"Bob Rae Is Dumb."

Of all the political rebukes I've heard, this one is the most entertaining. Ralph Klein is reported to have called Bob Rae "dumb." The article states:

Alberta's shoot-from-the-lip Premier Ralph Klein says federal Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae is a "dumb politician."

Klein, never one to mince words during his 14-year term, told the Sun yesterday that "education bears no relationship to intelligence" and that for all his education, the former Ontario premier is "dumb."

Ralph even goes further to differentiate his judgement. Ralph does not mean that his calling Rae dumb is anyway related to political differences, but he literally thinks Bob Rae is dumb.

He said the former NDP leader "just added to the accumulated debt in that province and drove up the deficit" after taking over the premier's office from the outgoing David Peterson Liberals.

"God knows what he did. He's the only person that I know of that had a day named after him: Rae Days," Klein said, referring to the unpaid holidays provincial bureaucrats were required to take to cut costs.

The outgoing dean of Canadian premiers didn't explain why he harbours such animosity for Rae, but conceded he has disliked him since Rae hosted a premier's conference in Toronto.

Calling the gathering "the worst meeting I have ever attended," Klein recalls that Rae chastised him for his tardy arrival.

"Of course, I was up late ... Bob Rae made a point of pointing out that I was late for breakfast or that I missed breakfast."

He indicated it isn't just a Conservative-NDP thing.

Klein, 63, who is stepping down at year's end, said he had a good relationship with former Saskatchewan NDP premier Roy Romanow, but never with Rae.

"I had a lot of time for Roy, notwithstanding our political differences. Bob Rae, I had no time for whatsoever," Klein said bluntly.

The article also mentions Klein does not have much clout to judge intelligence because he was afterall a highschool dropout. But as Klein himself stipulates, education can exist solely on paper.

Bob Rae's Experience

I have given Bob Rae a rough time, but let it be known that some of his policies are more congruent to my own view then some of the other candidates' excluding Gerard Kennedy of course. Nonetheless I am having a problem with some of the selling points the Rae campaign is using. Recently they have been stressing his experience, now I'm not from Ontario, but I do read newspapers, and here is one Ontarioian's opinion about Rae from the Toronto Star:

Bob Rae wants to run on his experience? It is the worst kind of spin to try and turn a one-term disaster as provincial premier into the sort of "experience" that qualifies one to be prime minister. Rae has had success in recent years, but always outside politics. As a politician, he was a thorough disaster. He cut places in medical school and we now have a shortage of doctors. He dropped nurses from the health-care system, posing a threat to future patient care. He hired more public servants, yet subsequently told them to take unpaid "Rae days" off. From Ontario, I say this — some experience.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Bastedo, Toronto

What I'm getting at is, Bob Rae, and your campaign, don't try to sell his experience,.....it's not good.

Consider Bob Rae's 'experience' to Gerard Kennedy's. As his website states:

In 1986, Kennedy was recruited to Toronto to establish T he Daily Bread Food Bank, which he served as executive director until 1996. There Gerard mobilized church groups, social service organizations, corporate CEOs, and the public in order to run the organization without a dime of government money. Every month, he was responsible for the collection and distribution of food to more than 150,000 people - $30 million worth of food annually. Gerard also participated in local initiatives to develop food banks in Quebec City, Halifax, Ottawa, St. John's and abroad, including Ireland, France, Poland, Israel and the Ukraine.

Gerard Kennedy most recently served as the Minister of Education in Ontario and as a member of the Planning and Priorities Board of Cabinet. With responsibility for two million students, 4,800 schools and a $17 billion annual budget, he led a turnaround in publicly-funded education in the province over the past two and a half years, following a decade of conflict, cutbacks and turmoil.

First elected as a Member of Provincial Parliament in a 1996 by-election to replace former NDP Premier Bob Rae, Kennedy took the riding of York South for the Liberal Party for the first time in its 70 year history. He was re-elected in 1999 and 2003 (by a three-to-one margin over his nearest competitor) in the modified riding of Parkdale-High Park following redistribution.

