Anyone who got hyped up about a Dewar's big announcement ahead of time only had themselves to blame. Most people didn't care. (I didn't, and I'm reading practically everything about the race I can find.)
Charlie Angus is a good endorsement to get though. Kind of makes me wish he'd have run for leader himself.
I don't think he speaks very much French.
The Dewar campaign never used the phrase "game changer", for the record. For example, here is Toronto Star reporter Joanna Smith's blogpost outlining exactly what Dewar spinner Joe Cressy said when he pitched the event to her.
(in addition to there being a snowstorm in Ottawa, I suppose I should add that the media has been on saturation coverage of the Liberal convention, although Dewar's people were smart enough to organize the event in the very same hotel as the Libs, where the media was already set up)
Someone said "game changer", but it wasn't Dewar's campaign, they told me. Still, Charlie Angus is a caucus endorsement that every single leadership candidate would have loved to get, and Dewar's campaign got about 50 people out (a curious me included) to an 8 AM event in a snowstorm, along with decent national media coverage of his new theme of "the Real Majority" and strategic focus on "the Next 70" (seats).
In answer to Wilf Day, who thinks it was a terrible strategy, I guess I could note that Paul named Linda Duncan his energy and environment advisor the day before. Also, one of the reporters at Paul's news conference asked him the question about why no Quebec deputy, and his answer (which was also on Twitter) was something like "this is not the only announcement I'll be making".
The news release doesn't say Charlie will be the only Deputy Leader. It says "at the announcement, Dewar thanked Angus for his support and named him his Deputy Leader tasked with building the NDP in key regions across the country". There were strong hints at the news conference that there might be another deputy announced later on, presumably for a different purpose.
It's starting to look like Dewar's campaign has had a number of endorsements for awhile, but they've held back on announcing them until the second half of the campaign, presumably to build momentum with, which you'd want to do if you were starting from behind. It also looks like his approach is going to be to build a team around his endorsers.
By the way, Peter Kormos was a good get for Peggy Nash today too. But Dewar's announcement got the media out, and even if the hype did spin a bit out of control, there is no-one in the party who doesn't now know who Charlie is supporting.
I guess I also find it funny that all the Mulcair people here think announcing a deputy leader during a leadership campaign is such a terrible idea, when the idea was originated by one of Mulcair's own endorsers, Dominic Cardy, when he ran for the leadership in New Brunswick last year.
Anyone who got hyped up about a Dewar's big announcement ahead of time only had themselves to blame. Most people didn't care. (I didn't, and I'm reading practically everything about the race I can find.)
Charlie Angus is a good endorsement to get though. Kind of makes me wish he'd have run for leader himself.
I don't think he speaks very much French.
Both Charlie and Paul spoke French at the announcement this morning.
. . . one of the reporters at Paul's news conference asked him the question about why no Quebec deputy, and his answer (which was also on Twitter) was something like "this is not the only announcement I'll be making".
Good point. I didn't see the media pick that up.
. . . Paul named Linda Duncan his energy and environment advisor the day before. . . It's starting to look like Dewar's campaign has had a number of endorsements for awhile, but they've held back on announcing them until the second half of the campaign.
I don't get the timing here. First, why two in two days? He scooped himself, washing out coverage of Linda Duncan's endorsement by letting Charlie Angus upstage her. (And also causing reaction among Linda Duncan's fans that we're already seen: "Positioning a potential Dewar-led NDP as the Ontario Party certainly does seem to undermine all the work Dewar has already done on the Prairies, though.") Second, why do both of them in the middle of Liberal Convention news coverage? If he was holding back on them, why now? It feels more like it just happened and he couldn't hold still until next week. But maybe I'm missing something.
I guess I also find it funny that all the Mulcair people here think announcing a deputy leader during a leadership campaign is such a terrible idea, when the idea was originated by one of Mulcair's own endorsers, Dominic Cardy, when he ran for the leadership in New Brunswick last year.
Another good point. I wondered at the time about the wisdom of not having a francophone Deputy Leader in New Brunswick, or at least not trying harder to have one, announcing it while nominations were still open (sort of slamming the door). I like Dominic very much, but I thought that was an odd move at the time. Sure, it was great to have a woman and aboriginal as Deputy Leader, but New Brunswick is Canada's only officially bilingual province.
