In the Ohio primary, the Canadian government unexpectedly entered the fray by leaking a memo that appeared to cast doubt on the sincerity of the Obama position on NAFTA. It caused a considerable row in both countries, and an internal inquiry whitewashed the Prime Minister's Office without fingering the leaker. Fortune has an interview  with Senator Obama in which Senator Obama says that he might have gone too far in promising to renegotiate NAFTA.

Canada has always been inclined to favor the Democrats. Part of the reason stems from the country's generally more liberal views on social mores, and a stronger tradition of government intervention through public social programs. The other part comes from the fact that there has been usually better  government-to-government relationships with Democratic Presidents than with Republican ones.

I confess to being a disappointed Edwards supporter. I was, and may be still am, resentful that all the oxygen went to the Obama campaign and not JRE's. I think it has something to do with America's willingness to embrace cultural change, but not economic change, but that is a topic for another day. I've come to like Obama who is a bit like your favourite college professor with the added fillip of his experience in community organizing, commerce, and the state  and US senate. He is cool and his lack of bombast and ability to adroitly frame issues makes him close to  an ideal candidate in the electronic age.

I do take exception to the excesses of some of Obama's supporters whose single mindedness about their candidate resembles that crowd that gathers outside of Graceland on the anniversary of Elvis' death. It is also because their relentless slagging of HRC  is not very effective.There have been a lot of submissions on this site to the effect that "if Hillary wins, I'll take my ball and go home" that  have tweaked my curiosity about the nature of the  commitment.  While I don't think this scenario would likely happen, I am interested to learn the  possible response if it did.

The Ferraro controversy leaves me queasy about the adroitness of the Obama campaign in dealing with distractions like those posed by the former congresswoman's remarks. Ferraro was clearly mischief-making and was demonstrably careless about the way her remarks would impact with the media and public. My opinion is that the official response to the remarks by the Obama campaign has been largely ineffective in the larger sense of what has to be done to win the GE.

The gang that couldn't shoot straight now says that Clinton didn't brief Canadian officials about NAFTA:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

This is a disgrace. It was a case of Harper's minions trying to do a pro-NAFTA take on the American campaign and being caught out spinning stories out of their depth, in circumstances where they could get nailed by media that would actually follow up.

Both sides should drop this like a hot potato. You simply cannot rely on the competence or motivation of the current Prime Minister's people to get this kind of thing right.

I view with alarm the comments of some on this site that the attraction that Barack Obama has exercised on young or independent voters in the Iowa caucuses, and his resultant triumphant depiction in the mainstream media, should catapult him into leadership without further examination of his credentials to be President or what his message of hope really means. Drawing parallels across jurisdictional and temporal boundaries is always fraught with inexactitude, but I thought that a recent Canadian experience with youth and charisma triumphing over ideology and experience may be instructive.

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong place to derive a  political strategy to end the American involvement in Iraq. The solution may lie with the Iraqis themselves.