Who says you can't go home?

Some guy named Michael Ignatieff weighs in on the life of Canadians living outside the country:

I was away a long time in Britain and the States, it’s true, but I kept coming back, writing for Canadian newspapers, broadcasting on the CBC, summers teaching at Banff, lectures everywhere, writing several books on Canadian themes. I kept my Canadian identity up to date, just as I kept renewing my passport.

It was when I decided to go into politics that coming home turned into a war. All politics is local, and the question then became, “Are you one of us?” I spent five years fighting to prove I belonged, while my opponents stopped at nothing to prove I didn’t. Just in it for myself. Just visiting. Not here for you.

There was a weird insinuation: Why would anyone come home, unless you were in it just for your self?

A moment of silence for our fallen comrades

The hardest part of last night for me was watching so many quality MPs go down in defeat. All too often, the individual casualties of a blood bath like this are overlooked, and aren't given a proper farewell. So let me take a minute to thank a few of my favourites for making a difference.

Gone is Gerard Kennedy, who I had the honour of supporting for leader five years ago. One of the reasons I backed Gerard was because he was one of the few people back then who recognized the need to renew and rebuild the Liberal Party. We all recognize that now, and I can only hope Gerard will be a part of that rebuilding, even if it's not as an MP.

Gone is Ken Dryden, arguably the heart of the Liberal Party. Dryden is one of the most thoughtful politicians you'll ever meet and he believed in politics for a purpose, not just politics for the sake of politics. Dryden's vision of Canada will be missed at a time when the Liberal Party tries to come to grips with what it truly believes in.

Gone is Siobhan Coady, a rookie MP who appeared to have a bright future ahead of her. She is exactly the kind of accomplished woman we need more of in politics, and she was one of the few MPs who could ask a tough question with emotion, while still avoiding hyperbole.

Gone is Glen Pearson, one of the few MPs able to rise above the hyper partisanship that infects most who go to Ottawa. Pearson talks in sentences, not sound bytes. He was one of the few who genuinely wanted to make Parliament work, unlike the many who only talk about making Parliament work.

Gone is Ujjal Dosanjh, a quality MP. Gone is Mark Holland, a fierce fighter. Gone is Navdeep Bains, a great MP and a great person. Gone is Martha Hall Findlay, the spunky underdog of the 2006 leadership race.

There are others who I've forgotten or just didn't know as well, but who are equally deserving of praise. I thank them all for their service to the Liberal Party and to their country.

Then there are those who never got a chance to go to Ottawa. Strong candidates, like Christine Innes, who I spent much of this election trying to keep up with as she sprinted door to door to meet voters. And let's not forget all those who put their names forward to run, knowing it would take a miracle for them to win. Having volunteered on a lot of campaigns like that over the years, I fully appreciate the kind of commitment and idealism that takes.

Finally, there is the one MP who lost a lot more than his seat last night. Long time readers will know I've always had doubts about Michael Ignatieff's ability to lead the Liberal Party, and I took issue with the way he commandeered the leadership of the party.

Still, I've warmed to the man greatly over the past year, and I always did like the concept of Michael Ignatieff. If I was writing a Canadian political drama a la West Wing, I'd probably create a protagonist a lot like Michael. He is, after all, exactly what voters say they're looking for in a leader. He's intelligent. He has seen the world. He's not a career politician. It's hard not to fall in love with the concept of Michael Ignatieff.

Yesterday, we found out just how easy it is to not fall in love with the reality of Michael Ignatieff. In the real world, politics is a job like any other, and we shouldn't be surprised when the guys who have been doing it their whole lives prove to be better at it than the guy who picked it up in his late 50s. Michael Ignatieff simply was not able to connect with voters the same way Jack Layton could connect with voters.

I'll write up a proper post-mortem on what went wrong for Michael Ignatieff the party leader in the coming days but for now, a moment of silence for Michael Ignatieff the MP, who didn't deserve to lose his seat. We need accomplished individuals like him in politics, regardless of the party they run for.

A lot of good people lost their jobs last night, Michael Ignatieff among them.

One-on-One

Peter Mansbridge talks coalitions with Michael Ignatieff in studio, talks coalitions with Jack Layton on the campaign trail, and talks coalitions with Stephen Harper in an empty hockey rink.

