Greatest Canadian

It’s the fall of 2005 and, stealing a page from “World Idol”, comes “Greatest Human”, a contest pitting the “Greatest” TV show winners from all countries against each other. I’m on the phone with Swedish cousin, Lars, trying to explain the show.

Me: “You see, they had a Greatest Canadian, and Greatest American, and Greatest German, and so on and all the winners are going up against each other. It’s a nifty idea.”

Lars: “Ya, Ya. So who are the finalists?”

Me: “Well, there’s Nelson Mandela, and Copernicus, and Rembrandt, and Churchill, and Joanne of Arc, and Gandhi, and Guttenberg…”

Lars: “Ya, ya. So who is the Canadian on the list?”

Me: “Well, umm…you see, the thing is…it’s, uhh, Tommy Douglas.”

Lars: “Tommy Who?”

Me: “Tommy Douglas”

Lars: “Oh ya, him. Loved him in the Game!”

Me: “No, no. That’s Michael Douglas, he’s American.”

Lars: “So, who is Tommy?”

Me: “Well, he was the Premier of one of our smaller, less important provinces in the 50s. Saskatchewan – have you ever heard of it?”

Lars: “Saskatchewan…didn’t he play with Peter Forsberg last year in Colorado?”

Me: “No, no. Never mind. He was also involved in federal politics.”

Lars: “So he was Prime Minister? Like Joe Clark?”

Me: “No, no. He led the third place party. They won 20 or 30 seats under him.”

Lars: “I see…And he’s the Greatest Canadian?”

Me: *sigh* “I guess…”

(pause)

Me: “He’s also Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather.”

Lars: “Kiefer! I love Kiefer! 24 is amazing! I’m definitely voting for Michael Douglas!”

Me: “Tommy.”

Lars: “Ya, ya. Tommy. Yay Kiefer!”

Meanwhile, in Ottawa...

I encourage everyone to dial up 1-866-303-VOTE (8683), press 1 for English, press 20 for your candidate and press 1 to confirm that you've voted for Pierre Elliot Trudeau as the greatest Canadian. A charismatic, passionate, decisive leader with a real vision of the country, believing in a strong federal government. Sounds like someone the country could use these days, eh?

According to the Hill Times, attendance at Caucus meetings is down under Martin. Admittedly, there are many less members of the Caucus, but insiders say that the percentage is down, even when you factor in the massive drop in Liberal MPs. It's unclear whether or not those Liberals who accused Chretien's government of being "adrift" last year are attending these meetings or not.

Finished the Sheila Copps book. I really wish she hadn't put in the Canada Health Act accusations since it's caused everyone to disregard the other claims she makes which are actually reasonable: Paul being pro-Iraq War, the dirty leadership tactics, the way Martin used the backbenchers to trash his government and advance his aims.

Congrats to Darryl Raymaker (or, as he's now being called by many Calgary Liberals, "the Darryl who wins"), the Southern Alberta election chair for the Liberals. The three seats in Calgary (and nearly five) were quite the coup as well as one in Lethbridge (and nearly two). People are still buzzing about that.

Sucks to be Judy Sgro, eh? Anyone starting a pool on how long she lasts? At the very least, the "young men" in her office who have been allegedly threatening Western MPs are likely not going to be around very long. My free advice to Judy: If you're going to illegally allow a campaign worker of yours into the country, make sure it's someone whose occupation doesn't involve 30$ lap dances. It tends to give the story a lot more media play than a cue hoping marine biologist would get.

What's Love got to do with it?

The new Klein cabinet was announced today and, in it, we see Gary Marr demoted and Ted Morton (thankfully!) kept on the outside. Combine this with the defeat of Mark Norris in the election and the return of Rod Love, who openly backs Jim Dinning, as Klein's Chief of Staff and it becomes clear who the heir apparent is in Ralph's world.

Dinning is likely their best choice - this is a tired regime and they need someone from the outside to put some fresh blood into it. Morton makes Dubya look moderate and would probably make Kevin Taft premier in the next election. Dinning has a good track record, is well thought of, is more moderate, and has been away from the scene for a while. He's definitely their best choice. Will he win? Hard to say. He's been away for a while and both Marr and Morton will be serious threats.

So Ralph is trying to give him any edge he can.

After Wandering Aimlessly for 40 Days...

