Many of you may have read the story about how Ian Brodie, chief of staff to the Canadian Prime Minister said that a Clinton representative had downplayed Hillary's Nafta comments to the Canadian embassy: "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

I have no problem with Mike Gravel. He's run a fine race, and his innovative ad campaign will be studied by strategists for years to come. The one with the rock broke ground never before broken by any candidate and likely never to be broken again, unless he runs in 2012. The mental image of his determined stare still gives me goosebumps. I also appreciate his important contributions to the Democratic debates, though I don't really remember them. But if I remembered them, I'm sure that I would appreciate them. It's not my fault that I wasn't paying attention.

When Nader announced his candidacy yesterday, I expected a stream of Nader-hate to come down the TPM wire, and there was certainly plenty of that. I did not, however, expect the eruption of Nader support that followed. I had been under the impression that, other than a few kooky left-wingers, everyone who supported Nader in 2000 had come to regret it. But here were TPM posters, young and old, with whom I had been bantering the last few months over the relative merits of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, defending Nader's candidacy.

This post started as a comment, but due to popular demand, it's getting its own post. (Does one request constitute popular demand?) Much ado has been made in recent years about which presidential candidate voters would prefer to have a beer with, but we all know that beer buddiness is a poor measure of electability. I love my beer buddies, but I wouldn't vote any of them for city council, let alone president.