Has anyone else even run for leader with a pre-announced deputy on his or her team?
Charlie Angus is a good endorsement to get though. Kind of makes me wish he'd have run for leader himself.
I don't think he speaks very much French.
Both Charlie and Paul spoke French at the announcement this morning.
Not the comparison I would want to make if arguing that he has enough French to run for leader.
. . . Paul named Linda Duncan his energy and environment advisor the day before. . . It's starting to look like Dewar's campaign has had a number of endorsements for awhile, but they've held back on announcing them until the second half of the campaign.
I don't get the timing here. First, why two in two days? He scooped himself, washing out coverage of Linda Duncan's endorsement by letting Charlie Angus upstage her. (And also causing reaction among Linda Duncan's fans that we're already seen: "Positioning a potential Dewar-led NDP as the Ontario Party certainly does seem to undermine all the work Dewar has already done on the Prairies, though.") Second, why do both of them in the middle of Liberal Convention news coverage? If he was holding back on them, why now? It feels more like it just happened and he couldn't hold still until next week. But maybe I'm missing something.
Oh, I don't know. Edmonton is a different media market than Ottawa. And I think Charlie has a national following, certainly within the NDP. He does do a hilarious rendition of the old Johnny Cash song "I've been everywhere", to which he adds the name of every remote northern town he's been to across Canada (and he says that, as a fundraising technique, he'll always add the name of your town, on request). And he referenced that reputation (and that song) at Friday morning's news conference.
The Angus endorsement I believe had been known about for at least some time. They are friends to begin with. And Paul's riding association hosted a pre-election musical fundraiser for Timmins - James Bay (where they don't have the funding base we have). Then Charlie invited all the leadership candidates to visit his riding, and Paul was the first and I believe one of the only ones to go. Finally Charlie tweeted last week that he was happy to see Dewar be the first one to go into London to visit the EMD picket line and support the locked-out workers.
And I think Paul's team also wanted to demonstrate that they could punch themselves into the otherwise saturation coverage of the Liberal convention in town. Which they did, albeit with an endorsement of initial stature of someone less than Saint Tommy, but really the perfect "grassroots"-style endorsement for members.
What it feels like to me, is part of a roll-out of a number of things leading up to the next debate. Though it looks like all the leadership campaigns have their second-phase campaign plans rolling into gear as well, which is going to make for a much more interesting second half of the race, I think!
Has anyone else even run for leader with a pre-announced deputy on his or her team?
I had never heard of it before Dominic, though knowing him, he probably picked up the idea from some international work he had done.
Not the same thing as Deputy Leader, but Newt Gingrich recently said that if he won he'd appoint John Bolton as his Secretary of State.
Can you imagine how disasterous that would be?
If there's one thing that would worse than Gingrich as President, it would be John "Let's Blow Ten Stories of the UN" Bolton as Secretary of State.
Well AM, you might be right in your strategic assessment of this. Or not. I guess we'll know in another month's time. Their campaign doesn't look desperate to me, but what do I know.
I agree that only time will tell. I don't think it is possible that Dewar can sufficiently improve his French in time for the leadership vote, but from what I can see he has strong enough organization that he can stay relevant to the race until February 12th regardless. We'll see.
OO:
Fair enough if Dewar's campaign says it was the media that used the phrase "game changer" not them, but the media used that phrase because--as the email you provided points out--Dewar's campaign called this the "biggest endorsement of any of the leadership campaigns yet".
That's actually quite a bit stronger than "game changer". Calling something a "game changer" could just mean that it vaults Dewar into the same category of prominent endorsements as Mulcair and Topp (or possibly Nash). Angus is great, but "biggest endorsement of any of the leadership campaigns yet"? Please.
Obviously this was about getting media coverage, but that's the point. Snowstorm or no, misleading the media like that in order to get some extra media coverage smacks of desparation.
None of this convinces me that Dewar has been sitting on a bunch of endorsements, but rather that he's struggled to get the ones he's announcing now and knows his campaign is in trouble. Ultimately, it will be the French debates in February/March that determine whether he has a chance, or not. For now he just seems to want to make sure it looks like he's still alive.
I'm more interested in what you've posted regarding Dewar's promise to appoint Angus as Deputy Leader and the implication that he might name another person who he intends to appoint as Deputy Leader from Quebec.