Ralph Klein is comparing himself to Jesus Christ. I kid you not. I wish I were linking to the Onion, but it appears hubris knows no bounds.

The Big Red Machine

There are a lot of Liberals heading in to work with big smiles on their faces this morning. Yes, I know the Tories still won over 70% of the seats in what would be, in any other province, a landslide win. But in politics, it's all about expectations. Listening to King Ralph last night, you could tell there was no joy in Calgary Elbow, or in other Conservative circles. 16-18 seats for the Liberals was my absolute best case scenario and I never expected us to grab 3 seats in Calgary - I would have been happy with one. There are many reasons for the NDP to be excited today too after a very strong showing in Edmonton. And hey, the Alliance have a seat to build on, even if their leader was beat soundly.

The Calgary results are the ones I'm really excited about. There were two seats which the Liberals lost by the skin of their teeth and the three seats won gives us a lot to build on. A quick run-down of the winners:

1. Dave Taylor: This guy is the new voice for Liberals in Calgary. At the central victory party last night he gave a long speech which talked about building the party's strength in the city (He was the only candidate who came ready with a victory speech from the sounds of things). Extremelly well spoken and great contacts in the media - this is the face who will represent the party in Calgary for many years. Definitely the heir to Kevin Taft, although I'm sure Kevin will be sticking around tonight after these results.

2. David Swann: WOW. Swann won in an absolute landsline. He's got little political sense and is soft spoken but he's got a lot of strong ideas. And obviously a strong following. The key for him will definitely be to surround himself with smart political people. For good or bad, he'll get himself in the news quite a lot over the next four years - hopefully for good.

3. Harry Chase: This one was a bit of a surprise although I figured he had an outside shot. A long time Liberal who should do well in Edmonton. I think a lot of his supporters and Harry himself were genuinely surprised with the results.

All in all, a great night for the party. I really don't see how the Liberals will ever be able to form government after looking at the rural results, but this is definitely something to build on as all eyes turn to the Conservative leadership race.

VOTE

'nuff said. To find out where to vote, or to answer any questions, try 1-877-422-VOTE(8083).

Wide Right

Paul Wells has some interesting points on the PM's L-20 idea and why it's incredibly useless. Sure enough, Sheamus Murphy, a former Martin stoodge from Edmonton, writes back defending the big guy's idea. I'm only linking to this because it's incredibly funny how Sheamus misses the point. In one point, he comments on how "Politics keeps leaders from coming to conclusions at traditional meetings" and then goes on to discuss all the great things which will be accomplished by the L-20...Seemingly without regard for politics. Sheamus also serves up this nugget of wisdom:

I like your rationale: it's never worked before, so let's never tryit again. You should try that one with Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. orNelson Mandela.

I'd say the fact that it's never worked before is reason enough to not try the exact same thing again. Like, if someone told Martin Luther King "Listen, bringing together twenty black community leaders to discuss the issues of the day has never got us anywhere, maybe you should try something different like a bus boycott or a speech", then I'd hope MLK would listen to them.

Mind you, the fact that alienating half your party once you become leader, going into an election fresh off a scandal, running away from a winning record, bringing former separatists into cabinet, and asymmetrical federalism have all failed before and Paul's determined to give them a second go-round so I can see where Sheamus is coming from. And he may have a point. After all, avoiding policy talk during an election has never worked before but it's going to get Ralph Klein a massive majority tomorrow.

The Kleinfeld Campaign

It's been a fun campaign. I've felt a lot more motivated to get involved in this one than for the federal election since I can really get behind Kevin Taft and his platform and Ralph Klein has pissed me off in a million ways Stephen Harper never could. Here's what I wrote before the election started. My seat predictions then were:

PC 64
Lib 16
NDP 2
Alliance 1

Still seems around right to me. If I had to revise, I might give the NDP 3, Alliance 0, and Liberals 14.

As for Calgary, I'm fairly confident we'll take one or two here. Dave Taylor should win and there's a few the Liberals have a chance at. Here's what I feel the top ridings will be in Calgary. So, if you live in one of these ridings, it's extremely important that you get out and vote on Monday (of course, everyone should vote regardless).

