Ignatieff needs a strong program

I'm no fan of Ignatieff. I've tried to read his book "the lesser evil" this fall and, to be honest, I was not able to finish it; I can't think of another non-fiction book I've read the last couple of years that is so full of fallacies, regardless of how and why they are presented (this could be a much more interesting debate, but I've got other things to do too :))

I'm not surprised that Ignatieff is in trouble. In his book he tries to find the fine line between good and evil. And that's where his problem is; it doesn't exist. You either (1) try to do good, (2) you try to hide that your evil, or (3) you're an ever balancing politician.

Most politicians are a mix of these three. But Ignatieff is predominantly in the last category, where his "nuanced and intelligent balancing" is supposed to represent the "good". And without upholding clear principles this is a tough starting point, proven by his latest troubles.

But Ignatieff does have a heart:

"I demonstrated a lack of compassion, it was a mistake. And when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it. And I admit it, because I was a human rights professor, and I'm a professor of the laws of war, and what happened at Qana was a war crime. I should have said that, it's clear," Ignatieff said.

But a heart is not enough. The guy needs a strong program, not questionable cheerleaders who couldn't acknowledge war crimes unless they were a victim themselves.

Stephen Harper, Jack Layton? Like them or hate them, but we do know what they stand for. Ignatieff? Anyone?