All three do a good job getting their message out, but Layton clearly made the best choice in terms of format. Viewers get to see the energy of the campaign trail, and his interview comes across as a quasi NDP infomercial at times.

Ad Watch: Ignatieff Gets Personal

A series of new Liberal ads have hit the airwaves.

In the first, Ignatieff talks a bit about his past, and ties it in to the Liberals' just launched pension policy:




Then, Ignatieff responds to the Tory attack ads...just 2 short years after they first aired:




Finally, my favourite of the three, and the one I'll ask you to grade. Of everything we've seen from the Liberal platform so far, Family Care is my favourite plank. It's easy to understand and it connects to voters at the personal level - after all, who doesn't have an aging or sick relative?

And, like the policy, this ad connects at the personal level, with Ignatieff talking about his mother's battle with Alzheimer's. For a guy who has been portrayed as an alien in Tory attack ads, this will do a lot to humanize him. It shows the Liberals value family and it shows Ignatieff values family.

How would you grade this ad?
A
B
C
D
F
See Results

And if you didn't get a chance to grade the latest round of NDP commercials, just click here.

2010 in Pictures: Michael Ignatieff Meets the Canadians, Eats Donuts

Lessons Learned

One of the spin-offs of running a good campaign (besides winning) is that everyone holds you up as the shinning example of how to win an election for at least a year or two afterwards. At times this can be rather silly - witnesses the pontificating in 2008 and 2009 about which Canadian leader was most "Obama-esque". But in any good campaign, there are lessons to learn, so it's far from a pointless exercise.

Rob Ford's campaign will certainly become the "it" campaign to study over the next year, by virtue of his win being a) surprising and b) in the centre of the media universe. Ian Davey takes a crack at using Rob Ford to advise Michael Ignatieff:

After flirting with the notion of forcing an election last fall, the Liberals decided to make their electoral success largely dependent on the failure of the Harper government. It was the right decision. Since that time, the Official Opposition has moved between focusing on Conservative failure and striving to outline what kind of government they might form. Despite a plodding performance from the Conservatives and a sluggish economy, polls have remained static for more than a year now. Canadians still see little need for change. Why?

[...]

So how does the Ford experience apply in the federal context? Most Canadians would agree that the economy is the most important issue they face. Rightly, the Liberals have attacked the Conservatives for being the country’s largest spending government and accumulating the largest deficit in Canadian history. Moreover, the opposition has wisely questioned the Conservative plan to further deepen corporate tax cuts. Despite these attacks, the Liberals have been unable to get real traction with Canadians because they have been mixing their messages. Rather than keeping the focus on Conservative economic incompetence and the need for change, the Liberals muddied their point by promising a national home care plan which would be funded by the cancellation of corporate tax cuts. By not arguing that cancelling corporate tax cuts in the current environment was about fairness and affordability, the well meaning Liberals appear to be more interested in devising a means to generate money for their program spending than holding the government to account.

[...] Competence and trust, then, become the political fulcrum. In a time when Canadians know money is tight and when they are overwhelmingly concerned about jobs, pensions and economic security, the Liberals would be far wiser to be focusing on a message of change rather than on one of choice. Just ask Rob Ford.

The message - that the Liberals should attack Harper rather than offer alternatives - has been a consistent one of Davey's over the past year and there's certainly some truth to the old adage that "governments defeat themselves".

But I think Davey is off in his analysis of the Ford Phenomenon.

Yes, Ford picked a simple message and attacked relentlessly on it. But this only worked because Ford had credibility (by not spending as a city councilor) and offered alternatives (reduce the size of council, reduce expense accounts, cut wasteful spending). Ford promised to cancel the vehicle registration and land transfer taxes well before the starting gun went off - just because the alternative is simple and based on shaky math, it doesn't mean it's not an alternative. In many ways, Smitherman's anti-waste message was not dramatically different from Ford's, but he was never seen as the best man to cut waste.

Now, let's look at Ignatieff. Unlike Ford, who was trusted on the waste issue, few trust Ignatieff on the economy - look no further than an Ipsos Reid poll from earlier this month that had Harper up 45% to 24% as the best leader to manage the economy in tough times. I'm not saying Ignatieff shouldn't attack Harper's economic record - but it's hard to earn credibility by just pointing out that the other guy sucks. That's what separates Prime Ministers in waiting from idiot bloggers like myself.

