|
| quote: | Originally posted by musicsnob_NOT
Wow, Rae and Ignatieff's infighting almost cost the Democrats the U.S. election...you learn somethng every day.
What else do you expect Rae and Ignatieff to say? We're going to trash and run a negative campaign? |
f u...poor wording on my part. you know what I mean. :P
I think there's widespread concensus that the WAY too long, and sometimes negative, leadership campaigns of Clinton and Obama have severely damaged the Democrats' chances of winning the U.S. eleciton. A joint ticket would have been a guaranteed election win and otherwise choosing leader earlier would have put them in a much better position than they're in now.
Hillary waited WAY too long to endorse Obama. It was clear she would not be his running mate before he announced Biden (financials for her were not requested, as is the case for all those being considered), and she has since said that she wants no senior role in his gov't should he win.
That kind of bullshit is exactly what the Liberals need to avoid.
The *last* thing they need is a long, drawn out leadership contest that will fracture the party (again), perhaps resulting in another '3rd or 4th choice' squeaking through (again) and cost a fortune that the party does not have (they've talked about not even approaching the spending caps permitted, IIRC?)
That Ignatieff and Rae have (supposedly) met several times and (supposedly) agreed to avoid that scenario is hopefully an indication that they, and the party, realize that individual interests need to be secondary. Time will tell if that's bullshit posturing for the public and/or the party.
The Liberals need an expedient leadership race, with the entire party rallying around whomever is chosen.
|
