More snow. Yay.

As I sit here tapping out this short entry, the skies have opened up and yet more snow is falling to the ground. It's accumulating on the vehicles parked out front. It was getting my leather jacket wet a couple hours ago, while I tried my darndest to move stuff into the new townhouse I'll be living in as of the end of the month.

I'm so sick of snow I could puke. And I'm so sick that I might just puke anyway (though coughing up a lung seems much more likely these days).

Canada is a beautiful country. But I'm not gonna lie to you -- it's much more enjoyable standing beside a barbecue in 30 degree weather.

So here's to spring. Hopefully it'll start showing its face soon, so I can pack away the winter gear and get more in touch with the Jamaican part of me.

I'm going to bed. Pass me a tissue, turn out the lights, and tell me when the snowfall is over.

March 21 and the politics of race

Unless you've been under a rock in the Rockies listening to rock, you probably know that some dude named Obama (pictured) made a speech about race in the U.S. Democratic primary race. Praised by some, dismissed by others, there is little doubt that the speech was Obama's most direct comments on the issue of race and has opened the floodgates to a national conversation on the issue. Whether it will eventually help Obama win the Democratic nomination (and potentially the presidency) is not certain, but it definitely has raised some questions for me.

If I were an American I would vote for Obama for a variety of reasons, but not because he is African-American. I would not vote for him because he is of mixed race. I would not vote for him due to his roots in the white Kansas town where his family is from. None of these reasons are compelling for me. But for others, that's what it's all about.

I'm not sure what that says about the American polity. I suppose I'll be able to form a more solid opinion once the Democrats choose between Obama and Hillary Clinton (who sparks a quite different debate about identity in politics that I will not discuss further here -- perhaps in a future entry). But it does highlight the difficulty Blacks face in the political world here in North America.

Black people, simply put, rarely occupy senior executive positions in North American politics. Obama is a rare Black senator -- only the fifth in American history and just the third that was popularly elected. The recently inaugurated David Paterson in New York is only the fourth African-American governor of a U.S. state. There have been Black members of the federal Cabinet, with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell (pictured) being two recent and notable examples, but there have, of course, been no Black U.S. presidents or vice-presidents.

In Canada, Michaëlle Jean (pictured) is the first Black Governor-General and serves as the country's head of state (though the position is largely ceremonial). In the political field, there have been a limited number of Black Members of Parliament (such as Lincoln Alexander, also the first Black person to serve as Lieutenant-Governor of a province, Howard McCurdy, Ovid Jackson, and Marlene Jennings). Jean Augustine was the first Black member of a federal cabinet and in 1993 was the first Black woman elected to Parliament. In the current Quebec National Assembly, Yolande James serves as the province's first Black cabinet minister. Rosemary Brown was the first Black woman to be elected to any office by winning a seat in the B.C. legislature in 1972. Brown was also the first Black person to run for the leadership of a federal party, running a strong second to Ed Broadbent in the 1975 NDP race. McCurdy ran for the same position in 1989, losing to Audrey McLaughlin. No African Canadians have ever run for the leadership of the Conservative or Liberal parties.

Since there have been no Black leaders of a major political party in Canada, there have been no premiers or prime ministers from the African Canadian community. And frankly, there are no immediate or medium-term prospects for changing that particular fact.

It remains a difficult truth to comprehend for some Canadians, but a Black person in the United States stands a much better chance of becoming the head of the government than does a Black person in Canada. For those who believe the myth of Canadian racial superiority over the barbarian Americans, that must be a bitter pill to swallow. But there is little doubt that Blacks in Canada, though capable of attaining less senior positions, cannot hope to gain a leadership position in Canada in the current context.

How do we change that, and create an environment where anyone, truly, can become Prime Minister? On the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, that should be the conversation we are having about race in Canada.

An election is coming -- soon

Amazingly, my prediction came true.

Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay are in the House of Commons.

And Stéphane Dion's days as leader of the Liberal Party are numbered.

There's just no way the Grits can continue to prop up the Tories. And Dion can't afford to have Rae in the House for too long, tearing a strip off the government far more effectively than Dion has been able to up until now.

