Monday Thoughts

I apologize for to my three readers for my week long hiatus. I was off on the Rock where they call Prime Minister Harper Steve because "he doesn't like being called Steve." Wait, you mean promising everything to everyone can backfire? What a shock! Some other quick fire thoughts:

• Just finished Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World." I tend to agree with Mr. Zakaria on most points although I think he is slightly on the optimistic side in terms of the United States. At any rate an easy read and quite informative on many points. I definitely recommend it. Fans of The Daily Show will undoubtedly recognize Mr. Zakaria who has an appearance rate only rivaled by John McCain.
• Seeing the anger towards Harper in Newfoundland was refreshing. How long do you think it will be before Quebec dumps him like they did Mulroney and Borden before him?
• Harper's electoral math may be challenged by a few losses on the Rock if he doesn't do some repair work. Luckily for Mr. Dion, Newfoundlanders don't tend to vote anything except Tory and Liberal. If they are mad at Harper, he should be the beneficiary no matter what the impact of The Green Shift may be on the oil producing province.
• It is remarkable how the media insists on saying that the American race is close. Anyone look at an electoral college projection lately? Could McCain win? Sure. Is it going to take a major shift in public opinion? Definitely.
• The economy may be in the tubes, but everything's coming up roses in Gotham. Seriously, I need to see this movie. I never need to see a movie. I really never need to see a summer blockbuster. This one, I want to see.
• Speaking of the economy being in the tubes, $1.50 for a litre of gas in St. John's? Holy mackerel... or I guess cod.
• Note to self: Post on Suzuki report on provinces and climate change.

Have a good week everyone!

Monday...

Ah, the last Monday of the summer... Okay, on with some thoughts from the last few days:

• The Globe's editorial this morning is an inconvenient truth. We have to fight climate change. We also have to give up on meeting our Kyoto targets.
• Dion now faces a challenge akin to the one Chretien faced on free trade. Move the party away from an economically disastrous if internally popular position.
• CNN reports that the perjurer in chief is no more. I'm not sure this makes it any easier to get him for all that nonsense surrounding the federal prosecutors but I don't think it makes it harder.
• I like the idea of the Canada-Russia 35th anniversary superseries. However, I got a chance to watch a few minutes before coming in to work this morning and, well, let's just say you can tell it's August. It is hard to get excited for something when the play is so sloppy.
• The population growth in Toronto's suburbs is frightening. There should be one priority above all others for GTA politicians: density.
• For Iraq to succeed it must have complete and unfettered control of who leads its country. For Ms. Clinton to comment on the job performance of the Prime Minister of Iraq is both inappropriate and dangerous. Ms. Clinton may claim to be from about 5 different states but she is not Iraqi. Therefore, who the Iraqis decide to elect is none of her business. I certainly wouldn't want an American leader commenting on elections in this country.
• The Americans have a serious constitutional crisis on their hands. The ability of a modern president to go to war without Congressional approval makes it very difficult for Congress to stop or end a war. This is a check and balance that needs to be reinforced.
• I don't see a major difference between pre-election spending and campaign promises. If a party that is in government hasn't taken any steps to do what they now promise to do if re-elected, we would be highly suspicious. Sorbrara has the money and is going to spend it. If you want to criticize how it's being spent, fine.
• This article on MMP is mostly pointless. There are already prohibitions on parties campaigning for or against MMP. I do agree that the most important thing in this whole process is to have a well-informed public. Referenda with an ignorant populous are rubber stamps in democratic clothing.
• Contrary to what Christiane Amanpour may think, the diaspora support for Israel is much more a case of nationalistic sympathy than religious fervour. It is much more about memories of the Holocaust than memories of Judaea. Furthermore, the majority of Israelis are highly secular. They are certainly not at war with modern secular society. To paint the Arab-Israeli conflict as purely religious is to miss most of the point.

