Last night I watched the re-broadcast of Michael Ignatieff's "vision" speech. As usual Ignatieff was impressive, demonstrating his eloquence and forward thinking. I thought he showed a remarkable understanding of the Canadian experiment, as well as the challenges ahead. His presence in the Liberal leadership is a definite asset and I have no doubt he would be an exceptional leader. I don't agree with all of Ignatieff's stances, but it is isn't a requirement that people mirror my opinions to earn my support.
However, yesterday's speech serves as a microcosm of the potential problems for Ignatieff as he moves forward. I fear that Ignatieff's "message" may be overshadowed by his substantial paper trail. During the Q and A session after Ignatieff's speech, the questions illustrated the shortcomings. The first question surrounded the much discussed torture issue, with hooded protesters to boot. The next question concerned Ignatieff's use of the Balkans in reference to the Quebec question. Then a question on Iraq, with the usual criticisms. A question on residency, one on taking Alberta's oil revenues. All of the questions were answered, some of the rebuttal was impressive. The problem lies not in the answers, but the fact that all these issues will invariably haunt Ignatieff throughout this leadership process. It is realistic to wonder if Ignatieff will be able to effectively articulate his vision or is he destined to react to perpetual damage control.
The media loves controversy. Ignatieff's past provides easy fodder, which shows no signs of waning. Much of the criticism is unfair and represents selective editing. However, the fact remains that the baggage serves as a cloud over an otherwise amazing man. I am not saying I would not support Ignatieff because I would and may. What I am saying is I hesitate because I wonder if the Liberal interests are not best served through selecting a leader with a relative clean slate. Yesterday highlighted all that is right with Michael Ignatieff, but unfortunately it also revealed the pitfalls.
3 comments:
It was disappointing to see how much coverage four protesters received.
This is exactly the same thing they talk about in the US Supreme Court nomination hearings - a lengthy paper trail provides all the more to defend.
Or, in the case of Ignatieff's views on torture, to modify.
kevvyd
Exactly, that was my reference for "paper trail". Roberts sailed through because they couldn't pin him down on anything, due to his relatively short tenure on the bench.
It seems on every issue someone can point to some Ignatieff quote to put him on the defensive.
Post a Comment