On shortcomings

Needless to say, I'll be interested to see what Murray Mandryk has to say in the rest of his series profiling the Saskatchewan NDP leadership candidates. But it's interesting to note that at least part of his analysis of Deb Higgins as a candidate seems to me to be lacking in foundation (even if it matches a message from a push-poll):

It may seem poor form to bring up a candidate's education or relative intellect, but that hasn't stopped some in the NDP ranks from doing just that. Rumours of push polls (a polling question framed in a negative or possible untrue context) asking members if they would be less willing to vote for Higgins if they were aware of her lack of education are rampant in NDP ranks. Certainly, it's an issue Higgins has had to address at leadership forums.

Of course, education (the former Safeway cashier has little post-secondary education) is not always a prerequisite to leadership, but even during her cabinet tenure (Remember her struggle selling the ill-conceived available-hours legislation for part-time workers?) she struggled to demonstrate her intellectual cache.

Now, one can argue that the push poll gives Mandryk some license to discuss whatever supposed questions there might be about education or intellectual heft. (Though it's certainly to nobody's credit that the race is being defined to any meaningful degree by such negative tactics.)

Even if one assumes that the issue is worth discussing, though, surely it needs to be analyzed in the context of what party members have actually seen during the course of the leadership campaign. And as I've noted before, Higgins' performance at the debates themselves has been at least on par with her competitors when it comes to command of policy. Which makes it odd that Mandryk spreads an "intellectual shortcomings" meme based on rumours and organizational issues rather than assessing at all whether they have any basis in reality.

Of course, there are indeed questions about Higgins' campaign choices - which is where she seems to me to run into the most trouble. But there's a massive difference between a perfectly intelligent candidate proceeding with undue caution, and somebody who lacks the underlying intellect to serve as a credible candidate in the first place. And the contrast between Higgins' strong performance when she's in the same room as her competitors and her otherwise bland campaign seems to me a strong indication as to which one actually applies.