I’m not a big political science person and yet a lot of the people I am in contact with are poly-sci guys. Christine, JP, Paul, and Shannon are all big poly sci people.
I’ve always been more interested in the personalities rather than the policies. That said, Shan flipped over to the leader’s debates after Survivor and I was hooked for the full two hours. I only saw the English one so I’m going by that. I hadn’t really seen anything from them before so my impressions are solely based on the debate – and my own bias of course.
The clear winners were Elizabeth May of the Green party and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois. Both came across as solid and confident. Elizabeth had her facts down cold. Gilles was a pleasant surprise with a fairly good grasp of English – and a funny way of pronouncing development – and not at all wing-nutty as you would be led to expect from the Bloc.
Stephane Dion of the Liberal (Red) party came across very poorly. If you read his transcript, he was clear and focused but he had came across very weak and sounded like he was having a lot of trouble with English. I have trouble seeing him standing up to whoever wins the election down south.
Stephan Harper of the Conservative (Blue) party came across very indifferent. He has a squinty look that makes it seem like he isn’t listening to what you have to say and doesn’t care about your opinion. He also seemed to deny some easily checked facts.
Jack Layton of the NDP (Orange) came across as a bit of a bully. I’ve been told that his people had told him He also kept saying his name – like the comedians doing impressions of Bob Dole. A good drinking game would have been to take a shot ever time he said “Jack Layton”. In this format, either because of the camera angle or because he kept leaning forward, he also appeared very bald.
The Canadian edition?