I think Australians have a b.s. warning light that Americans don't and grandiloquent speeches will be less well received here. Case in point they fell for the Bush weapons-of-mass-destruction speeches. It may transpire that Obama disappoints the way that Rudd has in which case the rhetoric may seem pompous in hindsight. Some might argue that the non-decision on Gunn's pulp mill is astute if any real decision is likely to be overtaken by events. If by contrast Obama makes courageous political announcements and they backfire that gives minus points to his scorecard. By this time next year Obama may have seriously compromised himself and Rudd may have made an actual good decision so the comparison may be less unflattering.

Excellent piece, Kerryn.

I'm not sure I entirely share your cynical take on the "Yes we can" call-response refrain in Obama's speech, although I understand where your caution derives from (I think). No doubt I was emotionally caught up in the speech, which I found utterly inspiring, but it seemed to me that the "yes we can" crowd response was a spontaneous overflow of new hope from a people who had had to suffer through an era of universal disrespect, and who sensed that a profoundly important change had finally come - out of the blue, as it were, and most improbably so - to restore their faith in themselves and the possibilities of the American ideal. Agree entirely with your comments on Keating, by the way. Despite his flaws, I still mourn his loss.

Taswegian,

Aren't you being just a bit nationally self-congratulatory? The American public "fell for the Bush weapons-of-mass-destruction speeches" you claim (not all of them!) - and did the Aussie public not also fall for the Howard WMD rubbish (again, not all of us!)? Maybe our BS warning lights are outta battery power?

And on what basis do you demean Obama's speech as "grandiloquent"? I'd rate it as one of the greatest speeches I've witnessed (and Rudd's Apology another - two in one year, with a long, long time between rhetorical drinks!). As Kerryn points out on her article, a speech is far more than mere text. The delivery was fuelled with a sense of resolve that I found inspiring and irresistable. We all perceive things differently, but how you can get "grandlioquent" out of that speech is, frankly, baffling

"I thought this was a little harsh, particularly in the light of the Apology to the Stolen Generations speech and the sincerity and passion with which Rudd delivered it. I also think we are suffering from short-memory syndrome, considering the much starker contrast between Obama's public presence and performance and that of our own former Prime Minister."

I think a lot of people including the author suffer from "short-memory syndrome", PM John Howard Apologised to the So Called Stolen Generations back in 2001, I believe it was - I know a lot of people ignored it because he didn't use the very special and magical word "sorry" - but I thought his speech was very sincere and inspirational, but some folks just insist on living their lives looking for causes.

I guess it all has to do with hearing what you want to hear, and the author clearly has her favourites. Have you heard Obama speak without a prompter, not very inspirational at all.

Talking of BS filter, the Australian one seems to be somewhat blinkered lately as our journalists still seem unable to hold the current government to account for anything and still constantly refer to the "good old enemy" of the previous government.

Ross I only caught excerpts of the Obama speech and Rudd's 'sorry' speech. However I believe I am in the sizeable group who think actions speak louder than words. Therefore I think that 'sorry' and the token climate policy don't add up to a tinker's cuss without measurable results. This isn't happening with Rudd and I reserve judgement on Obama. I don't reserve judgement on Blair and Bush; I think they were both disasters. Howard gets a mixed report because he actually did a lot of what he promised, a point the current media hasn't cottoned onto yet.

Tas,

If you only caught excerpts of those speeches, I'd humbly suggest any criticism by you of either effort to be a little wanting in credibility! Strewth, Rudd's speech was so short - what's an excerpt worth?

For that matter, how come you didn't tune in for one of the most important speeches in contemporary Aust history (or bother to catch one of the numerous transcripts of the speech)? Not much interest being shown there in a landmark moment - what qualifies you to comment as you have here, then?

rpg, you've GOT to be joking. Another instance of the sheer stupidity of political bias.

"For that matter, how come you didn't tune in for one of the most important speeches in contemporary Aust history"

Ross Buncle - you've GOT to be joking. Another instance of the sheer stupidity of political bias