But I think that's for the best right now. And I do know very little about him, I liked Nathan Cullen much better, but so far I've been pretty impressed. I disagree with the premise of the article - that Canadians want 'nice guys'. Not the Canadians I know. Jack Layton was able to pull it off but I think we can all agree that Jack broke the mold. I think Canadian politics is moving in a more American direction (unfortunately) where the anger and negativity will be more in the open. I also think that part of the reason Mulcair will do well is that people in the West LOVE angry leaders, and the NDP is setting its sights on a few more seats out West.

As for Bob Rae, I think he'd do well as permanent Liberal leader. I like him. It will be interesting to see the contrast between Bob Rae and Mulcair and how they critique the cons.

I understand it was an opinion piece, but I think it made some pretty simplistic statements and comparisons of Harper, Mulcair, and Layton, and didn't give any solid analysis as to why Rae gets a free pass. If anyone believes that Layton was all sunshine and rainbows, and lacked political opportunism then they really haven't followed Layton and the NDP's ascent over the last decade. And the assumption that Canadians want a 'nice' leader ignores the fact that many Canadians ARE angry, and feel betrayed by the waffling leadership, pandering, broken campaign promises, corruption and stagnation in Ottawa. Since parliament has resumed, Mulcair has demonstrated that he is nothing like Harper and the Conservatives, but rather articulate, focused and representing the concerns of everyday Canadians. I find that refreshing.