it's less that the question is unclear and more that it's hard to convert. french and english are pretty different in terms of the way they use tenses, and such a question is a bit of a tongue twister to convert.

so, he asked: "did you mean 2.5 years ago?"

the interviewer said "no - i meant today".

so, he begins to answer the question: what would he do differently if he's elected prime minister. that's what was just agreed upon. but he's stopped.

"no, what i mean is if you were prime minister today."

but, that was what was just clarified - he meant today, not 2.5 years ago.

so, now that he understands the question (which is about today, not 2.5 years ago), he asks for it to be reasked, to avoid the translational issues coming out.

but, it's clear upon reasking that he meant 2.5 years ago, not today - which is not what was just agreed upon. when it's clear that the initial clarification was incorrect, and he meant two years ago, the question now requires a different response.

the third restart identifies the actual issue with dion, which is something western democracy has seen happen from time to time and will likely happen again. the most famous example and archetype for this is adlai stevenson. this is a hypothetical that somebody like dion cannot approach in the irrigorous manner that most politicians would. because, if he was prime minister 2.5 years ago, he wouldn't have the same opinions that he has today, because harper would not have been prime minister.

this necessity for careful thinking is very useful to academics and to policy wonks. we want this kind of thinker in government. but it consistently flies over the head of the general populace, which often interprets careful thinking as a sign of weakness, or, ironically, even a lack of intelligence.

stephane dion has a pretty impressive resume. it's clear that he had some translational issues, and that the question is the kind that you can't expect him to answer the way a "regular politician" would. rather, you would expect him to answer it the way an academic would, which is very carefully, and with a lot of thinking that controls for hypotheticals and attempts to work them out.

what you can't reasonably argue is that he was unable to answer the question. and, history will be rather rude to those that promote this argument.

fwiw, i don't think the tories got it aired.

i think ignatieff got it aired.