Friday Musings

Okay, it's friday and I'm lazy here's a bunch of quick thoughts:

• To those who want my proposal for our electoral system, it's on the citizen's assembly website here.
• Did anyone else catch Gov. Mike Huckabee comparing gun owners to monkeys on the Colbert Report last night? That tape is not going to play well at a NRA convention. I don't care if he is one of the most pro-gun candidates out there.
• I have changed my opinion on Bill Richardson after his moronic comments about homosexuality being a choice. Jet lag? Give me a break. I officially like none of the Democratic contenders.
• Sticking with presidential polititcs, the Iowa Straw Poll has got to be one of the stupidest things in existence. Ron Paul got like 9% of the vote? What the?!?!?!?!?!
• Okay, I don't need a Nobel Prize in economics to know that giving millions of dollars to people who shouldn't qualify for a mortgage is stupid. Why didn't the markets figure this out BEFORE everyone defaulted?
• However, as silly as the reason for the crisis is, the crisis itself is still pretty scary. When central banks are taking steps to prevent a bank run, there's a bit of a problem.
• Cabinet shuffles are a waste of time. Although, it was nice to see Diane Ablonczy finally get her chance.
• I understand why the Grits keep comparing Harper to Bush. I just wish we'd spend more time attacking the Tories on substance.
• I'm not sure I agree with Jean Charest about the whole Charlebois thing. After all, if Marois can't win a seat the PQ won a few months ago under Boisclair, how much legitimacy does she really have? It may be tradition, but it seems to me like a pretty foolish one that stems from the days when leaders ran in ridings that they were going to get super-majorities in anyway. If the ADQ actually feels they can win the election, especially with how close the National Assembly is, why shouldn't they be allowed to try?
• I said the political class supports this not that they chose it. I know what the Citizens' Assembly is. I also know why it came to be: pressure from well-connected (and well- funded) interest groups like Fair Vote Canada. The political class is larger than the membership of the PC's and Liberals. The other two parties are almost wholly in favour of MMP along with a slew of academics and bloggers. There were big names against Charlottetown too. You ever heard of a guy named Pierre Trudeau? I think the poll which was conducted over at Progressive Bloggers shows a good indication of where the chattering classes are on this. I don't think that most Ontarians will agree.
• Oh yeah, as long as Scott's mentioning it, the Young Liberals did overwhelmingly vote down MMP in a straw poll in North Bay last week. Unlike the straw poll in Ames, we didn't even bus anyone in!
• The 60/60 requirement for passing MMP may seem extreme but it is in keeping with Canadian tradition. It mirrors the requirements for passing a major constitutional ammendment. Electoral change is too important to be decided by a simple majority.

Obama's Gaffe and Free Trade

So Barack Obama called Prime Minister Harper the "President of Canada" in a recent debate. The interesting thing to me is not Obama's ignorance of our parliamentary system but what he was saying when he made the gaffe. He was talking about renegotiating NAFTA to provide more protections for American workers. The Dems apparently can't get away from their isolationist trade policies (same goes for the NDP here). NAFTA, contrary to popular belief, has had very little impact on Canada. The pre-existing FTA has had a dramatic impact and I would argue it has been for the better. While the Canadian economy hit the skids with the rest of the world in the early 1990's, Canada has had unrivaled prosperity since the mid-1990's. The FTA has allowed Albertans to sell their oil and Ontarians to build cars and parts (yes, the cars were part of the auto pact a couple years earlier, but you get the point) to a larger degree than existed in a tariff bound system. Free trade is not the enemy of the poor. Free trade is merely a means of levelling the global playing field. Some, like Mr. Obama may argue for so-called "fair" trade but to me that is an attempt by the global north to have it both ways. The economies of the Western world are reliant on cheap manufactured goods. The resulting manufacturing boom has created jobs for millions of people in the global south.

The world will never achieve any sort of competitive balance if we jam it with tariff walls. A good example of this is Africa. Opponents of free trade often cite poverty-stricken sub-Saharan Africa as a region which has had no benefit from free trade. This is not an accurate statement. The economies of sub-Saharan Africa are largely dependent on agriculture something that is not freely traded. African products do not have a chance when forced to compete internationally and domestically with heavily subsidized Western products. The answer to alleviating global poverty is not to put up more tariff walls like the ones that hold Africa back but to tear down the remaining obstructions. Western governments are reluctant to give up any domestic industry, and when domestic industries are uncompetitive the kind of knee-jerk reaction like Barack Obama displayed during the debate are common. Governments should spend less time trying to stop the inevitable (you can't produce competitively priced clothing in the Carolinas) and more time on retraining the workforce and creating the conditions for a competitive economy: a minimum of taxes with a maximum of social services. Globalization is here to stay. We would be wise to try to exploit it not get in its way.

