Here's what I wrote three days ago:

"I expect that Harper, who's biggest political strength is that he's a quick study who learns from the past, will use the office of Prime Minister to shore up his Captain Canada credentials."

And here's what happened today at a Harper press conference, according to CTV:

***

Without having been questioned on the issue, Harper turned his sights on comments made Wednesday by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins.

The ambassador was critical of Harper's plan to bolster military presence in the north and assert Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic. Wilkins also pointed out that the U.S. doesn't recognize Canada's claim to the Northwest Passage.

Harper had little time for Wilkins' position.

During the campaign, Harper's critics warned he would waste no time bringing Canada closer to the U.S. if he were elected, but his comments instead seem to demonstrate a staunch nationalist position.

"I've been very clear in the campaign that we have significant plans for national defence and for defence of our sovereignty, including Arctic sovereignty," Harper said. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the U.S. ambassador.''

So it's a Conservative minority, though a weaker one than most expected.

Nonetheless, after listening to practically every right-wing pundit in the country complain endlessly for over a decade about how politically retarded Canada is for sticking with the Liberal 'one party state,' it appears, as I've stated previously, that all conservatives needed to do to be given a chance by us nanny-state addicted zombie robots was

a) Stop fighting with each other, and

b) Act like you don't hate the country you want to govern.

Although he ran a skillful campaign, and managed to hit some nicely nationalistic notes (especially on asserting sovereignty over the north), I'd say Stephen Harper's past baggage (statements re: 'Northern European welfare states,' ect.) may have stalled what could have been a bigger Conservative win. Indeed, had the Liberal attacks on Harper not been undermined by various moronic assertions ('soldiers in our cities') and insane policy ad-libs (Paul Martin's pledge to ditch the constitution's notwithstanding clause), the Liberals might have pulled this one out.

I expect that Harper, who's biggest political strength is that he's a quick study who learns from the past, will use the office of Prime Minister to shore up his Captain Canada credentials. I'm wondering, for instance, if he'll pull some clever and perhaps unexpected foreign policy moves, or make some winning overtures to Quebec Premier Jean Charest (if Charest can win re-election, there will be a decided mood of relief in the country from which any sitting Prime Minister would likely benifit). As always, Harper's achilles heel may well be the guys around him; is Stockwell Day really going to be foreign minister? (Maybe I'm underestimating Day; he might go down well in Washington these days.)

One of the real positives of this federal election is that we now have two major national parties...more or less. The Liberals are now completely shut out of Alberta, which could be an issue down the road. The Tory breakthrough in Quebec has provided citizens of that province with two viable federalist options. It's simply not healthy for the Liberals to have a corner on the federalist market in Quebec; as we've seen, if the Liberal brand becomes tainted, the entire cause suffers.

As for the Liberals, the famous machine imploded. Paul Martin's goon squad of advisors--the gang who wrestled the party from Chretien--sowed so much acrimony and backlash that the Liberals started to look like the old Tories. Martin's departure paves the way for an interesting leadership contest. Watch for the famous Liberal discipline to return in time, and the party's relatively strong showing means that they'll be better positioned for a comeback than if they'd suffered a genuine rout. Again, though, leadership contests take a while, and Harper will not dither in the meantime.

Looking at British Columbia, I was initially suprised that the Conservatives didn't do better, but after a closer look at the results, maybe it's not such a stunner after all. In 2004, the NDP lost a handful of very close ridings to the Tories as a result of a last minute 'stop Harper' left-wing swing to the Liberals. You see, when the politically illiterate try their hand at strategic voting, they sometimes get it wrong.

This time, there was no last minute desertion, and the NDP candidates in a lot of these ridings held their ground. For example, Dawn Black in New Westminster. Last time, she lost by about a hundred votes after some of her support drained to the third-place Liberal candidate. This time, she held her vote (maybe even got some Liberal votes), and gained the riding. The NDP gains in BC are not so much a breakthrough as a correction.

It's also notable that, with the exception of Vancouver East, all the ridings in the city of Vancouver proper, and many of it's adjacent municipalities (Richmond, North Van, West Van) are solidly Liberal. This is something that has developed over the past 10 to 15 years, and it brings the core of the Lower Mainland into line with the city centres of Toronto and Montreal. We speak of east vs. west, and yet it increasingly appears that many Vancouverites have more in common with their big city eastern siblings than with the rest of their own province.