glen has an establishment background, but the truth is that he's also the most left-wing candidate in the pile. if you're a pragmatic, left-leaning environmentalist then there's a lot of reasons why he should be the front-runner, but i don't get the impression that he actually is. i will not be voting in this contest, but if the party membership wants to pick a leader that is able to present the party as a serious choice that wants to actually get something done then i would suggest you make a serious effort to look beyond his history as a high-ranking liberal and listen to what he's actually saying. and, let's remember that elizabeth came out of mulroney's office. glen has consistently come off as the most informed and most focused candidate on these panels, even when he's being consistently cut off for running over time. as such, the party has a kind of acid test here; does it want to take itself seriously now and try to take a run at the balance of power in the imminent upcoming election, or is it looking to build, longterm? if it wants to get in tomorrow, glen is the leadership candidate that can step in and make a difference right away. if it wants to look long term (and how much time do we have?), then it's going to pick somebody else that is going to take a longer view. i don't think we have much time, and would lean towards a candidate that can have an immediate impact. but, we will see if the members are thinking the same way as i am or not.