The example Davey uses to illustrate his point is the Liberal Family Care plan - his argument being the Liberals would be better served by promising to scrap the corporate tax cut than they would be by promising to scrap the corporate tax cut...and use some of the money saved on programs like Family Care.

Davey has a valid point that too many spending promises will make it harder for Ignatieff to gain credibility on the economy, but to me, Ignatieff gains more by promising to put some of the money saved through the tax freeze into Family Care than he does by simply shoveling it all into deficit reduction.

To me, a corporate tax cut is kind of like Two and a Half Men. Yeah, I don't like it, but does its continued existence on the airwaves really affect me one way or the other? No, not really. But cancel my favourite show in favour of it and I'd be up in arms. I think a lot of voters don't give a damn about corporate tax cuts, but if the election is framed as a choice between billions for big business versus helping Canadians care for a sick loved one, suddenly they begin to feel a lot stronger about the issue. It's only by offering a choice that people can truly evaluate what is being offered. (And yes, I am aware that many people do like Charlie Sheen and/or corporate tax cuts)

As Davey argues, it's important for Liberal attacks on Harper to be clear, concise, and consistent. But for Ignatieff to be seen as a credible alternative, he needs to offer an alternative. It's what Ford did and it's what Ignatieff should do.


UPDATE - And, while we're at it, Kinsella, Delacourt, and Martin all offer advice for the Liberals this morning.

Just 22 short months after becoming leader, it's time to meet Michael

This is actually a very well done video, continuing what has been a very strong 3-4 month stretch for Ignatieff and the Liberals.

What He Stands For

I've spent most of the past year and half clamouring for Michael Ignatieff to show Canadians what he, and the Liberal Party, stand for. So I'm very pleased to see some tangible policy ideas being put forward with today's Family Care announcement, which will make it easier for Canadians to care for their sick loved ones at home.

It's a positive policy. It's on an important issue. It's about families. It connects to people and is something they can understand and relate to.

All in all, this one is a winner, and it's great to see the Liberals puting ideas out there before the election campaign.

Michael Ignatieff announces Liberal Family Care Plan

OTTAWA – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff today announced the Liberal Party’s plan to stand with Canadian families by helping family caregivers with the cost of caring for sick or aging loved ones at home.

“Families look after each other,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “Canadian families want to shoulder the responsibility of caring for their loved ones at home, but they also want a government that stands with them.

“These are difficult economic times, so that means governments – and Canadians – must choose,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “Stephen Harper and the Conservatives choose tax breaks for corporations. We choose to help Canadian families.”

To enhance care for our parents, our grandparents and our sick loved ones, and to recognize the important contribution of family caregivers, a Liberal government will invest $1 billion annually in a new Family Care Plan to help reduce the pressure on hundreds of thousands of struggling Canadian families. The Liberal Family Care Plan includes two new measures:

A new six-month Family Care Employment Insurance Benefit, similar to the EI parental leave benefit, so that more Canadians can care for gravely ill family members at home without having to quit their jobs; and

A new Family Care Tax Benefit, modeled on the Child Tax Benefit, to help low- and middle-income family caregivers who provide essential care to a family member at home.
“Our Family Care Plan reflects the value of family caregivers – their value to our economy, our health, our families, and our communities,” said Mr. Ignatieff, who made the announcement at the home of a caregiver who has spent her life savings to care for her husband, who has a rare form of cancer.

“Canadians want choices when it comes to caring for their families,” said Liberal Heath Critic Ujjal Dosanjh, who joined Mr. Ignatieff at the announcement along with Liberal MP Marlene Jennings, who is a family caregiver. “Providing care at home allows our loved ones to live in dignity as they face their health challenges with their families. Making family care easier will also help to contain health care costs in the long run.”

“CARP members would welcome the promise of $1 billion in annual financial support for family caregivers announced today by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff,” said Susan Eng of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. “CARP has called for substantive and targeted financial support for the millions of Canadians who care for older loved ones - providing massive savings to the formal health care system while shouldering an extraordinary financial and emotional burden.”

“This is wonderful news for the millions of caregivers across the country who are providing care and support for loved ones at home,” said Nadine Henningsen of the Canadian Caregivers Coalition. “These measures minimize financial burden and are critical components of effective policy for family caregivers.”

