But where were all the Marxist-Leninists?

It's a reflection of the fact that commenters on this site jump all over me if they think I'm promoting my campaign at all. If I talk about the actual issues and where I stand on them in this column, some think that's crossing the line.

Here are some of the questions we received:

-What are you going to do about police corruption?
-If you were minister of the environment, what would your number one priority be?
-What are you going to do for the homeless?
-What's your party's position on Afghanistan, do you support it, and would you work to change it?
-Do you support explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the Human Rights Act?
-What are you going to do about growing rates of Autism and their connection to pollutants in the environment?
-Do you agree that biofules from food crops are dangerous, and would you continue to subsidize them?
-What would be your number one priority to make life in our riding better?
-What one thing would you do to improve democracy in Canada?
-What can we do to make sure the giant EI surplus gets into the hands of people who need it?
-Do you support the labeling of GMO foods?
-Do you support or oppose the Security and Prosperity Partnership? (asked by a CAP member)
-What are you going to do for parents who can't find affordable daycare?

If you'd like to see my answers, we're posting new videos every few days to YouTube.

BTW, if you're concerned about my experience you should know I have more experience as a candidate in this riding than any of my national party opponents.

x_the_x. No I thought it was a fair question, albeit a bit presumptuous ;)

I hadn't really thought of that angle on an article tagged as 'Campaign Confidential'

I have more experience as a candidate in this riding than any of my national party opponents.

spoken like a true politician ;)

Both the NDP and Conservative candidates are in their first election. Liz White is in her second, as am I. Bob Rae is on his 9th. As noted above, there are no other registered candidates.

x_the_x, I have to wonder what your definition of "fringe" or "sacrificial lamb" is. We opened our campaign office full-time before either the NDP or the Conservatives. In the neighbourhoods I've canvassed we have as many or more signs than our opponents. The only CBC radio story regarding the by-election so far featured myself but not a single other candidate. A national poll out today has us tied with the NDP federally, as do two different polls of the 416. At the debate I discuss above, every single national party candidate attacked me at least once, which they wouldn't do (and, previously, didn't do) if they didn't think I mattered.

In other words, this campaign is a serious force, and we're having a measurable impact.

Two things.

First, while not a supporter of the Green Party, I think that labelling it a "fringe party" is incorrect.

By definition, a fringe party has no influence: think Canadian Action Party, Marxist-Leninists (or whatever they call themselves these days), the current incarnation of the Heritage Front, and so on. They have zero to negligible impact electorally or in terms of shaping the general policy debate. They are, as the name says, on the fringe.

The Green Party is not and has not been in recent years on the fringe of Canadian politics. It poses a minor electoral threat to the four more established parties, hence the level of vitriol thrown in its direction by the NDP (who rightly or wrongly have the most to lose from the Greens' ascension) and the relative neutrality of the Liberals (who have the most to gain from a weakened NDP). More importantly, it influences, whether overtly or tacitly, the environmental agendas of the other parties, who want to preempt possible defections from their own ranks.

Second, I find the criticism hurled at Chris to be all rather curious.

This column was about the structure and format of the debates. Speaking personally, I was always curious whether candidates refine their presentations from one debate to the next on the basis of how other candidates reacted at the previous debate; now I know the answer (and I'm surprised by it). I was also heartened to know that speeches were kept to a minimum and that significant back-and-forth with audience members was encouraged.

There are those of us who are interested not only in the issues but also in the nuts and bolts of campaigning, which includes things like debate format and audience size. I thought this column did a good job in providing an overview of them.

The column sucks because it has not lived up to what it was billed as (and titled): a behind the scenes glimpse of the poltical process. It's more a mundane recitation of running in a low-profile by-election. It's biggest gotcha was that one of the three major parties had bad pamphletting etiquite. It reads like a report in a junior high school newspaper of the campaign for pet club treasurer.

Exactly!

There are those of us who are interested not only in the issues but also in the nuts and bolts of campaigning, which includes things like debate format and audience size. I thought this column did a good job in providing an overview of them.

So basically you need to be brought up to speed on the logistics of debating and elections? Realize that most of us are taught this by grade 9 so excuse our impatience with you and the author.

It poses a minor electoral threat to the four more established parties,

It's called causing a minor split in voting. Hardly a 'threat'. If anything, they will create a better vote for the conservative or liberal candidate only taking away votes from the NDP.