Bob Rae should have been elected leader back at the last Liberal leadership convention, and that is about to be brought home once he gets the chance to go after the Harperites directly on issues in his foreign affairs portfolio. Do you think anyone on the Conservative side of the floor can hold a candle to Rae on issues involving human rights and the intricacies of Canada's international responsibilities? Possibly the Prime Minister. Possibly. But since he won't be answering Rae's questions himself most of the time, the government front benches better get ready.

People can say what they like, but Bob Rae is a guy who's been around a long time and has a lot of knowledge and experience on files important to Canadians. His is a fresh approach within the Liberal Party -- he is free of any taint from the sponsorship scandal and has successful rehabilitated his image after his rocky tenure as an NDP premier of Ontario. I'm not in love with the guy but I think he's ten times better than Dion and at least three times better than the ineffectual Michael Ignatieff.

Neither of those guys would feel comfortable with Rae getting too much face time in the nightly news.

Bob had been conveniently seatless up until now, so Ignatieff had the floor to himself to play the "compare and contrast" game with the leader. People know now what they're missing with Iggy -- and it's not much. Since Rae is a far more gifted politician than either of those so-called Liberal leaders, it won't take long for his talents to become apparent now that he has a platform from which to speak, in front the cameras, where he can bash the government directly.

Put the three of them in a line and watch them go for awhile. Rae starts looking really good, really fast. That must scare the crap out of people who don't want the new guy to take over after Dion flames out. Better to confine his skills to use on the campaign trail in Toronto Centre rather than allow him to increase his profile before a national audience in the House.

Given all of that, I figure we'll vote by Canada Day. Stay tuned.

By the by(elections) ...

Today, Canadians in four ridings are voting for new Members of Parliament in what is being billed as a significant test for both Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion.

In the two by-elections in Toronto, both Martha Hall Findlay and Bob Rae are expected to score easy victories in safe Liberal seats. Both former leadership rivals to Dion, their presence on the parliamentary "dream team" could be seen both as a boon to the leader (who gains able representatives for Question Period, particularly Mr. Rae, who is known to be an able debater) and a potential challenge (could they outshine him as other MPs such as Michael Ignatieff have done?). But on the whole, I expect their presence to bolster the front lines and, hopefully for the Liberals, their party's fortunes.

The other two races out west in Saskatchewan and B.C., however, may prove to be a little dicier. Dion needs to win both to silence his critics (for now). A loss in SK (in a riding where he hand-picked the candidate, who also happens to be an ex-NDPer) or in BC (in Vancouver Quadra, John Turner's old riding) or both could be catastrophic for the bespectacled one's leadership.

I think that the Liberals will win three of the four races, losing in Saskatchewan but winning in Vancouver by a smaller-than-usual margin of victory. All told, tonight should be enough for people to dial back the outward criticism of Dion a bit.

And it won't likely be because of any stronger love or affection for the leader. Instead, the drumbeat for electoral war with the Conservatives will grow louder within the Grit caucus. And that could spell problems for Harper.

The Prime Minister has seen his party make uncharacteristic errors as of late. The NAFTA/Obama mess was a serious strategic error by a government renowned for running a leak-free ship. The Cadman affair still bubbles below the surface, threatening to explode at any moment.

But the most glaring miscalculation affecting the Tories' chances at a majority government is Harper's decision to hold the by-elections now. By assuming the government would no longer be standing, he figured these votes would never take place since a general election would have overridden the necessity for a mid-term vote. But the Liberals refused to oblige and, miracle of miracles, there's been no general election campaign.

If the Grits make a big splash and sweep today they can indeed gain some momentum as other commentators noted in their articles this morning. Combined with the other mistakes the Tories have recently made, Liberals might like their chances if they go now, before they get viewed irrevocably as the Harper government's political enablers. The risk to Harper is that people start to view the Liberal team, irrespective of their opinion of Dion, as the better group to govern. After all, the Harper team consists of Harper, Flaherty, Baird and a bunch of other people. Liberals may reason that they are as vulnerable as they ever will be right after a series of by-election losses today.

At any rate, any further delay in an election basically negates the need to bring them down early, thereby letting Harper become the first Canadian Prime Minister to serve his first four years in office at the head of a one-term minority government. By then, Canadians might be asking: "Why not give them the majority they want? They basically have it already thanks to the Liberals."

