I just came from an all-candidates' debate in my riding.

My major overall reaction is oh my gawd we are screwed.

There were eight candidates, I don't remember all the names so I'll cite their political affiliations to be fair:

The Conservative candidate really didn't get it.  He spouted the usual Harper stuff, contradicted the Conservatives' unwritten policy a couple times, and went on a couple of tirades against the Communist candidate.  He seemed to think the Communist candidate was some sort of actual threat against his candidacy, I felt like I was watching a weird high school model debate set in the 1980s whenever he talked.  (I still don't understand gay Conservatives)

To his left was the Marxist-Leninist candidate who was fairly tapped in, but ended the evening with "vote for me and the Marxist-Leninist... or one of the other minor party candidates." 

To his left was Bob Rae, Liberal candidate, the MP for the riding, and the obvious future winner (damn non-proportional representation).  He was pretty smug, practically ignored a number of the other candidates, even when they directly attacked him, and cited a number of accomplishment that were dubiously his.  He seemed very committed to the Liberal platform (having co-authored it), especially the right-wing portions of it that I really didn't like.  Now I know why El-Farouk Khaki, at his previous nomination, called Bob Rae a Tory.

Next was Ellen Michelson the Green candidate, who disappointed me a little.  When she got them across, her opinions mostly aligned with mine, and she generally understood how to deal with our problems and seemed genuinely interested in getting elected which is something I often doubt in the Green party.  She seemed to struggle on occasion, though, and did tout the one major platform I disapprove of, income splitting.  I was hoping she'd wow me but only marginally made me not disapprove.

Next was an independant candidate, Gerald something.  He's run for mayor twice, failing miserably both times, and now I understand why.  His best line of the night was a statement that the military should only be used for fighting against alien invasions and we should just all get along.  Next.

Next was the Communist Party candidate who convinced me to vote Green.  Well, sort of.  He was the only one who openly acknowledged that Bob Rae was going to win whether anyone liked it or not, and encouraged people to vote for him knowing that he wouldn't win but that it would send the message to Ottawa that people supported his opinions and those of his party.  He was really intelligent and really clearly understood the economic, environmental, and foreign policy problems across the board (probably the only candidate, the NDP and Liberal candidates excepted, that clearly understood all the foreign policy issues presented).  I temporarily considered supporting him but he didn't quite have breadth in some of the issues presented by people asking questions - it wasn't always clear where he stood, or that he knew where he stood -- but when he did know, he got it.  Either way, his point of sending a message to Ottawa knowing he wouldn't get elected reminded me of the unfortunate situation I'm in - support Bob Rae or cast a protest vote - and made me realize that while I wouldn't necessarily want Ellen Michelson as my MP, I really support her ideas and opinions, and those of her party with some exceptions, and perhaps that's where my vote should go, lacking any better options.

To his left (in geography only) should have been El-Farouk Khaki, the NDP candidate -- but in his place was Susan Wallace, the woman who ran against him for the Toronto Centre nomination, and despite tying him twice, lost on the final vote by a controversial chairperson vote.  Turns out, she's been nominated in Willowdale, which made me happy.  Her performance was astounding - this woman really gets it.  I hope she runs for Prime Minister one day.  While she didn't convince me to vote for El-Farouk (his indignance on getting this nomination despite the clear vote of non-confidence, combined with my upsetness at the party for abandoning both its environmental and economic policies for a more centrist set of policies, ensured that I won't be supporting them this election), it reminded me of my reassurance in the party when she ran for the nomination.  It makes me hope that there is opportunity to change, to bring the party back to the left, and to select new leadership.  It makes me almost not want to let my membership lapse -- though we'll see how things go.

And, finally, was the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party (or something like that)... it's a national party with only one candidate, the leader, and she's in our riding.  She clearly gets it, and had interesting and positive opinions on a number of issues, but is clearly a one-issue party/candidate.  I briefly considered supporting her, too, until she give a similar comment to the Marxist-Leninist in her closing comment about voting for someone other than her.

So, in conclusion - I'm still undecided, but I think I've narrowed down my choices.  It's basically down to the Green Party, or spoiling my ballot.  Eek.

sigh.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/511741

Well, what a debate.

I liked the round (oval? egg-shaped?) table format, it did provide for a little more engaging, though it was still very poorly moderated.

Pretty well everyone ganged up on Harper... I liked that, but I wish they'd all been able to move past that and focus on what THEY were going to do -- Harper himself made a good point that they were all doing a great audition to be in the opposition.  That said, he said virtually nothing of value in the entire debate.

I have to say I was a little disappointed with Elizabeth May - she was really strong on criticizing Harper and Layton on the environment (it's a little ambiguous about what Gilles Duceppe would do, though he seemed to notionally support the Greens and Liberals on it), and blasted the other leaders on some of the economy and gun crime issues but didn't really get very far on anything.  Stephen Harper, for his part though, pretty well ignored her and, in my opinion, looked a little bit like a patronizing so-and-so

Jack and Gilles (how did I JUST notice this combination of names now) both went on the offensive against everyone (except for Elizabeth May), and even squared off against one another a couple times... neither of them really said much, though.  Coming out of the debate I'm even more confused about what either of them thinks about anything - though I'm very clear that they both think they're the valid alternative to Stephen Harper.

Stéphane Dion, I think, was the one overwhelming surprise - he was very collected and together, and downright on top of things throughout the debate.  He got in when he needed to in order to challenge his opponents, and was remarkably prepared to deal with all the issues and often expressed his opinions and his party's platforms quite concisely and clearly.  Is this the same Stéphane Dion we've seen the last few weeks??

Unfortunately, I'm still tragically undecided.