The Denier Response

I don't take myself too seriously, but I'm pretty sure Lorrie Goldstein's latest column is a response to a series of email exchanges I had with him late last week (there were more, mostly name calling ;) ). Goldstein used data from one source to argue that global warming had stopped, to which I provided him with NASA's data, data that showed 2007 as the second hottest year on record. Goldstein responded that three organizations had found differing results- which is it 2nd, 5th or 7th?. Goldstein now acknowledges the NASA findings in his column, although he still twists the arguments:

Since the debate over man-made global warming is "over" and a "consensus" has been achieved, how hot was last year anyway?

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, headed by James Hansen who is an advisor to Al Gore, says 2007 was the second warmest year on record.

Meanwhile, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says it was the fifth warmest.

And Britain's Meteorological Office (the MET), which does its analysis in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, and which at the start of the year predicted 2007 would likely be the warmest on record, says it was the seventh warmest.

NASA says 2005 is the warmest year on record and 2007 tied for second with 1998.

Goldstein acknowledges other data, and even offers this mature tidbit:

NASA, the NOAA and the MET agree the Earth has been steadily warming in recent decades, that the most recent decade contains the hottest years on record, that it is very likely man-made global warming is driving climate change and that the Earth is responding to these changes. But even here, a caution.

He was doing so well, up until the last sentence.

Goldstein actually acknowledges the denier camp doesn't speak for mainstream science:

This is a minority view in the scientific community, which argues such phenomena as ocean and aerosol cooling explain recent minor temperature variations.

It ends here, because Goldstein proceeds to manipulate the warming data, to show that temperature changes have remained static in the last few years, no evidence of warming. What Goldstein fails to acknowledge is the basic truth, all the recent years he cites are well above the global mean average. The Goldstein argument demands that for global warming to be real, 2007 must be warmer than 2006, 2006 must be warmer than 2005, 2005 must be warmer than 2004.... No scientist worth his salt would endorse this piecemeal approach.

Ignoring the general trends, Goldstein plays the isolation game, akin to when deniers point to a cold day, somewhere in the world, and extrapolate that irrelevant sample as proof of a hoax. Instead of following the scientific model, Goldstein makes objective warming look irrelevant.

We are already seeing papers released that suggest 2008 might not set a record for warming, due to real phenomenon like El Nino and other natural fluctuations. In fact, a British paper suggests a couple years of "relative calm" (above average), followed by more acceleration. With that in mind, we can expect people like Goldstein to continue their misguided crusade, as though they the clever ones, who see through the ruse. What a waste of energy, the search for the flat earth continues.

"Not Worth The Risk"

That is the Conservative Party website's new favorite line, in reference to Dion. I marvel at the way the Cons develop a talking point, and with Borg-like zeal, the troops begin to utter in unision. There are signs that "not worth the risk" has become the new Conservative mantra, which can be used in almost any circumstance.

In responding to Dion's Afghanistan comments, Jason Kenney offers:

"Either way, he is out of his league on the world stage and not worth the risk.

Proof that the phrase has made it to the minion level, an Anon commentator offered this to one of my posts:

You do not remember that the Conservatives already have an eco trust plan as we speak for the exact same thing...Dion...too little too...late...Dion is NOT worth the risk

Repetition is a Conservative strategy, indoctrinating the faithful with the catch phrase is key. The new election slogan?

It's A McCain World

Last night finally brought some clarity to the Republican presidential campaign. You can't understate the significance of John McCain winning in South Carolina, particularly when you consider this was the state where his campaign imploded in 2000. Much remains to be decided, but if you had to pick a pony is this race, it's hard to look anywhere other than McCain.

McCain broke through the psychological ceiling, winning a southern primary in the conservative heartland, a state that always picks the eventual nominee. A tight contest doesn't detract from the headlines, nor the pundit's digestions- McCain is now the frontrunner.

Looking ahead, the next contest is pivotal. Florida is the last state before Super Tuesday, should McCain win there, his momentum will be unstoppable. The last batch of Florida polls have already given McCain a slight edge (RCP average: McCain 23%, Guiliani 20%, Romney 18%, Huckabee 17%). Common sense dictates a bounce for McCain coming out of South Carolina, the trends are positive. Guiliani's misguided strategy has focused on Florida, deciding 5th and 6th place finishes in the first contests don't matter- they clearly do and his Florida firewall has eroded over the last few weeks. Too early to say how Florida will vote, but all things considered, you have to like McCain's chances.

We are already seeing positive movement towards McCain in the national polls, where he now enjoys a full 10% lead over his closest rival. Couple this overall support with Super Tuesday states, and the frontrunner moniker seems justified. McCain has moved well ahead in the biggest state, California, a full 10 point lead. McCain is competitive in Guiliani's backyard, polling well in other southern states, looking strong in the southwest. Win Florida, and these numbers only get better, the idea of a brokered convention much less likely. At the moment, fluidity aside, it's clearly a John McCain world.

Clinton Takes Nevada

With Obama poised to win next week's South Carolina primary, today's results in Nevada give Clinton a much needed victory:

CBS and CNN are projecting Hillary Clinton as the winner over Barack Obama of the hotly contested Nevada caucuses.

With 52 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton led Obama 52 percent to 44 percent, with John Edwards a distant third with 4 percent.

That gives Clinton a second straight win over Obama, following her comeback win in New Hampshire, as Democrats point to the South Carolina primary on Jan. 26. She won despite the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union endorsing Obama.

Clinton 2, Obama 1, Edwards fading fast.

Shocking

The Manley panel is set to release its conclusions. In a surprising turn of events, the panel will effectively endorse the Harper government's approach. Was there every any doubt?:

the independent commission created by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to advise his government on the way forward is not expected to recommend any significant scaling back of Canada's commitment of 2,500 soldiers in the Kandahar region, or any profound change in their current marching orders.

It is expected that the panel's findings, to be released as early as Tuesday, will emphasize the need for Canada to continue contributing to the training of Afghan national army and police personnel.

Many people who have contributed submissions to the panel say they came away with the impression that Mr. Manley and his fellow members are essentially in favour of staying the course in Afghanistan. That is, continuing combat operations while simultaneously training Afghan security forces toward the mutually agreed NATO endgame of withdrawal at a later, undetermined, date.

The media has seemingly forgot the rules here, calling this an "independent" panel, we "eagerly await" the findings. This panel was never independent, what it was a pre-ordained, public relations exercise, that would solicit the desired response. Three of the five members are Tories, the token Liberal well known for his support of the mission. To now characterize this group as "independent", giving the government political cover, is a combination of revision and media incompetence.

I wrote on Oct 18:

The argument that we all need to cool our jets and see what Manley comes up with is interesting, if irrelevant, because I can sit here right now and I already know the outcome. Is there any doubt?

There was no chance that this panel reached any other conclusion, it was over before it started. What the media should focus on- why the government wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a propaganda exercise. Harper was shrewd, putting Manley as the face, because it achieved the appearance of neutrality, even though the views were already vetted.

Now we watch, as the final report is released, and people digest the findings, as though a genuine process has concluded its admirable work. Harper has duped the media, who give this panel credibility. Harper has succeeded in his political goal, he can now argue that the "independent" panel has reached his conclusion, he will take his cues from their findings. The panel's real purpose was to neutralize, provide cover, endorse the governments arguments. Mission accomplished, optics trump truth, the media played like a fiddle.

Obama Tries Comedy

Nothing like some biting sarcasm to make your point.

Mother Nature And Democracy

Candidates spend months on the trail, trying to convince people to give them their vote. Who has the best organization, who is the best leader, who represents change, who has the endorsements, who has the momentum, who has the advertising, who has the ideas, who has the demographics....all factors in the ultimate outcome. I find it both humbling and quirky that in the final hour, the course of democracy isn't about the examples listed above, it can be trumped by a single force- mother nature.

In trying to decipher the pundit and poll meltdown in New Hampshire, the role of the weather may actually have been the deciding factor. Almost record highs, a meteorological oddity, translated to an exceptional turnout of older voters, which just so happened to back Clinton in a way that was never factored.

Tomorrow's Republican primary, by all accounts a close race, that could well determine the ultimate winner, is now at the mercy of nature:

Snow is forecast to fall Saturday as far south as Columbia, with accumulations up to 3 inches in northern parts of the state. Where it doesn't snow, a cold rain is expected. The bad weather could put a damper on turnout for the GOP primary, with first-time voters, senior citizens, independents and those still wavering staying home, according to political experts.

"It's not going to deter the party activists who will vote come fire or hail storm or 4 inches of snow," said Blease Graham, a University of South Carolina political scientist.

Any snow tends to bring South Carolina to a slow crawl at best. The state has little snow removal equipment and during a light snowfall earlier this week, some schools closed or delayed opening for two hours before the first flakes fell.

"We shut down in the South," said Julie Thompson a spokeswoman for Pickens County schools in the northwest corner of the state, which closed Thursday and opened late Friday after a couple of inches of snow fell. "Simply because it's such a rarity, citizens here are not accustomed to driving in those situations."

