A good observation Robert that the public will get tired of the one-upmanship. I agree. If your assetion holds that this will force the media to look beyond the games and the posturing to the substance, then that would indeed be a new dawn.

But what about the media proxies? They will never look beyond the game because they are part of the game?

It’s been very instructive as it’s actually brought out into the open some genuine debate about Iraq (albeit one sided – the mad ranting about terrsts from Dolly, Howard and Nelson isn’t part of a “debate” at all). But Rudd, and McLelland, have been able to focus public attention on some of the real issues at stake. The government’s response has been appalling, and Howard’s performance as a desparate pollie ranting and raving and waving his arms about in Parliament hardly suggests the image of a safe and steady statesman – that contrast has been in Rudd’s favour.

I hope the debate stays on Iraq!

Note that Costello was trying to stick to the economy.

Regardless then of who has won or lost this stoush, the clear difference in today’s play is that Rudd has shown himself so far eminently capable of winning back a media initiative as required of the day. Howard, of course, a master of this, has done so, too.

What this means is that the public will get tired of this one-upmanship in due course. This obviously won’t reach outer punterland at first but it will certainly affect media commentary – it’s reasonable to expect interviewers for instance to seek beyond the stoush for answers in the future, greater national interest. At that point, the short term political agenda of Howard and Rudd will be highlighted – the fundamental question will be asked: “What of the sustainable future?” for their policies on the table. (Sustainable in the relevant sense to each policy).

That possibility alone is a welcome and significant, remarkable, achievement by Rudd. So shortly in, there is a clear change showing in the way our national politics is ventured into and commented upon by our media, across the board. Whether Rudd can sustain this achievement is another issue. So, too, that question is now validly asked of Howard. Very unusual; very welcome; very healthy.

Variances including teamspersons’ performances, their own mistakes and conquests in policy or ploy, outer circumstances, public moodshifts, and so on as we all know are poised to throw things around – but what remains remarkably is that it’s declared “let’s play” at sunrise – then again at midnight for it to come on down again.

In regard of these things, this marks a new dawn for Australian politics.

In recent years I find myself more often than not lined up with the “left”, this despite the fact that classical liberalism is for me a kind of lodestar in political philosophy. Given what I’ve been able to gather so far about the inclinations of Troppodillians, I guess this experience is fairly widely shared. The terms “radical” and “conservative”, in foreign policy terms at least, have pretty much swapped political camps.

By the way, looking back I see I phrased my query about “today’s commenters” poorly. The question I was left with after reading today’s comments was whether the blogs at The Australian usually attract such a wide, talkative and articulate bunch.

I don’t know about Jeff of Canberra, but I strongly suspect that “Aussie Bob” is the blogger of the same name from Tim Dunlop’s Road to Surfdom, and a gentleman with long-held hard left-ish opinions on most things as well as a confirmed card-carrying Howard hater. That doesn’t invalidate his opinion by any means, but he certainly isn’t the conservative reader of The Australian on the Clapham (or Bondi) omnibus, if that’s what you were imagining.

It’s all a Howardian furphy gone wrong which explains all the ducking, covering and collective negative responses to challenges made in the heat of the moment.

Be that as it may, Howard was blindsided by Kevin Rudd upping the ante to challenge him to debate Australia’s Iraq policy live on television and, amid rival calls of “gutlessness”, excused himself by labelling the counter-challenge a “stunt”. To be sure, we can recognise the way in which the challenge may be branded a “stunt”, for a televison debate would grant Australia’s alternative leader an equal platform with the prime minister within a medium in which the alternative excels.

My first point is that, by exactly the same standard, Howard’s continual insistence that Rudd answer a question framed in the prime minister’s own loaded terms, within a parliamentary forum that does not allow the opposition leader to do so, amounts to the ruthless exploitation of the advantages that flow to him from incumbency. In other words, this is to say that Howard’s question was precisely no more and no less a political “stunt” and Rudd’s response was exactly in kind.

So, how will the politics be scored? We’ll see. On the ground it was a rough draw, although Rudd’s follow-up challenge in the parliament this morning reduced the degree to which his response can be labelled a “stunt”, arguably giving him the political edge that this post rams home.

Yet, given that we are actually dealing with not one but really rival “stunts”, as I said at the outset, my general point is that this therefore presents an interesting test for the media and Howard’s current capacity to carry therein. The unfortunate aspect, of course, is that there is a great deal of interest in Australia’s Iraq policy, and the public would no doubt welcome the open debate between the two leaders that the politics of the issue prevents. And so it goes.

There were 124 when I last checked and I’m kind of amazed at their quality. And civility. And at the near unanimity of their viewpoint. The Australian hasn’t, after all, exactly been an antiwar redoubt. Indeed, until quite recently, I thought it had given the WOT enthusiasts a better than even shake. Let me give you just two examples:

Aussie Bob of Sydney (14 February at 12:21 PM)

Matt, you point out to Bovis of Charlotte NC that we have about 1,500 service people in Iraq with about 500 on the ground at any one time.

The 500 on the ground, with the exception of the contingent guarding the embassy, are doing no fighting at all. Their function is to provide a uniformed presence in Iraq so that Howard can cover himself with the glory of a