I, too, was left feeling deflated by Rudd's uninspiring oratory on election night. I was in a roomful of people elated that an era marked by meanness and mendacity had finally come to an end and willing the PM elect to express our new sense of hope.

My feeling is that the minders kept in on a leash, fearing a "this one is for the true believers" piece of hubris that would come back to haunt him. But surely he could have rallied the nation behind him without sounding overly triumphal?

Was he elected because he's a great public speaker? Or because he seemed like a decent, capable person who'll turn things around in this country? Perhaps he wasn't elected at all - it was the party he leads that was given government, with their agenda of workplace relations, climate change etc. I didn't vote for Rudd either, simply because his name wasn't on my ballot paper.

In the end, it'll be the actions of his government that count. In few weeks, no, days, his speech will be totally forgotten. If he continues giving boring speeches it really won't matter - who likes to listen to pollies droning on anyway?

Rudd's speech, like the vast majority of political speeches, will be forgotten because it was forgettable.
Keating's "sweetest victory of all"/"true believers" speech is far from forgotten (at least, the goods bits - even much of that speech wasn't all that inspiring). I'm skeptical whether Rudd has it in him to pull of anything similarly memorable, but very few leaders/speechwriters do, when it comes down to it. Howard certainly didn't. Even among American Presidents, most of their inaugural speeches are pretty forgettable - Kennedy's being an obvious exception.

So Rudd didn't give such an impassioned speech - big deal.

All that happens when you have ultra-passionate people is that they are invariably followed by their polar opposites. Just look at Whitlam being followed by Fraser and Keating by Howard.

Rudd's approach shows that he is studiously looking to cement Labor into the political firmament with a minimum of fuss. This is a smoother arrangement for the average Australian than the roller-coaster of the (scary) ultra-passionate types being followed by the predictable and dead boring opposites.

And this was a 'not so impressive' piece of commentary, rather a nit-picking bit of nothing by someone who isn't that observant. The "Okay guys," was not intended as part of a speech but rather was a typical quietening down gesture of someone faced by an exultant and noisy crowd. As for the over-long list of acknowledgements this is one of the few times that the range of helping groups, individuals and backroom boys and girls get public mention. I agree it was not a great speech but I did feel it was a typically thorough effort by Rudd to leave no one person or sector out of the credit listing. The inclusion of the unions, the Labor party, the candidates etc. will not go unappreciated. Imagine had he seemed to claim credit for himself alone? The party hacks and office employees will cherish that brief mention into a future where their loyalty will be much needed. Bernie Banton would have died a little happier. The acknowledgement of his personal staff and family was not that different from Howard's or of any other triumphant or conceding candidate.

As for your own suggested speech, perhaps it would go down well after a business conference to inspire the shareholders, but it certainly doesn't acknowledge the blood, sweat and tears of those at the coal face.

In political speaking the rules really are different from the Shakespeare that Rose apparently prefers.

Cliché is everything; anything else is but a shadow of the cliché that should have been spoken.

Viewed from that perspective, Rudd's speech was perfect rhetoric.

Thanks to the media, today's Prime Minister is a media product, he must be youthful and buffed and capable of delivering a 30 second sound bite without fluffing his lines. Can't imagine a news editor would allow even the great Sir Robert Menzies more than a 30 second sound bite.

We'll have to await the policies that the incumbent party choses to implement. I hope they consider social justice, social cohesion and care for our environment to be important.

A feature of both Rudd and Howard's speeches was the use of the expression "fellow Australians" I would have preferred "citizens".Also in both speeches there was the describing the qualities of Australians in the third person.In Rudd's speech he talks about rolling up the sleeves on a Sunday morning which is what very few of us do. Had Rudd put himself on an AWA? Monday would have been good enough because we are still under a caretaker government.

‘OK guys!' Kevin Rudd's acceptance speech was ... well ... ruddy awful!

I didn’t ruddy well vote for im and I don’t expect his guvment to be any ruddy better.

I reckon that is all that is worth ruddy well saying on the matter {:</

What a lot of product from the southern end of a north bound bull!
Rudd did not need to speak Australia had done it for him.
The words came out great too.
No speech could have said it better.
Nit picking like this fuels my joy!

Even my most pro Rudd pals were mocking Rudd pre-election by prefacing their statements with "I'm passionate about..."; as in 'I'm passionate about....socks with shoes'.etc

His speech certainly tempered the euphoric mood of the Lang Park crowd.

As a TOASTMASTER of some 26 summers I have studied speeches, made lots and evaluated many, listening is also a skill of a Speakers Club. James, as a Queenlander you should be aware of Rudd's audience. He was talking to the former Queenslanders of both persuasions who voted differently this time as did lots of other "fellow Australians," who don't want rhetoric !- they want someone to do the job in front of them of repairing the country and preparing the agenda he has now to embark on.Time for talking about aspirations is over.He is a Top C.E.O. looking at getting us, the "shareholders" to feel confidant he has the ideas and know-how to get this country to get back on track to where Australia is a modern Nation embracing technology and the FAIR-GO for all citizens, black. white, and yellow!

Hi,
You would have to agree though, what a gracious farewell speech from Mr Howard.
That will never be forgotton.
Thankyou
Scott Clark

There is no way that Kevin has the discipline,intensity or will power of John Howard.Under a strong leader discipline can always be slackened,but with weak leaders like Morris Iemma,they just bring more decay.

I cannot see Kevin Rudd standing up the Unions or the feeble minded left.The "Me too" philosophy smacks of uninspiring rhetoric and equally uninspiring outcomes.

John Howard did not whimper or seek to find scape goats,he accepted the blame and took defeat with courage.He left us with the strongest economy in the developed world,and his detractors cannot take that from him.

It is early days yet,and I'm hoping that Kevin Rudd will surprise me.

“You would have to agree though, what a gracious farewell speech from Mr Howard.”

Yes I agree Scott. It was good.

One can only be thankful that it was Rudd and not Gillard speaking. Rudd has obviously crammed a "Book of Cliches" somewhere sometime, he may talk Mandarin, he also talks cliches. I do not think I have ever heard him speak a sensible, straight sentence.