Okay, I'm a New Democrat up here in Canada (the party actually tried in the summer to nuke the word "New" so we would just be the Democrat Party - it failed so we're still New Democrats). And that would generally be considered a liberal Democrat in American terms.

So imagine my (horrific) surprise when I start thinking like a Republican when it comes to the $787 billion stimulus package. After nine months, clearly that whole job growth thing hasn't gone as planned, as unemployment hits the double digits. And it seems that most of the money is going to be spent just as we see the backside of the recession.

How is it, for example, that Michigan has spent only $3 million of the $243 million it received? Indiana has a three-year green goal of weatherizing 25,000 homes and is a little off-pace with 82 completed so far.

The package has been a dud. Government is too big and bulky to respond and deliver in the era of Generation Now. Grab a plate. Haul out the butter. Cause any resemblance to the halcyon days of the New Deal is toast.

As a Canadian, one of the aspects I love most about the presidency (and there's much I love about it) is the ultimate redemption that comes through retrospective analysis and judgment. Regardless of political bent (and I am the equivalent of a progressive Democrat) the rose coloured glasses come out, and well they should.

The crimes and ethical weaknesses of Nixon - they're accepted matter-of-factly. But his opening up of relations with China and his National Cancer Act reverberate today.

Carter? Inflation, recession, energy crisis. Yeah, whatever. We now associate him with his humanitarian and peace accomplishments.

Even Reagan, who I reviled at the time (I even wrote a scathing thesis at university comparing his trickle down with FDR's New Deal), I now reluctantly admire for his leadership and his ultimate role in cooling international confrontation.

But Lord help me, I just can't do it with either of the Bush's. Can anyone find anything even remotely redeeming in either president? And Bush senior is now 20 years ago - but sorry, ain't nothing there. Suggestions?

Okay, so while in Washington last week, the USA Today cover story dealt with race relations in the U.S., with a comprehensive poll showing that "a solid majority of blacks and whites say race relations will get better as a result of (Obama's) presidency."

Fantastic! Isn't that great ne... oh wait a sec. Later that day, at a conference session called 'Dealing With a Messy Past', a candidate from Tennessee (go Vols) thought this was the appropriate context to ask the presenters about how to deal with the fallout from this catastrophic turn of events: his daughter had married a black man. Yes, turns out she married a man. And evidently he's African American. And this, evidently, adds up to a "messy past".

But wait, there's more. They had kids. And that makes them mixed race children.

Now I know we're talking the south here. But are you telling me that this candidate's opponent is going to use his mixed race grandchildren in a political context?

Go ahead, call me naive. But I'd rather that than the alternative.

Hey, I figure a Canadian commenting on the current health care debacle - sorry, debate - in the U.S. is fair game. After all, there's enough slagging of the Canadian Medicare system by American detractors, so why the hell not.

We have a football team up here called the B.C. Lions, made up largely and understandably of Americans. It's entertaining football. But for some reason, a big ole offensive lineman by the name of Jason Jimenez decided to tackle the health care conversation.

The problem, apparently, is that "Americans shun anything that remotely resonates with socialism." Yes (or should that be Da?), folks, health care for all is socialist. Shhhhh.

Further, says our beefy tackle, "the U.S. Constitution doesn't enumerate health care as a right, as it does to bear arms." Uh huh. When all debate is lost, haul the old Constitution out of the back pocket.

Here's the thing: 47 million with no insurance, and even those who are covered aren't covered well enough. Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses - and of those health care bankruptcies, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.

There's a great big elephant in the room, folks, and it's copulating wildly. It ain't a pretty sight, I admit, which may be why so many members of congress are looking off in any other direction.