Coverage of the Leadership Campaign - Part Two

The story this past weekend has been how the Liberal leadership is being run for by non-liberals, etc etc. First of all, there are plenty of candidates from the Liberal past to go around. So, if these supposed outsiders are the front-runners, well, that doesn't speak to a lack of anything, but to that they must obviously have some legitimacy to Liberals, which is what matters. They have not filled a void left by the passing up of the spot by others (see past post-generally, I doubt a Fontana, or Cauchon, or Goddfrey, would agree they have no history with the party).

Now I would question the legitimacy of some such leadership contenders myself. I understand that line of argument. However, what is incorrect is grouping them all into one. I'm sure it makes good copy, but the fact is Bob Rae, Belinda Stronach, and Michael Ignatieff are totally unique cases.

They are said to be similarly distinct. Perhaps, but this is not enough. Rae has never been a liberal, but broke years ago with the NDP. Stronach was a Conservative but has been a Liberal cabinet minister. Ignatieff has been an outsider, but has been a lifelong liberal, and so not the ideological outsider the others have been historically. People will make different cases for which holds the most legitimacy. But this difference should not be downplayed for the sake of expediency, especially when such comparisons are being utilized to make a grand statement about the field of contenders, and relatedly, the state of the party.

-Steve