Can Win

1. Calgary Currie: Dave Taylor is one of the best candidates the Liberals have recruited in a long time. High profile, great speaker, and very knowledgeable. The media love this guy since he's one of them and he's got a huge edge in signs and presence in the riding. Couple this with invisible presence from the NDP, Greens and Alliance and I think he's got at least a 2 in 3 chance of taking it tomorrow.

2. Calgary MountainView: They key here is bringing in the NDP vote. David Swann is a high enough profile guy that I think he might be able to do this. I haven't had great reception at the door whenever I've door knocked this riding but everyone else in this campaign is very optimistic.

3. Calgary McCall: This has been a very well organized campaign. Lots of money and they've door knocked the entire riding. Darshan Khan is on good terms with the very large Sikh community in the riding and if he can mobilize them, he has an outside chance.

4. Calgary Buffalo: This is traditionally a strong riding but I just don't get the sense that it's been a very well run campaign. But the votes are there and with the weak provincial wide campaign by Klein, I'm hoping that'll be enough to tilt it our way.

------------------------------
Will Show Well

5. Calgary Varsity: There's been a real push to get University students to vote this time around and if Harry Chase can get them out, it will definitely help him. Likely not enough to win, but he'll do very well.

6. Calgary Montrose: A lot of talk about this riding because of the controversy with the Ward 10 Aldermanic vote. The defeated alderwoman's husband is running for the Liberals here and the incumbent, Hung Pham, was temporarily investigated. A very weird riding but the demographics just aren't there to win it.

-----------------------------
Nice People, Good Campaigns, Won't Win

7. Calgary Glenmore: Avalon Roberts took on Stephen Harper and she's once again going for it. Great healthcare advocate and the people of Calgary would benefit immensely from her presence in Edmonton. Won't happen and it's our loss.

8. Calgary Foothills: Stephen Jeneuth is a great guy and they've had some creative ideas. But this is one of those ridings which Saddam Hussein could win as a Conservative.


Regardless of which riding you live in, get out and vote on Monday. The times they are a changing...

Time for a (small) Change

Both the Herald and the Journal offer what can best be described as "anti-endorsements" of Klein and the Tories. They don't stick their necks out or pick an opposition party to endorse but they say that a message needs to be sent and that it would be good to get a few opposition MLAs elected. Hear, hear. Both editorials are worth reading.

Everyone should check out Don's post on the Senate election at RevMod. Forget the write-in ballot, just decline your Senate ballot on Monday.

Poll Vault

Two polls out today. The Herald has Klein destroying the competition:

PC 47%
Lib 21%
NDP 11%
Alliance 9%
Greens 5%

Ipsos Reid's, which was posted by Jung Sucks in the comments section of my last post is a lot more encouraging:

PC 44%
Libs 29%
NDP 12%
Alliance 9%
Greens 4%

Depending on how that breaks down, that should mean a 10 seat loss for the Tories. I'm kind of torn on whether or not to be glad the Alliance hasn't gained ground this election. On the one hand, them taking votes and seats from the Tories is good for the Libs and NDP - on the other hand, it's restored a bit of my faith in the electorate that those nutjobs haven't done better.


Oh, and Carolyn Parrish? Paul Wells has the best take on it - I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Locking out the Senators

I'm not a fan of the Senate but I'm even less of a fan of an elected Senate. So I'm glad to see that Martin won't cave and dignify the senate "election" which will accompany the provincial vote on Monday. Millions of dollars are being wasted on this vote and I fully intend to spoil my ballot with a few clever write-in candidates.

So I'm asking for feedback. Who should Bart vote for? Pierre Trudeau? Nikita Khrushchev? Don Cherry? Post your best choices in the comments slot or e-mail them to me.

One Year Later

Since Warren sent a load of people here, promising a “one year later” take on Paul Martin, I thought I’d jump into it. Sure, it’s not his one year anniversary as Prime Minister but if recent history is any indication, I think it’s safe to say next to nothing will be accomplished in the next month.

So what went wrong? In short, Paul wanted to please everyone…except the members of his own party. He built up so much hype during his leadership push (or “putsch”, if you prefer) and convinced everyone from Western rednecks to Quebec separatists that he was their man. So what do we get? A government too tentative to do anything for fear they’ll offend people. Kyoto? We’ve signed but we’re not doing anything. Gay marriage? We’ll let the courts decide. Senate reform? Let’s just not appoint anyone. Ditto for the US ambassador. In his effort to appease the separatists, he brought on Jean Lappierre, trashed the Clarity Bill, and brought in asymmetrical federalism, letting Jean Charest meet heads of state and avoid providing the same health standards English Canadian Premiers will be held to. The result? The worst showing for the Liberals in Quebec in a decade. And a lot of alienated federalists outside the province.

