I want to begin by quoting directly from two Washington Post articles, just to clarify the substance (and limitations) of the achievement. First: “A lame-duck session with unexpected victories” … [by Perry Bacon Jr.] … A “six-week session that was expected to reflect a weakened president has turned into a surprising success. On Wednesday [December 22], Obama signed into law the repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service members, and the Senate approved a new nuclear treaty with Russia that the president had declared a top priority … Those accomplishments come after Obama successfully negotiated a free-trade agreement with South Korea, reached a deal with Republicans that extended unemployment benefits and prevented a tax hike for millions of Americans and signed a bill that will make school lunches healthier … This blitz of bill signings completes a dramatic first two years for the nation’s first black president that included the enactment of arguably the most major liberal policies since the Johnson administration but also the Democrats’ biggest loss of House seats in 72 years.”

Second: “Stormy but highly productive 111th Congress adjourns” … [by David A. Fahrenthold, Philip Rucker and Felicia Sonmez] …  “A Congress that was dominated by Democrats passed more landmark legislation than any since the era of Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ … Congress approved an $814 billion economic stimulus, a massive health-care overhaul, and new regulations on Wall Street trading and consumer credit cards. The list grew longer during this month’s frenetic lame-duck session: tax cuts, a nuclear arms treaty and a repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on gays in the military … But the 111th Congress will also be remembered for endless filibuster threats, volcanic town hall meetings, and the rise of the tea party. All were symbols of a dissatisfaction that peaked on Nov. 2, with a Republican rout in the midterm elections … ‘This is the most dysfunctional political environment that I have ever seen. But then you have to juxtapose that with [this Congress being] one of, at least, the three most productive Congresses’ since 1900, said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute … ‘Making sense of all of that can make your head burst,’ he added.”

From MSNBC I have learned that Harry Reid, the Democrats’ point man in the Senate, deserves much credit for the “frenetic lame-duck session.” (And I’d say hats off to Nancy Pelosi, who has played the parallel role in the House — a pioneer in her own right too.) Democrat activists who have pressed their points to what many have seen as a sometimes too cautious and compromising president have also been important. So have some principled Republicans, who finally broke ranks with their more rabidly ideological and partisan colleagues, to get sensible things done for the American people. Paul Krugman (and many others) still think enormous challenges lie ahead (and of course they are right). But the handsome alleged “lesbian vampire” Rachel Maddow is at least pleased that President Obama did seem genuinely delighted to sign the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military.

Of course as well, who knows just what will happen in 2011, when the  Nov. 2 Republican rout in the midterm elections takes over in the House? Richard Wolffe at MSNBC, however, has raised the prospect that the past six weeks have set the stage for something completely different in relations between President and Congress than anyone was expecting on November 3, 2010. (And it would certainly be nice if something like this somehow came true.)

My own small view is that President Obama has earned the right to be somewhat less than humble about his ultimate achievements, in the face of all the criticism he has had to endure over the past year and a half. Much hard work and still more grief no doubt lies ahead. But the first African American president — up from the historic scourge of slavery only 150 years ago (figuratively at any rate, in his case) — deserves a happy holiday season with his family and friends. He has made me feel more optimistic about the human prospect. He has shown that there is real strength in the democratic tradition of compromise to which we Canadians are also so addicted. He has already shown that there is almost certainly more to the future of democracy in America in the 21st century than many now seem to think. (And do Rupert Murdoch and the Republicans have anyone who can claim anything like that?)

Will the former Miss New Jersey (1973), Sue Lowden, win the Republican nomination as looney right challenger to Democrat Harry Reid as US Senator from Nevada? And can she really beat Harry Reid in the fall? UPDATE: No she did not, and the lady who did win is apparently even loonier.

“The radio crosses boundaries which stopped the press,” the near-great Canadian economic historian Harold Innis declared in the late 1930s, in a talk on “Canadian-American Relations” at the University of Maine. Television just stiffened the trend, starting in the 1950s. And now the Age of the Internet, starting in the 1990s, is crossing boundaries all over the world.

