Little, it seems, will disqualify you from the federal Liberal leadership.

You can stay out of the country for 30 years, support the Iraq war, have little grip on domestic policy and say anything that pops into your head - and, like Michael Ignatieff, remain front-runner.

You can run one of the most unpopular provincial governments in Canadian history, spend most of your adult life in the NDP, surround yourself with the cronies of a former prime minister and make a determined effort not to put forward policies - and, like Bob Rae, be painted as the candidate with "momentum."

You can speak shaky English, position yourself as the green candidate despite a middling record as environment minister and have all the charisma of a Coke machine - and, like Stephane Dion, be cast as the scrappy underdog.

Just don't, under any circumstances, speak imperfect French and fail to build a Quebec organization: the sure sign of an also-ran who doesn't have what it takes.

That, at least, is the consensus of most Ottawa pundits. But the way they've written off Gerard Kennedy says more about them than him.

Truth is, the casual dismissal of the former Ontario education minister in Ottawa circles - and the ensuing lack of coverage of his campaign - has little to do with his lack of support in Quebec, particularly when none of the candidates has any real traction with the general public there. What it's about is a paternalistic contempt for provincial politicians held by people who've spent too long in the capital - a perspective summarized neatly by The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson at the outset of the race.

Kennedy, Simpson suggested, lacked the substance to make it in "the nation's capital - the big leagues of national politics, if you'll pardon the arrogance."

Evidently, the arrogance was pardoned by colleagues. When Kennedy finished third in delegate selection meetings, columnists such as the Globe's John Ibbitson and the Toronto Star's Chantal Hebert made the assessment that the best he could hope for was to be kingmaker - as opposed to Dion, who'd finished fourth but still had a shot.

That Ottawa is the "big leagues," and provincial politics the minors, may be a natural conceit for those toiling in the capital. If Liberals across the country follow their lead, though, they could be doing themselves a disservice.

Of course federal politics should attract the best and brightest, which is why guys like Kennedy try to make the move. But to brush off his accomplishments at the provincial level is to dismiss the sorts of qualities of which the federal Liberals are desperately in need.

This is a party struggling to acquire a sense of purpose - to prove it can make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That's not something it's likely to get from Ignatieff, who's been more apt to wade into esoteric constitutional debates. It can hardly be expected from Rae, who's effectively promising a less proactive brand of government than Jean Chretien offered. Dion may be a better hope, but his post-Clarity Act record of actually making things happen is spotty.

Kennedy, meanwhile, comes from a level of government responsible for the services (health, education, social assistance) that actually affect the everyday lives of Canadians. He's honed his skills in one of the most difficult ministries at that level, restoring calm to schools after a period of chaos that began under Rae. And even outside his portfolio, he was widely acknowledged as the provincial Cabinet's most influential voice on social policy.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose Kennedy. He has a reputation for being a micromanager and a loner. And if you're not on the centre-left of the party, some of his opinions - including that Canada should get out of Afghanistan if NATO doesn't change its mandate - are worrisome.

But next to this field, can he really be dismissed as a lightweight? Only if you've spent too much time in Ottawa.