Disorganized Thoughts

I don't really have one idea for a post today so here's a bunch of political thoughts on my mind.

• I'm happy to see the Toronto city council showing some backbone. I didn't think they'd have the guts to stare down the Mayor. Okay, they only delayed the vote and it still could pass in October, but clearly, this is not the result Miller was looking for.
• Let me join the chorus, John McCain's campaign is dead. The horribly contorted straight-talker will have to content himself with the Senate.
• In a related story, I have no clue who is going to be President. At this point I feel like I'm taking a multiple choice test and the answer is none of the above.
  
• Why is Harper signing trade deals with the government of Colombia? I don't know who's right in the three-way Colombian civil war but I can't believe funding one of the sides with Canadian investment is going to make it go away. Also, how safe is the Colombian market for Canadian investors? Wasn't a Canadian just kidnapped there? Who's next on Harper's list, Iraq? How about Somalia?
  
• Conrad Black is guilty. No surprise really, that video is pretty convincing. Let the arrogant S.O.B. rot. All rise for the Lord of Levenworth!
• A few months ago I said Alberta and Quebec were ready for seismic political shifts. I like my predictions.
• Elections Ontario is in the hiring process for someone to run their education campaign for the referendum. This better be one hell of a blitz because this MMP thing is not all that simple.
• I want to break party allegiance and put my weight behind Bill Davis for greatest Premier in Calgary Grit's contest. The man governed Ontario with a steady hand. He played a large part in getting the Constitution repatriated. He went toe to toe with the Catholic Church on Catholic schools. He may be a Tory, but he was a great premier.

Race for the Exits 2008: The Republicans (revisited)

On we move to the Grand Old Party.

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy has quickly become the front runner for the Republicans. National name recognition and his tough on terror stance have made him an early favourite. However, it seems to me only a matter of time before the Christian right realizes that he is about as close to their values as Hillary Clinton. The twice-divorced socially liberal Giuliani is either going to get run out of the primary by the religious right or ignored by them come November. The Republicans are praying for another terror election and if that is THE issue than Giuliani is a good choice, otherwise it's time to look elsewhere.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney hopes they look to Boston and find the former Governor of Massachusetts. Another social liberal (or at least he used to be) Romney has the additional problem of being a Mormon which weirds out a lot of people. That may not be PC but it is reality. Governors have a great track record but Romney may be a little much for the base to handle.

John McCain: The Straight-Talk Express is losing fuel and fast. The senator from Arizona who attempted to derail Bush's walk to the White House in 2000 is finding little traction in 2008. His staunch support for the President's Iraq policy is not paying the dividends he expected. Apparently, even conservatives are fed up with Iraq. Either that or they're still angry about McCain's maverick persona in a party that is all about unity and toeing the line. He's also very much yesterday's news and when you're over seventy that is a tough label to shake.

Sam Brownback: Sam Brownback speaks to the Base because he's part of it. A staunch social conservative, he will lead the moral charge to the White House. However, the senator from Kansas is not exactly a dream candidate in a general election. He lacks Bush's folksy charm and gubernatorial track record. He may be a good place to park votes but I would be surprised to see him nominated.

Tommy Thompson: The former governor of Wisconsin and member of the Bush cabinet is very much the Republican answer to Bill Richardson. Like Richardson though, Thompson has been completely unable to break out of the massive pack and with the pool getting bigger and bigger every week, Thompson looks about ready to drown. With namesake Fred entering the race next week Tommy looks to be in big trouble.

Mike Huckabee: Whoever becomes President should give Mike Huckabee the job of getting America thin. This guy is about half of his former self. However, the former governor of Arkansas (he's from Hope like another former governor), is not exactly wowing people at this stage. It's early and governors usually do well but so far not so good.