But the polls will stay open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. no matter how bad the weather gets, state Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire said.

Low voter turnout could help former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, because his base is comprised of evangelical Christians, who could represent roughly a third of the voters in the primary, said Neal Thigpen, a Francis Marion University political scientist.

"Those folks will come out, it doesn't matter whether tornadoes are whipping out there," Thigpen said.

But wait, where the snow falls is equally important, it could favor McCain:

Up to two inches of snow is forecast to fall in the Upstate between midnight and 6 a.m. Saturday -- and some political observers already are saying that could help rival John McCain carry this state.

Snow, they say, would hurt turnout in the Upstate, where Huckabee has campaigned hard and has spent a lot of time reaching out to social conservatives. That means higher turnout would come from the coast, where clear skies are forecast and McCain has the strongest connection with voters.

"The snow could determine it," Robert Jeffrey, a political science professor at Wofford. "If the vote up here is suppressed in any way shape or form, it's going to hurt Huckabee."

There's a lesson in there. No matter the effort of men, their fate is always tied to the whims of the earth. Maybe it is as it should be. I guarantee, when the candidates wake in the morning, they won't speak with their "team", they'll urgently look out the window searching for their destiny.

Dion: One Step Forward, One Step Back

Today, Stephane Dion effectively out-flanked the Harper government in Ontario and Quebec. You can argue the economic merits of an aid package for the manufacturing sector, but the optics of a pro-active Liberal Party vs the Conservatives "don't expect anything" approach offers a welcome distinction. Dion will aid the manufacturing sector, in a way that works in concert with a green economy:

A Liberal government would establish a $1-billion fund to help manufacturers move into green technologies, Stephane Dion pledged Friday.

The Liberal leader said his proposed Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund would help pay for research and development projects aimed at boosting the hard-pressed manufacturing sector.

He told a Hamilton Chamber of Commerce meeting he has met business and union leaders, premiers and environmentalists over the last year to discuss the troubled manufacturing sector.

"They all bring different viewpoints to the table, but there is consensus on one thing: they all want to see Canada's manufacturing sector become a world leader in green technologies,'' he said. "The . . . fund is designed to help accomplish precisely that''.

Thousands of factory jobs have disappeared in recent years and Dion says it's time to go beyond simple tax corporate breaks.

"Tax cuts alone are not enough,'' he said. "The federal government must partner with the manufacturing sector as it adjusts to recent economic shocks. That requires strategic investment''.

In addition to the prosperity fund, the Liberals would provide tax credits to support private research which doesn't translate into immediate profits.

Harper offers:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper further dampened expectations of a similar boost for Canada, warning in his bluntest language yet not to expect major tax or spending measures in the 2008 budget.

Mr. Harper said he delivered the bulk of new goodies in October's mini-budget, which offered annual relief worth up to $6-billion for corporations, $1.5-billion for income tax filers and $6-billion for shoppers.

"We are not anticipating taking on in the spring any kind of significant, ongoing additional tax or expenditure commitments," he said yesterday, referring to the budget expected in late February or early March.

A one billion dollar package is hardly enough to solve the problems, but it demonstrates a recognition of the need to intervene. Contrast that with the Conservatives relative indifference, and it is pretty easy to accesss which approach will play well with voters. Dion's commitment isn't large enough to justify the howls of fiscal irresponsibility, but enough to send a clear message. The fact that the fund is in keeping with the overall theme of modernizing the Canadian economy gives the Dion message a consistent thread. The Liberals are clearly winning the battle of appearances, when it comes to the economic concerns in central Canada.

-----

The other day, I posted on Dion's Afghanistan comments. While the details of Dion's statements needed to be fleshed out, it seemed pretty clear to me what Dion meant. If Pakistan can't deal with insurgents coming across the border, then NATO would. Pakistan is already under tremendous diplomatic pressure, from all quarters, to deal with the tribal regions, eliminate the sanctuary for terrorists. I'm quite certain that the NATO high command is already in constant contact with Pakistani authorities to try and deal with the problem. I read Dion as understanding the need for a military component to deal with the situation in Pakistan. If Dion meant moving Canadian soldiers from the south to help seal the eastern border with Pakistan, that is a proposal that may have merit, something worthy of debate. If Dion meant moving forces into Pakistan, then that is an entirely different animal.

I heard Dion today on a talk-radio show, discussing the controversy over his Pakistan comments. I must admit, Liberal membership aside, there seemed an element of backtracking from statements which seemed fairly transparent. Did Dion mean "diplomatic"? I suppose, but Dion didn't specify at the time, and if so, his declaration was really a given. To be frank, I find the revisions somewhat confusing. Whatever your opinion, this issue was handled badly and doesn't achieve much on the "leadership" front.

----

One step forward, one step back.

Are Republicans This Dumb?

While Republicans try to decide who is their frontrunner, there is a background story developing that should make the choice simple. I'm curious that the McCain camp doesn't highlight "electability" on the stump, because he soars above his opponents. If anyone wonders why the Democratic National Committee has already begun attacking McCain, while ignoring the rest, these head to head poll numbers explain the rationale in spades.

Zogby poll today:

Obama:

McCain leads Obama 45%-43%
Obama leads Romney 53%-34%
Obama leads Huckabee 51%-36%
Obama leads Guiliani 51%-34%


Clinton:

McCain leads Clinton 47%-42%
Clinton leads Romney 47%-37%
Clinton leads Huckabee 47%-38%
Clinton leads Guiliani 46%-35%

These numbers are mirrored in other recent polls. CNN:

McCain 48% Clinton 50%
McCain 48% Obama 49%

Romney 40% Clinton 58%
Romney 37% Obama 59%

Huckabee 42% Clinton 56%
Huckabee 39% Obama 59%

Guiliani 42% Clinton 55%
Guiliani 40% Obama 56%

Three or four more outfits with the same trends, but you get the drift.

I'm starting to believe one thing- the GOP race is really a referendum on just how tone deaf the base has become. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Guiliani, are a Democratic wet dream. While the purists debate who is the mostest conservative, zealots get distracted by the trivial, groups react with monolithic zeal, Limbaugh calls McCain a "liberal", nobody seems to understand the big picture. If the goal is to get a Republican in the White House, stop the Democrats from taking over all the branches of government, there really isn't anything "muddled" about this field at all. Democrats are acutely aware of who they should fear, Republicans seem more content to engage in fantasy.

It might be a tight race (the latest batch of polls show Huckabee closing in South Carolina, just as he starts talking about homosexuality being equivalent to beastiality, why the confederate flag has a place at the capitol building and how the constitution should be changed to better incorporate the bible), but it sure isn't a close race, if you step back and see the horizon.

So Much For Global Cooling

I wonder if Lorrie Goldstein will do a follow-up to his assinine column last week, where he tried to argue in favor of "global cooling". Goldstein said:

In fact, not only was 2007 cooler than 1998, it wasn't statistically different from any year going back to 2001. None came close to 1998. How many media outlets which gave the original story such prominence will correct the record? We'll see.

Let's see if Goldstein "corrects the record" now that NASA has released the global temperature data for 2007. Compare this sentence, with the above:

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

I wait for Goldstein to do a follow-up piece, in the spirit of fairness.

"Beyond The Call Of Duty"

Generally, when you are telling the truth, you don't need to hire someone to "coach" you. Besides being appalled at the waste of taxpayer money, what does it say about competence, that Minister Lunn can't appear before Committee, without a propaganda firm feeding him lines? Amazing:

Taxpayers shelled out to pay a private image consultant to coach Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn for his televised appearance before a Commons committee in Ottawa yesterday.

"I think that it is a little pathetic that a minister of the Crown needs to turn to an image consultant before going before a committee hearing," said John Williamson, director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

"This is the kind of spending that not only was the Reform party opposed to in opposition but it's also the kind of business taxpayers were told would end under a Stephen Harper government," he said.

The consultant used was the Ottawa firm McLoughlin Media, the same company the Mounties paid $25,000 to help former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli prepare for his appearance before parliamentary hearings.

Quite telling, that the government went the same route with Zaccardelli, who's every changing testimony suggested complete deception. In hiring this firm for Lunn, it demonstrates that the government was well aware of the need to protect Lunn from incriminating himself.

This debate has been reduced to public relations exercise. Lunn's need for a image consultant tells us that he needed help, the simple facts his adversary. What a damning revelation, that speaks to competence, knowledge of the issues, the need to spin and a concerted effort to mitigate damage to the government. Based on Lunn's appearance, and Zaccardelli before him, I recommend the government ask for a refund and find a new puppeteer.

Dion The Hawk?

I have to admit, Dion's latest comments come as a surprise. That said, I don't necessarily disagree:

Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn't move to track terrorists.

"We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan," said Mr. Dion in Quebec City, commenting after his two-day trip to Afghanistan last weekend. "As long as we don't solve the problem in Pakistan, I don't see how we can solve it in Afghanistan."