First, I don't think either the Linda Duncan or Dominic Cardy parallels hold up. Linda Duncan is obviously energy and environment advisor to Dewar's campaign. Deputy Leader is a party/caucus position that Dewar would only be able to give Angus if he won the leadership race. As for Dominic Cardy, he didn't "originate" the idea of promising to appoint people to positions before winning an election--it's done, just rarely. In Cardy's case it makes a lot more sense because, maybe, I don't know, the NB NDP doesn't have a caucus! In Cardy's case, there aren't 100 other MPs lined up at his door. There are fewer people who's support he risks losing because they aren't gunning for the job themselves, there's more benefit because he can demonstrate he has somekind of team and there's no real appearance that a deal was made because the position isn't that valuable. (Of course, it may have been a dumb move on Cardy's part, but very different circumstances.)
The problem for Dewar, though, isn't the mere fact that he promised to appoint someone Deputy Leader, it's that he'll either have to break his promise, go down the road of appointing even more Deputy Leaders or have a Leader and two Deputy Leaders all from central Canada--plus he'll either have to fire Mulcair or have three white males in those jobs as well. Those details matter.
And that brings us to the suggestion that Dewar might promise to appoint another Deputy Leader--this one from Quebec--while the leadership campaign is still going. If he did, he would not only be promising to fire Mulcair (a move that would be insane coming from the candidate with the worst French in the race), but it would mean he'd also be promising not to appoint any of our other three most prominent Quebec MPs Turmel, Boivin and Saganash (because they're either running or already endorsing someone else). This would certainly suggest that Dewar was so desparate to get endorsements that he was making promises left and right at the expense of the overall team. For this reason alone I highly doubt that Dewar will make another promise as to whom he would appoint as a second Deupty Leader.
(I'd also like to say that "we're gonna be focusing on the next 70 seats" is not a strategy to win the next election. Focusing on the next tranch of seats is what parties always do. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't much of a message. But that's a minor detail compared to the rest of this disaster.)
Well, I don't have your french language assessment credentials, AM. All I've done is listen to his french whenever I could.
He phone-blasted the event notification in english and french the other day, and while it was clear he was reading, his pronunciation was better. Also, he flubbed one pronunciation in the french part of his news conference statement (though he put the french very early in the statement), but the rest was actually pretty good. Unfortunately the media only asked him questions in english this time, but I think he switched to french for at least part of one of the answers.
His French gets better every time I hear it, that's for sure. And Nash's french at the feminist pot-luck livestream remote last weekend sounded a bit worse than usual for her, but that might have been the result of some technical problems and a difficulty hearing whether she was getting through.
The news release doesn't say Charlie will be the only Deputy Leader. It says "at the announcement, Dewar thanked Angus for his support and named him his Deputy Leader tasked with building the NDP in key regions across the country". There were strong hints at the news conference that there might be another deputy announced later on, presumably for a different purpose.
Back to the question of whether the Deputy Leader is chosen by caucus, I have an ancient recollection of a contest in 1963. David Lewis had been Deputy Leader after the 1962 election, but lost his seat in 1963. Doug Fisher became Deputy Leader until the 1965 election when he did not run again. I could easily be wrong, but I have the idea the caucus voted between Doug Fisher and another candidate. I'll see if another veteran remembers when we have dinner next Tuesday night. Unless someone else beats me to it. (Challenge.)
Dewar's handling of Angus' endorsement certainly makes it look like he doesn't hold Duncan in as high esteem. Like others, when the word went out about his Friday surprise, I thought the "game changer" would be someone other than an elected MP. As a woman, this build up for an MP kind of makes him look like an ass. No disrespect to Charlie Angus who I think is a great asset and excellent MP.
Well, then, what did it say about his endorsement by the former Ontario NDP leader Mike Cassidy (the 1984-88 era MP for Ottawa Centre as well)?
Dewar had James Clancy of NUPGE last Friday, Cassidy on Wednesday, Duncan on Thursday and Angus on Friday. I wonder who he'll have next week?
Perhaps Ottawa Observor is right that Dewar's campaign did not use the phrase "game changer." They did trumpet the mysterious endorsement, however, as "The most important endorsement of the campaign yet."
This hyperbole is for me another indication that Dewar is just not ready for prime time.
I'm sorry, I like the guy. He is earnest and is probably a good constituency MP. But he has this Dan Quayle deer in the headlights quality. The public is just not going to take him seriously as a potential Prime Minister.
