last night, election eve, amidst a well-meaning group of cocaine socialists, i expressed a degree of ambivalence regarding the possible change of government today. the prevailing opinion of this cohort seemed to be howard equals evil. evil which manifested itself in a litany of charges (the northern territory intervention, the children overboard controversy, the wars in iraq and afghanistan, the IR reforms, the refusal to ratify kyoto, the GST on sanitary pads, breathing). my poorly framed contention, furthered here, was that there is very little that differentiates the leaders. moreover, their argument seemed to be that rudd was worth voting for on potential. kevin rudd; he's not john howard. and i agree, he might be a good prime minister; there is just no evidence to support or refute such an opinion.
