John McCain is in Ottawa today paying homage to his kindred spirits - the Conservative Party minority government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his minions -  on a campaign trip paid entirely by the McCain campaign.

But serious questions are being raised about the role of U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who appears to have become personally engaged in partisan politics in arranging and promoting McCain's appearance.

(I haven't seen this diaried anywhere else here -- if it has, I'd be happy to remove this posting).

Far be it for me to offer campaign advice to John McCain, but I've got to say that I am extremely puzzled (and rather delighted) by his seeming willingness, perhaps eagerness, to antagonize voters in Florida.

Today, speaking to Republican donors and oil moguls in Houston, McCain called for allowing offshore oil drilling. This is high risk in Florida, where the population and elected officials of both parties overwhelming oppose lifting the drilling ban. In a state where tourism is a major part of the economy, and where the 1,300 miles of coastline and beaches define the geography and identity of the state, people are understandably not eager to gamble with a repeat of the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969.

But that isn't all on a variety of issues important to Florida, McCain just keeps stepping in it.

While the bulk of attention for the March 4th primary is focused on the large states of Texas and Ohio, we should not forget that two other states - Vermont and Rhode Island - will also be voting that day.

As a long time Democratic activist and Obama supporter here in Vermont, I wanted to share some perspectives  from the snow-covered ground.

Many political and media analysts are assuming that Vermont will be a relatively easy win for Obama. What about Vermont makes that the case? How big of a win could it be? What are the chances of a Clinton upset? What are the dynamics of the upcoming primary in the state?

So what would happen in the Republican side if John McCain were forced to leave the race?

I honestly don't know what to make of the McCain/lobbyist story in the NYT and associated news/ pushback/ innuendo. There seem to be so many missing pieces of the story - what do the Times/ Isikoff/ etc know or suspect that didn't show up in that heavily redacted piece we saw? If there is smoke, will there be fire? Or will McCain manage to come out of this looking like Mr. Clean with a new level of support from conservatives now that he can rail against the NYT?

But the whole thing has got me to thinking - exactly what would happen to the Republican nomination if this whole thing turns out to have legs and John McCain had to step aside before the St. Paul Convention? Who would the Republicans turn to? How would their nomination battle play out? (Note, I'm not predicting it is going to happen, I don't think it will -- but it is at least interesting to try to guess what the outcome would be)

All the attention being paid to the potential role of super-delegates in the nominating process has gotten me thinking about my own experiences as a "super-delegate."

I was elected as Vermont's Democratic National Committeeman in 1988, and served in that position until I moved out of state in 1997. That meant I was a super-delegate to the 1992 and 1996 conventions.

I'm sure I'm not the only (current or former) super-delegate here on dKos, but I haven't seen any discussion from them, so thought I'd reflect on what it was like to be in that position - and  about the role of super-delegates in this year's contest.  I'd love to hear other folk's perspectives on it - especially (but certainly not only) folks who are or have been super-delegates. So indulge my little trip down memory lane as I think back on my super-delegate days.

Hidden in a LA Times story by Peter Nicholas today was this little gem:

Clinton has raised about $130 million, but she was recently compelled to loan her campaign $5 million out of her personal funds. (The campaign has since paid it back.) (emphasis mine)  

http://www.latimes.com/...

While the whole article lays out an interesting account of the internal events in the Clinton campaign, the fact that Hillary Clinton's loan to campaign was paid back so quickly may tell us a lot.

Activists, campaigns, media, and Democratic voters are justifiably concerned that the closeness of the nomination fight could mean that an ugly credentials fight around Florida and Michigan decides the nominee, dividing the party, and hurting us in November.  

A huge part of the blame for this situation belongs with the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties. They knew the party rules prohibited them from going before February 5th - yet they failed to protect the Democrats in the state by standing by while their legislatures passed legislation with an earlier primary. But even after that happened, they still could have elected to submit delegate selection plans in accordance with national rules - leaving the early primaries as nothing more than beauty contests. The leadership of these two state parties even failed to submit a legal delegation selection plan after being told their delegations would NOT be seated and offered 30 days to submit an alternative plan.