In the 1996 Ontario Liberal leadership race, Mr. Kennedy came second to now Premier Dalton McGuinty. He has served the Ontario Liberal Party in a variety of capacities:

Chair of its reform commission, 1997
Head of the membership renewal project, 1999

Co-chair of key committees of policy, communications and organization for election readiness, 2003
Kennedy developed the Excellence for All education platform that has been the first priority for the McGuinty government
He established the Liberal Education Advisor Program (LEAP) to engage party members in current and future directions in education.

A Matter of Question

I had seen a few months ago that Michael Ignatieff had missed the vote on the Kelowna Accord, and in itself was not as great of an indignation as is happening now.

Michael Ignatieff says if he is elected Prime Minister, he will renew a Liberal commitment to Canada's aboriginal people.

During a meeting with the Prince Albert Grand Council, Ignatieff released his aboriginal strategy.

He says government investments in health, education and entrepreneurship are key to ensuring that aboriginal people enjoy equality of opportunity.

Ignatieff says he will revive the five billion dollar Kelowna Accord.

The Conservatives refused to support the accord, and instead offered a number of significantly less expensive measures in their spring budget.

The article can be read here.
Now I wasn't going to harp on the fact that Ignatieff missed a vote on the Kelowna Accord and as such was not necessary for it, but then he takes seemingly a 180 degree position on it, and says he would actually revive it. But wasn't he partly responsible for it to be in the condition that it needed to be revived?

The Conservative website even furthers the issue by stating Michael didn't miss one vote on Kelowna, but two! You can read it here.

If Michael is going to lead by example, how can he revive an accord he contributed to its defeat?

Funny The Difference 13 Days Makes For The Candidates



And this was just from the Toronto debate, imagine how hypocritical these candidates would appear if that footage was included as well. I'm not saying certain candidates weren't baited, or certain candidates weren't posing legitimate statements, what I am posing is that the end conclusion, is different then what they had said a mere 13 days prior to the Toronto debate.

I wonder what could have happened to alter the tone of this race? Was it the questioning of delegates by certain campaigns? Please comment because I really find this interesting.

Jeez, Wasn't I Just Thinking This?

From today's National Post, here is an article about the leadership candidates. More importantly, why are people ignoring the obvious?

"It's the pundits who are provincial"

National Post, Thursday 19 Oct 2006

Page: A17 Section: Issues & Ideas Byline: Adam Radwanski



Little, it seems, will disqualify you from the federal Liberal leadership. You can stay out of the country for 30 years, support the Iraq war, have little grip on domestic policy and say anything that pops into your head -- and, like Michael Ignatieff, remain front-runner.



You can run one of the most unpopular provincial governments in Canadian history, spend most of your adult life in the NDP, surround yourself with the cronies of a former prime minister and make a determined effort not to put forward policies -- and, like Bob Rae, be painted as the candidate with "momentum."



You can speak shaky English, position yourself as the green candidate despite a middling record as environment minister and have all the charisma of a Coke machine -- and, like Stephane Dion, be cast as the scrappy underdog. Just don't, under any circumstances, speak imperfect French and fail to build a Quebec organization: the sure sign of an also-ran who doesn't have what it takes.



That, at least, is the consensus of most Ottawa pundits. But the way they've written off Gerard Kennedy says more about them than him. Truth is, the casual dismissal of the former Ontario education minister in Ottawa circles -- and the ensuing lack of coverage of his campaign -- has little to do with his lack of support in Quebec, particularly when none of the candidates has any real traction with the general public there. What it's about is a paternalistic contempt for provincial politicians held by people who've spent too long in the capital -- a perspective summarized neatly by The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson at the outset of the race. Kennedy, Simpson suggested, lacked the substance to make it in "the nation's capital -- the big leagues of national politics, if you'll pardon the arrogance." Evidently, the arrogance was pardoned by colleagues.



When Kennedy finished third in delegate selection meetings, columnists such as the Globe's John Ibbitson and the Toronto Star's Chantal Hebert made the assessment that the best he could hope for was to be kingmaker -- as opposed to Dion, who'd finished fourth but still had a shot. That Ottawa is the "big leagues," and provincial politics the minors, may be a natural conceit for those toiling in the capital. If Liberals across the country follow their lead, though, they could be doing themselves a disservice. Of course federal politics should attract the best and brightest, which is why guys like Kennedy try to make the move. But to brush off his accomplishments at the provincial level is to dismiss the sorts of qualities of which the federal Liberals are desperately in need.



