I will begin with Pierre Trudeau. In my opinion he was the best Liberal leader of the twentieth century. He gave international visibility to Canada and his reforms on immigration, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and human rights is an extraordinary legacy which will be cherished for decades to come.
Then there was John Turner. The hopes were high for him, he had an image and reputation as Minister of Finance. However, as leader he was lacklustre and he paid a heavy price at the polls.
After that was Jean Chrétien. He was a relatively underestimated leader, but he showed extraordinary political skills and instinct. He pretty well demolished the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. I had the opportunity to listen to Chrétien at a small forum. I found him to be very bright, humorous, and down to earth. He connected well with the needs of ordinary Canadians and overall was an extraordinary Prime Minister. Also, it is important to remember that before his time as Prime Minister, during his tenure as a Cabinet Minister in the Trudeau government, Chrétien played a key role in the negotiations that led to the Charter of Rights.
After Chrétien came Paul Martin. Again, there were high expectation - Martin did exceptionally well as Finance Minister. His intentions were good but as leader he faltered and caused serious divisions in the party. This was especially the case as he tried to get even with the Chrétien Liberals. This was a major force which, in the end, brought him down.
Then there was Stéphane Dion who unexpectedly won the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Dion's heart was in the right place, he is sincere, principled, and very intelligent. Unfortunately though, he was not a great communicator, especially with regards to the English language. As well, he did not have full support of his caucus and knives were constantly out for him.
Now comes Michael Ignatieff. Initially, I thought he had potential and that he would do well as leader given his background and international experience. But he turned out to be more an American conservative than a Canadian Liberal. Ignatieff's hawkish positions on Afghanistan and Iraq are distressing. When he was first running for the leadership, he did take the position that Israel's bombing of Lebanon was excessive. However, the pro-Israel lobby prevailed on him and since then his positions have been very distressful.
Despite Israel's murder and mayhem in Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009, Ignatieff gave even stronger support to them than did Harper and Bush. Ignatieff sounds like someone who wants to be Prime Minister at any cost. Also, he does not quite understand the grassroots in Canada.
One more thing, not entirely related, that I would like to add. I am not sure why the blogger Anxious Liberal was dropped from Liberals Online. I read his post on Ignatieff. It is a strong opinion, but primarily he calls the actions in question "unethical" and not "illegal." For this reason, I do not see it to be libellous. Unfortunately, this word libellous has been used too casually I find.
It would be greatly appreciated if James Curran will give some explanation because this particular aggregate is about tolerance of diverse opinions as long as they are not libellous. After all, tolerance of diversity was the primary reason for the foundation of this aggregate in the first place.
