That said, one is saddened by the obvious things she left unsaid-- such as:

"a bit of study on the US prison situation might reveal a lot about where France does NOT want to go."
Or, in response to his jibes about "emotional responses";

"A good way to identify dangerous people is to be very careful of those who cannot show emotion when emotion is called for, or who can put "feelings" on and take them off, to change them like a convenient shirt."
God, he rings false.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

The published opinion of the country is, of course, of huge psychological value, and I automatically cast doubt on the sincerity of this kind of poll. This one is by a market research organisation for the two most rabidly pro-Sarko media: Le Figaro and Martin Bouygue's news channel LCI.

But by tonight I expect we'll be hearing that the electorate thinks Sarko "won". So Sarko will "win".

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

Communiqué de presse de François REBSAMEN et Jean-Louis BIANCO
Directeurs de campagne de Ségolène ROYAL

A qui profite un tel sondage?

L'institut Opinion Way a déjà à plusieurs reprises démontré son manque de fiabilité. Sans aucune précision sur les marges d'erreur, cet organisme proclame que Nicolas Sarkozy serait le vainqueur du débat d'hier soir sur tous les sujets économiques et sociaux, abandonnant les restes d'empathie à Ségolène Royal pour les thèmes dits compassionnels. François Rebsamen et Jean-Louis Bianco, directeurs de campagne de Ségolène Royal, s'insurgent contre ces pratiques et dénoncent des manoeuvres de commande .

At least, resistance is still possible in France. Let's see the bastard try "reforms", those idiots who'll vote for him aren't the ones in the streets anyway. The old, flaccid and retired Sarko supporters will spend the day watching on their tv what happens, flipping back to johnny hallyday concert videos to enjoy the nostalgia they feel for les trente glorieuses that drives so many of them an explains a lot of Sarko's latest rhetoric on '68.

And, let's be objective about this. Penchant for authoritarianism aside, which I find truly distasteful, Sarko is hardly Bush. Ideologically I find him rather soft, definitely right-wing with some neo-lib tendancies, not far from Clinton (either one) or many of the other Democratic candidates in the present field so many Americans seem so happy about.

She may still win. Lots of moving parts, including Bayrou's influence, who appears to be hardening against Sarko, and Le Pen's consigne, it must be a tough environment to poll in, the fact they appear still relatively close (53/47) yet immobile points me to a suspcion the pollsters can't figure out what the underlying dynamic is, that they haven't changed their bucket sampling.  

There's also the legislatives, where Bayrou's project may bear fruit. The Hallyday fan club (full disclosure, I once shared drinks with the guy) will vote for Sarko, but will they vote for the faceless UMP guy whose party hasn't done shit for France for 12 years? Less certain. All those Bayrou votes reported to Sarko do not report to UMP in all likelihood.

We shall see, but there's no sense in despairing for France. You want a country to despair, think like lupin, he's got the right idea. These are tough times to be an American.

"C'est un scandale !"

BBC Poll:

Who do you think won the debate?
Segolene Royal
 48.27%  
Nicolas Sarkozy
 32.78%  
Neither
 18.94%  
9944 Votes Cast

As proof, notice the strong preference among the BAyrouiste sample -- 75% for Sarkozy? Thats completely inconsistent with every other poll we've seen, which shows a plurality or a majority of Bayrou voters supporting Royal.

I also notice this was released shortly after a few stories had come out quoting non-alligned experts to the effect that Royal had won, including Bayrou himself, and the Monde story quoting PPDA hiimself that little Nico was "Decu" afterwards.

Its pure spin.

Listen, I think all the frustration and nerves and angst should be pushed towards motivating people to vote for Royal -- and emphasizing she can indeed win.

In almost every contested election, and this one appears to be no different, the margin of victory is always smaller than the number of voters who decide in the last 72 hours. They may merely opt to confirm their pre-existing tendency but they consciously make their decision in the final days. And moreover, in those final hours, the better known candidate is often at a disadvantage, because opinions of him or her are better formed.

So there is a real chance that if the impression of Royal going into the final weekend is that she can win, that she's showed she's ready, and that every vote will matter, there's at the least a motivation for every last wavering voter to vote, and to cast a real, not a blanc, vote.

Electricity is 23% of final energy demand
Thus nuclear, 78% of that (p.9 above), is 18% of primary energy consumption.

(She did say electricity in the debate, but her assertion is correct as far as "energy" is concerned)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

Nuclear is (about) 80% of French electricity production;

and about 18% of total energy use.

Royal should have said 17% of energy, not of electricity, but she was a lot righter than Sarkozy who appears to have picked his number on a sort of 50-50 basis, like, I've got half a chance of being right and half of being wrong.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

Segolene should have both pointed out what 'growth' has done to decimate the US and UK economies and how the Socialist policies are what has made the French way of life the envy of the world. She didn't and considering the importance of the one debate; I thought both her and Sarkozy were poorly prepared by their handlers. The good thing is Sarkozy was able to show what a phony, despicable person he is.

I think it was quite clear from the US format (which also leave room for personal statements and rebuttals) how GW Bush was going to react -- much to our collective dismay.

The format I saw last night was extremely unsatisfactory and wasteful. And the moderators were nowhere to be seen.

I know what you mean, but there has to be a middle-of-the-road between CNN's brand-new plastic action figures (Wolf Blitzer's kung-fu grip, anyone?) and these tired, worn-out toys of the 1970s we saw last night.

I also think Royal came across not as "clueless" but rather as "passionate."

"Clueless" in terms of the the solutions or proposals she put forward; the "passionate" angle is what I was referring to as "PMS". Okay, I admit I'm not biased towards emotional fits; maybe in Italy she would have come across as the epitome of coolness and composure. But it didn't work for me.

Sarkozy, was cool, manipulative, condescending and more Republican than I thought it was possible for a non-American to be.

To our jaded eyes, transparently so, I'd say, yes.  I like my Blackadder comparison; you could almost see the wheels turning, oozing insincerity... with a thought balloon reading "I have a cunning plan" above his head, he would have been perfect.

It reminded me of a local debate in the U.S., say for county supervisor, where the big issues are fluoridation and when are they going to put traffic lights up at that dangerous exit by the mall.

Bingo! Couldn't have put it better myself!

Honestly, escorts for female cops!!!!

But they did look awfully worn and tired-out.

And that guy, PPDA, what's with the haircut? Why not leather and ray-bans then.