Let me offer my two cents on the Ignatieff discussion. Arguing that we need to diminish Ignatieff's role translates into an admission that Dion is failing. A confident leader, comfortable with his role, doesn't feel threatened if others share the spotlight. Lowering Ignatieff's profile is an insecure response. Let's be frank, Dion's main strength isn't his persona, as leader of men. I think it an excellent strategy to speak of the "dream team", a net collective of intelligent minds, working together, forming a united front. That perception is a nice contrast to the one-man show operating across the aisle.
In my opinion, if you have an asset, you use it too full effect. Ignatieff has done a good job during question period, although for my money Goodale has been better. Where Ignatieff has been particularly effective is in the scrums, concise, assertive, engaging. If the media seeks Ignatieff out for a soundbite, great, all that matters is getting our message out.
What era are Liberals most remembered for in opposition? I would suggest the "Rat Pack", which consisted of four people, who weren't the "leader". Did they undermine or outshine Chretien, did the surrogates usurp the hierarchy? No, they were effective, pure gold for the Liberals.
The more voices articulating the message, the more character you present to the people. You don't insulate a leader to protect him, if you have to then that speaks volumes. I'm pretty confident that Dion can handle a shared stage with other talented people. If Dion is relatively weak in a specific sense, then use the abilities of the team to augment any "deficiency". If the Liberals have any chance in the next election, we should nourish as many voices as possible. If Dion looks comfortable with a high-profile Ignatieff, it speaks to his leadership, it doesn't distract from it.