The Liberal leader explained that Afghan officials told him they know where the extremist strongholds are in Pakistan. But he said the Afghans don't take action.

"One day, we are going to have to act because our soldiers are cleaning out some areas, but in fact very often they are only clean in principle. The insurgents go take refuge in Pakistan and they are going to come back (to Afghanistan) at the earliest opportunity. This could last very long if we don't tackle the problems that often originate from Pakistan," Mr. Dion said.

I've argued previously that I would be open to Canadian forces moving towards the Pakistan border, in the next phase of our participation. Infiltration from Pakistan is clearly undermining any progress, leading to the "whack a mole" routine we see in the Kandahar region. Dion's latest comments endorse a combat role, or at the very least, acknowledge the need to secure a porous border. It is hard to interpret Dion as anything less than activist on this front, a stance that tends to distance itself from the "non combat role" argued previously.

Is this a reversal in position? Not necessarily, in the sense that it is consistent with the Liberal position that argues Canada needs to revise our role in Afghanistan. A mission that focuses on training the Afghan army, while simultaneously limiting the ability of foreigners to reek havoc in the country achieves the goal of security, without engaging in the present vicious cycle, which leads to nowhere. Dion seems to be focusing on the source here, which has far greater potential for success.

I see these latest Dion comments as an evolution, which recognizes the challenge in a pragmatic way. The trick, selling Canadians on what amounts to a combat component, albeit it entirely different from our current role.

Who Harper Should Can

When you think about, partisanship aside, the case is really pretty cut and dry. Dion states the obvious, Guergis should be canned:

The Liberals are calling for the firing of junior foreign affairs minister Helena Guergis for imperilling the lives of their leader and his deputy by giving advance notice of their visit to Canada's provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar City.

In a scathing letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion called for Guergis's removal as secretary of state for foreign affairs because she sent an e-mail to journalists giving advance notice of the Liberal leadership's trip to the PRT.

"In publicly revealing in advance the itinerary of the delegation which included Deputy leader Michael Ignatieff and myself, Ms. Guergis violated the news blackout put in place for our protection, jeopardizing the security of the Afghan and Canadian military and civilian officials who welcomed and accompanied us during our trip," Dion said Thursday in a letter to Harper.

As such, I am requesting that she be removed as secretary of state for foreign affairs and stripped of her privileges as a Privy Councillor."

The usual practice for such visits by foreign dignitaries is to keep the details of their visits out of the public domain until they are safely out of harm's way.

Journalists were, for instance, forbidden from publicizing in advance details of Harper's March 2006 trip to the PRT for security reasons.

If Harper were to fire Guergis (never happen), I hear there is an opening at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Why just limit yourself to endangering the lives of two men, when you can endanger an entire nation.

Canadians Favor Carbon Tax

People hate taxes, so any question on that topic comes with a built-in negativity. Despite that dynamic, a new SC poll shows Canadians favor a carbon tax. This finding is even more remarkable, when you consider the article title "Anxiety grows about economy, jobs, poll finds". The economy is more of a concern, yet people still favor a tax, which assumes an economic cost. IMHO, that reality makes these numbers all the more impressive:

Do you support the idea of a carbon tax?

Support 49%

Oppose 44%

Of note, the "western canada" subset favors a carbon tax 47%-45%

The SC poll details the growing pessimism on the economy. However, when Canadians are asked to list issues of importance, the environment rating is almost double that of the economy:

Environment 20%

Health Care 13%

Economy 11%.

The environment is the number one issue, in all regions of Canada. Economic concern is most appreciable in Ontario, and yet the environment still tops the list.

Given the findings of the government advisory board, which argued for a carbon tax, coupled with an apparent openness on behalf of Canadians, it would appear the "climate" is ripe for the Liberals to evolve their position and adopt a carbon tax as part of the environmental policy.

Michigan Primary

From all indications, tonight's Michigan primary looks to be a tight contest on the Republican side. With the Democrats by-passing Michigan, Clinton the only candidate on the ballot, the only question is whether people vote for her or "uncommitted", which frees any delegates at the convention.

Two rolling polls released late last night, show different results. Mitchell Research, which has a good track record in Michigan, gives Romney the edge:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has taken a 6% lead over U.S. Sen. John McCain according to results of a tracking poll conducted Saturday, Sunday and Monday, January 12-14, 2008. Romney leads with 35% to McCain’s 29%. Mike Huckabee is third at 12%. Rudy Giuliani (3%) and Ron Paul (4%) have both dropped while Fred Thompson (4%), and Duncan Hunter (2%) have stayed the same since last night’s tracking.

Two days ago, this outfit had McCain by 1 point, yesterday Romney by 2 points, today Romney by 6 points. This trend suggests momentum for Romney.

Zogby also released a late poll, which shows a dead heat:

McCain, the Arizona senator, held a statistically insignificant 1-point edge over Romney, 27 percent to 26 percent, well within the margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, gained 2 points overnight and McCain held steady in the tracking poll. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was in third place at 15 percent.

Pollster John Zogby said Romney's movement in the final day was slight and polling over four days revealed a stable and exceedingly close race between the two Republican rivals.

Other polling, which didn't include Sunday measurements show differing results, some with Romney ahead, others McCain slightly ahead, still others a deadheat.

The key, what role do independents and crossover Democrats, who can vote in Michigan, play in the final outcome. Those voters are the great unknown, but clearly McCain needs a good turnout from this voters to have a chance. Zogby:

McCain leads Romney among Democrats 30 percent to 15 percent and among independents 33 percent to 24 percent. Romney, whose father was a former Michigan governor and auto executive, leads among Republicans 31 percent to 22 percent.

"This could come down to whether Democrats and independents turn out for McCain, and how engaged Republicans are for Romney," Zogby said.

The Zogby findings are mirrored in other polling. If Democrats and Independents do decide to vote in the Republican Primary, then McCain has a chance, if there is voter apathy, Romney is in good position.

Prediction- should be interesting ;

Flaherty Acknowledges Federal Government Failure

Flaherty's latest pitch argues that Canada needs a "common" carbon tax regime, environmental strategy. Flaherty sees problems for industry, with a unilateral, disjointed approach, individual provinces with differing regulations. What Flaherty essentially acknowledges, Canada has a leadership vacuum on the issue, which has lead to a piecemeal approach:

A patchwork of carbon taxes and greenhouse gas rules across the country isn't a good solution to Canada's environmental woes, the federal finance minister says.


Jim Flaherty said Monday the country needs to work toward a common set of regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


"Generally speaking, the consensus I would say is that it is desirable in Canada not to have multiple regulators in various areas of the economy,'' the minister said.


Flaherty said the auto sector in particular is concerned that multiple regulators would mean different environmental standards on imports in different areas of the country or for vehicles manufactured in Canada.


"All that does is drive up costs to the consumer, ultimately, without any overall benefit. So what we need to do is co-ordinate and co-operate within the federation, within the Canadian economic union to work toward a common set of regulations,'' he said.

Flaherty laments the circumstance which his government created. Historical revision aside, people will remember that Quebec and British Columbia devised targets and plans, in the absence of any leadership from the federal government. As it became apparent that the government wasn't willing to act, provinces decided to act, on their own, to try and tackle the problem.

If industry is confused, if we have uneven regulations which confuse the auto sector, the blame rests squarely with the federal government for abandoning its responsibility to show national leadership and mandate national standards. If Flaherty wants cohesion, then maybe he can tell Minister Baird to quit blowing smoke and give the provinces some guidance.

Liberal Position Finds Validation

If I were a Liberal strategist, I would commit to memory the following news item. The Liberal policy for Afghanistan finds validation, from a central source:

The ultimate goal of the NATO mission in Afghanistan is for the Afghans to take the lead, with NATO troops transitioning to a support role, says a spokesperson for the international organization.


James Appathurai discussed the NATO position after Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff visited the war-torn nation and called for Canada to stay on beyond February 2009 when the mission is scheduled to end, but in a non-combat role.


"I think actually we all agree on the end state -- NATO and I think probably the political parties here too -- and that's transition," Appathurai, a Canadian, told CTV's Canada AM on Monday.

"We want to move to a phase where the Afghans are in the lead and we provide support, training, close air support, emergency support but let them do the frontline fighting. It's a question of when."

A question of when is clearly the caveat, but the basic approach is entirely consistent with the Liberals position. The thrust of the Liberal argument, troops must "transition" to a training and support role, a recognition that the ultimate security situation can only be resolved when the indigenous force demonstrates capability. Appathurai clearly recognizes the end game, which insulates the Liberal position from the obvious Conservative criticisms.

The only point that might be in conflict, just how long NATO troops need to remain in their current role. Appathurai hedges on a specific date for the next phase, whereas the Liberals are firm. That said, if NATO is really a collection, then the Liberals can argue our role should be advancing the next phase. Canada's participation will focus on ensuring that the Afghan forces are prepared to act with unanimity. You don't just stop combat one day, then move everything over to training, it is a progression, and Canada can focus on the ultimate "transition".