None of this convinces me that Dewar has been sitting on a bunch of endorsements, but rather that he's struggled to get the ones he's announcing now and knows his campaign is in trouble.
I wish I had a dollar for every time that you say some campaign move is proof of desperation.
That extreme aside. The discussion of the announcements at least borders on over-analyzing.
What it all boils down to is that the overall strategy was not an unmitigated hit. But that does not mean that this should have been obvious to Dewar and his team as they were planning this. You just cannot predict some of the take-up there will be. Or you were focused so much on one message you wanted to impart, that you just did not see that there were some others. [Mulcair has done plenty of this by the way.]
I think this is proof that there is a downside to orchestration. But if you follow the advice of just saying it straightforward, you get ignored. So, in practice, that is not the alternative. The happy medium can be hard to hit.
But it is also very typical that this kind of reaction passes with the initial flury. We'll see.
I'd also like to say that "we're gonna be focusing on the next 70 seats" is not a strategy to win the next election. Focusing on the next tranch of seats is what parties always do. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't much of a message. .
You should be careful about ponting out that what general statements do not mean. When the shoe went on the other foot it was fulsome praise.
And it is a question of optics, not the words on the page. Absolutely, that every candidate says that we need to work on the next tranch of seats. The question of differences is the credibility of that focus on how. And the way Paul goes about it carries a lot of credibility with those of us keenly aware that there are always promises made.
If I were Dewar, I'd announce that if elected, I'd invite Mulcair to continue in his role as Deputy Leader for Québec. How would Mulcair react to that (other than saying he's in the race to win)?
Of course, we can't have the candidates making gestures of cooperation and unity to each other. That wouldn't suit the competitive spirit.
But no worries. I would never be Dewar.
Followed immediately by an updated announcement:
Paul Dewar plan to encourage straight white dudes from central Canada's more-than-equal participation in politics
I dunno, the hoopla is a vivid reminder of how Charlie Angus has really become, esp. after the Attawapiskat issue, the great big looming shoulda-woulda-coulda of this leadership race--because truly, if he were leader, he *could* have the kind of charismatic sea-to-sea-to-shining-sea reach that'd take what Jack started and thrust it into majority territory, with breakthroughs in hitherto marginal or lately-terminally-suppressed realms...
It does look like Dewar has put himself in a pickle over the question of a Deputy Leader from Quebec.
I cannot imagine any new Leader not offering that to Mulcair... and going to great lengths to calm the waters if Mulcair is understandably pissed over things that have happened along the way.
So what does Dewar do now?
The more I think about it, and as much as I like Charlie Angus, the less I like the idea of making a commitment now to anyone at all. As I think has already been said, who knows what is coming down the road. Even if Paul wins, he doesnt know what will arise in the course of that. And although the choice is the prerogative of the Leader, it is probably always at least discussed in Caucus.
I think Paul's commitment to cooperative process is beyond question. I just wonder if some of the most basic broader implications were thought through, while getting caught up with the 'upsides' of delivering a set of messages.
Maybe not to late, and if there is enough wiggle room in what was said yesterday, to backpeddle and hedge/qualify the whole thing?
This hyperbole is for me another indication that Dewar is just not ready for prime time.... he has this Dan Quayle deer in the headlights quality. The public is just not going to take him seriously as a potential Prime Minister.
This seems so self-evident to me that I worry enough New Democrats don't see it. (Charlie Angus for one.) IMO Dewar would be our Dion, only worse, because it would be happening to us.
I dont really get that. And I'm not just speaking for myself- but about family members I have watched debates with- none of whom are political junkies. Everyone is put at ease by Cullen. Everyone thinks Mulcair comes off well. And they at least like Dewar.
He was deer in the headlights when Topp tried to engage him. Otherwise, I dont really get this.
And I especially dont get the comparison to Dan Quayle- who was pretty universally seen as a lightweight, if not an idiot. If Paul Dewar had even the slightest whiff of that around him, it would be coming across in the media.
I dunno, the hoopla is a vivid reminder of how Charlie Angus has really become, esp. after the Attawapiskat issue, the great big looming shoulda-woulda-coulda of this leadership race--because truly, if he were leader, he *could* have the kind of charismatic sea-to-sea-to-shining-sea reach that'd take what Jack started and thrust it into majority territory, with breakthroughs in hitherto marginal or lately-terminally-suppressed realms...
