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.

Emery makes me proud, but plan that parade for Anaheim, will you?

Ottawa is crazy for its Senators.

The only problem is that fanatic support for a lost cause has become an annual pastime in Canada's capital.

After steamrolling their way through the first three rounds of the playoffs, the Sens are finally playing a team that is actually playing well. Ottawa polished off the inexperienced Pittsburgh Penguins, the tired and spent New Jersey Devils, and the self-destructing Buffalo Sabres in five games each. The fact that each of those teams did as much to themselves in those series as Ottawa did as an unstoppable juggernaut was overlooked as the Sens captured the NHL's Eastern Conference crown.

Anaheim's road has been tougher, and they are a team unlike the three powderpuffs the Senators have faced so far. They are bigger, stronger and just as fast as the Sens. They work harder and are more aggressive on the forecheck than anyone they've played so far. And they are a playoff experienced team, having been to the Finals in 2003, when their goaltender J.S. Giguere won the Conn Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP.

Speaking of goalies, Ottawa's Ray Emery should take a bow after two games. Even though he lost both decisions (through very little fault of his own) he has been, in my opinion, the best player on the ice.

As he attempts to become only the second Black goalie to backstop a Stanley Cup champion, the Black community is cheering him on. And as things stand, he is the only bright spot for a team that looks caught like a deer in headlights. Their weaknesses exposed for all the world to see, the Sens will need a miracle to come back and win this series and frankly I don't see that happening.

This year's Cup parade is going to be a hot one under California palms. I originally picked Anaheim in seven -- I'm now revising that estimate to five.

Go Ray Emery!

Charest is not that smart (and neither am I)

This is a reprint of an article I wrote May 26 and posted in the wrong spot. I was wondering why it wasn't coming up when I was searching for it ...


So now I'm diving back into the world of political commentary on my blog. And I'm diving back into my blog. It's been a while since I've written in it, and I keep telling myself that I'll write more extensively in it. Let's see if I can keep it going this time.

On to the topic ...

Quebec Premier Jean Charest is now in a political pickle of his own making. The budget his government presented in the Quebec National Assembly this week is perhaps the boldest move he has made since becoming leader of the province. The only thing is that boldness was probably best suited to his first term. If he had been bold then, people wouldn't have reason to doubt his motives today.

Opposition Leader Mario Dumont has declared that short of excising the $950 million tax cut that is the centrepiece of the Charest budget, the Liberals should not count on the support of his party, the ADQ. And the Parti Quebecois, still reeling from the worst electoral defeat in its history, has declared the budget incompatible with its core beliefs.

Saddled with a crippled leader and financially tapped out a scant month ago, the PQ appeared to be a soft touch that would be forced to prop up the government in the short term. At least that's what the Liberals believed. But as the Toronto Star's Chantal Hebert mentioned in her May 26 column, the government made its budget decisions when Andre Boisclair was still leader of the PQ. They didn't account for Boisclair's resignation and the rise of Pauline Marois, who is now the PQ leader in all but name.

Marois is fresh from administering a swift ass-kicking to current Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, who thought he could rally enough support to win the PQ leadership. After he beat a hasty, embarrassing retreat to Ottawa, Marois consolidated her hold on the party and, barring some unforeseen circumstance, will be sworn in officially as the leader by the end of June at the latest. Her party is riding a popular wave, leading all polls taken since the March election, and Marios is also personally popular.

In contrast, Charest is in the exact inverse situation. His party trails both opposition parties in the post-election polls, he is as personally unpopular as he has ever been, and people across the country are angry that he used increased equalization payments from the federal government, demanded for years as essential to maintain the province's social safety net, to promise a massive tax cut funded by taxpayers in the rest of the country.

His political brinksmanship in the National Assembly can only end badly for the Liberals. As has been pointed out by numerous analysts, he must either present supplementary changes to the budget to please the PQ or the ADQ, thereby losing face and appearing weak, or push the budget through to a vote as it is written, thereby risking an election he will be hard-pressed to win.

Quebeckers aren't stupid. They know Opposition resistance to the tax cut is not an attack on the middle class (as Charest is trying to spin it) but rather a stand based on what the province can afford in the here and now. There is still room for modest tax cuts in the budget coupled with debt relief and moderate reinvestment in social priorities. Charest, who probably recognized his tax-cutting budget would be dead on arrival given his minority status, could have chosen compromise. Generally speaking, that's what voters want when they refuse a majority to a governing party in the first place.

But in choosing the path of greatest resistance, Charest cannot blame Dumont and/or the PQ for his plight. He chose this strategy willingly. When it comes to the budget, it is the government and the government alone who frames the debate and sets the agenda.If an election is avoided over the budget, Charest will be forever crippled and his leadership of his party and the government will be placed on life support. If the government is defeated, a new election is all but certain (given the ADQ's probable inability to secure the confidence of the House to govern). And the only outcome of a summer election I can see at this point is a massive Liberal defeat, consolidation of ADQ support, and a government led by Marois, who would quickly be sworn in as PQ party leader in the event of a Charest non-confidence vote, or Dumont, whose party didn't even have official status in the National Assembly four months ago.

Charest's political career is in its death throes. His demise is Dumont's gain. Marois may finally grasp the brass ring. And the Liberal Party, decimated, relegated to third-party status in much of francophone Quebec as well as in the National Assembly, may be the next provincial party in Quebec's history to die an ignoble death, following the path blazed by the Conservative Party, the Union Nationale and the Creditistes.