So what of the “Politics of Achievement” and “Making History” we were promised on coronation night? Has there been a single piece of “new”, “creative” or “useful” legislation passed since Paul became PM? His advisors point to the health deal (which amounted to Paul writing a blank cheque to the premiers for 48 billion dollars. As if no one else could have “accomplished” this). They point to a very ho-hum budget and a big surplus. They point to an equalization deal (which may have lost them 5 seats in Newfoundland next election). THESE are the shinning accomplishments? Where’s the vision? We were promised the moon. Democratic reform was supposed to be the key plank and yet we saw the most corrupt nomination meetings in party history. Sheila Copps was abandoned because nominations were “a local matter” and yet Bill Cunningham and John Bethel are treated as “star” candidates and appointed. If there are any readers out there who had heard of either of these two guys before the last election and are not Liberal Party of Canada members, I would love to hear from you. In fact the entire election was a disaster – I guess David Herle found out that it’s difficult to win when you can’t restrict the right to vote the way you can with membership forms.

Pierre Trudeau was willing to lay it on the line and piss the hell out of people. He had vision. While both men hit the scene with high expectations (remember those 200 seat predictions by Paul’s people?), the results have been a stark contrast. Why? Because Paul Martin is everything that Pierre Trudeau was not. A dull, cautious, decentralizing politician who wants to please everyone and who puts his political success ahead of the good and the party. And that is why the first year of Paul’s reign has been such a disaster.

Marta and Henry

Interesting blog I came across today, which is somewhat affiliated with the Liberal Party. It's still a bit more wordy than that sort of blog should be but they have a few interesting posts on it. I especially liked the Kim Campbell comparison which I mentioned here a few days back.

Welcome

Many thanks to a fellow Calgary Grit (or former, I suppose, since he's now one of those evil Ontario Liberals everyone in Alberta hates), Warren Kinsella, for the plug of this site on his blog. I'd say that ensures I'll get more hits today than in the previous year.

For long time readers, you'll notice the new motif too. Let's just say the old design was just too blue for a Liberal blog. I'm only hoping this aesthetic change won't spell the same fate for this blog as the logo change last January for the federal Liberals did (ie. No fresh ideas and mediocrity).

If you're looking for comments on the provincial election, try this , this, or even this. Feel free to browse the archives for opinions on the federal Liberals. Suffice to say, my views on the current administration are likely fairly close to Warren's, if you get my drift.

Warm Reception

Just got back from a rally for the provincial Liberals. Descent turn-out considering the nippy weather. Taft spoke and it's clear that the Liberals are really going to try and play up the "autopilot" comments during the rest of the campaign. He also went on quite a bit about how the Tories have no plan whatsoever for, well, anything.

In other news, there's actually been a surprising amount of positive coverage for the Liberals in the Herald this campaign. A lot of people are really impressed with the platform and are less than impressed with Ralph's "stick around for the party" attitude. The editorial board even *gasp* almost endorsed the party, saying it might be nice to get one or two opposition MPs elected somewhere in the city. OK, it's not glowing but for the Calgary Herald, I'll take it.

Ouch

'A huge disappointment': Paul Martin's first year in office has left many observers less than impressed
The Ottawa Citizen’s Mark Kennedy reports:

“For a decade, Paul Martin was Canada 's political prince, awaiting his coronation as king. Over time, a myth emerged: Pass him the crown, and all the nation's troubles would disappear. If only politics were that simple.

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of his victory as Liberal leader. After a tumultuous year, Mr. Martin is saddled with a new and unflattering image that, unless reversed, could doom his minority government.

Among the complaints: He is indecisive, unfocused, error-prone, unsure of his fundamental purpose in politics and surrounded by aides in the Prime Minister's Office who can't shoot straight.

It's a rap those aides firmly reject. They insist he already has a strong record of accomplishments and is on track for more. But no matter how many achievements they tick off so far, there's no denying the obvious -- there is some unease about whether the prince truly has the royal jelly.

You can find the disquiet among Liberals themselves and among a range of others -- from historians to public-policy experts.