Tom Tancredo: "Damn Immigrants" should probably be Tancredo's campaign slogan. This guy is a favourite of Lou Dobbs and other illegal immigration zealots. Tancredo has no chance of winning the nomination but his presence in the debates may force the candidates to talk about illegal immigration something most of them would like to avoid with Republicans firmly divided on the issue.

Duncan Hunter: Oh shit! That profanity in my description of Tom Tancredo (and the one in this sentence) probably offend Duncan Hunter. Another republican waxing poetic about the good old days and traditional values. He has no chance.

Ron Paul: Paul is nothing if not fun. His appearances with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert showed that. However, this libertarian looks out of place in the morality and terror obsessed GOP. A relic from a bygone era, Paul wants to get rid of most of the American government. Another person to spice up the debate tedium.

Fred Thompson: Fred has not officially announced yet but Republicans are having fits and comparing him to Reagan. The senator from Tennessee turned actor is a conservative who can speak to the base. What else Mr. Thompson is remains to be seen. He is supposed to announce any day now. Next week perhaps? He could win this nomination but we won't know until he starts campaigning.

Race for the Exits 2008: The Democrats (revisited)

A few months back I took a look at the field (and boy is it wide) of the people who want to be President in 2008. Here is an update.

Hillary Clinton: Can anything stop the junior senator from New York? Obama may be fundraising but Clinton is kicking butt in the polls. It's a long time between now and January and even longer till November 2008 but Clinton has to be happy with where she is right now. To me, her campaign stinks of insincerity. Everything seems concocted and forced. Bill has the common touch, Hillary not so much. She should stop trying it, she comes off as condescending. There are still major electability questions. This applies not only to the presidency but her impact on down ballot races in the south and west where the Democrats are looking to win house and senate seats. She has tons of money, tons of institutional support and tons of name recognition. She could and probably should (given her current position) win, I just have this feeling that she won't. No logic behind it.

Barack Obama: The money reports coming out today are good news for a campaign that seems to be stuck in neutral. The biggest problem for Obama seems to be that he lacks any concrete ideas. Nobody's really sure what he stands for and this plays into his lack of experience. There's no voting record to show where he stands on the issues so critics and supporters are left waiting for ideas from the Obama campaign. He will be one of many Dems looking to be the centre of an anti-Hillary movement. The junior senator from Illinois certainly has the charisma and charm to win the nomination if not the presidency. Now it's time for Obama to demonstrate that he is more than one great speech and a pretty face.

John Edwards: The former senator from North Carolina is the other main contender in the anyone but Hillary camp. Edwards' run in 2004 has provided him with a great ground game in early primary states, particularly in Iowa. Edwards is looking to win the caucuses and work from there. I question how much Edwards' two Americas speech will resonate outside of the Democratic base. People want to believe that they are middle class and have the chance to get rich. They don't want to be told that the system is working against them. Concerns about his wife's health may distract Edwards in the short term.

Bill Richardson: My choice for the nomination is stuck in park. He is by far the most qualified candidate having served as 1. Secretary of Energy 2. Ambassador to the United Nations and currently 3. Governor of New Mexico. A governor with international experience? I don't know how the Dems are not drooling over this guy. His Hispanics roots give the Democrats a major head start at tapping into the Latino community. He needs money, a charisma injection, institutional support and an issue to separate himself from the pack. However if the Dems end up looking for a safe pick, this might be it.

Chris Dodd: Chris Dodd is a very competent senator from Connecticut. This does not mean he should be President. There isn't much chance of it either. Dodd is white bread with the crust cut off boring. No one really knows why he is running. Who wants to place bets on a drop out date?

Joe Biden: Twenty years ago a plagiarism scandal forced Joe Biden out of the race for the Democratic nomination. In retrospect he probably wouldn't have done worse than Michael Dukakis. However, that is not an endorsement. The senator from Delaware is, like Dodd, a good senator but once again this does not mean he should be President. He should get quite a bit of that famous Joementum that worked so well for Lieberman in 2004.

Dennis Kucinich: The NDP would love Kucinich. However, that means he's about as electable as a Lesbian, pot-smoking, Muslim in the United States. Kucinich is nothing if not entertaining so I really don't mind him making the debates a little more interesting. If the congressman doesn't care about his snowball in hell chances nor do I.