Except, he doesn't speak good French. Ask Chisholm how that turned out, or should-a would-a could-a Jack Harris, or many others in the NDP's very talented caucus; and before anyone cries foul about the French bar what about Hélène Laverdière? She would make an excellent leader, but her English is not fluid enough. Turmel has faced similar challenges in the langue de Shakespeare. Also, is anyone seriously complaining about 8 candidates in the race being too little? Pre-Layton NDP, you would have risked having more people on stage than in the audience!
ETA: I didn't mean to sound mean, but we are going to have to get used to a lot of our favourite MPs getting passed over for good jobs. There is just too much talent in the caucus now for everyone to get what they want. The Liberals suffered under this in the past, so many MPs that thought they were the cat's meow (and sometimes everybody else did too), and thought they deserved cabinet seats (and again maybe they did), but there were only so many spots to go around. At the end of the day, all of the "I should be in cabinet" whining or "I've done my time" greatly contributed to a perception of arrogance and entitlement. The NDP culture, whether it is practiced every day or not, is about solidarity. For instance, if Mulcair loses, I hope all his supporters (myself presently included), will redouble their efforts to build the party. That's just the way it's done.
Nothing to see here gutter-sniping Rae Liberals.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1114196--brian-topp-s-ndp-leadership...
Stupid, yellow journalism. As if they don't have enough real scandals and corruption to report about.
I haven't made my mind up about Dewar.
In casual political circles, he definitely comes across as likeable, which is a plus. He's been a solid New Democrat and (apparently) is very well-versed in foreign policy issues.
On the other hand, I can't imagine him taking it to Harper. Not saying I need someone tough, but I can't even imagine him having a smooth and confident response without stumbling back to talking points that don't directly answer the question. Also, foreign policy isn't my top priority right now, and I think a lot of Canadians feel the same way. What policy announcements I've seen trumped up in the media, like quotas for female candidates, are "nice" at best, and at worst seem completely out of touch with the biggest problems in this country.
Of course, I only have a few YouTube videos and one leadership debate to go on, plus the shoddy big media coverage.
Which is why I'm not trying to make up my mind in January.
P.S... why is it that none of the candidates have tried to campaign as the "Prime Minister of jobs"? For most people, even people who have jobs, I think this is the top issue, and it will be a few years from now in the shadow of global austerity.
Dewar, Singh and Cullen are not even on my list now. I'll be happy with any of Mulcair, Topp, Saganash, Nash, or Ashton as leader, although I think Mulcair will win it, maybe by a squeaker.
Peggy Nash said back on Dec. 11:
I also think that an important element is proportional representation. The first-past-the-post system in a complex federation like Canada – a multi-party democracy – is better served by some form of proportional representation. We'd get a better balance of diversity in that kind of electoral system.
Fine, and nothing new. That's party policy.
Has she said anything more specific? Anything to compare with Brian Topp's specifics?
Where are people going with their second choice I suppose is the question as to who is best going to be able to defeat Harper and the Cons?
Peggy Nash and Brian Topp released economic planks yesterday, I'm suprised they are not being debated that much here...
NR asked: "Where are people going with their second choice I suppose is the question as to who is best going to be able to defeat Harper and the Cons?"
Good question. Because, to beat Harper, you not only have to be able to handle him one-on-one in Question Period and the electoral debates, but you also have to really energise the caucus and the voting public, and all the other stuff that being a Leader entails. Tall order.
Peggy Nash and Brian Topp released economic planks yesterday, I'm suprised they are not being debated that much here...
I'm on their mailing lists, but haven't received those yet.
I haven't made my mind up about Dewar.
In casual political circles, he definitely comes across as likeable, which is a plus. He's been a solid New Democrat and (apparently) is very well-versed in foreign policy issues.
On the other hand, I can't imagine him taking it to Harper. Not saying I need someone tough, but I can't even imagine him having a smooth and confident response without stumbling back to talking points that don't directly answer the question.
Issue I raised before... the candidate can be quite likable but still not suited to be leader. Dion comes to mind. Most people I know thought he was a good guy but not prime minister material.
To be honest, I don't see Dewar as being a deer in the headlights candidate. I think he has more political smarts than people give him credit for... minus the Deputy Leader issue.
