Yes, he may be a nerd (as you suggest), but one that will go down in history as not even completing one term because of his many political flaws.

Political and academic qualities are different, and I have clear preference for the former. And I have a PhD.

Rudd is going because he was not good enough.

This is a brilliant article.
One of the most sensible and fair opinion pieces I can remember reading.

We get the politics we deserve in Australia.

"But it takes a fairly cold-hearted individual to not feel some amount of sympathy for a man..." Sorry auld chum, I am so very pleased to see this god-fearing bastard gone that I have nothing but a gleeful smile to offer him.

"I’ll be happy to see a female Prime Minister."...this is a typical shallow comment from people like Fran Kelly and many others make all the time. It's almost patronising, in fact, it is patronising.

"I think Gillard will do a good job"... why, all she has done is to echo everything Rudd said-did?.... at the moment she is nothing more than Rudd-in-a-frock, and will remain so dressed unless she drastically changes ALP policies.... which should then require Fran Kelly and Co to demand to know why she was so compliant for so long.

Gillard is as much of a fraud as Rudd was, pretending to be 'left' and acting only ever as a good rightwinger....like Tanner and Macklin of course.

A pox on her, Rudd and all of 'em.

Chris

I agree, Rudd does/did have "political flaws".

However, while you may have a PhD (in something, as do I) and have a preference for political qualities (in our leaders?), I am disturbed that you don't seem to appreciate that political (and religious) zealots have not done our world to good, anytime.

Ergo, we need real leaders - whether they have academic credentials (or not) shouldn't enter the equation you clearly think is relevant.

As to the politics? There really is something to the maxim "we get the politicians we deserve" - for some reason, I am uncomfortable with that too.

qanda,

you make fair points.

I am certainly not against academic skills, but i am supportive of smart individuals who have political skills. One does not have to be an academic type to have such qualities, as life experience (whether as lawyers, union officials, or even business people) does provide education.

I often find more common sense on building sites than at supposed more enlightened professions.

I see in Gillard and Abbott two individuals that are intelligent (but not perfect; who is). While both have personal views and values that may or may not offend different people, i am more confident that they wil both lead and forge effective compromises on key issues. This is the art of politics. It is the competition of ideas that should prevail in terms of policy outomes, although leadership can and is important at times.

I have always said that governing in these times (and any other) is not easy. But i have total disdain for people who try to simplify things with both analsysis of the past and a reliance on rhetoric for the future.

Qanda is uncomfortable with “we get the politicians we deserve”; and quite reasonably so:
The “will of the people” is declared subsequent to voter’s minds, and perhaps choice, being bent by months-long barrages of advertising. And the advertising industry is run by professionals - the extent of its efforts on behalf of clients matches the extent of payment.
Even more discomforting is the demonstrated unreliability of promises made by politicians prior to their election to leadership.