Obama scandals are totally different. Obama's scandals show he is fallible. He's human, like you and me, flawed but striving to be better. When Obama is in trouble, it gives us all hope for a better day to come.

Clintonistas are too angry to understand. I pity them, but maybe some day, even they will see past all the hate.

Jack Layton is the leader of the New Democrat Party.

In an unrelated piece of fluff, my cousin and I met Jack at a Toronto street festival, and he shook my cousin's hand and wouldn't let go for close to a full minute. The awkwardness on my cousin's face as he tried to disengage was priceless.

Are you serious?

He's been the party leader of the NDP for a long time - you know, they are frequently part of the coalition government in Canada.

Needless to say, Harper is a very, very good friend of Bush and the GOP.

But, I am so sick of Hillary's scorched earth, win at all costs attacks, like this one, that are based on taking issues out of context, or tying Obama to scandals that he has nothing to do with (Rezko), or even more ad hominem issues like plagiarizing speeches. Hillary obviously doesn't give a rat's ass what kind of damage she does to Obama (if, as still more likely than not he's the nominee) heading into the general election race with McCain.

In January, I was an Obama supporter who would have been perfectly happy with Clinton as the nominee. Now, if she does get the nomination after a nasty party-dividing fight over superdelegates, I'm not sure I'll be able to even vote for her. I can't be the only life-long Democrat who feels this way.

There is a written contemporaneous memo from a consular staffer that said the Obama campaign high-level adviser said that Obama's "[NAFTA] messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Clear translation: "Don't worry Canada, Obama's just talking shit to fool the voters and play politics to win the election!"

Obama's denial:
1. ignore above fact and do not deny it. Because duh, it's true.

2. Lie that everyone involved says there was no wink or nod when the nondenied fact no. 1 above clearly says the opposite.

3. attack Clinton to distract attention from the turth.

And it's kind of wrong for a campaign to be talking to foreign governments anyway btw.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

FWIW, I don't like the Clinton and Obama anti-NAFTA rhetoric, though I'm open to the idea that it could be renegotiated better to suit various parties. Canada has some legitimate complaints about timber exports, for one.