The Liberals have carved a niche, which will be acceptable to Canadians, who have conflicting views about our participation. We have honored our military commitment, now Canada will focus on progress towards the ultimate goal, under the NATO umbrella, as part of a consistent strategy. Sounds like a winner from here.

Blog Awards

I'm not much for self-promotion, but a couple people were kind enough to nominate this blog for the Canadian Blog Awards. I was nominated under Best Political Blog and Best Progressive Blog, so if you feel inclined, you can vote HERE.

Lorrie Goldstein: Dipshit Denier

Goldstein's column for Sun Media today "Cooling The Hot Air" attempts to argue, using absolutely insane logic, that earth is actually "cooling":

Let's examine the flip side of global warming -- global cooling.

Inconveniently, while Al Gore was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, 2007 became the seventh straight year in which there's been no global warming, despite increasing concentrations of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And for Y2Kyoto believers, 2008 isn't looking good.

In fact, not only was 2007 cooler than 1998, it wasn't statistically different from any year going back to 2001. None came close to 1998. How many media outlets which gave the original story such prominence will correct the record? We'll see.

Apparently, Goldstein skipped science class, maybe all classes for that matter, because he uses 1998 as the baseline, from which all other years are to be judged. Never mind the simple fact, every year since 1998 has been statistically warmer than the global mean average:


Yes, the world is cooling because the average rise in global temperature was only .5 degrees since 2001, as compared with the .6 degress recorded in 1998. Let's extrapolate Goldstein's tortured logic. If you were investing your money for the last ten years, and you recorded a 10% profit in 1998, but only a 8% profit in all the years since, does that mean you have lost money? Exactly, you ignorant dipshit of the highest order.

Anyways, back to harsh reality that will never see the light of day in one of Goldstein's moronic columns:

But a new study released today, based on some of the most extensive measurements to date of the continent's ice mass, presents a worrisome development: Antarctica's ice sheet is shrinking, at a rate that increased dramatically from 1996 to 2006.

"Over the time period of our survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass, and the mass loss increased by 75 per cent in 10 years," the study said.

"I see that as the main driver for the change in ice mass. And this means that we are not in a natural cycle but in something that is related to global warming or global climate change, whichever you want to call it," he said.

What do scientists know?

Blowback

Anyone who thought the controversy in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River would wane should think again, local Liberals are fighting back:

More than 140 disaffected party members voted to create a new riding executive they hope will in turn hold a nomination runoff to decide who will carry the party banner for the northern riding of Desnethe-Misinippi-Churchill River in a March 17 by-election.

The move has left provincial party brass shaking their heads, given, they say, that the riding already has an executive and that any final nomination decision rests with senior party officials in Ottawa.

The members at Saturday's meeting — including area mayors and native leaders — also decided to formally petition and write to Mr. Dion and urge he retract the Beatty decision. They will also ask Ms. Beatty to step down and run in a nomination race.

What is really concerning for the Liberals, this mess in Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River threatens to overshadow what should be a big night for the party on March 17. The Liberals are well placed to possibly win the other 3 by-elections, but what happens in this riding has the potential to be the story of the night, undercutting any perceived momentum.

I don't like David Orchard, and I would fully support a concerted effort to help Beatty win the nomination. However, the Liberal brass has shown a complete lack of sensitivity, a disdain for the grassroots, revealed a fundamental problem with the idea of quotas, by unilaterally deciding to circumvent a democratic process. How anyone couldn't see the obvious pitfalls in this approach is frankly beyond me. It seems pretty reasonable to assume that the Liberal brass had full knowledge that local Liberals would react in a negative fashion. That reality should have been factored in too the decision, head office should have backed off.

What is happening now, is a self-inflicted wound, that denotes a worrying sense of detachment. In the end, this controversy has the potential to derail an otherwise stellar night for the Liberal Party.

Deadheat?

Ipsos poll, which contradicts the Decima poll earlier this week, that showed the Conservatives reclaiming a sizeable lead. The Ipso poll, done between Tuesday and Thursday, gives the Liberals a slight lead:

The national survey, conducted by Ipsos-Reid exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National, found the Liberals switching places with the Conservatives since the last poll two weeks ago. The Grits gained two points to 35 per cent while Tory support slipped a similar margin to 33 per cent. The NDP also dropped two points to 13 per cent while the Greens bumped up one point to nine.

Ontario:

In Ontario, Grit support was 41 per cent, a decline of two points, compared with the Tories with 37 per cent, an increase of four points.

Quebec, Liberals in second:

Bloc Quebecois maintained their lead with 35 per cent support, gaining four points from the last survey. The Grits slipped a point to 26 per cent while the Conservatives stayed in third place with 21 per cent.

The bizarre part of this poll, which frankly I put no stock in, the apparent Liberal "surge" in Alberta:

Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos-Reid, said it appears that most of the Grits jump in support, and subsequent slump for the Tories, is a result of the Conservatives declining a remarkable 23 points in Alberta.

But the troubles Premier Ed Stelmach faces in Alberta due to his government's decision to charge higher royalties and taxes in the oil and gas sector are hurting the federal Tories polling numbers in that province. Meanwhile, the Liberals have jumped 20 points to 30 per cent in the federal poll.

I can't find the margin of error for the Alberta results, but generally they are quite high (9-10%). Ipsos offers nothing really to justify such a remarkable turn in fortunes, for both the Liberals and Conservatives, so take this result with a large grain of salt.

On the whole, Bricker offers this analysis, which seems to bait the Liberals:

"The only difference is that it's likely to be lead by the Liberals. This is very good news for Stephane Dion. Even the slimmest minority would be a major victory for him and his party," said Bricker, adding that the Grits would be "foolish" not to try and trigger an election.

Foolish? Let's not get carried away, with full knowledge that this was the polling outfit who consistently showed the Tories with a double digit lead, on the verge of majority, on a couple months ago, while every other poll disagreed. That said, good news for the Liberals to have Ipsos delivering these type of numbers.

While the Decima and Ipsos polls differ on the Libs and Cons, both suggest the same for the NDP, namely a lowly 13% support number. I wonder if Dion's leadership, which has tended to move the Liberals left, is starting to erode the NDP's support, coupled with the Green appeal? Whatever the reason, these type of numbers translate to official party status scenarios, definitely a concerning trend.

Clinton, McCain Top National Poll

As the campaigns start to fan out, national polls start to become more relevant. A new CNN/Opinion poll, shows a seismic shift on the Republican side, Clinton leading, with some caveats, on the Democratic side

Dems:

Clinton is at 49 percent in the new poll, up nine points from the December survey, with Obama at 36 percent, which is a six-point gain from his December standing.

Obama finished first in Iowa's Democratic caucuses. Clinton won in New Hampshire.

"Clinton has re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner, especially among Democratic women," Schneider said.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is a distant third, at 12 percent, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 1 percent. The sampling error for the Democratic results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

A national poll is more telling on the Democratic side, because we already know that Super Tuesday will be the focus, the "national primary". Interesting, that both Clinton and Obama have gained support, as the other candidates drop out. In the poll internals, we have this tidbit:

Suppose the only Democratic candidates were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Which of those
two would you support?

Clinton 53%
Obama 44%
Neither (vol.) 3%
No opinion 1%

With Edwards eliminated, Obama picks up 2/3rds of his support.

On the Republican side, McCain's rise is staggering, a combination of momentum and Guiliani fading badly:

McCain has the support of 34 percent of registered Republicans in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Friday. That's a 21-point jump from the last CNN/Opinion Research poll, taken in December, well before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary earlier this month.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa Republican caucuses, is in second place in the new survey, with 21 percent of those registered Republicans polled supporting him for the GOP nomination.

Rudy Giuliani follows with 18 percent, a drop of six points from the December poll, when the former New York City mayor was the front-runner.

"Only McCain gained support among Republicans nationally. McCain's now the clear Republican front-runner," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is in fourth place, with the backing of 14 percent of registered Republicans, with former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee at 6 percent, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 5 percent, and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California at 1 percent.

The GOP race is still wide open, with critical contests looming Michigan and South Carolina. That fact makes this national poll less predictive than the one for the Democrats, but that said, McCain is clearly emerging as the frontrunner.

Guiliani's Florida strategy is imploding fast, just today he was forced to hold the pay for staff. McCain is benefiting from Guiliani's decline, and a new Florida offering demonstrates the folly of sitting on the sidelines for so long. Guiliani's once solid lead is gone:

McCain 27%
Guiliani 19%
Huckabee 17%
Romney 17%

Advice For Dion

One of the challenges Dion has to address, is the lingering opinion that he is "wishy-washy". That narrative feeds the bigger hurdle, the idea of weak leadership. I would suggest that Dion, or his handlers, stop with the forever changing stance on the need for an election. Saber rattling one week, more coy the next, gives the impression that the Liberals are scattered, poll-driven opportunists.

Yesterday, Dion went back to the previous posture, the one he adopted before the period where he was gung ho, after the period where he laid out his "demands" (hard to keep track):

OTTAWA–Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is backing away from his tough talk about provoking a federal election at the earliest opportunity.

