I've always said, anyone who actually wants this job should be immediately declared ineligible.
Bob Carr has been described as 'the reluctant leader'; according to his own diary he thought leading the NSW state Labor party would be the end of his career. Apparently minister for foreign affairs has been his life long ambition.
It seems power is an addiction to political players. The 'faceless men' will do anything to get it, and anything to keep it.
It's becoming more and more apparent that the Labor power brokers are desperate for a Messiah, and -for various reasons- neither Gillard or Rudd fill the bill.
Bob Carr has been nominated to fill a Senate vacancy. As the Prime Minister must be a member of the Lower House, Gillard must feel extra safe, on top of Carr's famous 'reluctance'.
Will it be enough to save Gillard, if she continues to stumble and fail to capture the hearts of the voters?
How long before Labor insiders and the Media start touting Bob Carr as Labor's 'Last, Best Hope'?
A week? A month? 6 months? A year?
I've set up a quick poll, just for fun.
Cast your vote at;

http://thecomensality.com/avasay/bob-carr-for-pm/feed

Labour are so desperate for power its a wonder they have not tried to bribe Tony Abbott to switch parties.

I don't know about that Runner.

However as they are so in love with Turnbull, I wish they would just go buy him. I have never heard of a banker who was not for sale, & even he could not be worse than their last few leaders.

Carr, within three months will be well respected, he is a good man.
Read his history and books by him and about him.
NSW wanted him the party wanted him in Canberra as leader.
A healing must take place, but may have to wait till after the lemmings march behind Gillard.
A Carr leadership while healing is not going to happen, unless faction heads let it.

Your instincts are sharp Runner but I don't think it will be the used Carr (with an 18 month warranty). He'll no doubt sit "diagonally & ideologically" to the next challenger (which is inevitable) as this has always been his approach to anything and everything. His reluctance to leadership is not fuelled by coyness of any inhibitions about himself but rather an over blown sense of his own intellectual prowess. His love of American political culture is a convenient distraction from his own inability to understand or Australia's political culture and this can be said of many senior ex politicians – many of whom weazled their way through the rank and file doing the 80's and 90's. The US model of liberal democracy with all its faults was for them the vanguard of any first world aspirations and nothing else would do. Carr will be too busy sniffing the backsides of US diplomats to give a hoot about what is happening here domestically. He'll be throwing back Budweiser’s with Andrew Peacock and Beazley in a sleazy Washington bar, all of them loudly complimenting each other on being smarter than they actually are. Steven Smith should have got the job, but they opted for the kosher pseudo intellectualism of the used Carr. He won't challenge, he just got his gold watch job.

Apologies, my post was meant to address the thread by Grim, :

I again in the post above mine see anti Labor views fueled by lack of understanding.
Steven Smith has had roles he did not do very well.
He in no way would have done this any better.
Gillard,now trying to make up ground in the public eye, has acted or been helped to act, in the country's best interests.
She had this task, getting some one to replace one of the best Foreign Ministers in our country's history.
She has got that done, who, name for me,would go close other than Carr.
Forget the uninformed trashing of this man,he held for a time NSW in his hand.
Smith is mediocre , if he got his wish, based on his wish not talent, we would be right to complain.
As some brick by brick tear down the ALP, remember the day will come that sees far worse in Canberra.

Hi Rainier, I agree that Carr doesn't want the job; not only because of his long ambition for foreign affairs but also the cushy nature of a senate seat he didn't have to campaign for. Much easier than walking the boards and kissing babies; dealing with the trivial problems of local constituents...
The question is not whether he wants the job, but rather whether the Labor power brokers -aided and abetted by the media, ever keen for blood- will want him to rescue Labor from an unpopular Gillard at the next election.
Voters are much more sympathetic to a 'reluctant' leader coerced into the job, than one who takes it in a bloody coup.