Canadians have in any case always paid a lot of attention to American politics. But I’ve found myself doing this more and more as I get older in the early 21st century. I know I am far from alone. Today, on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 — so-called “Super Duper Tuesday” on the US political calendar — the subject is almost overwhelming, even on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

The main event is “ the biggest primary day of the year! Eleven states — from California to Arkansas to Maine (and everywhere in between) — are voting today.” For an overview of some key details, try Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post: “Super Duper Tuesday: What to Watch For.” For a slightly deeper taste of what so many observers seem to find so entertaining this year, try eg (from the  the same publication): “Sen. Lincoln’s missteps put her at risk in today’s Ark. runoff” ;  “Fiorina campaigning on her record at HP” ; “Nev. Senate: Lowden reflects on campaign missteps” ; and “What to watch for, Virginia primaries edition.”

What struck me most last night, watching the excitement of assorted pundits on US TV was the extent to which American politics has become a kind of perpetual election — and how this is, in various respects, both a good and a bad thing. The primaries today are of course just a prelude to the real elections this coming fall. And this fall, along with various Senate and Gubernatorial contests, every seat in the US House of Representatives is up for election. (House members only serve two-year terms.)  As a recent learned paper on the subject explains: “Very few other countries use party plebiscites to nominate their candidates, but the United States has employed primary elections widely for nearly 100 years … American politicians face many more electoral battles than any other politicians in the world.”

In theory the good side to all this is that more elections mean more politicians are more accountable to the sovereign people in democracy in America. There probably still is some virtue to this argument. But, just for starters, the majority of the American people involved will not be turning out for today’s primaries. (See, eg: “California turnout could reach record low.”) And the amount of money it now takes to run even in the primaries has increasingly made democracy in America too much a captive of the American plutocracy. (See “Meg Whitman Shatters Campaign Spending Records … The former eBay CEO has spent more than $81 million so far,” just on trying to become the Republican candidate for Governor of California in this fall’s election.)

Even if Meg Whitman does win the Republican nomination tonight, she will still have to beat the aging Democrat Jerry Brown in the fall, who, as explained by the gossip website Wonkette, has already been “governor of California in the 1970s, when he was also banging the hell out of Linda Ronstadt, in a trashy apartment across the street from the governor’s mansion in Sacramento.” UPDATE: Meg did win, but Jerry does not seem too scared. And LFB only wishes he knew where Ms. Ronstadt is now: so he could write her a fan letter.

The British-style parliamentary democracy we still have in Canada has somewhat different traditions — which could be seen at work in their perhaps purest form in the May 6, 2010 British general election. Our recent passion for electing minority governments in Canadian federal politics has sometimes seemed to bring us closer to the concept of (North?) American politics as a perpetual election. And like others on this site, I too want to see the end of the obsolete symbolism of the British monarchy in Canada, and soon enough. Yet parliamentary democracy — which at its best has as much to do with peace, order, and good government as with raw plutocratic politics — is one legacy of our colonial past that I think we should be taking pains to hang onto. (As have such other former British dominions as the parliamentary democratic republics of Ireland and India.) Canadian politics were once characterized as “American actors on an English stage.” I’d be happy to see this description gain some fresh popularity today. But I will still be watching the primaries on US TV tonight — even though it does seem a very good guess that Meg Whitman’s vast eBay fortune will easily give her the Republican gubernatorial nomination in the Golden State (which actually has a somewhat larger population than all of Canada!).

The world watched with gaped jaw as you re-elected George W.

And now we have to watch as the best are voted out or threatened each week on American Idol. Dammit America, what’s with that?

The recent dropping of Anwar from American Idol has left me seacrestfallen. This week’s episode opened with the announcement that Ryan Seacrest had received a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame. I’ve never seen the Walk of Fame. So I assumed it was for big stars like Marilyn Monroe or Cary Grant. But I guess I like my scotch with water too.

Anwar’s talents were expected to take him to the top three and his performance of Earth Wind & Fire’s “September” was well he really nailed the last note. When they got down to the bottom three of Scott, Anwar and that little blond guy my money literally was on Scott getting the boot.

Sure, Anwar was (and remains) black, and ok maybe he looked gay, but the man could sing! Sammy was black. Sammy looked gay. Sammy could sing! You gotta love Sammy, don’t you? Yes, you do.

So when I turn from my reality-based entertainment to my reality-based reality, I’m bracing myself for Scott to win. That’s how eroded my faith in America is. I mean you re-elected George W, didn’t you. Yes, you did.

And now in Canada they say we’re about to elect Stephen Harper. What’s with that?

John Izquierdo is a Canadian ad man, and a close student of modern entertainment.