Mike Gravel: If you are not from the state of Alaska and you know who Mike Gravel is you are in the minority. How this leftie ever got elected to the Senate from conservative Alaska I do not know. However, now after years out of the senate, he's decided to run for President with no money, no name recognition and no hope. I hope he has fun. Jon Stewart did a great piece on one of his campaign ads. Here's the ad. Like Gravel it's not exactly mainstream.

Non-candidates:

Al Gore: If he wants the nomination he can probably have it. He could probably even win the election (again) but there is no indication that Gore wants the job. He seems content to work against climate change from outside. How much of that is the desire not to campaign against the Clinton's only Gore knows.

Wesley Clark: Clark has the military credentials some Dems crave during war-time. However, the retired supreme NATO commander proved an ineffective campaigner in 2004 after getting into the race late. I would have thought that if Clark still wanted the job he would have not made the mistake he made in 2004 and get in early. Apparently not. There is no indication he is running and I really don't see that changing.

Morning in America Part 2?

Apparently I've caught Obama fever because here's another post on the junior Senator from Illinois. So at left is the official Obama campaign symbol. A rising sun over an American flag. Hmmm... why does this sound familiar? Oh yeah, Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America." That's right. So, Obama announces his candidacy in the hometown of Abraham Lincoln with Ronald Reagan's imagery. Is this a subtle indication that he is moderate enough to get elected? Probably not. Is he going to do his next campaign event on USS Eisenhower with a Teddy Roosevelt monocle? The symbol does fit the Obama campaign idea of a new hope for America and a new politic. However, it is disturbingly Reagan-esque. I guess playing to history isn't a bad idea. I just would have thought he would have gone JFK not Reagan.

Obamania

Barack Obama announces his candidacy for president today. I'm really curious to see if he connects with the average American. Three of the top Democratic contenders are a woman, a black man, and a Hispanic. This should be interesting.

Race for the Exits 2008: The Republicans

There was a reason for my blog's hiatus. This is rare. Normally, I just don't feel like blogging. However, this time I was in Berlin for a few days and away from Ted Stevens' fantastic series of tubes we ordinary folk call the internet. Anyway, I am back in Sweden and have been greeted by the first real snow of the year. So back from the birthplace of Bismarck and hard power here are in some particular order the possible and actual candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2008:

John McCain: The senior senator from Arizona and the surprise winner of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, John McCain wants this job. Many Republicans see him as the ultimate Anti-Hillary. The former Vietnam POW has more military cred than even democratic four star General Wesley Clark. Sitting in a war room in Washington or Brussels is one thing, sitting in a Viet Cong POW camp is something else. His first problem is that he will be 72 by election day 2008, that's damn old. In 2000, he had the Straight-Talk Express. It was this approach that endeared him to many moderates and independents like the people of New Hampshire. Well, learning from his crushing defeat at the hands of the Rove spin wheel, McCain has turned the straight-talk express into the spin-mobile. He gives speeches at Jerry Falwell's university. He talks about gay marriage as if it's a real threat to society. No one knows how McCain will shape his bid, but Iraq, an obvious way to go, seems unlikely as he has done little to differentiate himself on the file. McCain has all the intangibles he lacked in 2000 and has lost the intangibles he had. He might win this thing, but really can a man so clearly divided against himself stand in the party of Lincoln?

Rudolph Giuliani: Giuliani has credibility in this race because of his actions on and after September 11th. He became "America's Mayor." Giuliani clearly thinks that America's mayor is really the President and would like to get the title more formally. As Mayor of New York City, Giuliani had an impressive record. Not only winning twice in a city that leans so far democratic that it falls over, but cutting the crime rate and cleaning up the Big Apple. A successful administrator with credibility on terror seems to be a shoe-in. The question is whether or not the Republican base is ready for a thrice-divorced pro-choice Catholic from NYC. Yes, Catholic still matters especially if he's thrice divorced and pro-choice. Giuliani would have been better served if Gore had won in 2000 and Rudy could have run in 2004. The emotion he would have generated then is somewhat lost now more than five years after the fact. Giuliani is a real threat to win and also a real threat to be like John McCain eight years ago and flop in the South.

