Impressive Liberal Field

When you look at the top-tier Liberal hopefuls, it is hard not be impressed. The slate is chalk full of intellectuals, who have all shown an ability to offer the elusive "vision". Ignatieff set a good tone for a substantive debate with his declaration that he would not run against fellow Liberals, but contrast with the Conservative agenda. Kennedy's emphasis on "progressive pragmatism" illustrates a keen sense of the waning importance of rigid ideology. Dion has made the environment a cornerstone of his campaign, clearly an issue that demands entirely new ways of thinking. Rae's speech's always have a philosophical tone wrapped within a practical agenda. Dryden, if you can get past the lack of inflection, offers inspiring words that always show a clear direction.

I read an article this morning that asks if this leadership race will be one of ideas or politics. It is somewhat early to say, but given the lack of clear frontrunner, the admission of distractions like Stronach and the general mood of the key players, this looks to be a highly substantive debate. Obviously, the political element is there, with candidates scrambling to get organization and "work the rooms", but none of these men give the sense of politics first. There does seem a genuine desire to articulate an agenda, an opportunity to present their ideas and direction.

When McKenna took a pass, and to a lesser degree Tobin, it set the stage for a real debate, instead of some air of inevitability. When you look at the likely successors none of them looks overtly political in the negative way people often portray. What I mean by that, is we have a slate that will probably prefer honest debate, as opposed to appeasing people to "look" a certain way. Ignatieff is sticking by his controversial opinions, and whether you agree or not, it sets a good tone for the debate because it looks apolitical. All the signs point to a juicy discussion, that should accomplish what Liberals desperately need, a new direction.