-30-

Quick! Someone show these guys some polling data...

Ignatieff's proposed asbestos ban may have killed deal

A mining company says Michael Ignatieff might be responsible for stalling the reopening of one of Canada's last asbestos mines.

The Jeffrey Mine says it had a Chinese investor lined up and willing to invest $40 million, but that its would-be partner became scared over comments from the Liberal leader.

Ignatieff has called for a ban on exports of the potentially deadly substance. His spokesman, however, expressed skepticism Thursday that the Liberal leader's remarks might have torpedoed the deal.

[...]

"A week after Mr. Ignatieff's comments, they started questioning me, saying, 'What happens if we decide to invest in you and Mr. Ignatieff becomes prime minister and decides to stop production of chrysotile asbestos?"'

I too, am skeptical that Ignatieff killed this deal, but if he did...well, then, good for him. It's unconscionable to export a product we won't use here for safety reasons when we know it's killing millions of people in the developing world.

What's Black and Blue all Over?

Give up?

Michael Ignatieff, if MP Garry Breitkreuz gets his way:

OTTAWA - A Conservative MP is apologizing for issuing a news release that compared Canadian police chiefs to a cult and urged Liberals to beat their leader, Michael Ignatieff, "black and blue."

[...]

The release angrily denounced Ignatieff's decision to require all Liberal MPs to vote against a private member's bill that would scrap the controversial long-gun registry.

[...]

In the release, Breitkreuz, a passionate, longtime gun registry foe, is quoted as saying Ignatieff is "a bully who may well be committing political suicide."

"With tactics like this, I doubt he'll be missed on either side of the House," the release said.

Breitkreuz was quoted calling Ignatieff's attempt to head off elimination of the registry "an act of desperation that insults the intellect of Canadians."

"His true colours are showing and, if his caucus has any integrity, those colours should be black and blue."

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police also wound up in the news release's cross-hairs as it mocked opposition MPs' claims that the registry helps save lives.

"It's like a cult that is led by organizations of police chiefs who pretend the registry helps them do their jobs. They should be ashamed."

I especially enjoy it when Breitkreuz says that Ignatieff is the one insulting the intellect of Canadians.

Iggy on the Hour

Policy Time

And slowly but surely, we begin to learn a bit more about the international man of mystery:

Ignatieff sketches out 'doable' Senate reform ideas

Liberals present job creation proposals

Daycare tops Liberal agenda

Yes, the specifics are still missing, but those will come. With voters wholly unimpressed with Stephen Harper, now is the time for Michael Ignatieff to show Canadians what he stands for - and he appears to be doing just that.

On the bright side, Ignatieff was picked as "the leader you'd most like to attend an Isaiah Berlin leture with"

Angus Reid has a fun poll out, where they ask "the beer question", amongst others. In it, we learn that the mustached socialist is the "jock" of Canadian politics - he's the one voters would like to have a beer with, or have on their sports team. Harper wins most of the "prime ministerial" questions - negotiating with other countries and representing Canada. Ignatieff, well, he's the one voters would go to for a book recommendation, and they'd love to have him on their trivia team.

The question that really caught my eye was this one - "who would you prefer being Prime Minister in the event of another Quebec referendum?". And, wouldn't you know it? The firewall guy from Calgary wins hands down - 29% to 17% (for Ignatieff) to 10% (for Layton). It shows the kind of progress Harper has made in the eyes of voters over the past few years.


ALSO...

The other poll released this weekend (but fielded a month ago), shows McGuinty up 38% to 34% on Tim Hudak in Ontario. Nothing too surprising there - it's well in line with what the Ontario polls have been saying over the past 5 or 6 months.



UPDATE: Angus vote numbers are out, and it's 36-29...about the normal over the past few years...

Colbert Warned Us

Hat Tip - Wells

Conservatives themselves doubt Harper's judgement. How can we trust him?

More info on the top-secret Conservative ads:

MONTREAL — There's a surprising new star making a cameo appearance in Conservative ads attacking Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: his name is Justin Trudeau.

French-language TV ads that have begun airing in Quebec show the rookie MP blasting a few volleys of friendly fire at his leader.

The ads include clips from an interview Trudeau did during the 2006 Liberal leadership race.

