Such trivial platitudes from a Professor, obviously still admiring her past pupil !!

I think it's a good take.
What puzzles me is that there was not sufficient potency in his network of friends and family to influence him in his approach to work and in dealing with other people.
I don't think that Rudd should be given up on yet; the dethroning may prove cathartic enough for him to reflect on what's gone before. It's called the getting of wisdom, and it always involves pain for gain, but if he has the character he will be ok, maybe even a better and more complete person for the adventure of the last few years. And back on track for a shot at PM, with much goodwill to draw upon, when Gillard has had enough.

This is all conjecture.

Under the terms of "open government" the labor party should be making a full disclosure of why they deposed a Prime Minister, and replaced that Prime Minister with someone else.

That should be done so that the public has a clear picture of what is happening, and can have some confidence in their government and some confidence about their future (that is, the future for the Australian public, not the future career of some politicians).

So you saw how Kevin "blubbered" did you, you insensitive person. ( Im forced to be more temperate.) We can tell how you gloated, you sad man.

Whatever we think of Rud's politics he is still a humanbeing who is a husband and father. he was flanked by his family andthey were entitled to their right to privacy and some respect. Voyeurism is the game perverted people like to indulge in. Please withdraw any further comments of similar vituperation you may be tempted to offer..

socratease

Why would any serious commentator use David Marr's pop-psychology theory as a reference point. Is this man a psychologist or social worker ? (NO)

I think that if anyone displays arrogance it's David Marr; he exploited an opportunity to get to know the PM and instead of listening and relaying information to the public that would be helpful, clearly gathered personal details to try and illustrate his previously held theory of all that he thinks is wrong with Kev Rudd.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/09/david-marr%E2%80%99s-anger-hypothesis-is-torturously-argued/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unCF1GCpDG8

<"Peter Beattie has claimed that “if only Kevin had managed to show Australians and the party the emotion and dignity he revealed in his final speech as prime minister he could still be prime minister”. Beattie may well be overstating his case, not least because the speech also revealed the flaws, frailty and somewhat megalomaniac denial at the core of Rudd’s personality.">

megalomaniac denial?? wha...?

Again we have the pop-psych evaluation.

Btw - The polls weren't that low and the Australian public didn't vote him out.

Btw - How come his wonderfully communicative 'team' didn't get to know him. We certainly are hearing plenty of talk about flaws and arrogance; as if any other pollie or any human doesn't have the same.

Geez the 'sink in the boot' bandwagon must be comfy.

Am puzzled with the conflation of Johnson's attempt at understanding the role of mindsets, culture and individuation, socialisation, proximity with others in complex events and situations, as an attempt to "put the boot" into Rudd.
It's more about introducing a sort of anthropological, objective vbview of what happens in locations like Canberra, to avoid the sort of burn out that happens frequently in Australian politics.
If Rudd never does another thing in politics, he will still go down as a popular and successful PM.
After four hectic years and running into middle age, Rudd will probably find a bit of time for introspection, review and reconnection welcome and needed.
I don't want to see a good bloke chewed up by corrosive politics just for my sake, if he is not worldly enough to handle the cynical politics of Canberra and mining lobbies, he's got to be happier out of the place.