The Great Election Debate
Initially I was a bit concerned that 90 minutes would be a bit of a borefest, but it wasn't.
The screening of the worm was captivating, and bravo Channel Nine for doing so in opposition to the Liberal Party's insistence on its absence.
Rudd won the debate hands down, the PM appeared for the most part petulant, cranky, and listless.
He stood on a funny angle, and looked shifty and agitated for the entire broadcast, whilst on the balance Rudd appeared firm and balanced.
Rudd was able to link together all the policies he has been announcing over the past year, and his closing speach had great impact in highlighting his vision for Australia's future.
Howard on the other hand was forced onto the defensive. His two policy announcements were ineffectual, and the questions he posed Rudd were neither incisive, nor particular well conceived.
The worm was not about who was right or wrong on any particular issue, it was about perception- and at the end of the day Rudd appeared the natural leader, while Mr Howard came out looking like Mr Magoo.
The thing I most enjoyed about the debate was how Kevin Rudd seems to have grasped the productivity agenda of Paul Keating. He is comfortable talking about how capcity building and boosting education spending are important for Australia's future economic development.
The most important thing was that Rudd didn't put a foot wrong, and gave the appearance of being the notional leader of the nation at the very least.
Mr Howard has a lot of work to do to regain the front runners position.
The screening of the worm was captivating, and bravo Channel Nine for doing so in opposition to the Liberal Party's insistence on its absence.
Rudd won the debate hands down, the PM appeared for the most part petulant, cranky, and listless.
He stood on a funny angle, and looked shifty and agitated for the entire broadcast, whilst on the balance Rudd appeared firm and balanced.
Rudd was able to link together all the policies he has been announcing over the past year, and his closing speach had great impact in highlighting his vision for Australia's future.
Howard on the other hand was forced onto the defensive. His two policy announcements were ineffectual, and the questions he posed Rudd were neither incisive, nor particular well conceived.
The worm was not about who was right or wrong on any particular issue, it was about perception- and at the end of the day Rudd appeared the natural leader, while Mr Howard came out looking like Mr Magoo.
The thing I most enjoyed about the debate was how Kevin Rudd seems to have grasped the productivity agenda of Paul Keating. He is comfortable talking about how capcity building and boosting education spending are important for Australia's future economic development.
The most important thing was that Rudd didn't put a foot wrong, and gave the appearance of being the notional leader of the nation at the very least.
Mr Howard has a lot of work to do to regain the front runners position.
posted by timboy at 4:44 PM
2 Comments:
"The screening of the worm was captivating, and bravo Channel Nine for doing so in opposition to the Liberal Party's insistence on its absence."
I disagree. The worm takes away from the substance of the debate. People watch the worm instead of listening to the words. And how can you trust the worm? On what basis does the worm swing? How much audience response pushes the worm up or down?
I also think the debate should either be broadcast on the ABC or by everyone... and maybe it should be held somewhere where more then 40 people can watch?
I was glad at the outcome though...
-Alex
In shepparton it was only broadcast on the ABC, without the worm....I guess being the safest liberal seat in Vic the locals didn't want to see that nasty worm, thats if any of them watched it...
-ps alex is a jerk
Post a Comment
<< Home