Speaking as a "just a guy" here, this is what I'm seeing.
Rudd is about him. He's been pushing him, it's all about how unfair it was to him, that the government should be lead by him. I can see his point there, what happened when he was in power was pretty radical. He won't address *why* it happened though, aside from "I've made some mistakes, here are a few choice ones (oh and here's a carrot to the power brokers on how I'd fix that mistake), and I've changed".
I've also noticed a very old tactic when directly asked a question which leads into defining a problem, or to address an open issue. "This issue is very clear, and I'm standing on my previous statement" and "The real question on that issue is X so let me answer with Y". Even if he did have a reasonable point or standing on the point, it's double speak designed to misdirect.
Notice when he uses jokes. It's difficult to be rational/logical when laughing. It's distracting. This concept is used by magicians the world over.
Reviewing what I see of him, the more I see this as "the Kevin Show" and not about the Labor Party. The more I see this as "I should be there because wrong was done to me, and I'm the only thing to save us from The Great Threat".
There's next to no substance on what's next if he's in.
Now, my musing over Julia.
Logically, I seriously do not see her *wanting* to instigate the leadership change. No tactician, indeed no person with half a brain, would choose to lead after that moment. It's a poisoned chalice. Yes, you have the main job but you burn a considerable chunk of the populace and the party in doing such. She knew that. You'd have to be delusional to not know it.
The change of leadership occurred because the machine wasn't working. How much effort was made to get it to work, is unknown, and an important factor. I can think of a half dozen reasons why this information hasn't really come out, because all it does is damage *everyone* in this tussle. Yes, we have an assortment of examples as to what went wrong, but we don't have any real information on what was done to fix this.
This information would damage Rudd quite a lot, and it will define how the Party couldn't fix the issues and went to such a radical move.
Julia is, however, in her position to fix the damage and get on with the job. It's more than a sound bite, it's what her role really is. AND to actually govern. It's a hell of a task, and I wouldn't want to be in her shoes, that's for damn sure.
The fact that she's actually doing it, I think, does have to count for something.
Everything about Rudd seems to be emotional.
Everything about Gillard seems to be logical.
There are still some interesting questions though. Like, if Rudd was so "unstable", why was he given one of the most important ministerial positions? Yes, he seems born for the role, but those skills would apply directly from managing interaction with countries (a somewhat difficult and large issue) to managing interaction with ministers. For that, I think about The Long Game. International diplomacy is The Long Game. Running a country is also, but it's also balanced with The Tight Game. You need to be up on everything, right now, and be ready to shift and act accordingly.
That's where Rudd got it wrong. He micro-managed everything, and again, the emotional, controlling side of his nature (not a good thing, not a bad thing, just A thing) went too far within his party.
I don't think Rudd should be PM. I certainly think he's head and shoulders above the opposition, but that's a different issue. One with Rudd also knows, and why he's drawing it into the argument. Because the argument about him, alone, as leader of the government isn't strong enough.
No matter how emotional many of us may feel about it.
I could be waaaay off base, I'm just another remote observer, a punter like the rest of us. But yeah, those are my current thoughts and analysis.