Where's your platform? Under your sweater?

My gut reaction last night was as follows:

• May and Layton were both terrific, although each of them lost me for brief stretches
• Dion was better than everybody said he'd be, but still nothing special
• Duceppe was alternately great and kind of boring, and
• Harper looked really pretty bad most of the time, and certainly not the way he wanted to come across at all.

The thing is, for once I had absolutely no read on whether all this was just how I and others like me had reacted--people with both my policy preferences and my rhetorical style preferences, that is--or whether people with different biases might feel the same. But then I read this. And I figured if my own impressions had that much in common with those of the most conservative Canadian blogger I read, there must be something to them.

The final word on the format: keep it. It's not perfect, but with so many people in the debate, nothing's going to be, and this was the first Canadian debate I've seen that actually looked like they were talking to each other. (Remember 2004? With the "let's pair people off and make them each debate each other completely randomly for thirty seconds before switching them up?" Yeah, ugh.)

Linkfest

I'm busier than a beaver on crack right now, so no real posts for the next couple of days. To tide you over, though, here are some links:

James Bow said absolutely everything I was planning to say about last night's leaders' debate. (This would scare me, but I figure a girl can do worse than thinking more like James Bow than she'd realized.) In short: much improved format, terrific moderator, and while every one of the four did better than last time, Harper and Layton were most on their game.

Yesterday's Ottawa Citizen had the best newspaper story on proportional representation I have ever seen. It's thorough without being too detailed, and it manages to be balanced without getting a single fact wrong.

I'm going to be on the CBC's RadioActive this afternoon, which runs from 4PM to 6PM Mountain Time (6-8 Eastern), as part of a new-Canadian-and-first-time-voters' panel commenting on the election. It's radio, so it doesn't come along with a glimpse at my mug, but anyone who cares to can listen live here.

English debate roundup

You know, I'm very much a "look on the bright side" sort of person, but somehow I can't manage to come out of this debate with all that much good to say about anybody.

I expected Martin to be lousy, and he didn't disappoint. He seemed frighteningly out of touch, particularly when he essentially told the disabled woman to get a job, and when he had the temerity to utter the words "the major cities are doing well." (Does he not realize that this country is second only to Australia in its urbanness? Does he not realize that many of those city-dwellers vote Liberal?) He stumbled through most of his responses, his "they" rather than "we" when he was talking about Quebecers was a big no-no, and the my-father-was-Tommy-Douglas bit was truly annoying. He did hit a home run in response to the Quebec question, though, when he turned to Duceppe and ranted, and the angle on him was just perfect. I'd bet good money that that picture is going to be on the front page of the Globe and Mail and the Star tomorrow, too. [Edited to add: Wow! I must be psychic!]

I had high expectations of Duceppe, but he did disappoint. I think he's better in the other format; in 2004 he looked laid back, like he was just going to take it easy while the other guys got all riled up. This year he just looked bored. His one really good line was "the West wants in, and Quebec wants out." Clever. Although I did have to wonder, if he really believes so strongly that they shouldn't have a free vote on a question that has already been answered, as he said in response to the same-sex marriage question, then what's all this fuss about another referendum?

Harper was the surprise of the night--he is a superb debater, but tonight, at least 75% of the time, he was bad, bad, bad. It's funny, because I remember him being so excellent in 2004, and wishing "my side" were as good at making strong, rational arguments. This year, though, he had no energy. He'd clearly been told to smile, but when he tried, he just looked creepy. When he didn't, he looked depressed, as if he'd just found out his dog had died. I did enjoy it when he indirectly accused Ralph Klein of "dishonest fiscal management," but otherwise this was a terrible evening for Mr. Harper.

Layton was very hot and cold. When he was good, he was great. When he was bad, he was cringeworthy. The opening statement--bad. The turning toward Martin and ending up turning his back on the camera--really bad (though I suspect a lot of that was the camerawork rather than his doing). He also did the worst job of all four men of coping with being cut off prematurely. On the other hand, he was terrific on same-sex marriage--he looked both serious and sincere. Mentioning Saskatchewan directly was incredibly savvy, and I'm sure it won him some votes. He seemed like a really genuinely good person much of the time, with very little of the "Guy Smiley" that he's been so chastised for. My personal disappointment of the night, though, was that he didn't bring up proportional representation as a partial solution to western alienation. I know why he didn't--it's not something that you can explain in thirty-second sound bites, after all--but it was such a missed bet.

I sent in a question, and it even got as far as them writing back for my phone number, but apparently I didn't make the final cut, alas. Here's to a better round in January.

Very abbreviated English debate roundup

In brief: Harper was, like it or not, the clear winner, ending up looking like the only guy in the room with any sense of maturity. Martin was the worst speaker of the four, but he didn't completely fall on his face, so there's still a race going on out there. Layton spoke well, but used the completely opposite strategy from the one I'd hoped and expected he would use: he spent most of his time attacking Martin, despite the fact that in his ideal outcome his party will be forming a coalition with Martin's. Which meant that I spent much of the time he was talking banging my head against whatever flat surface was nearest to me at the time. And finally, for Duceppe the English debate was a formality, as none of the people who are going to vote for his party were actually watching, so he got to sort of kick back and engage in his favourite sport of Martin-bashing. It was really kind of fun to watch him be so relaxed. I apologize to all of the Genuine Canadians out there who may find the very existence of the Bloc to be offensive, but I rather like Duceppe.

So, nobody crashed and burned, nobody said they were going to fuck taxes (unlike in the French debate!), and the electorate is still undecided. For people who want something more substantive and lengthy, Andrew Coyne's temperature-taking of the various punditry.