Puffed up outrage, indeed

OK, so Malcolm Turnbull over-reached. But, after seeing Kevin Rudd and him on 7.30 Report last night, I still come away thinking that Rudd's counter over-reach does his image no great help either.

What is wrong with Rudd? Annabel Crabb called his performance "puffed up outrage", as indeed was, but it did seem to me that Rudd was also taking it excessively personally. (Maybe that is an artefact of repeated performances during the day: pretend something long enough and you can really start to believe it.) It had something of a "glass jaw" air about it to me: how dare Turnbull call for my resignation [left unsaid: just because a public servant felt he was under pressure from my office to help someone special to me.]

Turnbull, on the other hand, did not seem to me to be deathly worried about it killing his leadership. He even managed to smile once or twice. (I take it from Turnbull's demeanour that he is not worried about the prospect that his own former adviser created the email, which was the rumour reported yesterday.)

Turnbull clearly comes across as having a barrister's style, which can be off putting at times, but elements of a likeable character seem to come through occasionally. As for Rudd, I still don't think anyone outside of his family likes him. (I guess people could say that Howard did not have seem to have a big circle of friends either, but I would still put him down as having a much more genuine public persona than Rudd.)

I think it was clear that even Kerry O'Brien knew Rudd was over-reacting, and for once, Kerry seemed a tad sharp in his handling of him.

Michelle Grattan's commentary on this seems pretty reasonable. (Short version: Turnbull's attack was not without justification as of 3 days ago.)

Of course, Turnbull's future probably does depend on more revelations about the origin of the email, and whether there were any grounds on the face of it to indicate fraud.

UPDATE: I saw Skynews Agenda program on this last night, with its regular commentators Grahame Morris (old Howard chief of staff) and Bruce Hawker (don't know who he worked for, but he's the Labor guy.)

I am sure it is not just my conservative bias that leads me to say this, but I have always found that Bruce Hawker is a complete bore as a commentator as he only ever recites the current Labor spin. You know exactly what he will say, and he will never, ever, concede harm to Labor in anything they do.

Morris, on the other hand, does show independence of thought, and is always much more open to admitting harm to his side of politics. He comes across as much more than a mere mouthpiece for the party he used to work for.