down' I really mean simmering just below the surface) I hope Obama loses, to justify my support for Clinton, to legitimize Clinton's continuing her campaign when Obama supporters we calling for her to quit week after week after week. There has been an aura of smugness about the Obama campaign for some time now. But that coupled with the constant accusations of "old style politics" and the condescending dismissal of the 15 million Clinton voters by the media and Obama's supporters and surrogates has given birth to this dark secret that I am confessing now. I'm sure that my genuine belief that Obama will lose against McCain and my honest opinion that Clinton is the democrats' best chance to win the White House had something to do with it as well, but whatever the source of this deep dark desire, I can't ignore it, and unfortunately for the democrats, come November, I suspect that a big chunk of Clinton supporters won't be able to either.

Stop Griping Over Bill C-50

There's been much griping from the opposition parties and immigration activists recently in response to the changes proposed to Canada's immigration system included in the 2008 budget implementation bill. People have levelled charges against the government that it is racist, xenophobic and the like. But the NDP, some Liberals, and the immigrant-lobby need to stop foaming at the mouth and get a grip of reality. First, Canada has long been generous in its welcoming of immigrants, so the charges that Canada's government is racist are unfounded. If any country should be able to tinker with its immigration system without being subject to such insults it is Canada. Second, our immiragtion system needs repair. There's almost a 6 year, 1 million person backlog. We have no way of prioritizing immigrants based on skills and expertise. We can't even successfully deport immigrants who break the laws as we've seen over and over again (most recently with the Laibar Singh case - http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=407204)
So the changes proposed by the government are long overdue. These changes would allow the Immigration Minister to give orders to agents and officials to prioritize certain classes of immigrant claims. For example, Canada is starving for doctors and nurses, so let's bump those immigrants who are doctors and nurses to the front of the line. The Canadian economy can't find enough masonry workers or welders? Why not prioritize those immigrants who have those skills? Immigration should work for both the immigrant and the country, and its been a one way street for too long--it's time the Canadian economy and Canadian society got more out of this deal.
Canada has every right to decide to fast-track immigrants with relevant skills who are looking to start a new life and build new Canadian families. And if this comes at the expense of immigrants in line for family-reunification (those are the grandparents, parents, spouses, partners, children, and orphaned nieces and nephews that every Canadian can sponsor) than too bad. There will still be plenty of room for those type of immigrants, as there has always been. I just see no problem with Canada granting citizenship to a few more surgeons and a few less grandmothers. Is it not fair to say one will contribute more than the other? Are we all too afraid to point that out? Let's foster those immigrants who are the best and brightest, those who want to contribute to building a better Canada, rather than those who feel entitled to transplant their entire social network here.
Canada has every right to prioritize its immigrants. It has every right to decide who gets to immigrate, how many, and how long it will take. The opponents of these changes are the same activists who think immigration is a right and demand that Canada must accept everyone, all the time, without exception. Canada is a country that welcomes immigrants from around the world and has been for decades. It's too bad our elected officials can't propose changes and reforms to the system without being attacked and berated. But for what it's worth, the government's got my vote on this one.

The Turning of the Tide

When Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, she claimed that the tide was turning in the race to be the democratic presidential nominee. Now, a week and a half later and only 5 days before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, it seems she may have been right.
Polls have been showing a tightening of the race between Obama and Clinton. Clinton is now only 1 point behind Obama in a new national poll by CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/cnn-poll-obama-losing-support/
And according to a new Gallup poll, Obama trails Clinton by 4 points and Clinton does better in a direct match up with John McCain. http://www.gallup.com/poll/106945/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-49-Obama-45.aspx
Finally, over on realclearpolitics.com their poll average for Indiana now has Clinton up by nearly 5 points and Obama's lead in North Carolina has shrunk to just over 7 points from 15 points in early April.
If these trends continue, the tide has certainly changed in Clinton's favour. And if she is able to tighten up the N.C. race, it will be seen as a victory. But if she somehow manages to win North Carolina then the Obama campaign would be in real trouble and I mean ship-hits-an-iceberg-and-there's-not-enough-lifeboats kind of trouble.

Debate this! (Oh wait, you won't)

Another day, another bizarre position by the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign has been calling for more issues and less distractions for some time now. From CNN, to CBS News, to Fox News, Obama and his supporters have been decrying "distractions" like Rev. Wright and insisting that they want a campaign that focuses on the issues that matter to voters and where the candidates stand on them.
It's funny then, when asked to debate his lone competitor, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama brushes it off: "We’re not going to have debates between now and Indiana," he told Fox News. I don't know about anyone else, but what better way is there to see candidates in action than in a debate? It would be great to go to town hall meetings, go to speeches, meet them in person, but that's impossible unless you live in North Carolina or Indiana, and even then, very few of those people will actually get a chance to hear the candidates speak in person.
If it's issues we want, debates are a great way to air differences on policy positions. It's too bad the 9 remaining states/territories still waiting to vote won't get this chance.