Chuck Hagel: I'll admit it. I like Chuck Hagel. I don't know how many other Republicans I can say that about. Hagel, I just like. One of the party's only strong critics of the Bush Administration on everything from the Iraq War to fiscal management, the senior senator from
Nebraska wants to bring the Republicans back to their roots: pragmatic conservatism. He would be seen as an Eastern egg-head except that he's from the heart of the heartland. He's also a decorated Vietnam war vet. Aside from the Kennedy Curse on Senators who run for office Hagel has all the tools to win. What he doesn't have is credibility among the party's religious and far right base. The people who love Bush don't like Hagel. There aren't a lot of them left but they have a big say in the Republican nomination process. This is the guy that should scare the Democrats the most. He might scare too many Republicans to ever get the chance.

Condoleeza Rice: The US Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor has made no indication that she is in the race. I don't think she will. I view this as Republicans thinking "well, if we put a woman against Hillary...." Having said that, this is what her resume looks like. A former professor, Rice is a double minority in the Republican party and in life in general: a black woman. She is one of the two most influential advisors that President Bush has. In spite of the whole black woman thing, Rice is the most stay the course candidate out there. She would be Bush's heir-apparent should she run and his devout followers may just follow her. What she lacks to be Bush II (or III) is the connection to the religious right. She has never run for election and there are questions as to her ability to campaign. However, the largest thing stopping Condi from getting her name on the ballot is the fact that she won't put it there. She would be an interesting choice for VP.

Newt Gingrich: Yes, Newt Gingrich. I know. He was supposed to be gone forever. Yes, the ethically challenged former speaker of the house is running on... you won't believe this... renewal. He thinks that like Jesus he can be resurrected and with him the Republican landslide of 1994. Yes, this is the Contract with America guy. He has been trying to show himself as a moderate advocating for projects with people like his former arch-nemesis Hillary Clinton. I really don't think the Republicans who just lost both houses to corruption are going to try to send Mr. Corruption himself to the White House. The base will have good memories and everyone will be very polite to him on the campaign trail but I can't believe his campaign will get off the ground. Think a corrupt Ken Dryden. The only reason I think he might win is because I'm so sure that he can't.

George Pataki: Why not. That's the rationale behind the Pataki campaign. He's got a lot of friends telling him how great he is. He's going to try to be president. The former governor of New York looks a lot like Giuliani. A good administrator who came off well in the days and weeks around 9/11. He also has a lot Giuliani's flaws. He's too left wing for the party base being the most crucial. I can't see him creating any momentum with Giuliani in the race. The governor below him on the list is the one to watch.

Mitt Romney: When I said this list is in some particular order. I didn't mean that it was an exact order. Romney really should be higher. I just can't figure out where to put him. The former governor of Massachusetts is a lot like Pataki. A republican who was overwhelmingly popular in a blue state. Romney's big advantage is also his biggest disadvantage. He's openly religious, unfortunately (in terms of public perception) he's Mormon. The religious right doesn't really like Mormons. They're viewed as almost a cult. A Mormon Republican from Massachusetts may be too much for the base to swallow.

Sam Brownback: The senior Senator from Kansas is actually more of a viable candidate than his relative anonymity may lead you to believe. The reason: the religious right. This guy is one of their own. A born-again Christian, he equates abortion with the Holocaust. He hates same-sex marriage. With Santorum's defeat in November, Brownback has become Mr. Morality in the senate. Five of the candidates above him are serious concerns for the evangelical movement. If he galvanizes the base, he could win or at least decide the nomination. The question is whether or not this guy has the political je ne sais quoi to run a national campaign. He won't be in Kansas anymore.

Mike Huckabee: Getting duped by Rick Mercer is apparently a reason to run for President. Tom Vilsack is running for the Democrats and the Republicans have Mike Huckabee. The last Governor from Hope, Arkansas became president so he has a path to follow. Much like Vilsack Huckabee is a bit of tabula rasa in the sphere of public perception. A former minister, he would have entry into the religious right but would probably not have the same connections as Brownback. He could also go after the obesity epidemic as he personally lost about half of himself while governor of Arkansas. Once again, major questions about being ready for prime time.

