Today there was the first debate in the race for a new NDP leader. Unlike in the past, when NDP was discounted and considered a "throw away" 3rd party, it's now the hotspot. And so there's 9 candidates.
I raced home (literally) and streamed the English and French debates on CPAC. Though I was still in boots and my winter coat and frantically writing notes during the English hour, the French hour gave me much less insights (probably because I was listening to a translation).
After watching Jon Stewart tear apart GOP candidates in the US, I thought I'd put my psychological analysis skills to work and analyze the NDP candidates. Here's my rough notes about the candidates, presented in the order of their opening statements.
Chisholm (top row, far left) - he's from Nova Scotia which shouldn't be a plus, but it is for me. I'll admit my bias. I was a bit stunned to see him introduce himself with almost an imitation of Jack Layton. He had the hand gestures, and pretty near soundbytes down. I don't want to elect Jack II. Jack is gone. We need the next leader after Jack.
But that aside, Chisholm looked good. He had a genuine sparkle in his eye and lots of good "leadership" poise. He spoke well, and confidently. He sounded polished. He appeared strong.
Of course, in the French debate, he was the only candidate I didn't need the robotic translation for, because he spoke English. I identify with his Anglophone ways, but that pretty much disqualified him in my mind. I'm not going to vote for the next leader soley because of strategy, but I disrespect anyone gunning for the big federal positions who cannot speak both official languages. I made fun of Stephen Harper for his crappy French, so Chisholm is not off the hook.
Ashton (second top row) - She's 29 years old. Although she's very experience and almost "veteran" MP, her speaking style made her seem really nonconfident, and really unpolished. Honestly, if I ran for NDP leadership, I feel like I'd look a lot like her. I'd speak too fast, sound a little too enthusiastic, idealistic, and high strung. I'd be passionate to a fault, and no one would take me serious. I like her, I really do. But I know I'm not cut out for the job, and I don't think she is either. Aside from her "rough edge," she wasn't charismatic enough, she spoke a bit roboticly, and I couldn't really see her succeeding in a Federal election debate. Not at all.
Honestly, she'll make an excellent cabinet minister. She seemed so smart and diligent. There's no doubt in my mind that she connects well with her constituents and makes fantastic reports. She's great. But she's not a leader. She could be a major working cog in the party though.
Topp (bottom row, far right) - Ugh! He's the backroom planner, with lots of endorsements from his fellow backroom planners. Honestly, he needs to stay in the backroom. Except for another candidate (that I'll get to), Topp was the most unlikable. I don't understand the huge endorsements he has received. And honestly, this leadership race shouldn't be about big-name endorsements, because that's not what the NDP is about. Someone who prioritizes them is not someone who prioritizes the NDP I believe in.
So what was wrong with Topp? He had an awful speaking style. He was completely awkward. He doesn't seem to "connect" he just spews out facts. Some are good facts, but no one is going to listen. Most importantly, he creeped me out. When asked his position on things, he'd regularly start with "slamming" the other parties - which is something the NDP avoided in the last election and helped them. When he did this, I pegged Topp as a user of attack ads, and I don't like that. When the candidates were asked to debate certain topics, Topp went off topic and attacked fellow candidate Dewar about his GST policy, and Dewar (rightfully) brought him back on topic.
He seemed disrespectful and cutthroat and sometimes really boastful. He was a squat, short, little amphibian like guy, who didn't connect. I don't fucking want him as the leader of the NDP. He's one of 3 candidates that I'm actively against and not for. Maybe he did good for the party behind the scenes. If so, he should really go back behind the scenes.
Cullen (bottom row, 2nd from left) - he's from BC, and wasn't considered a front runner. Except for the eye balls popping out of his head, I thought he had good poise, and the most charisma out of all of them (by far). He was really focused on the issues and brought up lots of key things that struck me and surprised me. He was blunt in a way that Jack Layton has been blunt - he (rightfully) called Stephen Harper a racist for his discrimination towards First Nations "accountability" and I really appreciated that and even cheered for him a bit.
However, Cullen came across as a Liberal at the wrong party. Like Topp, he played the blame game and just seemed 'ready' to attack. He was a smooth talker, but that made him seem more like a shark, and I don't know if I liked that. Plus, some of his rhetoric came across as really Liberal in its ideology - which isn't what I want. (If it was, I'd be a Liberal voter, not an NDP voter.)
Mulcair (bottom row, second from right with the beard) - Of course, if Cullen seemed like a Liberal, Mulcair and his red tie just screamed Liberal. He's a major front runner in this race, and I'm scared of that. In his opening words, he stated his desire for "reaching beyond the traditional base" of the NDP. Basically, he wants to change things around so the NDP will appeal to more people. And that means he wants to bring the party more center and less left WHICH I AM TOTALLY AGAINST. He's a former Liberal. Just because a lot of left-wing liberals voted NDP last time does not mean the party should roll over and cater to them. In all honesty, Mulcair scares me because of this exact stance, which is he so damn proud of.
