Graham

I couldn't quite follow your thinking in this article.

Making judgments about politicians' appearances often tells as much about the judge as about those judged. So your comments that 'Howard exuded power and confidence' while Rudd 'looked constrained, nervous and uncertain, slightly preachy and vaguely condescending' must be taken with a whole handful of salt.

Perceptions depend just as much on what viewers expect as what they get. So for you, Howard's speech 'touched on all of the issues that our polling says it should have touched on - Australian values, climate change, water, foreign affairs, economy. It targeted Rudd for lack of experience and union connections.' But not a word about his 11th year Aboriginal reconciliation epiphany? Nor anything about Iraq? Nor African refugees? Nor interest rates and housing affordability? Nor nuclear energy? Are they issues the polls said weren't going to work?

In any event, mentioning some issues may be a double-edged sword. Just the mere mention of climate change, for example, might be a big negative for Howard - after all he was brought kicking and screaming to that agenda after a decade of being a climate skeptic, and the electorate do remember.

By contrast you thought Rudd’s performance 'was about as persuasive a marketing tool as “New Coke”' but then concede that when it comes to leadership the polls say that he has got the issue of leadership over John Howard.

So what's your line of argument? That Howard is playing to the polls but has made a blue on leadership? Or that Rudd is a better marketer?

More importantly, who are you going to vote for, and will the next six weeks of campaigning make a scrap of difference to your vote? I think not.

Graham
I struggle with your reasoning on the Queensland vote for Labor. Queensland not only knows Rudd but is closely acquainted with Labor's sorry state of affairs in general. When anyone mentions the Labor states' disastrous management of Health and Infrastructure, problems with Ministers coming up short in the ethics department, or covering up the mess after the event, it rings true for Queensland. The mere thought of Labor in power Federally and across the states would send shivers through the spine of reasonable thinking Queenslanders after Beattie's Council Amalgamations effort before he bailed out. The recent by-election in Brisbane saw the Labor candidate winning only few more votes than Beattie did previously. This despite a mudslinging flyer against the Greens and with no Liberal/National opposition. If I was Rudd I'd be concerned about winning any seats at all in Queensland. He'll need a lot more than a photo shoot with blue backdrop to win this election. Subtle soft sell and an American style campaign doesn't cut it for me.

I was disappointed with Rudd's presentation.

One would have thought that going to air at least 2 hours after run he would have prepared better but he did not.

The same buzz words were slapped together like a quick sandwich and he seemed to rely on these more than enunciate who and what he stood for.

Rudd could have acknowledge from the outset by simply saying

"Well its taken the PM this long to call the election blah blah blah..

But instead he read from some scrawled notes on some old speech he had already used. He nervously bumped the microphones twice and this is not something one does if you want to send over a strong message.
And he never gets any passion in his voice.

And that little phrase he uses "Now let me say this" is overdone.

His minders need to turbo charge him big time. A blonde Mr Bean is not what punters want in this 'grand final type election'.

As for Howard, well what can you say? The Shrub learnt some tricks from the Bush. I was flat and boring and he would not go into discussion about policy.

I can't wait to hear his concession speech for both government and his own seat of Bennelong.

JOHN HOWARD........"RIGHT" leadership.

KEVIN RUDD........."NEW" Leadership.

JESUS of NAZARETH.."BEST" Leadership.

We all know that if the "Coalition" is in power.. the cake will be sliced in a way favorable to the interests which elected/supported them.

If Labor gets in...70% unionists.. the cake will be sliced and divvied up in a differently beneficial way.. again..to vested interests.
(note...Greens and Democrats are totally irrelevant)

IN BOTH the first 2 cases, they will wax eloquent about 'NATIONAL INTEREST'..which of course is code for "I'm looking after my mob and blow you other jokers"

I ask..."How would JH or KR do things differently if Jesus was the one they acted for" ?

For one thing, I doubt that "Black" African refugees would have been slammed.

JH
I doubt there would be so much resistance to the idea of a national apology to Indigenous Australians, and that if such an apology was forthcoming, it would be matched by appropriate practical measures.

At least constitutional recognition is a step in the right direction.

As James says "Faith without works..is dead" just so.. 'sorry' is just a word...and without works..is just as much a verbal corpse.

KR would move AWAY from the politicized 'Sorry 2 Stolen Generation' and TOWARDS a 'Sorry for the horrific actions of some early Australians to Indigenous people for EVERYTHING'

KR would also avoid like the plague pandering to 'Union' interests and seek a better situation for ALL Australians.

JH and KR would probably withdraw Australia from many idealogical UN conventions..and seek much higher moral ground in Biblical principles which assure national sovereignty, Border security, political,cultural and social independance and a bright future for all Australians.

Hi Rainier

You might have to endure his retirement speech in Parliament before you hear those other speechs...

Holy cow a turbo charged mannequin ... running on natural gas?

Everybody seems to have forgotten the issues that saw Goss lose that election. Not the issues in Townsville, nor was it hospitals or traffic or economics or arrogrance but it was the issues affecting large chunks of Brisbane's Southside.

Toll roads and the Koala Highway to the Gold Coast.

That cost Goss swags of seats in an area Rudd claims he's now 'standing up for'...
I can recall the angst in the community in not being given a choice in the matter of toll roads and that highway and I don't think those people have forgotton.

One thing I have noticed about Kevin is he adopts habitual practices, statements and positions and he seems unable to adapt easily.

I suspect if he is elected he'll behave as the Goss government did and you can be sure when he loses it won't be his fault.

Now, just a moment there, Boaz.

>>I ask..."How would JH or KR do things differently if Jesus was the one they acted for" ?<<

But they do, Boaz. Apparently.

"Christians gathered in 700 churches from Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory to Ulverstone in Tasmania to watch the two men duelling for the prime ministership outline their Christian credentials" ABC News, Fri Aug 10, 2007

"I do... state it to be the fact that my party and the National Party has [sic] within its ranks a very significant number of people who are extremely active members of various Christian denominations." John Howard, from the above telecast.

"From a Christian perspective, we are custodians of the planet, [w]e have a responsibility to ensure that those who come after us have a planet which is habitable." Kevin Rudd, in the same telecast.

"The Opposition Leader also came to the question of how governments should treat the poor and underprivileged... Around a dozen times in his speech, Mr Rudd said his Christian beliefs gave him a unifying vision for the nation" ABC News Fri Aug 10, 2007

I'm not sure what else you would want, Boaz, with two committed Christians fighting it out for the chance to lead you into a bright new Christian future.

>>JH and KR would probably withdraw Australia from many idealogical UN conventions..and seek much higher moral ground in Biblical principles which assure national sovereignty, Border security, political,cultural and social independance and a bright future for all Australians.<<

The thing that puzzles me about this statement is that one of the two you mentioned, JH, has been in office for eleven years. How come he hasn't yet had time to create all those outcomes? And if he hasn't addressed them yet, what makes you think either he or Rudd are going to do so in the future?

They're only politicians, you know.

Albeit Christian ones, of course.