Give me a break!

Yet again people in the media and the Obama campaign are whining about Hillary Clinton's new ad:



Did you see what's so offensive? Did you figure out how that is "fear-mongering" and low? It's because for one second (literally) there was a clip of Osama Bin Laden. I can't believe the audacity of some people to rip on Hillary for this ad. What is wrong with it? It's a legitimate and effective commercial. Yes, bin Laden is in it, but so is JFK and FDR, and clips of old warehouses and gas pumps. Is it too underhanded to show pictures of gas pumps too, Mr. Obama?
I especially find it absurd that the Obama campaign would decry the bin Laden reference when their own candidate has taken such a firm stance on bin Laden. Obama says troops from Iraq should be moved to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and he's said that he would call for military attacks in Pakistan to fight bin Laden even if Pakistan did not authorize it.
My goodness, what is there left to campaign on for Hillary? She can't question Obama's experience, because it's an "attack." She can't run ads because its "fear-mongering.". And she can't debate policies and issues because Obama refuses to do any more debates. I guess since Obama couldn't stop the primaries early, he's going to stop the campaign. Now THAT'S change we can believe in, alright.

Get the ball rolling, Howard!

Today Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean insisted that the remaining 300 or so superdelegates who have yet to announce who they support should do so "starting now." Well, Howard, you are a superdelegate too. Why don't you get the ball rolling? Why not, instead of moaning about getting the nomination process over with ASAP, you let all the states vote, let all the people have their say. There's no need for superdelegates to start choosing now, before Pennsylvania, Indiana, Oregon, Guam, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico have their say. Mr. Dean, if you're not willing to say who you are supporting, how about we let the people in those 10 upcoming primaries have a chance to first?

The Democratic Debate

Watching the debate tonight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I am struck by how amazingly qualified, how absolutely qualified Hillary Clinton is to be President. She knows her stuff inside and out, she knows policy and platforms, and she knows the system and how it works. No, she's not as interesting as Barack Obama. No she's not nearly as inspirational as Barack Obama. But by god, she's the right one for the job. Barack Obama would be exciting as President, it would be an amazing achievement to watch his inauguration. But Hillary Clinton would be the better President, of this I am positive.

Canada & the Chinese Olympics

On CKNW radio this morning there was a guest who insisted that Canada should not boycott the Olympics in China. - Ok.
He said boycotts do not work and aren't effective. - Ok.
He insisted that we'd be better to engage China like neighbours rather than isolate and provoke them. - Ok.
He also maintained that we should be careful what action we take in regards to China because of the high numbers of Chinese immigrants in Canada. - What?

Am I the only one who thinks that sets a dangerous precedent? Should Canada really be beholden to the loyalties of our immigrant communities? Canada must be able to make foreign policy decisions in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. And these decisions have to be made independent of attachments, loyalties and allegiances that immigrant communities may have to their home countries. Of course, immigrants must have their voices heard like every Canadian, but they should be voicing concern for Canada and Canada's interests.
It would be alarming if we determined which human rights abuses are ok based on how large that ethnic population is in Canada. Is genocide, or torture or oppression acceptable if there's a lot of those nationals living in Canada?
I hope not.

Why Obama's Explanation Doesn't Fly

In light of the uproar over his "bitter" comment, Barack Obama has tried to explain what he really meant when he called people in rural America "bitter" and claimed "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama's explanation seems to work at first glance, as he explains that what he really meant was that people are angry that they have been ignored by government. And as for the "clinging to religion" part, Obama said "when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on...they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community." So, that explains it! I'd agree that if times are tough you may turn to--or cling to--your religious faith. However, that's a positive assertion that religion gets rural Americans through the rough patches. But Obama used the same word, "cling", to also describe opinions about guns, free trade and immigration. If we accept that "cling to religion" was meant wholly positively, as meaning they use religion to lift their spirits, then what in the world does clinging to guns, anti-immigrant and anti-trade sentiment mean? If "clinging" to religion means using it to lift you up and help your through the bad times, does it logically follow that when he said they cling to guns, anti-free trade beliefs and anti-immigrant sentiment that he meant those thing also help people through the bad times?
Sorry Barack, but that explanation doesn't fit well with me. I don't find the word "bitter" as offensive as everyone else seems to, but I do find it intolerable to claim that people "cling" to their religious faith out of bitterness and frustration. I do not believe that people's views on guns, trade and immigration are so unfounded as to be based solely on disgruntled attitudes about their own economic woes. I believe someone can be anti-trade or be pro-gun rights without it meaning they are backwards, bitter and wrong. And no number of eloquent speeches will change my opinion on this one.