| |
Blog of Adam Daifallah -- author, journalist, law student. Lover of politics, writing, golf, curling, fitness, fashion, bacon and maple products -- not necessarily (but probably) in that order. Partisan of the Anglosphere. Contact me via email at adam@daifallah.com. This summer I am joined by Keir Wilmut and Omar Soliman.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Thoughts on the Conservative leadership debate
In general it was good, and entertaining to watch. Some general observations that stick out in my mind:
1. No knockout punch: All three candidates performed well, but no one was head-and-shoulders better than the rest. They all made good points; one was clearly aggressive and passionate (Clement), another more tentative (Stronach) and one constantly on the defensive but cool (Harper). But because Harper held his own and, by virtue of his front-running status had the most to lose, if anyone did win, it was him. He was calm, composed and looked leader-like.
2. Belinda Stronach sharper, but still too scripted: Belinda has improved a great deal since her launch a few weeks ago -- she looks comfortable on stage, and for her first debate ever it was a decent performance. But she has to get off using these bland, generatic, platitudinal terms like "innovation." She is still looking too wooden, too much like she's just regurgitating talking points. She should just be herself.
3. Clement's use of French: Harper and Stronach's lack of French was really showing (especially so for Stronach) and Clement's use of it was impressive, even tossing in some French answering questions not asked by the French reporter.
4. Harper's arrogance: Clement took Harper to task for his appearance of arrogance throughout this race. It's a valid concern. While I like Harper, he has appeared smug and condescending at times. Just one example: in his press release welcoming Tony Clement to the race, Harper said: "I knew that there would be risks to my leadership when I formed this new party, but I put this merger together to encourage people like Tony to get involved in the party again after a long absence." I, I, I. Sounds like he thinks he's entitled to this by some kind of Divine right. Clement ripped into Harper on this and scored a point for it. I should add that Clement was almost too aggressive and over-the-top.
5. Great questioning: The journalists asking the questions were very good, especially CPAC's Peter Van Dusen -- some real toughies. These questioners demonstrated the way journalists are supposed to scrutinize and hold politicians to account. There were few softballs.
6. Crowds have gotta go: The constant interruptions by supporters of each candidate in the audience were such a waste of time, and served no useful purpose. Debates should not be done in front of partisan crowds like this again.
Candidate performance marks:
Harper: B+
Clement: B-
Stronach: C-
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 3:28 PM
|
