[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

For a well travelled Harvard intellect, he hasn't shown that he's got any concept when it comes to strategy, he's continually missed the mark, he hasn't come up with anything anywhere close to resonating platform wise or even in his debates in the house. He comes across as out of touch, he hasn't established control over his party.

There are two separate issues here: substance and style. You claim that his substance doesn't inspire you, and that's possible. Without being more specific, it's hard to address that. I happen to disagree with you--I think Ignatieff is a pragmatic type with some good ideas, and I think Harper is a guy who has governed in a way different than what he promised, and has shown an intractability that is unproductive in the current climate. For that reason, I think a change is in order: given that minorities are likely, we need someone who's a centrist and a pragmatist, and willing to reach across the aisle and work with his opposition. Harper has so far proven unwilling to do that, and he's had plenty of chances.

But style-wise, there's not much to separate Harper from Ignatieff--neither is particularly good. The first is sort of like a chartered accountant. Good with numbers, but uncomfortable with people. The second is more like a professor: likes big ideas, but gets impatient when he has to explain his thinking to people outside his particular professional field. Charisma-wise, it's no contest, but Ignatieff has to be careful of the "Al Gore" syndrome where people think he's too smart for his own good.

He hasn't really done much to seperate himself from Stephane Dion except that his production values are a bit better.

That has to be a joke. My aunt Tillie's prize hog would be a better leader than Stephane Dion. Ignatieff has at least stopped the bleeding. If Dion were still leader, the Liberals would be in Kim Campbell territory by now.

I'm honestly not even sure that he could handle Harper in a debate style setting because he hasn't shown anything yet. I'm not sure that he could handle Harper in terms of election strategy and thats saying a lot.

Harper's a canny politician, but you're kidding yourself if you think Ignatieff will have trouble with him in a debate. It doesn't matter anyway; debates actually don't make a lick of difference in the real world. They just give the media something to talk about.

The problem with Canadian politics is we don't have leaders, we have fricken beaurocrats, they don't inspire, they don't seperate from the pack, the election is almost like the futurama episode when the two presidential candidates were quotes for each other.

I actually like Canadian politics. I think we have good discussions that don't get sidetracked by demagoguery as often as they do down south. I don't want to be inspired; I want to trust that my leaders will govern in a way that is responsible and measured, and that they will endeavor to make good decisions. Harper has shown a distinct tendency toward bullheadedness--which is not an appealing trait for me, particularly in someone with such a tiny mandate from the people.