Obama

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the Democratic Party managed to shatter the coalition that Karl Rove had hoped would create a permanent Republican majority in Washington. Rove’s strategy was to energize the Christian Conservative base while fracturing the opposition with “wedge issues” such as gun control, gay marriage, and abortion.

Stephen Harper has ambitions of creating a permanent Conservative majority in Ottawa. His strategy is very different from Rove’s. He essentially hopes to recreate the Mulroney coalition by holding grassroots Western support, winning over Québecois soft nationalists, and splitting Ontario and the Atlantic region with the Liberals and NDP. What lessons can the Liberal Party learn from the Democratic victory that might help them return to power?

New rule: Liberal MPs are prohibited from saying the words “Barack Obama,” at least in reference to their upcoming leadership campaign and the broader renewal of their fledgling party.

Just a few days after Barack Obama rode into the White House on the shoulders of the largest grassroots campaign in the history of democracy, elected Liberals emerged from a caucus meeting proposing to restrict participation in the process to choose their next leader.

Even more upsetting is that while some Liberals were busy spouting their very un-Obamaesque ideas, their Leader was suggesting the Party emulate the legendary figure’s grassroots approach. The Liberals just don’t get it.

Barack Obama’s election has changed Canada forever. Of course it’ll have a huge impact on the United States, but the influence on its northern neighbour will also be profound, albeit subtle.

No, Obama’s election doesn’t spell the end of NAFTA and millions of Canadian jobs like right-wing observers suggest. It does, however, shatter many of the myths that Canadians like to believe about themselves, especially vis-à-vis their giant neighbour.

With Obama’s election, Canadians can no longer pretend to be the more racially tolerant of the two countries. Tuesday’s outcome is both a triumph for Americans and a reason for Canadians to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror, particularly when it comes to racial inequality within their own country.

Senator Obama,

I have some awful news: You are about to become the President of the United States of America.

I know, it’s crazy! I mean, who would have imagined this when you started your campaign two years ago?  This whole process should have been much simpler for you — raise your national profile and stature in the party, bow out gracefully, help get Hillary elected, work another eight years in the Senate, maybe write another book (“The Intrepidity of Aspiration”?), run again (this time for real) with the same eloquence and inspirational message, but also the credibility that comes with grey hair and a couple of scandals, and get elected President in 2016. What a career.

Barak Obama has said repeatedly that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the location of al Qaida leadership in Pakistan and the Pakistanis were unable or unwilling to act, that he would authorize a military strike without the Pakistanis consent. Of course he would, any President would. But saying he would is extremely dangerous. 

Bush has repeatedly launched covert operations inside Pakistan, while publicly stressing partnership and cooperation. In the case of Pakistan, it could even be argued that in certain circumstances the actions that Obama is talking about would be legal under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows states to take action in self defence. 

Watching last night’s Presidential debate in a local pub, I was suddenly struck by something (not a dart, happily). These guys don’t really disagree on much of anything when it comes to foreign policy.

How is this possible, you may ask. These guys couldn’t be more different, you may say.

Fair enough. But, let’s look at the actual transcript of the debate.

The debate on foreign policy (which followed extensive debate on the financial crisis) consisted of 5 “lead questions”. Here are the questions, and the candidates’ heavily redacted answers. (I have tried to cut out everything that did not directly answer the question posed by the moderator, Jim Lehrer).