The blog has been quiet in August. The complexity of the war in Lebanon rendered it a less than ideal topic for casual commentary in blog format, not to mention the risk of committing comments to the web that one would later regret in the shifting sands of Middle East politics.
On the domestic scene, the Liberal Party leadership campaign (no one could call it a race at this point) went into a summer hiatus generating only a few comments on the aforementioned war that served to do little more than get the candidates in trouble - too little, too soon, too late, too trivial, too pro-Israel, too anti-Israel. The best thing for the candidates to do, as well, was to keep quiet.
But things are starting to change as summer (in the northern hemisphere) wanes. A degree of peace seems to have taken hold in Lebanon; Hezbollah has admitted underestimating the reaction to kidnapping Israeli soldiers and regrets the war that ensued. Israel, having failed in its objectives in the war but aware that it had jeopardised international support by its invasion of Lebanon and killing of hundreds of civilians children, has gone quiet too. Now attention has turned to a less immediate “crisis”: Iran’s determination to continue nuclear research in face of UN opposition. This one is more likely to be dragged out for months unless Iran or Israel does something stupid.
Back home, the Liberal leadership candidates are starting to talk. Especially Michael Ignatieff. Maybe burned by how long he took to comment on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, he was the first candidate to get his platform published in a self-authored essay for Maclean's magazine and, the same weekend, be profiled on a very lengthy feature in The Globe and Mail by Michael Valpy.
Probably more words have now been published about Ignatieff than all the other candidates combined. His hold on the frontrunner position in the contest still seems secure, but he also seems somewhat gaff prone in some of his public comments. It's at least partly a result of failing to bridge the gap between a Harvard graduate seminar and a Canadian media clip. Scott Brison has correctly noted, however, that such an error judgement could be fatal in a national election campaign which does not offer an opportunity for explanation. One is reminded of the last PhD candidate for Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, who stated with disastrous results, that certain issues were too complex to discuss during an election campaign.
While I am planning to attend an Ignatieff event in three days - this campaign re-launch and manifesto release - my heart remains in support of Brison. Stephane Dion is a strong second choice but for reasons that are not exactly clear to me yet. Certainly, Scott is a favourite because, like me, he is a former Progressive Conservative, gay, etc., but I also identify with his policies which are decidedly Red Tory. But I recognise that he will not win and will not likely be on the final ballot. I do want him to fare well in the race, to have an influence on who eventually wins and to have subsequently a prominent role in the party.
Stephane Dion is probably the best candidate save for his relatively poor command of oral English. In the theory of rotating Liberal leaders between Anglophones and Francophones, he is the only candidate. He is equally as intelligent as Ignatieff without the reputation for arrogance. He has a record on the green issue and he has a record of service to the party. He has served ably in Cabinet. I would be very happy to discover he has spent some time in language training this summer.
Let the fun and games, leading up to the constituency voting at the end of the month, begin.