"Ignatieff, he's a little all over the place sometimes," Trudeau says in the spot, in a clip drawn from a 2006 TV interview.

"He says this, he says that - he contradicts himself."

Trudeau then delivers this little parting shot: "For me, he's not someone with... maybe he has the intelligence, but maybe not the wisdom required."

The ad's narrator ends the spot by asking viewers: "Liberals themselves doubt (Ignatieff's) judgment. How can we trust him?"

So, some guy who wasn't an MP and supported another guy in a leadership race Ignatieff lost - three years ago - had some tame criticism of the front-runner. Well, colour me shocked. If you're that desperate Tory war room, I hear Bob Rae used to berate Iggy when they were college roommates for not taking out the trash.

So, if those quotes are fair game, let's see what the Minister of Industry has to say about Harper:

OTTAWA (CP) - Tony Clement painted Stephen Harper as a divisive, unelectable Conservative leader Wednesday in a televised debate notable for the absence of high-profile candidate Belinda Stronach.

Clement, the former Ontario health minister and acknowledged underdog in the three-way race, was clearly on the offensive against Harper. He suggested the former Canadian Alliance leader will be unable to unify Conservatives and draw Canadians outside the party to its fold.

"Stephen . . . you've been on the record as a wall-builder. I want to be on the record as a bridge-builder."

Clement then accused the Calgary-based MP of proposing to build a firewall around Alberta, of writing off electoral prospects in Quebec and of badmouthing Atlantic Canadians.

Game Theory in Canadian Politics

OK, so what are the options?

1) Harper refused to compromise, opposition votes non-confidence -> ELECTION

2) Harper refuses to compromise, opposition rolls over -> NO ELECTION

3) Harper compromises, opposition votes non-confidence -> ELECTION

4) Harper compromises, opposition lets government survive -> NO ELECTION

5) Wild card (i.e. prorogation, Harper pulls the plug himself, etc...)

At this point, I just can't see option 2 coming to pass, as Ignatieff would look worse than Dion ever did and would be ridiculed by the press all summer long. I think rolling over was a very legitimate option today, but after issuing a new set of demands, it's just not in the cards. I suppose there remains a small chance the NDP or Bloc might keep Harper afloat, but they've been fairly definitive in saying they'll vote against him at every opportunity.

So, with that in mind, the ball is in Stephen Harper's court - what are his options?

Well, if he wants an election, he has three ways to go about it (1, 3, 5). Presumably, he'd want to shift the election blame on to the Liberals, which might lead us to scenario 3, where Harper agrees to some of Ignatieff's rather ambiguous demands, but not enough to earn their confidence. Or, he could sneer at the opposition and simply dare them to bring his government down, trying to look like a strong, confident leader (option 1).

Now, if Harper doesn't want an election, he has the opportunity to avoid it. Ignatieff's demands really aren't that onerous (a plan here, a promise there...), and Harper doesn't even have to cave to Ignatieff - there are two other opposition leaders out there who might relish the opportunity of getting some "results for people"/"results for Quebecers". And, quite frankly, when the deficit is over 50 billion dollars, is anyone really going to care much if Jack Layton gets a few billion for a pet project of his?

So, the decision is Harper's. And, truth be told, I have no friggin' clue what he'll decide.

It used to be Ignatieff supporters comparing him to Trudeau...

...now it's his opponents:

Car Michael Ignatieff est le leader le plus centralisateur ayant jamais pris les commandes du Parti libéral de toute son histoire, a affirmé hier soir le premier ministre dans un discours à forte saveur électorale devant quelque 2000 militants conservateurs réunis au prestigieux hôtel Le Reine-Elizabeth.Alors que les libéraux ont pris la tête dans les sondages depuis que Michael Ignatieff est à la barre du parti, Stephen Harper a soutenu que les écrits du chef libéral font de lui un élève exemplaire de Pierre Trudeau quand il s'agit des pouvoirs que doit posséder le gouvernement fédéral.

«M. Ignatieff est dans la lignée de Pierre Trudeau. Il dit lui-même que Trudeau est son mentor. Je vous invite à lire ce qu'il a dit et ce qu'il a écrit au cours des dernières décennies. Vous verrez que M. Ignatieff est en fait le chef libéral le plus centralisateur de l'histoire de notre pays», a affirmé M. Harper dans son discours d'une trentaine de minutes.