And there, ultimately, is the greatest risk to Dion -- parliamentary irrelevance. Coupled with internal dissent and an election loss a year from now, he'd be toast. Better to git 'er dunn when you've got at least a soft breeze in your sails.

I hope you're ready. This election campaign is coming sooner, rather than later.

The travails of ex-govenor Client 9

Since (soon-to-be-former) New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was such an explosive, energy-drawing spectacle as an attorney and politician, it's little wonder that this scandal, whatever it ends up officially being called in the future (the Client 9 Scandal, the Emperor's Club Scandal and the tired, wholly unoriginal Spitzer-gate are my top three choices) is such a 20-car-pileup to watch. As far as political supernovas go, this one is pretty spectacular.

There's lots out there on this story, from the general synopsis to the real identity of call-girl "Kristen" to Kristen's MySpace page to a profile of Governor-designate David Paterson, courtesy of today's edition of the New York Times. Spoofs of Spitzer, including images (like the 'pimp' shot at left), mocking t-shirts and jokes from comedians, have already started to appear on the Internet. Though Wall Street acknowledged the downfall of one of its most tenacious pursuers with a mix of disgust and satisfaction, at least one news outlet thanked him for his sheriff duties, while another writes about a possible 'holy war' to bring Spitzer down prosecuted by Wall Street operatives. There's even an article making the claim that the FBI's investigation of this matter amounted to entrapment of Spitzer through the use of overly-broad federal sex and money-transaction laws.

The anger at Spitzer from exasperated New Yorkers is palpable -- the New York Post's editorial this morning nicely summed up a lot of the feeling across the city and the state: good riddance.

The scandal has not only been a huge problem in Albany, it has also knocked the Hillary Clinton campaign off-message. The reminders of Hillary's stand-by-your-man period in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky affair has forcefully brought moral issues back to the fore in the Democratic primary race, a development that does Clinton no favours as she struggles from behind to grab the presidential nomination from Barack Obama.

But how long do you figure it will be before we see a movie about this whole ordeal? The seamy, salacious nature of the thing almost demands at least a TV movie to allow Americans to revisit their revulsion and dismay again and again.

It's the American way.

Obama needs to hammer Hillary

Barack Obama has lost only two of the last seventeen contests. Unfortunately for him, one of them was Ohio.

He didn't lose Texas. It was a draw. Hillary Clinton attracted more popular votes, but once the caucus results are finalized I am fairly certain Obama will have won more Texas pledged delegates -- truly the only victory that ultimately counts.

Remember Al Gore? His 2000 victory in the popular vote is a mere historical footnote to his loss in the Electoral College, which is where presidents truly get elected. So while winning the popular vote in individual states is important for bragging rights during the current primary season, it is the delegates from each contest who ultimately will cast the deciding votes at the Democratic convention in Denver.

I know that Obama doesn't want to come out and throw dirt at his opponent. But he could make this compelling argument against her candidacy without being slimy:

"We (the Obama campaign) continue to exceed expectations in states where our opponent was supposed to crush us. Our opponent was way ahead early in Iowa. We won that state. We weren't supposed to win in Missouri, but we did. In New Hampshire, we narrowed the lead to near nothingness by election day and won the most delegates. We were supposed to be D.O.A. in Nevada -- we nearly won the popular vote and won more delegates than our opponent. We were supposed to get swept away by our opponent in a state where she held all the advantages -- Texas -- and yet we will probably have more delegates from that state than she will. Why is it that Senator Clinton is unable to maintain her so-called natural advantages in states that, according to you in the press, she should have won strongly? What is it that she is unable to do that we are clearly doing by turning sure blowouts into nailbiters, and even victories? What will her campaign do when we turn a lead of more than 20 points in Pennsylvania into a competitive contest? Why is Senator Clinton continually losing support in areas of strength while we continue to get stronger as the race goes on?"

Obama needs to take the battle to Hillary Clinton. He needs to get out of a defensive stance and go after her with energy and gusto. He needs to emphasize that only he can hold onto his base of support while he could attract most of hers in a general election. She cannot defeat John McCain because her presence on the ticket will inspire a showing of solidarity among Republicans that might be beyond compare in the modern era.

