Does anyone actually support Rae?

[Remiel]

You know, for all I said before that it was just dumb for the Liberals to vote in Rae when this was started, I take it back. I don't really know if it would be a bad idea. Now, I just want Rae because I think it will be a lot more entertaining. And politics needs to be more entertaining, in a functional, efficient kind of way.

[Argus]

The list has Chomsky at the top, it's obviously flawed.

Dawkins? Boorrrring. And a little too sensitive.

Paul Wolfowitz? You can't be serious.

Even I think Ignatieff is smarter than the these people, and I'm not a fan. Either way, Ignatieff likely knows little about the real world outside of a university campus, never having done anything in the real world his entire life.

I struggle with allowing someone that doesn't know anything about business, labour, anything of that nature, to be a contender for the PM spot.

There is intelligence - and then there is wisdom. Iggy might well be a very intelligent man, but the scope of his life experiences appear severely limited by an ivory tower life spend amid the moneyed classes at Oxford and Harvard. Had he spent more time in the real world he might have acquired something approaching the level of wisdom to recognize how the real world interferes with theoretical constructs.

As it stands, I don't believe he can really be described as a wise man - or even smart, really. Chretien, for all his faults, had the kind of weasel cunning which served him well in politics. He was not a particularly intelligent man, nor well-read, but he was smart. Harper seems more intelligent but probably less smart, more honest, with a better background and the kind of integrity one might wish in a leader. Iggy, in his pandering to this or that group, doesn't appear to have that same level of integrity,