This is a party struggling to acquire a sense of purpose -- to prove it can make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That's not something it's likely to get from Ignatieff, who's been more apt to wade into esoteric constitutional debates. It can hardly be expected from Rae, who's effectively promising a less proactive brand of government than Jean Chretien offered. Dion may be a better hope, but his post-Clarity Act record of actually making things happen is spotty. Kennedy, meanwhile, comes from a level of government responsible for the services (health, education, social assistance) that actually affect the everyday lives of Canadians. He's honed his skill in one of the most difficult ministries at that level, restoring calm to schools after a period of chaos that began under Rae. And even outside his portfolio, he was widely acknowledged as the provincial Cabinet's most influential voice on social policy.



There are legitimate reasons to oppose Kennedy. He has a reputation for being a micromanager and a loner. If you're not on the centre-left of the party, some of his opinions -- including that Canada should get out of Afghanistan if NATO doesn't change its mandate -- are worrisome. But next to this field, can he really be dismissed as a lightweight? Only if you've spent too much time in Ottawa.



adamradwanski@gmail.com

Gerard Amazed In The Debate

Stephane Dion Doesn't Attack Harper

This is a clip of Stephane Dion, who instead of taking the opportunity to blast Harper on childcare , changes the subject to fulfill his more individualistic and selfish means. I put forth Dion did attack Harper quite aggressively in previous sections but the manner he does so in this clip shows a sort of arrogance or boredom with attacking Harper. I must say Stephane, not very becoming of a potential Leader.

What Did Michael Mean?

Here is a good blog that posted this article. I read both and I think Ignatieff needs to really clarify what he said. What he said was either right or it was wrong. Either he said Israel committed a war crime or it did not. The article brings up a good point, Ignatieff cannot say Israel committed a war crime, but didn't.

Michael has to explain what he meant. Did he mean Israel committed a war crime or didn't he?

For anyone wanting to explain what Michael meant please read this article, included in full here:

Mr. Ignatieff's sorry version of even-handedness
CLIFFORD ORWIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Michael Ignatieff? What is it with the guy? He's so intelligent, so articulate, so capable of writing books that impress even me, a hard sell -- and so prone to making an ass of himself. This is nobody's recipe for success as prime minister.

Mr. Ignatieff's latest gaffe was the last straw, a lollapalooza following a series of mere doozies. Speaking on a Quebec radio show, he addressed the question of the Israeli air raid in Qana, Lebanon, on July 30 during the war with Hezbollah, in the aftermath of which 28 civilian deaths occurred. (Note my careful phrasing; we'll return to it.) "What happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear."

Clear that it was a war crime, or clear that he should have said it? Well, actually, neither. When contacted by a reporter, an aide said that, while Mr. Ignatieff would not retract his use of the term "war crime," that use had been misunderstood.

So rather than retract his statement, Mr. Ignatieff retracted our understanding of it. What he had meant, according to aide Leslie Church, was that "this was a tragedy of war, that this was a deplorable act of war, that this was a terrible consequence of war." He would never have been so irresponsible as to declare a finding in international law on a talk show.

Well, that's a relief. Ms. Church is Mr. Ignatieff's spokeswoman, so she must know. Mr. Ignatieff was speaking in French, so perhaps crime de guerre or however he put it is best rendered in English as "really sad event." Mr. Ignatieff's French is awfully good, so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

The thing is that to imply that Israel was guilty of a war crime -- indeed, that it was clearly guilty of one -- is to declare a finding in international law. It is a grave charge demanding equally weighty evidence. If Mr. Ignatieff possesses such evidence, he should provide it. Oops, I forgot: He said but didn't mean that Israel was guilty of a war crime.

There was clearly a war crime committed at Qana -- by Hezbollah. To use civilians as shields, as Hezbollah did at Qana as throughout Lebanon, is a war crime. Not only did it attack Israel using missile launchers deliberately sited in civilian areas (and sometimes inside civilian dwellings), but it had constructed civilian buildings (and even mosques) atop its buried military infrastructure so that Israel could not attack it without exacting a civilian toll.
I

srael had every right to target those missile launchers, to target military infrastructure, to target dual-use infrastructure. It remained obliged, under these circumstances, to minimize civilian losses as much as is possible. That it did so, as a matter of general policy, is confirmed by what was, in fact, a very low toll in the conflict. So many days of bombing, and only a thousand civilian casualties (many of whom were almost certainly fighters whom Hezbollah refused to declare as such, thus suppressing the number of its losses while inflating civilian ones).
As to the Qana incident, much remains uncertain. We know that Hezbollah was firing missiles from nearby. We know that many hours passed between the air raid on the adjacent launchers and the collapse of the building. What happened during those hours? Why were the residents not moved? And what of the Israelis' claim that they had assumed the building was deserted? We don't possess sure answers to any of these questions, and neither does Mr. Ignatieff.