He needs to hammer away at her assertion of having "foreign policy experience" sipping tea with other political spouses while international treaties and agreements were hammered out in a neighbouring room. He has to make political hay with Geraldine Ferraro and her wild assertion that Barack can thank his race for his lead in the popular vote, delegates and states won. He needs to hammer away at Clinton's lack of judgement for keeping her on the team when she has so clearly crossed the line of political civility (which is a hard line to cross in such a bare-knuckle game).

Finally, he has to ask the electorate: "do you have any reason to vote for Hillary, really, besides the fact that she's Bill's wife?" What is it that she's bringing to the table that America hasn't already seen forty-three times before?

If he can shine the harsh spotlight back onto Hillary, and maybe melt some of the make-up that conceals what's really going on, then he will fight back in Pennsylvania and give the superdelegates pause. The reasons for supporting Hillary are starting to run out. Let's hope Barack Obama can help the Democratic Party get to the bottom of that list a lot quicker than they are now.

Ethical dilemma: flashing other drivers about speed traps?

On my way to making a quick stop-off to purchase a few items this morning, I passed a cleverly-hidden unmarked cruiser pulling over speeders driving westbound on Strandherd Drive near the corner of Longfields Drive. He had positioned himself a few metres behind the intersection's stop line, off on the right curb beside the entrance to the Esso station on the corner, obscured from traffic by one of the many piles of snow burying sidewalks all over Barrhaven. Rarely have I seen a better spot for a cop to hide, and I've passed through many clever speed traps over the years.

This officer was feeding on speeders all morning -- when I passed the same spot a couple of hours later he was still there, writing a ticket to yet another driver caught traveling through the construction zone that is Strandherd at over the posted 50 km/h speed limit.

As I was turning onto Longfields from Strandherd, traveling in the opposite direction on the other side of the intersection, I personally was in no jeopardy of attracting the officer's radar-fed ire. But it did remind me of a discussion that happened not too long ago in reference to radar traps -- is it okay for drivers to warn each other of impending peril of the speeding ticket variety?

I read a story in a Toronto paper recently about someone who was given a ticket for flashing their high beams at cars going the other way that were approaching a speed trap he had just passed. Cops were waiting down the road for high beam flashers, and they pulled over the driver in question and gave him a ticket. Since using your high beams for such a purpose isn't explicitly against the provincial Highway & Traffic Act, the driver challenged the ticket and had the fine overturned. But he noted -- how many people got tickets like that and paid them, oblivious to the fact that the officers had no legal foundation upon which to issue the tickets in the first place?

I'm sure you've also heard of radio stations taking calls from motorists to let others know the locations of speed traps during morning and afternoon rush hours. The police in various places have been known to frown upon this practice and to ask the stations to cease and desist.

As I was driving away from the officer on Strandherd, I thought to myself: "maybe someone should be warning people about the speed trap. I'm sure the officer would appreciate it if everyone was driving around 50 km/h, like they're supposed to." After all, isn't the police service supposed to be more interested in seeing people drive the speed limit than in writing punitive moving infraction notices? But I somehow suspect the cops would prefer that I kept that knowledge to myself.

Hillary Clinton: The Big Dreamer

The Hillary Clinton campaign has been floating the trial balloon of her as presidential candidate for the Democrats, with Barack Obama as her running mate. She believes that this is the best path to unifying her party behind its ticket and retaking the White House this fall.

She, unlike Bill before her, must be inhaling some pretty potent weed.

Dream on, Hillary. The chances that Obama's young supporters will ever be persuaded to tick a ballot in support of Clinton as the next President of the United States of America are, to put it charitably, slim.

First of all, it's pretty rich to offer someone the job of second banana when (as it currently stands) Obama has a better chance of winning the big prize than she does. Unless she overtakes him in the popular vote her "narrative" story rooted in her victory in more big states than the senator from Illinois will not, in the end, overtake his "it's-all-about-results" story of having won more states, more delegates, and more votes. Some may believe otherwise, but in the end the Dems commit political suicide if they give the nomination to Clinton without a change in any of those three categories.

Secondly, she still has to convince voters in 11 states (including Mississippi tomorrow) that she's the best person to be the Democratic nominee. Both campaigns have learned at different point in this process not to pre-suppose anything. It's much too early to be talking about such things -- unless you've got nothing else to hammer your opponent with. Is Hillary's attack starting to run out of gas due to a lack of ammunition? Or has she begun the process of trying to "steal" the nomination by clouding people's minds with a lot of foolishness that doesn't make sense after deeper scrutiny (like the fact that her candidacy would reunify and re-energize the Republicans after, I dunno, three heartbeats of John McCain hearing the news)?

