Why Dion?
I've been following the leadership contest from the early days of Martha Hall-Findlay and John Godfrey. Stephane is one of the best candidates to win, in the intrest of the party and Canada.
I think its only fair to address the issues that Dion should work on first.
As it was spoken of earlier,
1. His image. Yes, I agree it should change. However, on a scale of importance in terms of image and policy, I would put policy first please. I would prefer a Prime Minister with a questionable image and proper policies than a good looking P.M. with worse policies. This is not to say anything about Harper yet, all I am saying is that Image is an issue, but not as important as other factors.
2. His lack of English oral skills. He doesn't speak english properly. This can be a problem. Once again, he has some ideas that are really worth hearing, yet if he cannot convey them to the right audience effectively, it will be of no use in the elections. This can be one of the main reasons for his lack of support. I remember speaking to a liberal delegate from Toronto, an Ignatieff supporter. We talked and I asked him why not Dion, and he said well Dion is great, but I dont think hes an energetic speaker and that he can keep a crowd going for long in English. I would like to outline something there, Dion has great ideas, but he cant purvey them in English as well, and this is one of his sad flaws. Unfortunately, he will not attract such a crowd as, maybe Ignatieff. Once again, its sad becuase he has some great ideas, and such image issues affects his success. As an analogy, the book cover may not look so pleasing, but the content is much more promising. Thats a question Canadians need to reflect on, would they rather reject him because of the book cover, or accept him becuase of the rich book content? The good news is, he is getting better. I remember the day when he launched his campaign and he spoke in 98% french, and now he is getting better. Using the language more often will enrich his vocabulary, and with time he should be able to get better, hopefully by the next election.
Now why Stephane is good for the job.
1. While many say his campaign was one-pointed and focused on the environment only, I think he made his policies clear from day one, with his three pillar approach. This approach included the environment, but was not limited to the environment. This may not be the only three factors for political success but, after reading his platform, it is some three great factors for political success in Canada. I don't think any other recent liberal leader had such a clear yet simple policy platform for their leadership bids. Yes, many of the key issues were outlined, but many of the past conventions were coronation ceremonies for the respective leaders. Stephane seems to encompass all the policies that he finds important into the three pillar approach. Environment is just a part of this, not all. He has always stressed the three pillar approach, I have seen all the debates and many of his speeches. It is wrong to say that it was concentrated solely on the environment, but it was an influential part of the policy platform, as was with the other candidates. While many leadership candidates were engaged in scandals with their leadership bid and their past, and were playing politics, Stephane did manage to start his campaign with this three pillar approach. I must say that Stephanes policies and campaign platform was simple, transparent and not single pointed, but pointed in three directions, the three pillar approach.
2. Many people called Stephane a nerd. Why? Becuase he is less charasmatic and more devoted to his work. When Chretien called him to defend national unity in 1996, he did what he was asked to, when Martin asked him to help as environment minister, he also devoted his time to it and was/is very passionate about it. He worked very hard on anything he was assigned to. That is just how Stephane is, he was not as involved in the internal party politics, or external, but more towards the actual job. Even when Stephen Harpers office consulted him for this Quebec as a Nation issue, he helped despite the partisan issues. This is rare, but there are possibly a few in every party. This is precisely what makes Stephanes policies simple and approachable for the three pillar approach, hes a hard working intellectual with political experience.
3. Stephane managed to unassociate himself from the Martin- Chretien corruption. What is admirable about Stephane is that although he was part of the Chretien and Martin cabinet, he was not apart of this "culture of entitlement" as is with many of the other cabinet ministers. I respect Stephane for this. He has the intellect and used it for the purpose of doing what he was asked for, he did not socially play politics and join this liberal corruption image, he was working. He is a hard worker and his actions in the past combined with his apparent image is probably why people called him a nerd. However, if we are stereotyping, I trust a nerd more than a popular jock, because chances are the nerd knows what to do, as Stephane has proved. In the beggining, I must admit, I did not like Stephane. I thought he was boring and I was really enchanted by Ignatieffs speaking skills and the whole propagation of the Trudeau remake. However, as the race continued on, the frontrunner was faced with a lot of problems and mistakes. Unfortunately, it was probably becuase of his lack of experince in the political field, and the liberals cannot afford that in a federal election if they want a bite at success. I understand that many of Ignatieffs talks on torture and Iraq were misinterpreted, but the one speech I read on him saying how the United States allowed him to grow in a way that Canada never allowed made me question his beilefs. He has a way of swaying individuals with is speech, as Peter Newman says, he has the manners of a prince but the mind of a chess master. I think that he really did beileve in himself as an American during his years of living there, he made himself at home. This was one of the reasons why I feared Ignatieff, as was consistent with many Canadians. I realized that Stephane had more potential as leader with his knowledge and commitment, and he has also payed his dues to the party and the country with his work. The controversy of Ignatieff was not what the party needs to win, however Ignatieff has many good qualities. Stephane was able to lead the party with his hard working skills but he didnt have as many high profile supporters as did Rae and Ignatieff. Thats politics, the guy with the connections and proper organizers do have the better chance and more endorsements. Rae and Ignatieff have high profile Martin and Chretien supporters, and as politics works, they had the better chance of winning, and this defeats the whole purpose of renewal, especially for the liberal party. Dion and Kennedy were able for renewal and less party division than Rae-Ignatieff. Volpe made a point and he said that the old liberal backroom boys are hiding behind new faces, and those faces are obvious. Rae and Ignatieff had the most high profile supporters compared to Dion, and those I thought that privaledge would take precedence over quality and a real second look, but I was really wrong. The delegates chose the Kennedy-Dion duo over the Rae-Ignatieff. This was a clear message to the backroom boys, that they are not controlling things anymore, but the real delegates are choosing, and what a choice. Many journalists have said that Dion is underestimated and has real potential for the party.
I think all the candidates had their strengths and their weaknesses, and Stephane was one of the more unlikely, but best candidates to lead the party. However, Stephane is the leader and I think we can all agree that it would be less controversial than Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff as leader, with much more mixed responses.
Good Luck Stephane Dion!