So, as you may know, there's a leadership debate tomorrow. Montreal freelance journalist Justin Ling will be live-blogging the debates for rabble.ca, which you can check out here. You can also see Justin's blog, Demarchy, here.
babble has also been keeping abreast of debate parties in your area (or in someone else's). Check out Wilf's thread here.
So you can use this thread for any pre-debate tidbits or for discussion during and after tomorrow's debate. Go on!
I'll throw my home open to anyone who wants to watch the CPAC coverage with me. Hell, I'll even buy the beer. 
Two comments about the debate:
1. Each candidate will have only six minutes in each language to make his/her points. This is far too little to get a sense of their real abilities. Anyone can memorize a couple answers in French and sound convincing but it is unlikely to be true test. The format handicaps strong candidates and protects weak ones.
2. Be cautious of the online polls which are open to everyone. The CBC online poll on leadership preferences was badly skewed by the camp of one particular candidate which swamped it, thereby rendering it meaningless.
Everyone have a good time tomorrow and try to be objective about who performed best regardless of any preset preferences.
I'll throw my home open to anyone who wants to watch the CPAC coverage with me. Hell, I'll even buy the beer.
How about a helicopter for access. Call it a fishing party.
I'll look for Peter's email address and see what he says. 
I'll throw my home open to anyone who wants to watch the CPAC coverage with me. Hell, I'll even buy the beer.
How about a helicopter for access. Call it a fishing party.
A search and rescue mission, surely?
Speaking of which, if anyone needs to hide out for a while, this is a pretty isolated territory. I have a foam mattress you can use. 
So, as you may know, there's a leadership debate tomorrow. Montreal freelance journalist Justin Ling will be live-blogging the debates for rabble.ca, which you can check out here. You can also see Justin's blog, Demarchy, here.
Yick. He doesn't have any tone of voice other than snark. Who picks these people. Really an awful choice.
So, as you may know, there's a leadership debate tomorrow. Montreal freelance journalist Justin Ling will be live-blogging the debates for rabble.ca, which you can check out here. You can also see Justin's blog, Demarchy, here.
Yick. He doesn't have any tone of voice other than snark. Who picks these people. Really an awful choice.
I just checked out his blog. Concur.
Unfortunately, Charles Taylor and David Lewis's liveblogging schedules were all booked up.
Accidental Deliberations, Dennis Gruending, Dr. Dawg, Alison at Creekside .... need I go on ....
Ah yes, the snarkless four.
Those are good blogs, Oo--although I doubt Baglow would take the invitation--especially Alison's. But rabble.ca followed a different recruitment strategy than "ask some blogs we like." You disagree with the choice, fine. I think his blog is sharp and witty. Quite suitable for the medium.
At any rate, we can keep our usual snark-free zone here on babble during the debates as a helpful tonic...
So, as you may know, there's a leadership debate tomorrow. Montreal freelance journalist Justin Ling will be live-blogging the debates for rabble.ca, which you can check out here. You can also see Justin's blog, Demarchy, here.
Yick. He doesn't have any tone of voice other than snark. Who picks these people. Really an awful choice.
to me this guy loses all credibility when his main comment about Niki Ashton is the "poor qulity of her French" (sic.). I'm not necessarily supporting Niki and I have other concerns about her as a poetntial leader - but if there is one thing no reasonable person could attack her for - its her French. I would say that she is almost 100% fluent and that her French abilities are probably one of her biggest strengths as a candidate not a weakness.
I don't have anything personal invested in Ling or his blog, so I'm totally open to criticism of both his blog and of rabble.ca's decision to use him. But the former should happen at his place and the latter should either happen via email (editor[at]rabble.ca) or in a separate thread. Let's not let it disrupt our conversation here about the debates, okay?
This is going to be my Grey Cup. And without Nickelback.
So far the intros are fantastic on all candidates, were they all suppose to start in English? Since I noticed Mulcair and Saganash started in French.
and the ndp site doesn't work, im on cpac now.
I don't understand why people don't plan their wardrobes better. Why would Chisholm wear a blue tie? Why is Mulcair wearing red?
My views on the opening statements:
Chisholm - Did not speak strongly, for a prepared speech he was forgetting what to say.
Ahston - She did much better then Chisholm and spoke strongly.
Topp - I didn't really understand everything he was trying to say.
Cullen - Spoke better and laid out a vision.
Mulcair - Isn't this suppose to be the English portion, why is he speaking in French? Nothing great said.
Dewar - Telling who he is, and lays out some of his vision.
Saganash - Not a strong speaker, mentions wanting to be Prime Minister though.
Nash - Spoke strongly laid out a vision, and mentioned a bit of who she is.
Singh - For someone who is considered the long-shot rookie he was one of the better speakers.
I think Ashton, Dewar and Nash (not in any particular order) were the best.
I thought they all did very good but, Singh was focused a bit too much on pharmacare. He seems like a one issue candidate. Saganash doesn't seem to be the strongest speaker, but does seem friendly. The rest have done exceptionally well.
Singh's confidence is impressive. Cullen is also good, it's a shame he holds views abhorrent to me. Topp is better than I'd expected, and Saganash shakier.
Mulcair doesn't seem to have much passion when he speaks.
I think Mulcair will do well when he debates directly /w another candidate.
Cullen is doing very well in the first debate.
I don't think Topp is doing so well, a bit aggressive.
Are Topp and Dewar members of the same party?