Finally, even if she is able to convince enough convention delegates that she should get the nod, why the HELL would Obama take the VP's job? As some have already mentioned, that job will be handled quite nicely by Bill, thank you very much. And after running his campaign on the theme of changing how things are done in Washington, how could he ever work for someone who he has spent over a year tarring with the same brush as George W. Bush and McCain? The disillusionment that the young would feel after such a move, I think, would destroy any hope he has of ever becoming a transformational leader in America. Plus, he can't stand Hillary anymore and would probably rather lick boots clean in Chicago than try to make her look better to his voters in November.

He'd be better off getting "experience" in the Senate for another term than work as Vice President in a(nother) Clinton White House. And I suspect that if it comes down to that, he'll do just that.

After all, he's got time on his hands, and Hillary's only possible time is now.

A feeling of community

After waking up this morning to 36 fresh centimetres of snow on the ground, the idea of shoveling from the back porch to our parking spot was as unappealing as it was stressful. After all, I have Caribbean blood in my veins. Why do I have to do so much bloody shoveling this year? I should be chillin' on a beach sipping rum punch, watching the surf come in.

But my faith in humankind was redeemed when a whole crew of people came out to shovel all the cars out of our little Barrhaven parking lot. By helping each other we got it done faster, AND it was far more enjoyable. Neighbours laughed in between grunts, and I even made a Tim Hortons run to get donuts for everyone. Unfortunately, they'd finished the job by the time I got back.

Anyone want some donuts? I've still got way more than I can eat.

It's always when nature gives us a good solid taste of its power that people seem to pull together. I remember when I was a Queen's student during the Ice Storm in 1998. Everyone in my neighbourhood banded together to clear fallen branches and to clear alleyways so we could all get our cars out of the danger zone (I went back to my parking spot the next day and found a fallen birch where my car would have been if we hadn't gotten it out of there). I also recall unloading cots that were set up in the Phys Ed Centre for people who couldn't stay in their own homes. Though it was hard to believe we were living through a natural disaster that was news around the world, we all did our part to get through it.

And so, as I sit here warming my toes and anxiously waiting for a second night of spaghetti for dinner (God bless leftovers and lazy parents), I am thankful for a sense of community that saved my back from acute soreness and allowed me to find a tiny slice of joy in a snow-drenched Sunday.

Snow is getting to me

Okay, so it snowed last night. For those of you who live in Ottawa, snow shouldn't come as a big surprise since the winter of 2007-2008 is now the second-snowiest on record. Before yesterday's dumping, the city had received about 355 cm this winter, still short of the record of 444.1 cm set in 1970-71. But we're rapidly catching up.

We got nearly 20 cm yesterday when we were only supposed to get about 10 cm. Earlier this week we got 28 cm when we were only supposed to get 15 to 25 cm. For once, Ottawa is consistently exceeding expectations.

If only our politicians could do the same.

Barrhaven Blues

I attended the public consultation for the new transit plans for the city of Ottawa. There were four main proposals on the table, all of which involve (glory be) a downtown tunnel:

1. Bus transitways everywhere (Orleans, Kanata Barrhaven, Ottawa Airport, Riverside South), including in the tunnel;
2. Extension of the O-Train from Riverside South and the airport through a dual-mode downtown tunnel (shared with buses) and ending near Ottawa U, with the same bus transitways in the peripheral regions as proposed in option 1;
3. A light rapid transit (LRT) line from Baseline to Blair, with the O-Train as it is currently and bus transitways everywhere else; and
4. LRT from Baseline to Blair and from Bayview to Riverside South via the airport (replacing the current O-Train), with a bus transitway from Hurdman to Greenboro along with the other bus transitways to the other suburbs.