Mr. Ignatieff hasn't always been so hard on Israel over civilian casualties in Lebanon. While the war still raged, he said he wasn't losing any sleep over civilian deaths. That sounded both foolish and callous. But maybe he didn't mean it, as he doesn't mean other important things he says.

But he did say it, and so felt called on to unsay it, by making his recent equally injudicious remark. Having earlier alienated Muslims, one erstwhile Liberal constituency, he has now atoned by offending Jews, another.

Late yesterday, Mr. Ignatieff issued a statement reaffirming his lifelong support for Israel and its right to defend itself, and describing Qana as a "terrible human tragedy." He did not clarify or allude to his recent remark about the war crime.
Is Mr. Ignatieff condemned to lurch from one wrong to another, hoping that somehow the two will make a right? Is this his sorry version of even-handedness? The usual likenings of him to George Bush are partisan, malicious and unfair. But, to quote the late Ann Richards's great line, Mr. Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth. Will this prove Mr. Ignatieff's epitaph as well?

Clifford Orwin is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and director of the Munk Centre's program in political philosophy and international affairs.

Michael Ignatieff In The News

A clip of Michael Ignatieff on CTV News, no publicity is bad publicity, right?

The Defence of Ignatieff By His Bloggers is Reminiscent of Republicans Defending Bush

On looking at the late replies by known Ignatieff supporters, notably Cerberus, TDH, and Red Tory, I see they have all taken a page from the Republican handbook. The republicans as we all know in the state vigorsously have defended George W. Bush's contant mistakes by justification that he says what he means, and thats what they like about him, even if what he says amounts to gross negligence.

But I expect these bloggers to take offence to this claim, but in honesty I take offence to these bloggers. How can any reasonable human being take the position: "Well, uh...what he said was wrong...and I disagree with him....but I respect him more...for ....uh...like being honest....that's why he's the best." I cannot believe anybody fully aware of their mental processes could make such a conclusion, yet the three above bloggers make such a declaration.

Cerberus puts his Republican defence like so, and just think about how this suits Bush as well as Ignatieff:

Like I have said before, Ignatieff will speak the truth as he sees it. His cards are on the table. There is no politician's mealy mouthed, equivocating, edge-less, not-sure-where-he-stands politician in him.

TDH immitates a Republican die hard defending Bush with this statement:

I have always sang the praises of Michael Ignatieff as a candidate who isn't scripted, and doesn't always advance the safest views and/or approaches within the political realm. Thus, I cannot all off a sudden come down too hard on him when I read this:

"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear."

But let me pose that TDH while repeating the closest explanation to that of a republican defending Bush, he also utters the most respectable statement:

With that said, however, my humble opinion tends to classify this characterization as inaccurate.

Red Tory posts the most blindly partisan post ever written. I dare say he has read if not written the book on how to explain away gross errors of a Leader. Tell me just how much this sounds like a Republican defending Bush:

Openly admitting one’s mistakes and missteps should be a valued quality, but instead he’s being excoriated in the media as having committed another “rookie mistake” or hapless gaffe by not reacting in the usual autonomic way that most other politicians do in terms of pandering and shamefully ingratiating themselves to various interest groups that will best serve their short-term objectives. Well, excuse me, but this is just another reason that I really like Michael Ignatieff.

Michael Ignatieff, And 30% of the Party supports him?

I just read this story and I was surprised. Michael Ignatieff committing another huge gaffe.

In an interview on a widely watched Quebec talk show...Michael Ignatieff, the front-runner in the race for the federal Liberal leadership, has accused Israel of committing "a war crime" during its conflict with Hezbollah last summer.