Talking to reporters yesterday, Dion was repeatedly pressed about whether he'd use his power as Opposition leader to trigger the defeat of the government soon after Parliament resumes Jan. 28.

"I have no plan to do so for now," Dion replied.

Instead, it now seems that the Liberals will be content to wait and see what's in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's next budget – expected in March – and then judge whether to topple the minority government on a budget vote.

It was only a little more than a month ago, in Montreal, when Dion told Liberal riding presidents to be ready for the plug to be pulled on Harper's government as soon as possible.

In fact, Dion told reporters that February represented a symbolic bar of sorts for the electorate, since it will mark the second anniversary of Harper assuming office in 2006. He appeared to be saying that the Liberals were ready to call an end to their controversial fall approach of abstaining on make-or-break votes for the government.

But it seems that there has been a change of mind over the Christmas and New Year's break.

The Star article points to Decima holiday poll to try and understand the different posture. I'm not sure I buy that reasoing, but then again, there does seem to be a definite co-relation between the polls and the Liberal rhetoric.

I don't think the Liberals do themselves any favors with the confusing statements, and it only feeds a negative impression of Dion. Dion's best chance in any election is too present himself as genuine and principled. The "moving the goalposts" routine that we have seen for the past 5 months work against that perception, making the Liberals look self-interested and calculating. If I could offer some advice, get a consistent posture and don't waver, no matter the wind's direction, at a given moment.

McCain On The Move

McCain's win in New Hampshire sets the stage for a three man battle in Michigan with Mitt Romney and a surprisingly relevant Mick Huckabee, followed by the always decisive Republican primary in South Carolina. New polls (I can't help myself) suggest McCain is well placed for two crucial wins, that would catapult him to the nomination.

In Michigan, Romney has put all his advertising into the state, pulling ads from South Carolina and Florida, in a last ditch attempt to salvage his campaign. No polling conducted after New Hampshire, but McCain is already well placed:

Strategic Vision:

January 4-6, 2008. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

1. For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

John McCain 29%
Mitt Romney 20%
Mike Huckabee 18%
Rudy Giuliani 13%
Fred Thompson 5%
Ron Paul 5%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 9%

Rossman Group:

01/06 - 01/07
Romney 22
McCain 18
Huckabee 23
Guiliani 8
Paul 4
Thompson 3

Of note, the SV poll is "Republicans only". Independents can vote in the Michigan primary, and with no Democratic race, due to suspension of delegates, McCain should benefit. Reading some of the press clippings, there are reports of Democrats showing up at McCain rallies, it will be interesting to see if independents and "McCain Democrats" put him over the top.

In 2000, South Carolina killed McCain's chances, mostly due to a backlash from the religious right and some dubious tactics by the Bush campaign. Two fresh polls, released after the New Hampshire results show McCain getting a nice bounce:

Fox News/Opinion R:

A new FOX News South Carolina Republican presidential primary poll shows McCain is now the front-runner with 25 percent, followed by Iowa caucus winner Huckabee at 18 percent and Romney at 17 percent. The results for all three top candidates are within the survey’s margin of sampling error.

Fred Thompson, who is from the neighboring state of Tennessee, captures the support of 9 percent, while Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul both receive 5 percent.

Rasmussen:

Arizona Senator John McCain, fresh from his victory in New Hampshire, has taken a narrow three-point lead over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows McCain at 27% and Huckabee at 24%.

That’s a significant change since last Sunday. Just before the New Hampshire vote, Huckabee was leading McCain 28% to 21%. In mid-December, Huckabee and Romney were tied for the lead with 23% of the vote while McCain was well off the pace at 12%.

The current survey finds Mitt Romney running a distant third at 16%, little changed since the previous survey.

A new Florida poll shows Guiliani's once huge lead reduced to 5 points, with McCain and Huckabee close behind. Hard to see a scenario where Guiliani is still relevant, should McCain win Michigan and South Carolina.

As an aside, I found this quote on climate change by Mitt Romney. Remind you of anyone?:

"I really don't think it's productive for us to act solely on a unilateral basis to reduce our greenhouse gases if we have developing nations like China and India continue to increase their output of greenhouse gases and not be party to a greenhouse gas effort," he said

New Decima Poll

I'm suffering from poll fatigue, but Harris-Decima was kind enough to conduct a useless poll of Canadians over the holidays. To nobody's surprise, Harper's year end "fireside chat" routine, coupled with a complete news shutdown, has given the Tories a boost in support:

new poll says the Conservatives jumped to a seven-point lead over the holidays.

While Canadians were busy stuffing stockings and carving up turkey, the federal Tories were busily bolting to a sizeable advantage over the Liberals, says the new Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey.

Translation- while Canadians were so thoroughly disinterested in politics, completely distracted, we decided this was a fantastic opportunity to get an accurate read of people's opinions. Alright then.

The numbers, all that might be relevant in the grand scheme, whither the NDP?:

The pollster suggests the Tories had fallen slightly behind the Liberals by mid-December, then leapt past them over the holidays to hold a 37-30 edge by the first week of January.
NDP support among 1,000 Canadians polled from Jan. 3 to 6 dipped in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario as the party's national support dropped to just 13 per cent.

The latest poll contains plenty of bad news for the NDP.

The party - which won a historic Quebec byelection in September and hopes to take more seats in the province - sagged to eight per cent in Quebec. The Green party had nine per cent in the province.
It was almost as bad for New Democrats in Ontario. In that province, Liberals held a 40-37 lead over the Tories, while the NDP was at 12 per cent and the Green party was at 10.

"When you look at Ontario, the Green party really is edging ahead of the NDP in critical parts of the province," Anderson said.

"That's pretty big news."

I blame it all on the tryptophan in the turkey.

Liberals: Good And Bad

First, the good news. The Liberals policy on Afghanistan, outlined yesterday, stakes out fertile ground within the Canadian mainstream. A balanced view, that leaves room for the military, but doesn’t endorse the current configuration:

the combat mission should end as scheduled in February, 2009, but suggesting troops could remain in the country to perform other tasks.
"We are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan to continue training the Afghan National Army and police, protect Afghan civilians or for reconstruction efforts," Mr. Dion said in a prepared statement."But we will not accept the simple rebranding of the current combat mission as a training mission. Any new military role must be crafted in such a way as to ensure that other significant Canadian Forces deployments in other parts of the world are possible.

No one can accuse the Liberals of “abandoning” Afghanistan, nor are they endorsing the Harper stubbornness. The argument basically demonstrates some pragmatism, re-directing our effort in such a way to achieve the best results. Many independent military papers have concluded that Afghanistan can’t be won militarily, the Liberal position embraces this concept, while providing alternative assistance that moves towards stability. I think this position will resonate well with Canadians, because it articulates the conflicted view of wanting to help, appreciation that we have a role to play, but not engaging in some endless, tragic game of “whack a mole”.

On the negative side, the way in which the Liberal Party has handled the nomination in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River translates to a complete public relations nightmare. For the record, I’m no fan of David Orchard, and I can understand why prominent Liberals resist his candidacy. However, usurping a democratic process, particularly when you have full knowledge of a potential vocal blowback, seems like a strategic blunder of the highest order.

If key Saskatchewan Liberals like Goodale don’t want Orchard, then they should do everything in there power to amass grassroot forces to back their preferred candidate. Interjecting someone, which alienates a wide swath of voters, in a riding which is decidedly close, is just bad politics. I’ve never agreed with the Dion quota system, what is happening in this riding is representative of forcing a round block into a square hole. The top-down approach, which basically tells the locals to sit down and do as they are told, is the last thing the Liberals want to present, in a climate where they are trying to re-invent themselves.

New Hampshire

Pretty shocking results on the Democratic side, not necessarily a bad development in the grand scheme. On the Republican side, McCain puts a period on a stunning reversal of fortunes. My two cents on why the polls, pundits (and myself) were wrong, what turned the race for Clinton.

The weather was beautiful and warm, a fact which generally means better turnout amongst older voters. By all accounts, older voters decidedly went to Clinton. Clinton also seemed to score very well with women voters, many of whom changed their minds in the last 24 hours. McCain was able to draw a bigger percentage of independents to the Republican Primary, this fact hurt Obama in the end.

There has to be a moment here, because apart from partisan fanatics, there wasn't one columinist that saw this result coming. The press reacted to yesterday's "teary" plea by Clinton with uneven reaction. Apparently, the voters reacted in different fashion, Clinton became sympathetic and the soft voter turned back to her in the end. You don't see a wave stop abruptly, unless it meets something powerful, to my mind this was that moment, which wasn't properly accounted for.

No Democratic that has won the first two contests has failed to win the nomination. With a Clinton win tonight, the race is wide open and a period of sober thought will follow. Despite what looked inevitable, it is a positive development that this race slows down, people can weigh the options, some of the rock star hysteria wanes. Super Tuesday is now what it was intended to be, which makes for a fascinating few weeks.