After attending, and hearing the anger at a lack of LRT service to Barrhaven, I wrote a letter to the mayor. Part of what I wrote is appended here:

"... essentially it's up to you, or to another politician with the courage, to stand up and say that those lines should all be red. That rail connections to Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven will help get people out of their cars in those areas, will revitalize the local bus networks there (by filling them up with people heading to stations like Trim, Terry Fox, and Barrhaven Town Centre, and with more frequent service to boot). We need someone to end the madness on express buses in Barrhaven, many of which are already full before they reach Fallowfield at current population levels (much less what that would look like by 2031) and prevent a potential bus bottleneck at Baseline, currently the "minimum" terminus of the rail line as outlined in Option 4.

Vision requires articulating a series of goals, outlining why they are important to EVERYONE in the city, and pressing everyone to invest in the future.

Ottawa has the chance to be an even more livable city, but we only get to kick at this can once in a generation. Sure, some say that we can revisit some of these ideas later on, but in truth (as I'm sure you've learned) political will for large-scale change can only be marshaled sporadically. We have it now, and we need to capitalize on it."

Between now and 2031, the projected end date of the proposed plan, Barrhaven's population will grow by a whopping 129%, from 64,500 in 2007 to 147,600 in 2031. For some reason, the city's plan does not include a plan to move people from the area of quickest residential growth to the main employment zone as rapidly as possible. It's poor urban planning, to say the least, to do that when the opportunity to install LRT is staring us in the face.

And since Kanata's population will grow by 83% over the same time period, and it is also home to Scotiabank Place and several of the major high technology employers, don't you think it'd make sense to extend LRT westward, to beyond Lincoln Fields and into Ottawa's professional sport and hi-tech centre?

We can only hope that the final iteration of the rapid transit plan reflects the big city Ottawa has become, not the small dreams of those who wish the capital was something that it's not.

What's the logic of Obama trouble winning big states in November?

Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Rhode Island and Ohio Democratic primaries last night, while losing Vermont and splitting the decision in Texas with Barack Obama.

But my early read of the political punditry reveals a sentiment I still can't understand -- that Barack Obama, because he is losing votes in big states like California and New York, will have trouble carrying those states for the Democrats in November's general election against Republican nominee John McCain (who clinched his party's nod by sweeping the states on offer last night).

In no way can such an attitude be assumed. California and New York are two of the most liberal states in the Union, and they will vote for a Democratic nominee named Blue Plastic Bucket if that's what the party wanted them to do. Obama will be just fine there in November. He had trouble in some of the larger states in Super Tuesday voting last month largely because of some built-in advantages Clinton had. In general voting, the party should carry those states whether it's Obama or Clinton carrying the banner.

In Texas, where Clinton will likely win the popular vote by a very narrow margin, the Republicans have recently held sway. When the general election comes around, it will be difficult for Democrats to win the state, no matter which candidate is the standard-bearer. However, Democrats have been coming on in that state in recent years and have a legitimate shot at overcoming Republican dominance there. Obama's strategy of bringing in new, younger voters for the Democrats, coupled with the very real possibility that Hispanic voters will break for the Democrats overall in November, make that a winnable state for Obama should he be the nominee.

The bigger issue of this campaign is -- when will Clinton stop drinking the crazy Kool-Aid she's obviously got stashed on her campaign plane? Hard reality says it's all over but the confetti. In strictly mathematical terms, she cannot win the pledged delegate count. To catch up she would have to win each and every state still on the primary calendar by large margins, a highly unlikely scenario. Even her win in Texas is empty; she will almost certainly have fewer TX delegates than Obama, so what does she truly gain from it in the final analysis? The only way she wins at the August Democratic convention in Denver is if she convinces superdelegates to overwhelmingly support her, a scenario that John Ibbitson in the Globe and Mail quite rightly says is unlikely to happen. Once the Wyoming caucus this weekend and the Mississippi primary next Tuesday provide likely victories for Obama (making it 14 wins in 17 contests since Super Tuesday), the clock starts ticking.

Because for all the joy in Clintonville this morning, Hillary has already struck out.

By next Tuesday it will be clear that Obama's pledged delegate lead is as strong or stronger than it was on March 3. There simply are not enough states for her to catch up before the convention. It won't be long before the superdelegates start rallying around Obama.

The Democrats have a brilliant chance this year to win the White House back from the Republicans. But only if they are united, and if they focus their fire on McCain instead of each other. Clinton is in the way. Look for the Democratic party bigwigs to make their final choice before Pennsylvania, the next big primary, on April 22. For no matter their personal feelings, it's clear the people have spoken, and their preferred choice overall is Barack Obama.

