In my mind, the main question is what this election of "two Green Leading Candidates" should be about. In all realism - which I think is reflected in the "Leading Candidates" - the Greens will not get the Commission President spot, so being a good Commission President is not a relevant criteria.

So far pretty normal, but in contrast to national elections where party leaders tehn to be minister candidates, it is unclear to what extent they are candidates for Commissioners at all. Even if we get a majority containing the Greens backing a Commission President and the Council concedes and nominates that Commission President, there will still be some sort of negotiation between Commission President and his (yeah, I am assuming it will be a man) parliament support and the Council. This may include Council nominating candidates and getting them sent back, or some kind of compromise is reached before that stage. So I think being a good Commissioner is not that important a criteria either (if it was, then coming from another country then the Commission President of PES and the same as the one of EPP could also be added).

So, their role will be leading the Greens in the election and not much more. That still leaves how good they are at gathering votes and how their election changes Green party politics. To start with the latter, I really don't know, I don't know Green Party politics on the European level. So for me that leaves the former.

Knowing very little about their abilities as public speakers and debaters and to what extent that will be relevant, I would if I had to vote today vote on Bové and Keller, simply becaue I think their combination is the combination that would cast the widest net when it comes to voters identifying with the leading candidates. Frassonis and Harms experiences as co-chairs of the Greens-EFA would weigh heavier if I thought it was the first step towards being a Commissioner. But I don't, so it doesn't.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se