Now this is major, as alleging Israel committed a war crime is pretty big. In fact Michael is the first to stand up and denounce what Israel did as a war crime. This shows boldness and greatness that Michael has the intelligence to really speak for the World Court and accuse a whole country of a crime. I don't know why Michael only has 30% of the delegates, he should have 100%.

Now for those of you who can't read sarcasm, the above was an example. Ignatieff's actions are but just a part of why Ignatieff would not make a good leader.

In the news also perhaps in response to Ignatieff's gaffe is this, it is a lovely article about Ignatieff, I suggest you read it.

A Nice exert is right here:

Most people come to this country because they want a fresh start, or they want to escape tyranny or persecution. They come willing to take whatever job is available, to build a life in Canada. To start from scratch in a country that offers more opportunity than the one they are in.

Ignatieff is not an immigrant, of course. He is a bona fide Canadians - even if in his writings he has referred to himself, pronounally speaking, as an American.

But imagine the conversation around Ignatieff's breakfast table, a year or so ago. "Dear, I am thinking of moving back to Canada."

"But you have a great job here in the U.S."

"Yes, but I think my opportunities will be better in Canada. I do remember the country, somewhat, and I want to be a prime minister or president of something. I can't do that here in the States, because we have a silly rule about being born here. I can't do it in England, because Tony Blair's successor is already standing with his briefcase at the door of 10 Downing. So it's either Canada or Italy, and I know slightly less about Italy."

So back to Canada he came and - and here is where the Conservative campaign people and PR experts are convulsed with delight - the Liberals immediately welcome him as the new Liberal star.

The Liberals have a way of doing this. Remember John Turner? Or Paul Martin? C'mon - sure you do. Well, these shining stars burned out on entry into the Prime Ministerial atmosphere. Ignatieff will surely do the same. And he is an easy target for the slings and arrows of Conservative critics.

As someone who lives somewhere near the centre of the political spectrum, I am alternately amused and appalled at the developments in the leadership race.

They all come with very apparent flaws. Bob Rae was less than successful as Ontario Premier, and the Conservatives have been quoted as saying their anti-Rae rhetoric is already written: "He'll do to Canada what he did to Ontario."

Stéphane Dion - it has not been widely reported - holds dual Canadian and French citizenship.

Gerard Kennedy is... thoroughly unknown outside the GTA.

Ken Dryden has apparently been shut out. Ironic, that.

All are vulnerable to attack by their opponents, but none are in the target-on-my-back league with Ignatieff, who made the choice to live Somewhere Else, until he decided to be PM. To my mind, that puts him alongside Conrad Black, who gave up his Canadian citizenship to become a British lord, but now apparently wants it back.

I'm not sure of all the qualities necessary to be a good Prime Minister. But choosing to live in Canada might be somehow fundamental.

If the Liberals opt for Ignatieff, they deserve everything the Conservatives throw at them.

Well Alberta Isn't That Important Anyways, Right Michael?

When I first read this article I thought it was a mock-umentary or something along those lines, but alas no, it is one of Ignatieff's great campaign maneuvers.

What maneuver am I referring to? Well that "Message [is] to Albertans from the campaign desk of the Liberal leadership front-runner: Get over it." That "it" Michael is motivating them to get over, is the National Energy Program initiated under Pierre Elliot Trudeau that is argued to be responsible for financial hardship and central government interference into the province.

Now to be fair in the article Ignatieff does actually state the west is important, it is his tact that is lacking and which I am having qualms about. A leader should not tell a province or region, "Tough Luck, deal with it, and get over it"; the Leader and Liberal Party needs to re-incorporate western interests which are sorely lacking in the Party.

BC and Alberta now have more people then Quebec, yet Ignatieff is offering constitutional concessions to Quebec while offering sheer rudeness to Alberta. In this perspective I think Michael Ignatieff has shown is disrespect for Alberta, the west and Canada.

SAY IT ISN'T TRUE DION

People may call this post partisan or bias and it may seem that way, but I am totally shocked by Stephane Dion missing the vote on Kyoto. Dion was my second choice, he was a close second. I can't believe how close I came to backing him.

It has been said Dion has one strength, and that's the environment, well if that's true Stephane Dion is a giant hypocrite. On the Conservaative's website, right here, it describes a vote on Kyoto with Dion missing. Kyoto was pledged by Dion as a great environmental strategy, Dion believed in it so much he named his dog after it. Then he goes and misses the vote? Dion I'm glad I'm not backing you.