Tommy Thompson: The second Bush cabinet name on the list, Thompson has been elected. He was governor Wisconsin. One of the more touted Bush cabinet nominees when he was appointed in 2001, Thompson never really stood out in his years in Health and Human Services. This might mean he was a good administrator, it might mean he was useless but knows how to avoid the spotlight. A former great lake governor would be good for the Republican electoral map but there are questions as to whether he can stand out in this packed field. Like Romney and Pataki he has a history of winning big in a blue state so he can't be ruled out.

Tom Tancredo: If you watch Lou Dobbs you've probably seen Congressman Tancredo (R-CO). Here ladies and gentlemen is the anti-immigration candidate. Tancredo wants illegal immigrants, their language and their culture out of Colorado and out of America. He's running to get that message out. He won't win but there will be pressure from the base for someone more credible to come towards his way of thinking.

Duncan Hunter: If Tancredo is the anti-immigrant candidate this is the anti-obscenity candidate. However, the good congressman from California has ethics issues. He'll run, he'll lose and it will not change your or anyone else's life. In other words, Fuck him.

Haley Barbour: Another governor. This time Mississippi. He's religious right. He's got Katrina sympathy except for the fact that he kind of screwed that up. He's not really ready for the national spotlight i.e. he's bound to say something stupid. Think Stockwell Day.

Jim Gilmore: This is not the Virginia candidate the Republicans wanted or the governor of Virginia the media wanted but after George Allen stepped in macaca and Gov. Warner said no thanks this is what they're left with. The former governor... it may seem like it but they aren't all running... is yet another possible place for the religious right to park its votes.
He worked for Bush on WMD but aside from that has done, well nothing, since leaving office in 2001. Anonymous meet Jim Gilmore... oh wait... you already know him.

Ron Paul: Congressman from Texas. Old fashioned libertarian Republican. He's Hagel without the flair, support, money or credibility.

John H. Cox: This guy likes losing nominations. He's run unsuccessfully for nominations to the house in senate from his home state of Illinois. Now he'll have the failure trifecta. He's JFK... if he lost instead of won.

Michael Charles Smith: Don't worry. You shouldn't know who this is. This is some guy who's trying to make a name for himself. Literally some guy. No political experience, he works for HP. He's trying to get himself a delegate spot in the Oregon primary. He is a registered candidate.

Yikes! For someone who hates the Republican party, this is a beautiful list.

Race for the Exits 2008: The Democrats

Yes folks, its time. A mere 22 months before the Presidential election it is time to introduce the Democratic contenders. I have decided to call this "The Race for the Exits" in the hope that whoever wins will be pulling the US out of Iraq. Here in a fairly random order that is more about hype than viability are the Democrats:

Hillary Rodham Clinton : Clinton is the junior senator for the great state of New York. She won reelection in 2006 easily after the Republicans failed to run anything resembling a serious candidate against her. The lack of a credible opponent didn't stop Clinton from fundraising full out and she now possesses the largest war chest of any candidate in either party. Oh yeah, she's lived in the White House before with some guy named Bill. The party brass love Hillary. The base loves her husband. Two problems. Convincing the base she isn't too far right on issues like Iraq and convincing democrats in general that she's electable.

John Edwards: No, the psychic is not running, that's John Edward. No, this John Kerry's running mate from 2004. The former junior senator from North Carolina, Edwards has a lot of youth for a man who's actually over fifty. He has that sincerity thing in spades. He's passionate about poverty. He's admitted he was wrong to vote for the Iraq war. He has a great organization from the 2004 campaign set up in Iowa and leads in early polls in that crucial state. Edwards should do well among southern blacks, rural whites and youth. His biggest problem: the next guy on the list.

Barack Obama: The star of the 2004 convention wants to go from keynote speech to inaugural speech in 2008. The junior senator from Illinois oozes charisma and charm. He's smart as a whip. He won election in 2004 in a landslide partially on his own strength and partially from the self-destructing Illinois Republican party. His campaign will no doubt be something fairly familiar to Canadians: Peace (both Iraq and Washington DC), Order (social solutions to crime) and Good Government (record in Illinois state-house working with Republicans to get things done). If Obama can keep up his momentum into the Iowa primary look out. He is capable of running away with this thing. However, he could burn out before the first vote is taken. Like Edwards, he plays to blacks and youth. His biggest problem: slim foreign policy credentials for a nation at war.