«Mes amis, souvenez-vous toujours qu'il y a un parti centralisateur, le Parti libéral. Il y a un parti des indépendantistes, le Bloc. Mais il y a un seul parti qui a cru dans le passé et qui croit toujours aujourd'hui en une nation québécoise forte au sein d'un Canada uni et c'est le Parti conservateur», a-t-il ajouté.

Translation: Stephen Harper says that Michael Ignatieff is a big fat centralizer, like Pierre Trudeau. Only worse.

Rebuttal

This is a really good response - tough, yet mostly issue-based and positive. I think this is the right message to get out there, and any earned media the Liberals get from it will be a bonus.

Yeah, yeah, they respond to a bit of a straw man argument, since the attack ads aren't at all talking about some people being "less Canadian" than others, but politics is all about spin, and the Liberals have spun this one well.

The Best Things I've Heard About Michael Ignatieff...

...come from Gilles Duceppe. Seriously - had this been the image MI put forward himself in the past, I would have been very tempted to support him in one of the past two leadership races:

The central targets for the Bloc are Mr. Ignatieff's general demeanour, as well as any past opinion that can be used to paint him as a centralizing, anti-nationalist leader in the mould of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

“Michael Ignatieff says that Quebeckers can choose to be Quebeckers or Canadians, in any order. You can be what you want, he tells us, but you can be sure that his Liberal policies will be Canadian, period,” Mr. Duceppe said in the letter.

The new Liberal Leader, according to the Bloc, will thwart Quebec's interests by proposing national education standards and a pan-Canadian energy policy, both of which would go against the province's jurisdiction over education and natural resources.

Convention Wrap

Well, that was a fun weekend. Certainly not as exciting as Montreal, but the LPC ran a well-organized convention (the Thursday night disaster aside) and the location and weather were so great it was impossible for delegates not to have a good time.

For those interested in the "inside politics" side of things, Steve Kukucha won the VP-English position, and Joan Bourassa was re-elected Policy Chair. Pierre-Luc Lacoste won the Young Liberals Policy Chair position by 11 votes, with Tom Cervinsky taking VP External. The big drama was, of course, the YLC Presidential race which ended in a dead heat (193-193, with 4 spoiled ballots). The John Lennard scrutineer picked "7", earning the right to call the coin flip, but foolishly went with tails - when the coin came up heads, Sam Lavoie became YLC President. My sources have, as of yet, been unable to confirm what type of coin it was that was flipped.

And, oh yeah, there was the leadership vote. 2023 votes were cast (by my count, that means about 80% of the delegates bothered to vote), with 59 ballots being spoiled. Among those were 4 Bob Rae write-in votes and 3 each for Belinda Stronach and Stephane Dion. Do that math, and that gives Ignatieff a solid 97% in the one-man race.

As for the event itself on Saturay, the party showed it learned its lesson from the way Sheila Copps was treated in 2003, and let Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc give nominating speeches. Both speeches were solid, but it was new party president Alf Apps who got the best line off: "We have 3 former Liberal Prime Ministers here which is great. To get 2 Tory Prime Ministers in the same room these days, you'd have to issue a subpoena."

So, this brings us to Michael's speech. To be honest, the introductory video didn't really do it for me - the "our own 2 hands" song has a certain "sing a song for Jim" sound to it, and the 6 pictures in a row with Michael and Obama (followed by Iggy in front of Air Force One) were a little to anvily.

The speech itself was good. My one knock would be that it was a tad generic - Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc could have given the exact same speech, the Liberal leader 10 years ago could have given the exact same speech, and the Liberal leader 10 years from now could give the exact same one.

But, at the same time, a long time Liberal told me at the after party that he liked that very thing about it, as it showed Michael was a true grit, and not just a tourist in the party or a conservative with a red scarf. And, thinking it over, he did eloquently manage to explain what the Liberal Party stands for. More importantly, he fired up the crowd - a job whose importance should not be under-estimated, as the individuals in the room will be counted on to give their time and money to the party in the coming years.

So, in the end, the Seinfeld convention served its purpose. Delegates had a good time, and were left with smiles on their faces. But fans will recall that the 9:30 slot after Seinfeld was not usually must-see-TV. The real challenge will be the next few months.