Haven't read the book but from Mark's article the similarities between Rudd and Howard are pretty striking. During their political careers, that is. Nobody seems to know what childhood trauma produced John Howard's aversion to the disadvantage.

The single-minded determination, the tight control over image, learning from mistakes and remaking himself as required all describe Howard as well. So does working around the clock, although Howard doesn't seem to mind if others around him doze off occasionally.

The outstanding difference between them as I see it is their intellect and aptitude for education. It's becoming common knowledge that Howard limped his way through school and uni, thought a kiwi is a brand of boot polish, had to have economics explained to him with cuisinaire rods when he became treasurer and so on. It's a bit hard to see at what point Howard starting working hard to achieve his goals.

Rudd seems to have worked hard on himself and his goals from childhood and has the intellectual capacity to work things out for himself. It makes me wonder whether he's as vain as he's made out to be, or just justifiably proud of his achievements.

Kev was known to be an arrogant bugger in the Goss government, thought that all the worlds problems could be fixed if everyone learnt to speak Manderin.

He won't listen to anything other than his own echo..

Very myopic, very ideologically challenged.

FrankGol, Kerr did work for the Libs, but listen to him on Phillip Adams little wireless programme. He is often quite damning of Howard and the Libs. and always supercilious towards them.
With such a commanding lead in the polls Rudd is likely to win the next election. I've speculated that the Libs. best chance of winning would be to get Rudd talking as much as possible, and to engage with him at every chance. He comes across to me as an ambitious soul who is something of a control freak: who intellectually understands issues, but lacks real empathy. I find something robotic in his delivery and character which would be exposed if he were confronted with 'live' issues.eg the Burke lies or the 'stolen' document, later shown to be his mistake.

Rudd is ambitious and a control freak. He is not however legitimately ambitious and he may find that the unions make it hard for him to be in control

What does 'legitimately ambitious' mean Communicat?

Sounds a bit like a Rudd-ism to me, like the fork too far or you can't teach an old dog to call a pot a black kettle.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it change its leopard spots.

Hey, this is fun.

A stitch in time saves a bird in the hand.

Ok. Move on folks. Nothing to see here. Chainy's head got broken trying to decipher 'legitimately ambitious'.

Ah well now I was not the one to use the phrase...I am not sure that there is such a thing as being "legitimately ambitous" - but if it means you want to get to the top and don't mind who you tread on to get there does not that describe all pollies?
Is it legitimate if you attain your goal? Mmm...I doubt it...sounds a bit too like a dictatorship to me - but that is what Rudd would like of course...only problem us the unions will get in the way...like big business gets in the way of Howard...neither side can win.