Well, the first and probably last debate between Howard and Rudd went off tonight and I was wondering what everyone thought of the candidates?  From what I saw I'd say Rudd took the advantage out of it, but there was no great surprise there. Howard can make a good speech but he tends to debate in circles and that smugness everyone hates about Rudd sort of paid off in rebuttals.  The biggest surprise for me was that there was no mention of immigration at all.  I at least expected Rudd to chime in with something about the whole Sudanese mess earlier.  That said so much of it was spent saying the same thing about intrerest rates again and again I may have glazed over for that portion.  So waht did you all think?

I think we did learn something about our possible future PM last night. While we already know that he has less experience playing the politician than the incumbent Howard, which was evident during the debate in Rudd's initial nerves and occassional speech gaffes, some new facets of K-Rudd seemed to show. I wouldn't have expected him to manage to remain so calm and controlled when put on the spot, while Howard seemed to flounder and flail (with the poor microphone copping the brunt) in comparison. Ruddy showed a good level of knowledge of the spectrum of ALP policy (even the really fresh ones) and an ability to stand on his own, which is a quality that hasn't come through in his brief appearances on the evening news. Rudd also adeptly argued against his 'me-too' critics - he almost had me convinced! On the other side of the podium, Howard seemed as stale as a student sharehouse and was neither fresh or inspring - although we already knew that!

What's there to learn? See, that's what I don't get about this whole argument about not 'knowing' Rudd. What are we looking for?

All we as members of the public will ever 'know' about a politician, or any figure for that matter, is the facade presented to us through the media. That's as real as it's going to get for a great number of Australians. Not all of us to have a baby for the man to kiss.

^ Ahh bugger I left in a typo. Where's the edit function?

Previously Matthew Di Leo wrote:

><p>What's there to learn? See, that's what I don't get about this whole argument about not 'knowing' Rudd. What are we looking for?<p>

><p>All we as members of the public will ever 'know' about a politician, or any figure for that matter, is the facade presented to us through the media. That's as real as it's going to get for a great number of Australians. Not all of us to have a baby for the man to kiss.<p>

><blockquote>

What else am I supposed to base my decision on? Policy so far has been vague and remarkably similar to each other with the exception of different bribery schemes. At least with a debate I can watch them duke it out without a prepared speech for a safety net. Without that I may as well just vote for the guy giving me a cheque for $500.

Previously Matthew Di Leo wrote:

><p>What's there to learn? See, that's what I don't get about this whole argument about not 'knowing' Rudd. What are we looking for?<p>

><p>All we as members of the public will ever 'know' about a politician, or any figure for that matter, is the facade presented to us through the media. That's as real as it's going to get for a great number of Australians. Not all of us to have a baby for the man to kiss.<p>

><blockquote>

What else am I supposed to base my decision on? Policy so far has been vague and remarkably similar to each other with the exception of different bribery schemes. At least with a debate I can watch them duke it out without a prepared speech for a safety net. Without that I may as well just vote for the guy giving me a cheque for $500.