Right at the end of February CTV claimed that the campaigns were attacking NAFTA but that Canada had been assured this was mostly campaign rhetoric. The Clinton campaign denied this as did the Obama campaign. Later, one news cycle before voting in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, the Obama campaign was fingered as having reached out to reassure Canada about its campaign rhetoric, a charge we now know is false.

It turns out that the conservative Harper government created a sensationalized leak based on a memo which the government now admits innacurately characterizes events. In other words there were lies built upon untruths being circulated for the political gain of the Harper government who needed to downplay attacks on NAFTA. Consider how the Clinton campaign reacted to these claims from the Canadian right about both them and Obama.

Faced with accusations about the Clinton campaign which it knew were substantially false it chose to embrace similar accusations about the Obama campaign. They siezed the opportunity to insinuate that Obama wasn't the honest broker he claimed to be and this was just the start of things to come as he was properly vetted. Makes you wonder about the poor judgment shown by the Clinton campaign in going from "They are lying about us," to "They must be telling the truth about the other guy."

Failure to learn from experience is sad. When faced with a lie the Clinton campaign wanted to be true they bought it hook, line and sinker just like the angry right bought into every scurrilous accusation about the Clintons. Hillary Clinton may have a lot of washington experience, especially of being the target of unfound accusations and innuendo, but she seems to have learned little. In the end Clinton chose to let political expediency triumph over getting to the truth of the matter on important issues giving us yet another example of her poor judgement.

The Clinton campaign has made an issue of open primaries and caucuses that allowed Republicans and Independents to support Obama. They seemed to be floating the idea that this somehow tainted the process even though it seems that Obama's supporters were doing it because they would felt he was the best candidate and would continue to support Obama in November.

I seem to recall that everyone gets to vote in November, not just Democrats, so I just dismissed this as the usually dopey arguments that get tossed around during campaigns. However, with Rush urging Republicans to crossover and support Clinton we have a much different situation. We have Republicans (although unlikely to be in large enough numbers to significantly impact the nomination process do to how delegate math works) crossing over to support Clinton who have no intention of supporting her in November.

Rush would be having nightmares if he thought Clinton could win the nomination and defeat McCain. In light of Rush's low opinion of McCain I have come to the conclusion that Rush doesn't think Clinton has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination unless Obama self destructs. The delegate math is pretty much all in Obama's favor so the Clinton campaign is just waiting for Obama to get eaten by a bear or have a plane fall on him thus opening her way to the nomination.

Rush, who clearly has a poor opinion of Clinton, is probably hoping that Clinton goes negative on Obama in her relentless pursuit of the nomination thus helping McCain by weakening Obama. Certainly it will use up some of that cash that Republicans seem to be so short on this year. Some hard feelings and negative fallout from the the nomination process continuing is unavoidable; however, it may backfire.

Obama has shown himself to be fairly adept at framing issues and this is going to be a real strength in the coming weeks with a more leisurely pace in terms of primaries and caucuses. I would be surprised if Obama doesn't deftly handle this like he has the other challenges and obstacles he has had to overcome.

If Obama were a run of the mill candidate and if it were politics-as-usual then I think we would have every reason to be concerned. However, if Obama is the candidate I hope he is then this is his opportunity to show us. Clinton has shown herself to be comfortable with politics as they are; Obama must now show us how politics should be.

Arkansas: Clinton 69%, Obama 27% (Primary) 6 electoral votes
Colorado: Obama 67%, Clinton 32% (Caucuses) 9 electoral votes
Florida*: Clinton 50%, Obama 33% (Primary) 27 electoral votes
Indiana: May 6th (Primary) 11 electoral votes
Iowa: Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29% (Caucuses) 7 electoral votes
Kentucky: May 20th (Primary) 8 electoral votes
Michigan*: Clinton 55%, Uncommitted 40% (Primary) 17 electoral votes
Minnesota: Obama 51%, Clinton 27% (Caucuses) 10 electoral votes
Missouri: Obama 49%, Clinton 48% (Primary) 11 electoral votes
Nevada: Clinton 51%, Obama 45% (Caucuses) 5 electoral votes
New Hampshire: Clinton 39%, Obama 37% (Primary) 4 electoral votes
New Mexico: Obama 49%, Clinton 48% (Primary) 5 electoral votes
Ohio: Mar 4th (Primary) 20 electoral votes
Oregon: May 20th (Primary) 7 electoral votes
Pennsylvania: Apr 22nd (Primary) 21 electoral votes
Tennesse: Clinton 54%, Obama 41% (Primary) 11 electoral votes
Virginia: Feb 12th (Primary) 13 electoral votes
West Virginia: May 13th (Primary) 5 electoral votes
Wisconsin: Feb 19th (Primary) 10 electoral votes

* = uncontested primaries (i.e. the candidates didn't campaign)

Thought I would add some facts to the debate. What I was looking for was indication that one candidate would do much better than another candidate in any of the swing states. In most cases I would expect a lot of the supporters of one candidate to support the other candidate if they get the nomination. Only when one candidate has a lot more support than the other did I consider it significant.

So based on results so far and a lot of conjecture on my part I would guess that Clinton has a legitimate advantage in Arkansas and possibly Florida. I'm a bit dubious about the results from Florida though as the candidates didn't campaign there but the demographics suggest the advantage might be real. Obama may have an advantage in Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado.

Eight states haven't selected delegates yet but if I had to guess I think Wisconsin and Oregon might also end up on the Obama list. That would give Clinton 33 electoral votes where I think she might have an edge and Obama 43.

I also happen to think that Obama might have an advantage in some of the other swing states like Nevada where Obama reaches outside traditional democratic voters for some of his support. However, the evidence for those kinds of judgements is even more circumstantial.

I don't think one candidate is overwhelmingly better positioned for the national election but it will be an interesting angle to follow going forward.