Is Saganash sick? He seems to be having trouble talking or something.
Cullen is a better speaker then Saganash and Chisholm, and I think he came off better. Tweeters agree he was better.
Mulcairwas smart to bring up his past experience. Dewar showed up Topp when he tried to change the subject by bringing it back to the topic at hand, this is much more lively. Mulcair probably came off the best but I also liked Dewar, I didn't like Topp at this part at all. Dewar did manage to get his plan for an east-west power grid out there which was great.
Nash, Ashton and Sighn's section was dull compared to the previous debate. I'm impressed with Ashton's speaking, but I didn't take much away from this part.
I feel there are to many candidates to get to really understand where they stand on issues in detail.
Ashston would be winning more points with her strong performance if she would stop saying 'new politics' so much.
Cullen speaks really well - I didn't know - and he's got a sense of humour. Dewar - not. Mulcair - never speaks in formulas, which many of the others do. Nash is doing better than I expected.
Saganash - formulas. Unimpressive. Ashton - meh, could be a little more conversational. Singh - yeah, I get it, I get it, you're a businessman! Ok, ok, where do I sign?
Topp - intelligent. Not sure why he decided to crank Dewar up. But wow was it easy.
Notice how I avoided any discussion of content? Content is negotiable.
Cullen asking Ashton what she thought of his plan was pretty dirty.
Dewar's appeal is still lost on me.
And I have to say, I'm liking Topp better now. Not well enough to vote for him, but enough to be relatively comfortable with him should he win.
Topp tried to trap Nash by asking how she reconciled environment and economy when she was assistant to Buzz Hargrove. She was more than prepared. Nice try, Brian.
Mulcair - never speaks in formulas, which many of the others do.
Quite so. It's refreshing.
On points, I would say Muclair is ahead, and I would not have expected that when the debate started. He is also coming across as much easier to work with than Topp, who frankly is coming off as a bit of a smug ass.
I'm not sure if that was a trap.
Topp has done better, but it doesn't make him the best of the debate. He may recover in the French part.
Cullen has been very articulate. Mulcair as well is detailed. Nash has been outstanding, perhaps the best so far.
Dewar has done well. Ashton is also very confident.
Edit: damned cpac live is now having buffering issues.
Chisholm's french is embarassing lol 
I wasn't fussy on Topp before the debate, and this debate made me like him less. I'm surprised Jeff that you like him more after this but everyone got their own opinions.
Cullen has a sense of humour but I still don't find him that great. Chisholm is not a very strong speaker for someone who was the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I expected Mulcair to stand out more in this debate then he did and I actually think Ashton was one of the best. She's a strong clear speaker, she's straight forward and gets to the point when she speaks.
I shall declare Nash as the major winner of the English debate portion. She has definately gone up in my list, now lets see how well they do in French
My scorecard reads, after the English debate:
1) Nash, Mulcair, Ashton (top tier)
2) Dewar, Cullen, Topp (middle tier)
3) Saganash, Chisholm, Singh (bottome tier)
I wonder if Topp cranked up Dewar as a tactic to keep Mulcair out of the picture as much as possible?
And this is for Unionist: Romeo Saganesh has the best hair.
Did Chisholm speak in English :( ?
Saganash is far better in French. I shouldn't be surprised. But guess what... Cullen's pronunciation and syntax are pretty weak - but wow, he's "natural". I know lots of anglos here who talk like he does, and they get along just fine. Mind you, it might have been a canned response, but if so, he pulled it off well.
Nash - no one here speaks French that way. And she's not "natural". Disappointing.
Topp's fine, of course. And Mulcair. Mulcair still speaking calmly, convincingly, off the cuff, or seemingly anyway, which is just as good.
Dewar - yikes. Painful pronunciation. But the worst is the same as in English - wooden, nervous, deer in headlights - what's the matter with him?
Cullen is showing well speaking French, Dewar is having problems, Singh is not bad at all. Only Chisolm has to do it in English.
And hey... no one told me Singh could speak French! Either that or he's been brilliantly rehearsed. Waiting to hear him in the ad lib stuff.
Reading through people's tweets it was interesting to see some thought Dewar was great and some thought he did a bad job.
I wasn't fussy on Topp before the debate, and this debate made me like him less. I'm surprised Jeff that you like him more after this but everyone got their own opinions.
Just my estimation of his ability to hold his own in a debate. While my estimation of Saganash's ability to do the same has fallen considerably. It's not everything, but it's an important thing in our politics.
Mulcair's is the freshest voice today, IMO.
My instincts about Saganash from the convention were right... he's a shaky speaker in English and seems to get flustered. But in French he just flies.
Cullen's French is vastly better than I had thought it would be. Dewar's is painful to listen to.
"comme le fighter jets"LOL
Chisholm spoke in English and has a simultaneous translation device in his ear. Dewar's French was atrocious! I am so disappointed.
Not bad (Singh)! He's really giving it the college try. He's actually coming across as less nervous than Cullen (whose French is obviously better). And Mulcair - what happened to all the "abrasive" and "argumentative" etc.? He's doing extremely well.
I think Mulcair is equally capable of being a teddy bear or a grizzly bear depending on what the situation necessitates.
Ashton's French is good. Tiny bit nervous, but she's fluent enough. In fact, it makes her sound a little less demagogic than in English. That's not the adjective I'm looking for.
Yay Niki - supporting workers, not just the "economy"!