"Few leaders came to office surrounded by higher expectations than Martin," University of Toronto historian Michael Bliss said.

"He was to be everything that Jean Chretien was not, and he was going to solve all of our country's problems. But in the first year, he has been -- even by normal expectations -- a huge disappointment."

Mr. Bliss says Mr. Martin's approach to governing has been characterized by remarkable "incoherence" and that while he can be given credit for how he reacted so openly to the Quebec sponsorship scandal, his handling of other files -- from health care to national unity -- has been a disaster.

"They do everything fitfully and in a confused way. Confusion seems to be one of the hallmarks of the Martin regime."

He says all this now seems to lend credence to the warnings critics made a year ago -- that he lacked vision, only cared about achieving power, and would end up perpetually reacting to "hot-button" issues identified by his pollsters.

"It now appears that Chretien's reasons for trying to keep Martin out of office were more based in a measure of the man than we had thought. We had thought it was just egotistical petulance. But maybe Chretien understood that Martin had some problems."

Deux Poids, Deux Mesures

Let’s play a game. Two parties:

Party A Advocates:
-Fixed election dates
-A citizens assembly on democratic reform
-Smaller government…quite literally – in the form of reducing the number of MLAs from 83 to 65.
-A renewed emphasis on Peter Lougheed's Heritage fund

Part B has been accused of being:
-Arrogant
-Too complacent
-Adrift without a clear direction or a plan
-Involved in a conflict of interests scandal

Party A is the Alberta Liberal Party. Party B is the Progressive Conservative Party. The same things that cause Albertans to spit at Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are being seen in the Klein government. Yet there seems to be a general sense that the electorate will just bend over and take it this time, as they always do. It’s an odd double standard.

The Great Debate

In case you missed it (and how could you have missed it), the election debate was aired tonight in Alberta. While the Alberta Alliance was absent, I still found it to be a quite interesting hour and a half. Sure, I’m biased, but I think Kevin Taft really came out on top. Brian Mason has got to be a leftist version of Stephen Harper in the charisma/animation field and while Klein started off strong, he relied heavily on his notes and starting dropping into his usual arrogant self by the end of the debate. Oh, and Ralph doesn't know if health care should be public or private. He doesn't know!

First of all, the answers for those with betting pools:

First Ralph Klein reference to the federal Liberal party: 56 minutes in
First Ralph Klein reference to the NEP: 73 minutes in
First Kevin Taft reference to Paul Martin (and why on earth would a provincial Liberal leader make reference to the federal party? Why Kevin, why?!?): 42 minutes in

And now, some random notes I jotted down during the debate.

1. Ralph Klein admitted in the first exchange that he doesn’t know the best way to reform health care after being premier for 11 years. The two opposition leaders jump all over him.

2. The Liberals and NDP hardly went at each other at all. But this wasn’t like the Jack Layton/Gilles Ducceppe love in during the national debates. The two just completely ignored each other, not even acknowledging the other’s presence save for a few barbs by Mason. All the more reason the two parties should merge imho.

3. Kevin Taft has a spectacular post secondary policy. I think he definitely came out on top during this part of the debate. Klein was almost disdainful to students during his speech.

4. Ralph Klein must be a reader of this blog! Why else would he point to the Macleans rankings which I posted on a few days ago? However Ralph seems to think that a 6th by U of A and a 14th by U of C (of 15 schools) shows he’s doing a good job.

5. The autopilot exchange was a fun one with both Klein and Taft getting a few jabs in. Smart move by Taft to bring up the Klein “autopilot” comments.

6. Mason really didn’t look good. His comments seemed to jump around with no real flow and he wasn’t the least bit animated. Klein and Taft were smiling and cracking jokes every now and then and…SHOWING EMOTION!

7. What’s the plan Ralph? What’s the plan?

8. I laughed out loud when Ralph said “the combined NDP and Liberal spending promises…”. What an unbelievable statement to make.

9. Klein really relied on his notes.

10. You could tell Klein was coached early on to keep his cool but towards the end, he started to lose it. He started ranting against Ottawa and the arrogance seeped through. Towards the end he lectured Mason “Who will people believe? You or me?”. Another 20 minutes and he would have been eaten alive.

So Taft takes the debate but no one watches and no one cares because, well, it’s Alberta.

Asset?