If he was a flake and wanted those things, I wouldn't care. But Mulcair is strong. He was a full fucking package deal. He spoke some French in the English debate, he spoke some English in the French debate just to show that he was awesome. He was so comfortable, he made it look like he does these things all the time. He was well-spoken, and smart, and pretty awesome. If he was the leader of the Liberals, I'd love this guy. But I don't want him as the the leader of the NDP!
And like a Liberal, he got a little hung up on the details of one of his strategies at one point. He was rattling on and on about some complicated plan that made me think of Dion. I mean, the guy has class. He seems really cool. But he's also inauthentic, and doesn't align with the party's values. He shouldn't be the party's leader.
Oh, and he also tried to be Jack II, which really bugged me. And he's also "center-leaning" in his economic policy, which is kinda anti-NDP. And he's not "pro-tarsands" but he's not "anti-tarsands" and he just really confused me on that issue.
Dewar (bottom row, far left) - This guy was painful. Paul Dewar is the most honest and humble and sweet candidate out there. I went to his launch party. I really, genuinely like this guy. He is a really great guy, and has been an excellent MP and an excellent "shadow cabinet" minister.
But, Dewar was an epic fail at this debate. I cringed he was so terrible. By the end of his opening statement, I knew I really couldn't put my support behind him anymore. For the entire 2 hours, he was stiff as a board, and looked scared or sick or both. Maybe it was a one-time stint of anxiety, but the leader of the opposition can not have that. Some of his ideas were awesome, but I honestly couldn't even listen to him. His voice was so stiff and robot-like and boring. So sorry Paul.
On the plus, Dewar did speak about the grassroots movement, which I greatly prioritize. He seems to stand for most what I believe in connecting and representing real people - the opposite of backroom endorsements. He also gracefully escaped Topp's cuthroat attack.
Saganash (bottom row, middle) - I was expecting Romeo to be a bit more charismatic. The newspapers made him out to be eccentric. During the 2 hour debate, he was a trembly, shakey, stuttery guy, who was power hungry and delusional and not intelligent enough to be a leader. You don't need to be a rock scientist to be a politician. But you need to have wits and quick reflexes and a deep understanding of issues. And he didn't seem to have those. What Saganash had was a rudimentary grasp of some really basic ideals, that he would just repeat. After his 4th or 5th time on the microphone, I started blocking him out. He was operating on another wave length.
Nash (top row, 3rd from left) - Prior to this debate, I had assumed that Peggy Nash was the "token" female candidate. I figured that she'd soapbox about women's rights, or gender equality, and yada yada. I wasn't considering her at all. Boy, I learned my lesson. I like women who don't overplay the gender card, she didn't play it at all (which was huge bonus points for me).
She was one of the 3 most charismatic. She was one of the top 2 in terms of confidence and well-spoken, well-thought comments. She was awesome. Nash started her opening statement with such clear, interesting and understanding ideas, and in such a strong, and sensible tone that it grabbed me right away. She is intensely fiscally minded (she was shadow finance minister). She sounded immensely rational and intelligent. In general, she had a great speaking and debating style. She framed the issues concisely, argued her point with the optimal level of passion, and never rattled on or stuttered. And everything she said seemed so smart and well though out, I just had to agree with it all. her prison vs. schools comment, her triade of economical, social, and environmental well-being, her emphasis on food security, her connection between housing projects and jobs.
Nash was able to bring up more issues and explain them better than any other candidate. In terms of strategy, she will connect with voters. She will be able to get messages across. She had the poise and the brains, and all the right priorities. I was completely impressed.
Singh (top row, far right) - The last candidate truly was the least. This guy is a complete joke. I really hope he drops out before the next debate. Amateur doesn't even do him justice. He was flakey, explicitly power hungry, narcissistic and delusional. Although he had a clear voice, his tone was all wrong. In the first 5 minutes you learn that he's owned "many businesses in rural and urban Canada," and he repeated that line almost everytime he spoke. He's also a pharmacist. Basically, he's a flake, a non-committed flake who wanted to try politics. He barely said anything of substance at all, except that he really wants to be Prime Minister. I do know from raeding an article on CBC about him that he's very pro-business and considers himself more economically center that traditional NDP members.
I sincerely hope Singh was a joke and was just there to advertise his businesses. He's not cut out for leadership, or even cabinet minister work. He might made a good cult-leader.
With out a doubt, Mulcair and Nash were the strongest two. Cullen and Chisholm also appeared strong, followed closely by Ashton. Dewar and Topp were completely left behind in their own awkwardness, and Saganash and Singh were just disasters on stage. I couldn't take Saganash or Singh seriously. At least Saganash seems like he'd be good as a community leader, or working on a council, or for an NGO, and yes as an MP. Singh...well yeah, he should check out his options as a cult-leader.
If I had to rank order my favorites (thus ranking Mulcair lower because of his Liberal leaning ways), I would rank them in this order: Nash, Chisholm, Cullen, Ashton, Dewar, Mulcair, Topp, Saganash, Singh.
So, go Peggy Nash!