On the Republican side, McCain's win today sends him off to Michigan, a state he won in 2000. Romney staggers on, pocketbook in hand, but tonight is a devastating loss. Anyone who reads this blog will be aware that I picked up on McCain through the fall, which I offer as balance for the blindside on the Democratic side :)

I'm actually glad that tonight went down in this way. Despite trying to read the tea leaves, that doesn't translate to an endorsement of what can happen in politics. This race really shouldn't end in such short order, whether empirically, philosophically or strategically. Obama may well be the real deal, but the Democrats are better served if he stands in the glare for a time first, to see more layers. Tonight the process wins, let's see what happens.

Canada Isn't Bush Country

Peterborough Politics has a post, which delves into the familiar Conservative rallying cry- the liberal media that conspires against all things Conservative. Anyone who actually pays attention knows full well that Canada's media is hardly a liberal bastion, a quick peruse of who owns what actually suggests otherwise.

Yesterday, Harris-Decima released a poll of Canadian opinion, as it relates to the American Presidential race. These results are quite telling:

A new poll suggests Canadians so massively favour the U.S. Democratic party that they'd back any of its leading candidates in a presidential race against a Republican.

The Harris-Decima survey suggests the Democrats would trounce the Republicans by a four-to-one margin if the voters were Canadian.

U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican party would get creamed even in a hypothetical election in which only Canadian Conservatives voted.

The survey, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, says 49 per cent of Canadians expressed a preference for Democrats while only 12 per cent did the same for Republicans.

Even self-described Conservatives — who are supposedly more ideologically in tune with the right-leaning Republicans — favoured the Democrats by a 47-23 margin.

What does the above tell us about Canadians, and how should that translate to our newscasts? In my mind, the above proves a basic truth, Canada is a center, center-left country, and true conservatism is really a fringe player in our discourse. With that reality in mind, why is that Conservative bloggers rail against outlets like the CBC, when it would appear they merely reflect the politics of the people? What we have here is a vocal minority, playing the martyr card, who can't stand the fact that they are basically out of touch with mainstream Canada.

Canadians actually like David Suzuki, for the most part. Canadians don't see a show like The Nature Of Things as a vehicle for the CBC to project it's socialist agenda. Canadians do believe in global warming, Canadians don't support capital punishment, Canadians do believe the state has some role to play in our lives..... The CBC, our network, merely reflects the majority perspective.

We can all pick out items and point to bias. For myself, I wonder how a CBC political roundtable can call itself fair when it includes a known Dion hater, the former guru of the National Post and a pollster who worked for Mulroney. If I was a conservative, I would extrapolate this simple fact to the entire network. However, when you step back, you see a balance elsewhere and it becomes more acceptable.

Our current government feeds the conservative rallying cry, with its paranoid and hands off approach to the media. Is that because the media is biased against them, or is it more correctly an acknowledgement, through the reactions, that this government's core belief system is out of step with mainstream Canada? Is the paranoia really a shrewd calculation, the need to hide?

UPDATE

A gigantic yawn, the unwashed will be heard.

Obama Rolling Nationally

I've been waiting for some national polls to see if the Obama "phenomenon" is spreading. The Clinton firewall, her very large lead nationally, which would set her up for Super Tuesday. That lead has evaporated in short order, according to Gallup:

On the Democratic side, Iowa winner Obama has moved into a tie with Clinton. Both now have 33% of the vote. This represents a 6-point gain since December 2007 for Obama and a 12-point loss for Clinton. John Edwards has gained 5 points since December, moving from 15% to 20% support among Democrats. Edwards is now closer to the front-runner among Democrats than he has been at any point since Gallup began tracking the Democratic race more than a year ago. This is also the first time since June that Clinton has not held a statistically significant lead over the rest of her competitors. She had led by 27 points as recently as mid-November.

The Gallup findings are mirrored by the Rasmussen daily tracking poll. Last week Clinton had a 17% advantage. Today:

Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton held a seventeen-point lead over Barack Obama. Today, that lead is down to four percentage points in a survey with a four-point margin of sampling error.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Clinton 33%, Barack Obama 29% and John Edwards 20%

Staggering change, by any measure.

The latest CNN/WMUR poll for New Hampshire shows the race stabilizing, with little change from yesterday:

Democrats:

Obama 39% (yesterday 38%)
Clinton 30% (29%)
Edwards 16% (16%)

Republicans

McCain 31% (32%)
Romney 26% (26%)
Huckabee 13% (14%)

All the polls average out to McCain +5% and Obama +8%. The real caveat for McCain, does Obamamania bleed more independents to the Democratic Primary, a block McCain needs to get over the top?

Clinton Gets Emotional

You have to feel sorry for her, on one level.

“We’re going to lose South Carolina”

The above quote, a frank admission from the Clinton camp:

The adviser added that the campaign has come to accept another reality of the early process, which is that African-American voters are convinced that Obama is viable and shifting rapidly in his direction.

Assuming Obama wins New Hampshire, the next showdown will be South Carolina. Polls done in mid-December already pointed to a deadheat, seems fairly intuitive that any polling done in the last few days would show Obama ahead. When you factor in Edwards, who won South Carolina in 2004, the future could hold another embarrassing 3rd place finish for Clinton.

This reality begs the question- how can Clinton expect to win on Super Tuesday, when she will have lost the first three contests? Clinton has always held a size able lead in the national polls, which suggests a chance in the national primary. However, I predict that national advantage completely evaporates by the time South Carolina decides.

With all the focus on individual states, there haven't been many national polls in the last few weeks. One exception is Rasmussen, which runs a continuous national tracking poll. That poll had Clinton ahead by 19% over Obama, one week ago. Yesterday's offering had the lead virtually cut in half, Clinton's advantage down to 11%. This number will continue to narrow as Obama overcomes the "electability" hesitation. Winning breeds viability, Clinton's supposed national appeal will be nullified by the time South Carolina weighs in.

The set up seems to be as follows. Obama heads into Super Tuesday with 3 victories, a wind of momentum at his back. Clinton, the former frontrunner, shut out, desperately looking for a firewall. If you just focus on the optics of that scenario, who would you rather be?

UPDATE

I mentioned the Rasmussen national tracking poll, that showed Obama narrowing the gap with Clinton. Today, the gap shows a large shift, with Obama now trailing by a mere 4% (11% yesterday).

Pulling Away?

There was an interesting survey done, of all the polling outfits, to see what people in the industry consider the most reliable. Near the top of the list for perceived reliablity in New Hampshire, the CNN/WMUR/UNH poll. Yesterday, this poll had Obama and Clinton tied at 33%, Edwards a solid 20%, one of the few polls that still showed a deadheat (although the trends favored Obama).

Tonight's release, done on Saturday and Sunday, provides a massive swing towards Obama:

a new CNN/WMUR poll out Sunday afternoon suggests that Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has opened up a double digit advantage over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In the survey, conducted by the University of New Hampshire on Saturday and early Sunday, 39 percent of likely Granite State Democratic primary voters back Obama as the party’s nominee — that’s ten points ahead of Clinton’s 29 percent. Obama is up six points and Clinton down four points from our survey conducted on Friday and early Saturday.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 16 percent in the new survey, down four points from Saturday. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in fourth place, with the support of 7 percent of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 2 percent.

The poll strongly suggests an Obama surge in New Hampshire. Obama’s gaining about three points a day, at the expense of both Clinton and Edwards. Obama’s lead has now hit double digits (10 points) going into the home stretch. It’s ‘the Big Mo’!” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

"The Iowa caucus results have convinced growing numbers of Granite State voters that Obama can really go all the way. In December, 45 percent thought Clinton had the best chance of beating the GOP nominee. But in Saturday's poll Clinton and Obama were tied on that measure and now Obama has a 42 percent to 31 percent edge over Clinton on electability," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

From a deadheat, to a full 10 point lead, represents seismic movement for Obama.

On the Republican front, today's numbers are essentially unchanged from yesterday's, with McCain holding on to a 6% lead. What is changing, independent voters are now evenly split between voting in the Republican and Democratic primaries. Just last week, there was 60/40 split favoring the Democratic primary. Good news for McCain, but also indicative of Obama's growing support within the Democratic base.

Candidates Meet

One of the more fascinating parts of last night's debate, was when all the candidates, from both parties, meet on stage. Check out McCain and Edwards (50 seconds), who greet like old college roommates.

McCain, Obama Peaking When It Counts

The American Presidential race is bringing a flurry of polls, stepping back, you see common threads developing in both parties.

For the Republicans, McCain seems to be cresting at just the right time. Last night's pivotal debate turned into a Romney bashfest, as all the other candidates pounced on his uneven record and penchant for flip flops. That debate may be McCain's last hurdle, and victory now looks within reach. The poll orgy:

NBC:

McCain 32%
Romney 24%

CNN

McCain 33%
Romney 27%

Concord Monitor

McCain 35%
Romney 29%

Zogby

Romney 32%
McCain 31%

ARG

McCain 39%
Romney 25%

Rasmussen

McCain 31%
Romney 26%

Suffolk Uni

Romney 30%
McCain 27%

Looking at the internals for both the CNN and NBC polls, McCain is extremely well liked, even amongst Democratic voters. If you average out all the polling, McCain is +5%, with a clear wind at his back.

