The debates...thus far

I have scrupulously watched the two leadership debates, and now I offer some commentary on the performance of candidates. Who stood out? Who had the knock-out punch? Although the straight-jacket rigidity of the "Fora" made it a barely palatable viewing, some bright spots did exist. Let me just say, prima facie, that ALL of the candidates would be capable contributors to a Liberal government (i.e. Cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, etc.). That is not the question. Rather, the question is: Who can lead the Liberal Party, and ultimately this country? This takes someone of extraordinary capability, that can fulfill the following criteria: (1) effectively communicate their ideas in a clear fashion, (2) be able to effectively communicate their ideas in both official languages. Above all, I believe it is those criteria that should determine who leads our party - there are some candidates in the race that might have great ideas, but just don't have the communication skills to be the leader.

Without further ado, here is my analysis (candidates listed in no particular order):

1. Scott Brison: As demonstrated in his time as Public Works Minister, this man is an articulate, and sharp thinker. He underperformed in the Winnipeg debate, but in Moncton (being the regional favourite) he was excellent. The memorable exchange between him and Joe Volpe in Moncton was painful to watch --- if you're from Volpe's camp; Brison ate him alive. As well, his French has greatly improved (he even corrected Iggy on his French in Winnipeg). Outside of the Atlantic, though, he will have great difficulties, and I'm afraid his support will plateau.

2. Carolyn Bennett: She has some interesting ideas, and she definitely shows her expertise in areas of health-care. However, she has some serious communication difficulties -- she is not an articulate speaker in English or in French - an essential criterion for this Race. It is almost painful to watch her speak French.

3. Joe Volpe: Very articulate, and has surprisingly good French. However, every time he talks he seems angry and bitter at someone (i.e. Iggy) or something (i.e. the whole donation fiasco). He needs to come across as more 'personable', and be less on the offensive. His attack-style is really hurting the credibility of his campaign.

4. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Well-versed in fiscal policy. Hasn't stood out in any of the debates, though. I haven't heard him speak French a lot, either.

5. Bob Rae: Articulate in both French and English, passionate, and genuine. Comes off as someone the average Canadian could relate to (vs. Iggy's prepish, Harvard-ish look). Unlike some of his rivals (i.e. Volpe), he does not go on the attack, and is very modest and humble (i.e. in the Winnipeg debate when he shrugged off and discouraged applause after disagreeing with Iggy's position on Afghanistan) - a rarity for politicians. Too bad, he has such a bad reputation in Ontario from his Premier days. I really do think, though, he has learned from his mistakes.

6. Michael Ignatieff: well spoken and articulate in both languages, it goes without saying. Not as 'personable' as Rae, and comes off a bit 'fake' or 'wooden' at times. It will be interesting to see how his position on Afghanistan, effects the success in the campaign.

7. Martha Hall Findlay: By far, the biggest surprise of the debates. Clear, articulate, passionate - with some great ideas; some that may even prove controversial (i.e. " 'private' does not mean 'bad'") but that the Liberal Party must talk about in its quest for renewal. Good French as well - although, would like to see her have more confidence in her second language and use it more often (cause she speaks it quite well). In terms of policy ideas, she has to catch Dion. Can safely say that she is the 'grassroots renewal' candidate.

8. Stephane Dion: Articulate in French and English (although his pronunciation could use some work, but that's minor), and very passionate and forceful without being condescending like Volpe. His experience as a professor shows in the plethora of policy ideas that he has. Who would of thought that quiet Dion could turn out to be such a diamond in the rough? His support base in Quebec vaults him as one of the top contenders --- does not have any of the serious handicaps of Rae (record as Ontario premier) and Iggy (i.e. Afghanistan position, torture), despite being in politics for over 10 years.

9. Hedy Fry: The media does not give her enough credit. Very articulate and has some great ideas. Funny, too. Would do very well in a cabinet portfolio. I would discredit her only because she is downright painful to watch when she speaks French.