Wesley Clark: The retired supreme NATO allied commander and four star general has military and foreign policy credentials in spades. He's looking to be the Grant to Bush's Johnson. The successful general replaces the incompetent President. His biggest problem: he isn't a politician. This isn't an Ignatieff foot in mouth thing. This is a bad campaigner thing. His campaign in 2004 never gained any steam. I call my blog All Politics is Local after the quote from former Speaker Tip O'Neill. Local is something Clark has not demonstrated he understands. Therefore, I am skeptical of his viability. If he can get in early enough and connect to the average voters though he could be dangerous.

Tom Vilsack: The former governor of Iowa wants to ride a Hawkeye wave to the White House. Governors have a good history of winning national elections. He's a no-name governor from a small state. Unfortunately, there's already a Clinton in this race. Democrats should also be worried that Jon Stewart may have given Republicans all the ammo they need when he tore apart Vilsack's plan for Iraq in a recent interview. Then again, Vilsack doesn't have a great history of dealing with comedians. Rick Mercer made a fool out of him on Talking to Americans (I'm too lazy to find a link). Stewart thinks his name sounds like something that the Aflac duck would say. I'm sorry to say this because he seems like a decent guy, but this duck is cooked.

Al Gore: Former vice-President and democratic nominee has repeatedly said he's not running. That's about the only working against Gore. He has shed his robot image since 2000 and would make an excellent candidate on the green ticket. Still, I think he is out of this race as long as Hillary is in it.

John Kerry: The other former nominee pondering a run would be wise to stay out. His 2004 campaign was a disaster. Democrats would be wise not to repeat that disaster in 2008. If he runs he'll get some votes, but he won't win. Edit: Kerry has taken himself out of consideration for the presidency.

Bill Richardson: The best candidate you might not know about. The Hispanic governor of New Mexico is overwhelmingly popular in his home state and would play well in the emerging battleground states of the West and the battleground demographic that is Hispanic voters. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has gotten Nevada between Iowa and New Hampshire on the primary calendar making the West more important than ever. Richardson was chair of the DNC before Howard Dean so he has the connections to make a serious run. There is no guarantee he's in, but if he is, this is the dark horse.

Christopher Dodd: The other senator from Connecticut. He isn't as controversial or as repulsive to the base as Lieberman but he is just as boring. Nobody's really sure why Chris Dodd is running. Count me among those who don't get his candidacy.

Joe Biden: Biden, senator for Delaware, last ran for President twenty years ago when he got caught plagiarizing his stump speech. Well, he's trying again. Once again, nobody knows why. Could he do the job? Probably. The bad news for Biden: he'll never get the chance. Maybe he can plagiarize his own plagiarized speech. He doesn't even have Joe-mentum.

Mike Gravel: Who? I don't know. Apparently, he's the former senator for Alaska. He was considered as a candiate for VP in the 70's. He's back and running a fringe campaign on such issues as the establishment of a national sales tax and the abolition of the IRS. I know. They seem to be contradictory. The good news for Canucks: his parents were French-Canadian.

Dennis Kucinich: The congressman from Ohio is clearly running on the overwhelming success of his last place run last time around. In all seriousness, the former mayor of Cleveland is an ardent anti-war activist trying to galvanize the far left of the party. Kucinich likes the fringe which is good because that's where he's going to be.

Rev. Al Sharpton: Staying on the fringe, we have the always entertaining Al Sharpton. Is he qualified for office? Heck no. Does he have a chance? Hell no. The presence of a credible African-American candidate makes his candidacy less relevant than ever. The good news is you can watch his hair during those torture session they call all-candidate debates.

13 Candidates. Let the Battle Royale begin! This might actually get to the convention floor folks.

2008

By my count there are 29 candidates for the American presidency in 2008. And you thought the Liberal leadership race was crowded!
Technorati Profile