On a side note, it was fascinating to watch McCain bring up global warming in a passionate way, considering the issue doesn't even register with Republicans, in fact it could alienate some. I was also struck with the genuine affection afforded McCain from all the Democrats, when all the candidates from both parties took the stage. Edwards and McCain actually embraced, the two have worked together in the past, most notably on the patient bill of rights legislation.

On the Democratic front, there isn't a poll out that doesn't show Obama moving up, it is the degree that is still an issue. Some polls this morning:

NBC:

Obama 33%
Clinton 31%
Edwards 17%

CNN:

Obama 33%
Clinton 33%
Edwards 20%

Concord Monitor

Obama 34%
Clinton 33%
Edwards 23%

ARG

Obama 38%
Clinton 26%
Edwards 20%

Rasmussen

Obama 37%
Clinton 27%
Edwards 19%

Suff

Clinton 35%
Obama 33%
Edwards 17%

Zogby

Clinton 31%
Obama 30%
Edwards 20%

Of note, both the Zogby and Suffolk rolling average polls have a closing gap. Suffolk had Clinton up 7% just yesterday, which suggests large movement for Obama in the last day of the poll. Zogby also had a 4% gap yesterday, down to 1% today. An average of all the polling, shows Obama +3% with some momentum still filtering through. Interestingly, Obama enjoys the same universal appeal that McCain does, the polls show him quite attractive to independents and Republicans have a favorable opinion.

I thought Obama did quite well last night. Clearly, his handlers focused on the need to look substantive, Obama was very detailed and achieved his goal of putting flesh on the rhetoric. Edwards also performed well, very passionate. Clinton did well, but there were hints of desperation and anger- she probably needed to do more.

This morning, former candidate Bill Bradley will endorse Obama:

"Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, independents and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics," Bradley said in a release scheduled to be released on Sunday.

"Because of his enormous appeal to Americans of all ages and backgrounds, Obama is the candidate best positioned to win in November. ... His movement for change could create a new era of American politics _ truly a new American story."

The significance of Bradley, who ran well in New Hampshire in 2000, isn't huge, but the fact that he plans to campaign with Obama tomorrow guarantees more positive press, on the eve of the primaries.

Obama Surging

If anyone doubted the Obama bounce coming out of Iowa, two offerings today should offer confirmation. First, the American Research Group rolling poll, which shows a dramatic change:

Obama 38%
Clinton 26%
Edwards 20%

Barack Obama leads John Edwards among men 42% to 21%, with 19% for Hillary Clinton. Among women, Obama leads Clinton 35% to 31%, with 20% for Edwards. Clinton leads Obama among Democrats 34% to 32%, while Obama leads Edwards among undeclared voters (independents) 49% to 21%.

The ARG poll, just two days ago had Clinton up 4%. This seismic shift amounts to a full 16% swing for Obama, a gigantic bounce coming out of Iowa.

Earlier today, Rasmussen released its first post-Iowa poll, with similar evidence of a massive swing towards Obama:

Barack Obama has taken a huge lead in the first pure post-Iowa poll of New Hampshire. Rasmussen gives Obama 37%, Hillary Clinton 27%, John Edwards 19%, and Bill Richardson 8%. Rasmussen's last poll from two weeks ago had Clinton at 31%, Obama 28%, Edwards 18%, and Richardson 6%.

The poll was conducted on Friday, a one-day poll with the margin of error at ±4.5% — meaning that Obama's ten-point lead is just outside the margin. Also, Obama leads Hillary by 5 points among core Democrats, and by 16 points among independents. Indies are expected to make up 40% of the Dem primary electorate, according to the survey.

Iowa is irrelevant? Apparently, not this year.

UPDATE

Two more polls out, that show the same trends, although a much tighter race. The CNN/WMUR poll:

Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois all tied up, with each grabbing the support of 33 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the Granite State.

Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina is in third place with 20 percent.

“Both Obama and Edwards appear to have benefited form the Iowa caucuses. Each picked up 3 points in New Hampshire. Clinton lost one point, since our last poll taken before the caucuses,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

The new CNN/WMUR survey was conducted Friday and Saturday, after the Iowa caucuses.

The biggest shift appears to be electability. 36 percent of likely Democratic New Hampshire primary voters now think Clinton has the best chance of beating the Republican presidential nominee. That’s down nine points from our last Granite State survey, which was conducted December 27-30.

Obama is just behind Clinton when it comes electability, at 35 percent, a virtual tie. Obama gained 13 points up since our pre-caucus poll.

“Obama got something else out of winning Iowa: a big boost in his perceived electability. A week ago, Clinton led Obama by better than two to one when New Hampshire Democrats were asked which candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican in November. Obama’s victory in an overwhelmingly white state may have resolved some doubts about an African-American candidate’s electability,” says Schneider.

For context, the last CNN poll had Clinton +4%, so again here we see a bounce, although less pronounced. However, those electability numbers are a real plus for Obama and could pay dividends at the polls. Also, it looks like Edwards is still polling quite well, all the findings show his support strong.

Another poll, this one from the Concord Monitor, which shows a statistical tie:

Among likely Democratic primary voters, Barack Obama was the choice of 34 percent of those surveyed and Hillary Clinton was the choice of 33 percent, suggesting the race is a virtual dead heat. John Edwards was next at 23 percent, followed by Bill Richardson at 4 percent and Dennis Kucinich at 3 percent.

Research 2000 surveyed 400 likely Republican and 400 likely Democratic primary voters yesterday and today. The margin of error for each sample is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

While there seems to be some difference will the four polls today, it is noteworthy that none of them show Clinton ahead and all suggest Obama has the momentum. If you average out all the post-Iowa results you get Obama +5.75%.

Bits And Bites

A few items that caught my eye this morning regarding the Presidential races. If there is one character running that is a real turnoff, it's slick Mitt Romney. I've rarely seen a politician pander and morph to such a great degree, the guy is like a soulless chameleon, who takes shape, depending on the audience. Romney is unleashing his attacks on McCain, claiming that he is now the agent of change, the outsider, while McCain represents Washington, the status quo:

"There’s no way that Senator McCain is going to be able to come to New Hampshire and say that he’s the candidate that represents change -- that he’ll change Washington. He is Washington,” Mr. Romney said while speaking to reporters on Friday.

Another flip-flop, from the master of inconsistency:

In response to Romney's claim that there's "no way" McCain could present himself as the candidate of "change," the McCain campaign dug up an absolute gem that they're now circulating among reporters.

Camp McCain found a quote from 2002, when Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts, in which Romney said precisely the opposite thing about McCain -- that he has always represented change:

"One of the reasons the people of America honor Senator McCain and why I'm so proud to have him standing with me today is that he has brought American values to the debate on the issues we care about.
He has always stood for reform and change."

Ouch.

An American Research poll, released last night, has McCain at 35%, Romney at 25%. A note of caution, this is the same outfit that had Clinton with a good lead heading into the Iowa Caucus. Zogby has McCain leading by 2%, down from 4% the day prior. The Suffolk poll still shows Romney with a 4% lead. Tonight's debate on ABC will be real key. Rumor has it that McCain and Huckabee have a non-aggression pact, look for the Huckster to take on Romney tonight.

On the Democratic side, Obama is drawing overflow crowds, while Clinton actually had a few empty seats at one of her events yesterday. Last night, there was a New Hampshire Democratic dinner, which might speak to where the enthusiasm lies:

The aftermath of the Iowa earthquake wasn't pretty for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. The takeaway from the "100 Club" dinner Friday night in Milford, N.H., is simple enough to give Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., another round in the scorecard: Clinton was booed, while Obama's supporters were so energetic that organizers were worried about the security situation.

"Three thousand people packed the auditorium and it seems like there are many more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters," ABC's Eloise Harper and Sunlen Miller report.

"It was not Clinton's best performance."

And this was not the headline she wanted out of her first post-Iowa day: "Hillary Booed at NH Democratic Party Dinner." "When Obama, the dinner's last speaker, took the stage the crowd surged forward chanting 'O-bam-a' and 'Fired Up, Ready to Go!' " Time's Jay Newton-Small reports.


"So many people pressed toward the stage that an announcer asked people to 'please take their seats for safety concerns.' By comparison Hillary was twice booed."

Polls show Obama closing, the rolling averages should start to become indicative tomorrow. Edwards support might be eroding, which could be a deciding factor.

Turnout will be critical, and conventional wisdom assumes a large vote will favor Obama. With that in mind, the predictions of a record turnout are noteworthy:

Secretary of State Bill Gardner is predicting a record half million voters will turn out for Tuesday's presidential primary.

Gardner is predicting 260,000 residents will vote in the Democratic primary and 240,000 will vote in the Republican primary.

