Comments on: Querulous and shifty v unctuous and shifty

By: Jenni

Jenni — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:53:10 +0000

Interesting that other people seen the worm moving in favour of Rudd before he spoke as well.
I thought I was imagining things – wonder if Mike Walsh stood there with the button pushed in support of Rudd all night?

By: Arjay

Arjay — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:35:54 +0000

John Howard’s body language let him down.You cannot compensate for words with over aninimated gesticulation.
He needs to find his confidence and not fight on Kevin Rudd’s terms.
If it is a rout of the Coalition,the electorate will rue the result of an election that threw out a responsible economic manager,since a rout will mean years in the wilderness for the Coalition.
I have no confidence in this Rudd Labor Govt.

By: Mike Bolan

Mike Bolan — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:39:13 +0000

Rudd talked about what he was going to do, Howard talked about what he’d done (or claimed to have done).
This meant Rudd talked about the future, Howard talked about the past. In fact Howard didn’t even seem to use the future tense at all, perhaps he only thinks about the past.
With all the tosh about whether Rudd has the ‘experience’ you’d have to ask how any opposition can ever win government in Howard’s eyes.

By: clink

clink — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:50 +0000

I was listening to an interesting program on RN, so I just watched.
Howard invariably directed himself to the camera, whereas Rudd addressed the audience.
Given that the audience was of a carefully chosen 50/50 allegience, it might have been a chance to “calibrate the Worm”

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:41:52 +0000

I saw the whole worm broadcast. Yes, the worm was “in the white” every time Rudd started speaking. But I think it’s a bit rich, as some have all but done, to accuse Channel 9, of all outlets, of a pro-Labor bias!
What it shows is the scale of the problem Howard has. As soon as he starts speaking, undecided voters switch off. As soon as Rudd starts speaking, they’re interested.
As with the previous Labor leaders who have beaten Howard in debates, the election is Rudd’s to lose. Beazley made a specialty of doing this, though he wasn’t ever able to perform so spectacularly as Latham in this respect.
Rudd is a far safer pair of hands, and people are interested in what he has to say. Hence the angst last night from the PM and the Treasurer, and from Andrew Robb on AM this morning.
I agree with prior analyses from Graham here and on OLO – the voters have never actually liked Howard. It’s always been a deal about keeping the battlers “relaxed and comfortable”, and he’s stuffed that up with WorkChoices. It’s the perfect storm because at the same time Labor have chosen a leader who is credible and likeable.
The only person who could beat Rudd in the debate was Rudd. He didn’t, and the PM got frustrated. Let’s see what the rest of the campaign brings.

By: Russell Biddle

Russell Biddle — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:52:36 +0000

Graham, I agree with your assessment although I would not rule Howard out entirely yet – there is a long way to go in this campaign. Interestingly, I read this morning that Peter Costello was chastised for interjecting from the floor. The debate would certainly have had more colour if he had been at the podium.
I did flick between the sky news broadcast and the nine worm. What I found intriging was that even before Rudd spoke the worm skyrocketed and similarly with Howard it nosedived just by the camera crossing. I would be interested to read what others thought who sat through the entire worming.