I'm not looking to be mean, plus the Dewar campaign can view this as constructive criticism if they want. Plus the thread is getting close to full, so I'll say it.
We've heard so much about Topp fidgeting during the debates. I noticed this too. What I have yet to hear, but fully noticed myself, especially at the BC Town Hall, is that when the camera goes to Dewar during debates, when someone else is talking, Dewar has his mouth hanging wide open. Often in the BC Town Hall he looked like he was on (too many) sedatives.
Most of the criticisms I have of the candidates at this point are "things to work on", not "reasons I can never support them." (e.g.: likeability, dullness, delivery, vagueness...)
The last debate was boring across the board. And a lot of people fell back onto talking points and value statements we all agree with. Plus people needed time to get their feet wet and introduce themselves.
The next debate will hopefully see a few candidates kick it to a higher level.
Just to recap: I read that the Liberal leadership candidates may be MPs David McGuinty and Marc Garneau, and defeated MP Mark Holland. Nice guys.
I'd say any of the serious NDP leadership candidates would be head and shoulders above any of them. What a strong field!
The world will change the moment we understand that we need to respect women's (and others') rights, not protect them. We need to stand as partners and allies, not saviours. The whole damsel in distress thing is a pretty enabler that perpetuates continued oppression. It's a variation of the White Man's Burden.
One thing Dewar said, policy-wise, during the BC Town Hall was that we should send our military abroad to protect women's rights in foreign countries. This makes me nervous, because IMO this rationale has been falsely used to sell the war in Afghanistan.
Our military has been converted from a peace keeping army to a strike force. I'm not sure how Dewar's plan will work. And given things that Dewar has said during his tenure as Foreign Affairs critic, I am not comfortable with this idea.
I think there is much value in protecting women's rights abroad but I don't think our military should be involved.
Yeah, that's another reason why I'm not big on Dewar's foreign policy "expertise". Somehow, the media annoints Canadian "experts" who tend to be the ones who are ready to copy the American policy, but back it up with some sort of social justice bend. If Dewar wants to campaign on foreign policy, he's gonna have to be specific on what actions he wants Canada to take on the world stage.
Dewar was talking about the Congo, and other places where rape is being used as an instrument of war, and I think he was talking about a peace-keeping mission rather than a military one.
Anyone who didn't see Stephen Lewis' incredibly powerful speech on the urgent new problem of rape and crimes against women being the new big problem in Africa, at the June NDP convention, can watch it again here on CPAC.
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&h...
Why are we worried about rape and crimes against women in the Congo when we haven't solved rape and crimes against women in Canada?
Why are we worried about rape and crimes against women in the Congo when we haven't solved rape and crimes against women in Canada?
Watch that Stephen Lewis video; there is no comparison between the two situations.
Strong NDP turnout to hear leadership candidates
Debate almost didn't happen
Strong NDP turnout to hear leadership candidates
Debate almost didn't happen
Brian, get well soon, and condolences to Cullen.
My concern about the Dewar endorsements echos what has been said above. In designating Angus as his Deputy Leader and anointing Duncan for environment, he creates the appearance that those who come onside will benefit from doing so.This may not be fair but the appearance is nevertheless there (yes, I know what the reality is - most politicians are ambitious - but appearances matter). Do not get me wrong. I think they are both great MPs. If Mulcair is not named Deputy Leader after a Dewar victory, how will Quebec react? If Mulcair is named Deputy Leader, does Libby Davis lose her position as Deputy Leader? The most successful political leaders build their front benches by including strong representation from all (or at least the major) campaigns, minimizing the risk of alienating any group or key individuals. Hopefully, there will not be too many more designations of front bench members during the campaign. The leader needs flexibility to deal with competing ambitions, issues and regional interests.
Peggy Nash and Brian Topp released economic planks yesterday, I'm suprised they are not being debated that much here...
What is even more surprising is that they have not been gathered here to provide substantive material as an antidote to the peripatetic speculation. But then "economics" is not a priority demand.
Notwithstanding the pretty sad state of political journalism nationally in Canada these days, David Akin is actually providing some of the best TV coverage of the NDP leadership race.
Here he is from yesterday, interviewing Peggy Nash and then Paul Dewar.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/ndp-...
![http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fail.jpg[/img]](http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fail.jpg[/img]){kind=link}