We watched the debate last night - although we talked through parts of it, doing our own not-so-trenchant analysis, like making fun of the candidates' facial expressions. (We're mature, yeah.) I also watched the analysis on The National.
There's no shortage of post-mortems out there, and mine's not worth adding to the pile. Feel free to expound if you feel like it. I'll just repeat: I'm worried.
One overall criticism I've been hearing that I don't understand is that none of the candidates is offering a vision of Canada. One of the undecided voters that The National has been tracking felt the campaign was bogged down in specifics, without a big picture. Personally, I can do without - as they call it in the US - "the vision thing". A country doesn't need to be remade every time it goes to the polls, especially in this Parliamentary system, where that happens fairly often.
I do think the Conservatives have a different vision of Canada, which they're purposely not spelling out too clearly. The NDP has one, too, and I can only hope they win enough seats - in any election - to help the country inch slowly towards it. But in an election campaign, I prefer specifics over vision. Vision often comes down to who has the better slogans and speech writers.
I wanted to tune in to the French-language debate tonight, just to see if Stephen Harper sounds as funny in French as Gilles Duceppe does in English. (I told you, real mature.) But while they're having at it, we'll be wining and dining in our week-late anniversary dinner.
* * * *
I never highlight silly little news items, but this was just too funny. Do you think this person watches too much TV? Do you think they changed the channel for her once in a while?