He predicts that 150,000 undeclared voters -- who can choose which primary to vote in -- will cast votes. Of those, he thinks 90,000 will choose to vote in the Democratic primary and 60,000 in the Republican.

He predicts that 50,000 New Hampshire residents will register to vote on election day.

The previous record of 396,000 voters was set in the 2000 primary.

Interesting to see how Obama performs in tonight's debate, and whether or not Clinton goes after him in a more direct way.

Found this picture, the one on the left is people waiting for an Obama rally, estimated at a staggering 4000 people:



Apparently, people are also being turned away from McCain's rallies, due to potential fire hazards. These little anecedotes are powerful indicators of who has the mo.

JV, of TPM, offers the following at an Obama rally:

I didn't get there until just before 10, and the place was jammed. I had to park in a church lot a half mile away. This is a new High School, with what must be the largest gym in the state. It was full to overflowing. The picture attached was the line waiting to get in a little after 10. The line extends as far back in the other direction too. Shortly after I took this photo, the line stopped for several minutes. When it started moving again, it was to let us into the "secondary gym" (which is about as large as most high school primary gyms) and they filled that one too. So we didn't get to see Obama, but we did get to hear him. When he finished, he briefly popped into our room to thank us for coming out. (video below) I've lived in NH for 27 years now. I've never seen a candidate pull crowds anything like this.

Democratic Race Over?

The Iowa Caucus results are so telling, it may not be pre-mature to say the Democratic race for President is all but over. An impressive win by an measure, followed up by a speech that is already being framed as "one for the ages", Obama is now set to ride a wave that likely makes him unstoppable.

Edwards will move forward, but his strategy always demanded a Iowa victory, anything less and his lack of resources and momentum would be his undoing. The race is now basically a Clinton/Obama duel, but in reality Obama has all the intangibles on his side and a victory in New Hampshire would effectively end the race.

The latest polling in New Hampshire, done prior to the Iowa Caucuses have already shown a tightening, with Obama within striking distance of Clinton. Given the magnitude of Obama's victory in Iowa, his ability to appeal to independents, his ability to energize the casual voter, we should expect a SIZEABLE jump in his New Hampshire numbers, something in the order of 10% or more.

What happened last night was the birth of a phenomenon, in many respects Obama has stolen the "change" mantle, which is the key for Democrats. How Clinton finds an effective voice in this environment is hard to imagine, possible Obama mis-steps aside (Saturday debates). With the condensed timeframe, only five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, momentum is more important than ever, and Obama now blows into the State like a comet.

Anything can still happen, but something profound was unleashed last night in Iowa, something which to my mind appears unstoppable.

Conservatives Show Little Foresight

First, you hand out billions in tax cuts, lauding Canada's financial circumstance, then a mere six weeks later you start sounding the alarm bells and warning of economic uncertainty that demands belt tightening. Welcome to the bizarre world of Conservative tax policy, which seems to lack any consistency, not to mention very poor political strategy.

Terence Corcoran article today, which argues that the Tories have "lost the tax edge":

The Prime Minister's strategists appear to have stumbled on a novel election strategy and slogan: "Tory Times are Tough." In year-end interviews, both Stephen Harper and his Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, took what looked like unseemly delight in highlighting economic uncertainty. The United States is in a slump, said Mr. Harper, and it will spill over into Canada. That means fiscal tightness in Canada, a stand-pat fiscal stance, and no room for new tax cuts. Adding to the glooming of the Canadian economy, Mr. Harper warned that the Conservative climate-change measures will begin to "bite," further slowing growth.

Some taxes were cut. As promised, the GST was reduced to 5% this week, and a few other tax measures were rolled out in Mr. Flaherty's last fiscal statement. But now we learn there's nothing more to come, news the government seemed all too keen to deliver.

Flashback to the mini-budget, where Flaherty decided to introduce tax cuts straight away, instead of waiting for next year's budget. A curious decision, because there was little to suggest the Liberals were ready to fight an election over the mini-budget. If you want to maximize the political benefits of tax cuts, it seems pretty basic that you unveil the goodies just prior to an election. Instead, Flaherty delivers tax relief, debatable as it may be, in an environment that generated little momentum, and even worse, leaves little room to move when it may matter most.

The more confusing part, the Conservatives deliver the mini-budget which conveyed a very optimistic message, and then almost immediately the tone changes to negativity, which became quite clear in the year end Prime Minister interviews. All of sudden, the government is warning of lightening's, uncertainty, diminishing revenues, a pessimistic forecast. How do you reconcile this stance with the spirit of the mini-budget? Did things change so fundamentally in a matter of weeks? Would Harper and Flaherty be forced to offer negativity, if they hadn't sold the farm in the mini-budget? In many respects, the government actually set the stage for the negativity we see know, through their earlier actions.

Clearly, the future economic situation was relatively the same at the end of October as it was prior to Christmas. Why the Conservatives would rush all these tax cuts, make many retroactive, with full knowledge that it would handicap any further movement in 2008 is politically suspect. Instead of presenting a feel good budget, the government is now faced with arguing negativity to justify the tightening financial picture. I'm not sure anyone could argue that the Conservatives have handled the taxcut issue very well, in a bizarre way they are now on the defensive. Instead of room, we now are faced with doom and gloom, and most of it comes as a result of the government's own decisions. Strange.

Pass The Popcorn

The American race for President is set to begin tomorrow night in Iowa, with fascinating battles in both the Democratic and Republican fields. Lurking in the background, next week's pivotal primary in New Hampshire, which also has a "too close to call" flavor.

On the Democratic side, the Iowa polls show a tight three-way race, although the key Des Moines Register poll gives Obama a slight lead. The polls suggests a massive turnout, including 40% independents which are moving heavily for Obama. The Edwards and Clinton campaigns have both released campaign memos challenging the polls assertions, because the turnout levels would be unprecedented for the usual limited particpation in the caucuses.

The Iowa Caucus is all about organization, especially for the Democrats, where there is plenty of bartering and side deals with less viable candidates. That said, Edwards is very well placed to stage a mini-upset because his campaign relies heavily on seasoned caucus goers, whereas someone like Obama is counting on first-time participants who don't have a history of actually showing up. Edwards has pretty much lived in Iowa for the last four years, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he pulls this out. The really intriguing part, Edwards is polling much better in New Hampshire now(averaging 18%) compared with his 2004 run, so if he were to get the traditional Iowa bounce he could actually be a player in the first primary.

If Obama wins Iowa, he is in great shape to win New Hampshire. Some polls already have him neck and neck in New Hampshire, a victory in Iowa would easily give him the needed momentum. The same scenario could play out if Clinton wins, so Iowa would appear to be almost make or break for the Democratic field.

On the Republican side, Huckabee may have peaked too early, as his lead over Romney in Iowa has eroded. There is now only one poll that gives Huckabee the lead, outside of the margin of error, and that narrowing tends to confirm the combination of Huckabee mis-steps and Romney's negative ad assault. Romney is outspending Huckabee 10-1 in Iowa, using his personal fortune to try and buy the win, but all the polls show voters aren't particularly inspired by his rhetoric. If I had to guess, Romney might get the edge, because he has a very formidable organization, whereas Huckabee is relying on church groups and such to get out the vote. However, just like the Democrats, way too close to make a solid prediction.

If there is one candidate hoping for a Huckabee win, clearly it is John McCain. Should Huckabee take out Romney in Iowa, I don't see any scenario where Romney manages to win in New Hampshire. McCain is already surging in New Hampshire, with the polls showing McCain tied or ahead. Huckabee has no chance in New Hampshire, Guiliani has basically abandoned the state, in what amounts to one of the biggest political blunders I can remember, so McCain will easily ride to victory should Romney stutter in Iowa.

The other scenario, a Romney win in Iowa makes for a far more interesting race in New Hampshire. Romney may get a bounce out of Iowa, although I wouldn't expect it to be as big as tradition suggests, primarily because every newspaper feeding New Hampshire is decidedly anti-Romney, very much on side with McCain (McCain has received every single endorsement, while Romney has actually received two anti-endorsements). Still, Romney will have a very good chance should he win in Iowa.

The wildcard, where does McCain finish in Iowa? McCain basically left Iowa to focus on New Hampshire, so the expectations are quite low. However, the polls have shown McCain rising in Iowa, with a respectable third a very real possibility. This fact might explain why McCain is back in Iowa today and tomorrow, hoping that even if Romney wins, he can claim some of the spotlight with a decent finish.

The big unknown heading out of Iowa will be the debates scheduled for this weekend in New Hampshire. How the candidates perform in these debates might be the determining factor for both the Republicans and Democrats. Whatever happens, one thing is for sure, the next few days are setting up to be a political junkies wet dream :)

Why I Haven't Blogged

I had to have my appendix removed, after a few days in the hospital I'm back home. Apparently, the appendix is a completely useless organ. Some theories suggest the appendix was important, earlier in our evolution, during the neanderthal age. This might explain why removal of the appendix can be far more serious for some people.