The republicans in the US are often criticized for voting for Bush because he always does what he says, even if it's wrong. Well I criticized them too for that, but there is a redeeming quality in Bush, he's not a hypocrite or a sell-out.

Jason Cherniak even says the Kyoto accord is Dion's, right here:

We also talked about Kyoto. M. Dion believes that his Kyoto plan would have reduced green house gas emissions substantially. It was based on funding different projects - whether municipal, provincial or business - on the basis of which would do the most good for the environment. He regrets that his $4 billion fund will likely be cut by Harper tomorrow and he still believes that Kyoto can work. Dion also mentioned that he had a new regulation prepared that would have come out in February. Surprise, surprise, Harper has not followed up.

Well guess what Jason, it seems Dion didn't follow up.

Go here, read what Mr.Dion poses; I use "poses" quite purposely, because he has demonstrated his poser skills.

I'll include the whole article because I think the Dion campaign will quickly remove this as evidence of Dion's hypocrisy:

The world is now facing a global environmental threat worse than any we have previously seen. Climate change is no academic issue. This is not about some future generation, it is about our children’s lives and our lives. It is about increasingly angry weather and much more dramatic storms - much longer heat waves. It is about the threat of droughts to already over-stretched farmers. It is about coming together as a world to deeply cut the climate pollution that humans are putting into the air.

That is why I believe so strongly that we need to show international leadership on dealing with climate change, and take the necessary actions here at home to do the right thing for us all. That is why as Minister of the Environment, I was proud last December to Chair for two weeks the Montreal conference on climate change negotiations, despite the unfortunate reality that it took place during a difficult federal election campaign. We achieved great things, strengthening Kyoto and how it works as well as kick-starting negotiations to broaden the treaty.

Just as important was the climate change plan for our country that I released in April 2005. Project Green recognized what we all know: the next economic crisis will revolve around energy. Canada’s climate change plan recognized this by being both a powerful environmental plan, while also being a forward-looking energy plan. We know that we have to help our industries remain highly competitive in the global marketplace, and an increasingly integral part of the equation is their cost of energy. We have to make the right investments now as a nation to ensure that we all have access to secure, efficient and reasonably priced energy sources in the future, that are environmentally-friendly.

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is moving in the opposite direction: removing Canada from the Kyoto process, absolving itself of any international responsibility to live up to its international treaty obligations, and replacing some of the most important investments in Project Green with tax cuts that will not help us make progress on reducing green house gas emissions. I believe that this is an abdication of duty by the Prime Minister, who is obliged to prepare this country for a challenging future, and act responsibly on the international stage.

Make no mistake, Canadians support Kyoto and they know it means binding targets not voluntary promises. They know it means countries keeping their word to each other. They know that it is only the first step, but a critical step, towards fighting climate pollution and stabilizing our atmosphere.

The countries that make these changes now, the obligations Kyoto calls for, changes to energy efficiency and creation of more green energy, will be far more competitive in the future. Countries which try to duck the United Nations united effort will not prosper in a world of galloping energy costs.

Or Dion's sound-byte from The Calgary Grit:

Kyoto is “more than a target”, it’s “a global approach to a global problem”

RUMOR: Stephane Dion Is To Drop Out Of Leadership Race

Surveying a few blogs, one in particular has really surprised me. This blog pointed me to this, scroll to the second comment. Now I'm not saying this rumor is true. I'm just saying it is very interesting.

I just got an email from Team Dion, and it's an email from Stephane himself, and this is what it says:

Le français suit l'anglais

October 3, 2006

A great weekend for Liberals across the country

Thank you!

Thank you to all Liberals for making this weekend such an extraordinary success. Thank you to all the volunteers and campaign workers of all the candidates and of the Liberal Party, who conducted themselves so honourably. And thank you to my fellow candidates for giving Liberals such high quality candidates to choose from!

I look forward to working with all Liberals, in the weeks and months ahead, as we further strengthen and unify our great party, the Liberal Party of Canada.
It's going to be a great convention in Montreal!

Stéphane Dion

To me this sounds like a candidate that might possibly pull out. Again I'm not saying he will, but doesn't the letter seem too general about his continuing?