I haven't seen the U.S. debate yet, so I can't comment on Palin, but I would put Dion up at #2. Even I managed to be impressed by him. I'd also be tempted to put Layton lower, though, I think I also want to put Duceppe lower. They were both awful.
I think that Layton was awful as well, actually, but I've learned from experience that all the things that he does that piss me off win him points with voters at large, so I tend to compensate. I was actually very close to putting him above May (partly on the strength of May's repeated non-answer to Paikin's health care question).
I don't see how Duceppe was awful - he's in sort of a weird position in that he's debating almost exclusively for the benefit of the Quebec media, so it's kind of hard for him to really make a breakthrough, but I thought he was effective on his core messages. Entertaining as well.
Commentary today! All of my hippie roommates said Harper was awful, but they tend to fail at attempts to provide objective criticism, and I never actually saw the debate.
I have to put May first. The health care question you brought up was really the only glaring weak point of her performance. Otherwise, she was (uncharacteristically) focused, made her points well and delivered a more eloquent defence of the carbon tax than Dion ever has (at least in English). Of course, there are a number of ways to judge who won, but on all the ones I can think of—who did their cause the most good, who gave the best presentation of their ideas, who had the best ideas in the first place, and so on—but it seems to me that May wins on most or all of them.
I wasn't at all impressed with Harper. He certainly managed to weather the attacks from the others, but it seems other people consider that more important than I do. Where other people apparently saw calm statesmanship, I saw smug evasion; he answered questions either not at all or irrelevantly, and he seemed (to me) to not be taking the event completely seriously. And the way he started every answer with "Let me be clear..." quickly grew irritating.
I was more impressed with Dion than you were, too. He stood up to Harper's attacks in a way I'm not used to seeing (perhaps because no one shows it), and made some good counterattacks—all the better for being true. He was less effective against Layton, though, I thought.
Layton was Layton. He pandered and whined, but did it quite well and that's why people like him. I do think he was too reliant on catchphrases and his attempts to score a "knockout blow" (speaking of annoying catchphrases) were pretty transparent. And Duceppe was almost a non-factor, but sort of by design, and I don't think you could have expected much more from him.
So let's say: May-Dion-Layton-Duceppe-Harper. Which helps to illustrate why I'll never be elected to public office.
(And yes, I used singular "they" largely to annoy you.)
4 comments:
I haven't seen the U.S. debate yet, so I can't comment on Palin, but I would put Dion up at #2. Even I managed to be impressed by him. I'd also be tempted to put Layton lower, though, I think I also want to put Duceppe lower. They were both awful.
- Mustafa Hirji
I think that Layton was awful as well, actually, but I've learned from experience that all the things that he does that piss me off win him points with voters at large, so I tend to compensate. I was actually very close to putting him above May (partly on the strength of May's repeated non-answer to Paikin's health care question).
I don't see how Duceppe was awful - he's in sort of a weird position in that he's debating almost exclusively for the benefit of the Quebec media, so it's kind of hard for him to really make a breakthrough, but I thought he was effective on his core messages. Entertaining as well.
Commentary today! All of my hippie roommates said Harper was awful, but they tend to fail at attempts to provide objective criticism, and I never actually saw the debate.
I have to put May first. The health care question you brought up was really the only glaring weak point of her performance. Otherwise, she was (uncharacteristically) focused, made her points well and delivered a more eloquent defence of the carbon tax than Dion ever has (at least in English). Of course, there are a number of ways to judge who won, but on all the ones I can think of—who did their cause the most good, who gave the best presentation of their ideas, who had the best ideas in the first place, and so on—but it seems to me that May wins on most or all of them.
I wasn't at all impressed with Harper. He certainly managed to weather the attacks from the others, but it seems other people consider that more important than I do. Where other people apparently saw calm statesmanship, I saw smug evasion; he answered questions either not at all or irrelevantly, and he seemed (to me) to not be taking the event completely seriously. And the way he started every answer with "Let me be clear..." quickly grew irritating.
I was more impressed with Dion than you were, too. He stood up to Harper's attacks in a way I'm not used to seeing (perhaps because no one shows it), and made some good counterattacks—all the better for being true. He was less effective against Layton, though, I thought.
Layton was Layton. He pandered and whined, but did it quite well and that's why people like him. I do think he was too reliant on catchphrases and his attempts to score a "knockout blow" (speaking of annoying catchphrases) were pretty transparent. And Duceppe was almost a non-factor, but sort of by design, and I don't think you could have expected much more from him.
So let's say: May-Dion-Layton-Duceppe-Harper. Which helps to illustrate why I'll never be elected to public office.
(And yes, I used singular "they" largely to annoy you.)
Post a Comment