Despite last night's results, the fat lady is warming up in the wings.

They vote today, and the Tories watch with bated breath ...

Today the voters make their choices in Vermont, Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio in presidential primaries in both the Democratic and Republican parties south of the border.

John McCain should mathematically clinch the Republican nomination after tonight's results are announced. The presumptive nominee since Super Tuesday, McCain's confirmation is all over but the clapping.

On the Democratic side, however, a bloodbath is soiling both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton as they battle tooth and nail for every bit of advantage in their presidential nomination race. I must tell you that for all the boasting about getting back into the swing of things, and her assertion that wins in Texas and Ohio will put her candidacy back in business, mathematical reality suggests it is nearly impossible that Clinton will finish the primary season ahead of Obama in pledged delegates (meaning the delegates apportioned to candidates based on the popular vote).

Hillary's determination against increasingly long odds is starting to bug the bigwigs in the Democratic party. If she does not win convincingly in the two big states on offer today, there will be increased pressure on her to bow out.

But her "kitchen sink" strategy was substantially boosted when Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's staff leaked information about a meeting between Canadian consular staff in Chicago and a staff member on Obama's campaign team. The allegation that Obama spouts anti-NAFTA rhetoric to curry favour in Ohio while reassuring trade partners that it's all just bluster has had a potentially damaging impact not only on Obama's chances today but also on the Democrats' trade messaging during the general presidential election later this year. They are furious at Canada for interfering in their election process, and the Harper government's belated apologies don't change the abject stupidity of appearing to help the Republicans re-take the White House in November.

The Harper people can only hope that Obama doesn't win the general election. It could be a long, cold wait before he deigns to be seen with anyone Canadian after that kind of stunt.

I'm ashamed to say my government might be responsible for derailing the message of hope Obama is espousing south of the border.

Blame Canada. Yes we can, indeed.

Politics, Stephen Harper style

Stephen Harper is in a lot of trouble.

He refuses to deny that "financial considerations" were offered to Independent MP Chuck Cadman on the eve of a crucial 2005 budget vote, when the then-Opposition Tories were trying to bring down Prime Minister Paul Martin's flimsy minority government.

The problem for Harper is that the admission is on tape, available through numerous sources on the Internet, for any interested Canadian to hear. And as smoking guns go, this one's fogging up the future prospects for the Prime Minister pretty effectively. For a man who won the 2006 election with the promise to clean up government, it looks like he came to office with mighty large wad of gum stuck to his shoe.

If the charge is true -- that he was aware representatives of his party were going to Cadman's house to offer him a financial consideration of any kind, in exchange for voting with the opposition parties to bring down the government -- it truly does not matter what kind of inducement it was. Harper's heretofore solid reputation on ethics is forever shattered.

If the RCMP determines that the Conservative Party operatives involved in the meeting with Cadman were in breach of the Criminal Code, Harper's position becomes even more untenable. The moment ANY charges get laid in this case is the beginning of the end of the Harper government. Holding knowledge of actions that were criminal before they were undertaken, doing nothing to stop them from doing so, and knowing these particular actions (which, if proven, constitute bribery and/or corruption) were on behalf of a political party he led, leave him no other choice.

The Prime Minister will be forced to resign, and Canadians will pass judgement on the Tories for the whole sorry business.

After having perfectly plotted his path to a majority government, and having executed most of the steps as well as can be expected, Harper must be furious that this is all coming out right on the eve of his greatest political achievement.

Threatening the Opposition Liberals with libel lawsuits not only makes the Prime Minister look petty and unable to defend his own words in the proper venue, Question Period, it also prolongs the story. If the Liberals are wise, they will continue to keep the lawsuit threat at the top of the news. Every day that Harper's misstep stays topical, the more damage will be inflicted on his government. If he thought that hurling out that particular bully tactic would work against Stephane Dion, he must not have been paying attention to the man's political career.

Say what you will about Dion's record, the one thing that comes through consistently is -- don't underestimate him. It may prove your downfall.

The road behind Dion is littered with people who doubted him and were run over by his successes. Perhaps we will have to add Stephen Harper to the list. Time will tell.

But one thing is certain -- Canadian politics just got a helluva lot more interesting.