I so heartily agree. Will Kev and the boys betray us?

I had to have a go here (forgive me):

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=O76L4rHX-IA

- I know, I know - "Don't give up yer day job!"

- does this mean I won't be seeing you in Cannes? :)

There's lot of hyperbole and exaggeration here. The argument that the real goalposts of political life are artificially managed by the corporate elite is basically undeniable, and the author is hardly Robinson Crusoe in pointing that out.

But notwithstanding that truism, the author indulges in a huge fallacy of equivalency, which utterly fails to recognise clear points of differentiation between Rudd and the Government. Tim's treatment of Rudd's comment that the US is basically a force for good is particularly glib and superficial. If Tim had bothered to read his article in The Diplomat, clear and cogent arguments are used to support this claim based on the bona fide progressive idea of universalism. Rudd rightly credits the US for playing a central role in globalising the rule of law, and wishes to see them return to this legacy. Yet Tim apparently can't get past his blind outrage, having fallen hook, line and sinker for the blame US first line caricature.

a good survey of oz today. but tim hasn't grasped that pollies are what they are, because the people are also 'what they are'.

things aren't going to get better, until the people reach a higher standard of citizenship. since government control of education is total, and backed by daily enhancement of surveillance and diseducation through technology, the sheep-subjects are going to become more abjectly subject, not less.

god help ozzies, because 'she'll be right' won't protect them from cybernetic management and genetic engineering, and they are culturally incapable of protecting themselves.

The Labor campaign has thus far proven to be nothing more than a showman's attempts to 'dazzle with sparkly objects'. It was with great sadness that I heard of the appointment of Peter Garrett as shadow environment minister. I had at first harbored good feelings towards the then new Labor leader Kevin Rudd.

With the appointment of Peter Garrett however, as shadow environment minister, Rudd began a long "Hello Australian public, look at the shiny ball that I now dangle in front of you" campaign. Thus far Rudd has conducted himself in a manner, which has resulted in nothing more then weak policies.

Yet the Australian public continues to be amazed by 'easy' promises like the signing of the Kyoto agreement, which while seemingly beneficial, is naught but a pinprick compared to the majority of domestic issues faced by the Australian people.

Having worked with the Republican governorship campaign for California in 2003, I can categorically say that the Rudd style is following in the very successful footsteps of Governor Schwarzenegger. Rudd's strategy however, has taken on a subtler guise given that he cannot call on a fan base to exploit (though has still tried to add 'star-status' to his frontbench with the appointment of Peter Garret).

Kevin Rudd has, as a result, come across as a complete political mediocrity, but a sound salesman. His campaign strategy will be (already has been) successful, but we will not see Kevin Rudd maintaining his position for more than a term. People cannot be distracted forever and the illusion that Rudd has set up for himself will not last once the Australian public experiences his leadership style.

As much as I hate John Howard I will not vote for a party led by a younger version of him.

I want unions to be a part of Australian society, I don't want NT aborigines forced off their land and forced to feed their families on half the dole, I want real solutions to climate change, I want a universal health care system, I want urban planning

Kevvy you had your chance but now its time to vote Green

billie, it is either labor or liberal in the reps, don't you think? But yes, greens for the senate!