Interesting article here, which a reader sent my way. It seems Ralph's popularity is on the wane in Edmonton this time around, to the point where the Tories are covering him up on their billboards. Given his outbursts in recent months, I imagine they'll try and hide him from the public light as much as possible during the last half of this campaign.

As it sits, I'm going to predict the Liberals win two seats in Calgary. Dave Taylor is looking very good in Calgary Currie and I think David Swann might come through in Calgary Mountainview. Terry Taylor's in a good riding for demographics downtown, but their campaign appears to be lacking a strong organization. But things are definitely looking up in Edmonton - especially if the Alberta Alliance can hit 10% in that city.

Low Marks

Not a lot of news to report from the Alberta Election campaign so I'm going to highlight a topic which I know will never become an issue in this election, yet probably should. Here are the Macleans Universities rankings. Glance at the list...and keep glancing...you might have to go a ways down to find the Alberta Universities on it. Admittedly, U of A is doing OK. But the U of Calgary and U of Lethbridge are disasters. How can the richest province in Canada, with the youngest population in the country not have this country's best schools? Studies have shown education to be the best investment any government can make in terms of long term payback. And yet...the Klein government has ignored the needs of post-secondary (and secondary...and primary) education in this province.

Here's what the provincial Liberals have to say:

Edmonton

The Alberta Liberals would commit 35 per cent of annual budget surpluses to establish a Post-Secondary Endowment Fund, Leader Kevin Taft announced today.
Taft, who made the announcement at the Telus Centre for Professional Development, called the fund an investment in human potential.
We will continue year-after-year to build the endowment, protecting and growing the principal, said Taft. And use the investment returns to support our apprenticeship and trades programs, to expand program options across the province and to achieve excellence across the system.
The same foresight our parents and grandparents had is needed today, to lay the foundations for the next Alberta, for the economy and society we want after oil and gas

Makes sense, eh? If you're going to make a stability/heritage/piggy bank fund, the money in it should be invested in the future - hence, education. A great policy idea which will be completely ignored by the electorate.

Total Victory

The House, the Senate, the Electoral College, and the popular vote. Every Democrat (not counting the ones holding out vain hope in Ohio) has got to be in complete shock today. George W. Bush is coming off one of the worst terms in US history and Kerry couldn't even top Al Gore. This election should have been a slam dunk for the Democrats. So what went wrong? Two things:

1. John Kerry was an absolute failure as a candidate. I'm talking Michael Dukakis failure here. Maybe even a larger failure given how wineable this election should have been. In short, Kerry had no charisma and no conviction. No substance. They thought his war record mattered, not realizing the days when people cared about that are long gone. Look no farther than Bill Clinton and George W, who have now won 4 elections despite no overseas military service. They voted in Kerry on the strength of a few hypothetical polls which had him 2 or 3 points ahead of other Democratic contenders last January, not realizing that no one in the public knew any of the candidates and that public opinion would be shaped in the campaign. Laugh if you want, but Howard Dean would have won hands down. He would have made the war the issue of the campaign and stuck to his convictions. And over 17% of young people would have voted. Don't like Dean? Fine. Take your pick of candidates - Kerry was the absolute worst choice the Democrats could have made. The moral of the story? Don't vote pick a leader because he's "electable" if there's no substance behind that electability.

2. The United States is a ferociously conservative country. We saw that in the results of the Senate and the House. We saw that as gay marriage bans were voted in state after state. Just as Canada is a liberal country, the United States is an extremely conservative one.

The Dems have several bright stars who could make the 2008 ticket very appealing. But right now, they have got to be in complete shock. I can almost sympathize with the Conservatives in Alberta who were completely stunned after the last election.

The Other Election

OK, I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on it, at least a bit. Bear in mind, I've got a bad prediction track record but I think Bush will pull it out tomorrow. Fear wins elections - we saw it in Canada and we're about to see it again tomorrow. It still baffles me, how Bush is even close considering the term he's had but, hey, a lot of things in politics baffle me.

The Dems picked the wrong candidate. On the Daily Show last week, Zogby said "Not Bush" would beat "Bush" hands down, yet Kerry can't seem to do it.

Should be interesting. I doubt we'll wind up with legal challenges but the possibility is there. I shudder to think what will happen if the Colorado redistribution plebicite passes and that state turns out to be the difference.