WASHINGTON, D.C.—To be sure, that circumstance is not significantly different from the Washington norm, but if herds of rabid reindeer driven by militant vegetarians were munching their way south, they would not be noticed until breaching Homeland Security regulations at the border.

Thus, in a Washington totally consumed by the combination of gut-wrenching economic issues and panting plaudits for an incoming administration poised to turn water into wine by walking on it, the prospect for the most stunning Canadian political development in living memory gets minor mention in page A-14 of The Washington Post on Dec. 2. What little intellectual energy remains for foreign affairs is absorbed by the arguably more immediate crises in the South Asian subcontinent, countering pirates off the Somali coast, and trying to keep lids on the Iran, Iraq, and Afghan bubbling pots—at least through the holiday season.

That Amcits could awaken shortly to find a new government running Canada without benefit of election would be met with a shoulder shrug "huh." The Bush presidency is in death rattle days; its final gasp will likely be a spate of controversialpardons.

Nor will president-elect Barack Obama have any special concerns—assuming he now appreciates that Canada has a Prime Minister rather than a president and that its Senators are not elected. It might delay the ritual visits by U.S.-Canadian leadership to each others' respective capitals, but others could well conclude that a Liberal-led government (regardless of how constructed or sustained) would be a more collegial partner than Conservatives of any ilk. Certainly there are Democratic activists who believe that the Canadian government sympathized with Senator John McCain, as epitomized by meeting with him (albeit at muted levels) when he visited Ottawa on June 20, and maliciously leaked an Obama economic adviser's privileged comments that the Senator's professions of a NAFTA review were campaign rhetoric. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Canadians, who didn't vote Tory on Oct. 14, endorsed Obama (and thus Democrats could happily rationalize that a Liberal/NDP/Bloc government reflects "majority rule.") To be sure, the political millennium may not arrive in 2009. The new coalition might declare victory, having forced Harper to retreat ignominiously on political party funding and limits on strikes by public employees. With such an approach, they get the "game" without the blame—a satisfying victory with the ability to pull the trigger on the government at any later moment and not take the chance of a winter election within three months of the last unpleasantness.

Conversely, there are a variety of bureaucratic/legislative manoeuvres open to the Prime Minister. Harper may prorogue Parliament (with the GG's consent) permitting him extra time both to rally public opinion and prepare a pump-priming budget for January release. During this period, the inherent tensions in a Liberal/NDP/Bloc alliance may fracture over questions about who gets what position and which policies will be promoted (and which deferred). Finally, needing 154 votes in a 308 member Parliament (with the Liberal House leader not eligible to vote), Harper must pick up 11 to sustain his government. That is a difficult but not impossible task, starting with the two independents, and including various "blue Liberals" who might be queasy both with the composition of the Alliance and the prospect that this "throw yourself off the cliff without a parachute" manoeuvre could result in a punish the-SOBs popular response in a chaotic election. We do not know how many Belinda Stronach equivalents may be in the woodwork interested in a beneficial offer (or just willing to stay home with the political equivalent of a "diplomatic illness." ) Nevertheless, the triumvirate may triumph—with an acquiescent Governor General rejecting a Tory call for election. Such legislative manoeuvres are the warp and woof of global Parliamentary practice where constructing a coalition can take more time than the election campaign—and winning a plurality of seats is only the starting point for those seeking to govern. Indeed, proponents might argue that the opposition has only come to appreciate new political realities and found mechanisms to bridge the tyranny of small (and large) differences to obtain the objective of politics: the power to govern. In that regard, U.S. attitudes would be an issue-by-issue. Will a Liberal/NDP coalition accelerate Canada's Afghan withdrawal? Seek a NAFTA review?

Demand immediate return (without a U.S. trial) of Omar Khadr? Impose energy/environmental restrictions limiting Alberta oil sands development/export? Canada may be poised to engage with the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."