10. Ken Dryden: Great ideas, and comes across as genuine and honest. Only an average communicator though, but maybe his honesty can prevail. Poor French, but he is sure trying hard. If he improves his French over the summer, he could become a serious contender.

11. Gerard Kennedy: Great communication skills - well-spoken, quick thinker. His French is getting better as well. A lot of the hype surrounding his candidacy seems to be calming down. Can he resurge and live up to expectations?


Conclusion

The forays of Winnipeg and Moncton have definitely made it clear, in my view, that two camps are forming; (1) those candidates with innovative ideas that are in this race to win, and (2) those candidates that just can't seem to keep up, and do not have the fortitude to go all the way. I would also like to note that given the format of the Convention in December, it will not necessarily be the most liked candidate that will win, but the least disliked candidated (as candidate must attain an absolute and not a simple majority).

That said, the following is a list of the top candidates, that I believe have performed the best overall (#1 being the best) in the past two debates:

1. Stephane Dion
2. Martha Hall Findlay
3. Bob Rae
4. Michael Ignatieff
5. Gerard Kennedy
6. Ken Dryden

I believe it is these six candidates that have the best chance of surviving to the convention in December. Stay tuned for more developments - this race could heat up during the summer.

Comments welcome,

The "B-Team"?

Throughout the leadership campaign, I have heard reporters refer frequently to the "B-Team" ; those candidates in the bottom-tier, who have little or no chance of winning. Candidates in this group include - Brison, Fry, Bennett, Bevilacqua, Hall Findlay, and Dryden.

Why has this occurred? Isn't this campaign supposed to be a fair and open race, with the spirit of inclusivity reigning supreme. All of the above candidates bring unique views and aspects to the race, and before Super Weekend has even started...before delegates have been selected, they're already being written off.

Shame, shame, shame on the media for trying to drive a wedge in this leadership race. I can only hope that there will be some semblance of equal treatment given to each and every candidate, to express their views on the future of the Liberal Party and this country.

I do agree, however, that in debates it will turn into a "fracas", if you will; a huge melee, where a candidate's views will be muddled in with their 10 rivals. Thus, it is of utmost importance that starting June 10 (when there will be a debate in Winnipeg), the candidates start to carve their identity, their niche, in the race. Risks will have to be taken; strong, distinctive policy will have to be developed.

Otherwise, the candidates will be thrown in a dark oblivion...their names written off the minds of reporters. I guess, famed historian Thomas Carlyle was right, when he said:

"Edmund Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important than they all."

hmmm...a thought to ponder. Perhaps, we are in need of a fifth estate?


Cheers,

After the dust settles...

So, I have officially made my endorsement. What can frequent readers expect next from "Uncle J's Book of Queries"? Will I be intensely and unabashedly partisan throughout this leadership contest?

The answer is NO. I will be very critical of EVERY candidate equally. In fact, I will probably be most critical of the candidate I have decided to support.

So, if you are a supporter of another candidate, and you regularly check out my blog ---do not despair! I hope this blog becomes a forum of sober thought; where people of all stripes and affiliations can have an earnest debate of who should lead our great party.

Cheers,

UNCLE J DECLARES LEADERSHIP SUPPORT

We need someone inspiring to take the helm of this great party. Someone from the rank and file will identify and empathize with average Canadians. Someone who can not only fluently communicate in both official languages, but can understand the people behind those languages. Someone who is young, and has refreshing ideas that we have not heard in the public forum for many years. A person that believes in the two most fundamental premises of liberalism: progress and individual liberty.

I believe there is only one person, who can do the things listed above. One person who can unite our party, and bring it back to its former glory. One person who can make a case FOR the Liberal Party to the Canadian people, and can ultimately beat Stephen Harper.


There is only one candidate that has given me that hope for the future; who has inspired me to hope for a strong, united Canada --- prosperous and just, generous and proud.

That candidate is none other than Martha Hall Findlay.

I wish her the best in this campaign.


Comments welcome,