Yes Grim that's true, better a fresh old face than a new unknown one with a bag full of promises. But I don't think Carr has the credibility factor for a national audience. He will no doubt cast a useful shadow across the profile of the Labor brand as "reformers with steady hands" (which is what Gillard is trying to sell as a narrative) but at the end of the day Gillard will need to inspire the national imagination all by herself. Some commentators (mostly Murdoch press moles) say that Rudd's final hoorah was the making of her, but they fall short of saying exactly what she has made (besides a decision without the usual equivocations. The fight for the radical centre will throw up more surprises over the coming months and I would not be surprised to see Malcolm Turnbull return and roll Abbott, which would recalibrate how Labor sells itself as a conservative slightly left of centre party. Turnball has been quietly sitting back waiting and watching, so have his backers. I believe Labor is not preparing to fight Abbott at the next election; they know it will be Turnball. When this happens it will definitely be 'game on'.

Grim, Rainer, I have never questioned the Intelligence of either of you, and never will.
I however question here your understanding.
It has always been the party who selects Senators.
It always will be, by the order they get on the ticket they win, nearly win, or have no chance.
Vince Gair, for True ALP supporters,a swear word, was replaced by a man then leader of Queensland.
He broke every tradition, and his remoteness to any standard is another story.
Bob Car never had to face an electorate, he as is the norm in such cases faced his pears.
Now in the National eye,he will very soon rise head shoulders,and bottom of his boots, above the mud .
He is on his way, in a job made for him.
Australia, even Liberals, will ask where has he been.
And yes, sorry but I think Gillard can not win, just maybe Bob will be called on.
Shorten needs time, others want it,but party may have an answer.
Riding on the back of his coming popularity,his statesman like image we in NSW know Bob may get Gillards job,a brilliant move.

Belly, nothing there I'd disagree with. I suppose the underlying question we are all asking is 'how do we get rid of popularist politics' where personalities (not policies) dominates how people (voters) discuss and debate and eventually vote one way or another.
I was eardropping on a conversation at my local the other day where a group of young people (early 20's) were discussing Rudd and Gillard, Abbott et al. Not once during their conversation did they talk about the economy, refugees, HECS, or the many other policies that will effect them now and in the future. Instead they talked about the relevance of the public persona of our politicians. Malcolm Fraser recently critisized the telecasting of parliament because it reduced everything down to theatrics. I agree. The real work of govenment (and how government works) is hardly understood because of the hunger of a news media culture competing through the new art in the method of democracy, "manufacturing consent." By manufacturing consent, the news media overcomes the fact that formally a lot of people have the right to vote. They make it irrelevant because they can manufacture consent and make sure our choices and attitudes (and debates) will be structured in such a way that we only ever discuss politics and politicians within the confines of the paremeters they set: which is quite simply put- "applying the lessons of a propaganda agency". There is no one agency for this, but rather a consent amougst the broad spread of mainstream Australia news media outlets mostly owned by Murdoch) about what constitutes political news and how it should be discussed. I don't think this will change any day soon, but I do believe that we can influence how this works.

Rainier quite right, I agree and want the same outcomes.
But it has always been this way.
Just finished reading a book by a great favorite Barry Cohen.
It was about Gough, his humor and ego, both immense but he was either loved or hated as a result of the latter.
Bob Hawk, Kieting, Sir Robert Menzies, John Howard, Peterson, all had it, it being ability to blind people with a personality to real out comes.
I have fallen out with life time mates, because I know for sure and certain, the ALP is on the way out.
Not because of its policy's, not because of Tony Abbott but in spite of him.
My party in the years 1972 till 1975 did not address publics perceptions about it.
They as is the case now, thought Medea rubbish was so silly it could be ignored.
Some 20% vote on that front page.
Carr, with in 3 months, will rise head and shoulders above the in fighting, he always was above it.
I offer my ALP brothers and sisters this.
Is solidarity with Gillard, not questioning her supporters insulting my party and its past leader, going in any way help her win an election?
No amount of pretending can save Gillard.
The morning after,standing in the rubble of my party and government,who will be first to say I was right.
Well just maybe Bob Carr if leading, can avoid the cliff.