Hotline is reporting that Mark Warner is going to announce today that he is not running for President in 2008.

"Breaking: Warner May Not Run In '08

Ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner plans to make a major announcement today about his 2008 presidential bid, three Virginia Democratic sources said. According to two Virginia Democrats who have been formally briefed, Warner is expected to say that he has decided not to run for president in 2008. Warner will speak to Virginia reporters at 11:00 am ET. A Warner spokeswoman declined to comment."

Assuming for the moment that the reports that Osama bin Laden died in Pakistan last month from typhoid are true (I'm certainly not convinced here), it raises a very interesting question: What did the President know, when did he know it, and when did he start talking about it?

According to the French newspaper report, Osama died on August 23, and the Saudi intelligence service found out about it on September 4th.
(Here's the link to the original article -- worth reading in the original French if you can: [http://www.estrepublicain.fr/...].)

So when did Bush first start talking about Osama again in public?  As far as I can tell, after a couple of years of ignoring the subject, it finally comes up again on -- get this -- September 5th, during the Bush interview with Katie Couric.

I'm don't usually follow the Hollywood gossip sheets, but I was very happy to stumble acrosss the news that Brad Pitt has declared that he and Angelina won't get married until gay marriage is legal in the United States.

In an interview in the October issue of Esquire, Pitt responded to a question about rumours of impending marriage to Angelina Jolie by saying "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."

I'm thinking about voting Republican, and I'd love to hear some perspectives from the gang here.

Here's the deal. Next week is the primary election here in Vermont. I'm weighing whether or not I should cast a ballot in the Republican primary in order to help nominate candidates less likely to win in November, thereby helping Democratic prospects.

Everyone has been assuming that multi-millionaire Rich Tarrant will be the Republican nominee for US Senate and that former Vermont National Guard leader Martha Rainville will be the nominee for the US House. Both of them claim to be "moderate' and "independent" Republicans, but they're being challenged by viable right wing challengers in their primaries.

If you want to understand exactly how cruel and disastrous Hurricane Katrina was to hundreds of thousands of people, you need to understand just one simple fact: Katrina hit on the 29th of the month.

The 29th! If only Katrina had held off a few more days and hit on September 2nd, what a different world we might be seeing.

Most upper and middle-class Americans probably don't get the significance of that date. If you're not someone who depends on welfare, on food stamps, on a disability check, or you're not someone who simply lives paycheck to paycheck, the complete horror of a disaster hitting two days before the end of the month may be lost on you.

While HIV/AIDS is most often thought of as a medical and scientific challenge, in reality it extends far beyond that - it is also a social challenge, a human rights challenge, a ethical challenge, an economic challenge and a political challenge.  Strong political leadership is a necessary component of any effective response to the threat of  HIV/AIDS.

One of the major reasons that the AIDS epidemic has reached the overwhelming global scale we face now is a consistent failure of political leadership to confront the epidemic until it was too late. Think about Ronald Reagan, who presided over the beginning of the epidemic....

Perhaps no where is the Bush administration's political assault on sound science more clear than in the area of HIV prevention. Again and again, when faced with a choice between actions based on scientific evidence and actions based on right wing ideology, this administration has elected to ignore science in favour of ideology. The result is to deny millions of people access to the prevention information and technologies they need to protect themselves, and unnecessary new HIV infections.

Today (Sunday, August 13, 2006) marks the opening of the XVIth International AIDS Conference, being held this year in Toronto.

Taking place every two years, the conference is part serious scientific gathering, part massive community networking session, part political show, part media event, and a 100% chaotic, confusing, and exhilarating experience. An estimated 25,000 people from around the world will attend this year's conference - a chance to catch up on the latest scientific news, exchange experiences, assess where we stand in the global struggle with HIV/AIDS, and plot future directions in the AIDS effort.  

(The conference, by the way, hasn't been held in the United States since 1989 because the US has an insane law that prohibits people living with HIV/AIDS from entering the country - either as immigrants or even as visitors. As long as that law is in place, the world AIDS community boycotts us. Unfortunately, no one is even talking about changing that in the context of immigration law reform.)