Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The dynamics of her couple are interesting - she provides a good way for Hollande to "run" for the Elysée while keeping the ocntrol of the party machinery. They are both tough - and yet underestimated - politicla fighters.

She is generally seen as more to the left than Hollande on a number of issues, but unless I am mistaken, she supported the "oui" in the referendum campaign.

This week, she was photogrpahed with her 13 year old daughtee. She created a minor scandal 13 years ago when she appeared in pictures taken right after the birth of that little girl. It was seen as a tasteless "exploitation" of her personal life for political gain.

I wouldn't mind voting for her at all.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 03:20:27 PM EST
Wow, just when I thought the French Presidential elections are a finished issue due to the squabble of the same old egomaniacs on the Left, this happens.

(BTW, I'm off for now, but I think someone - maybe, by closeness, Fran? - should do a diary on the sea-change  Styrian elections last Sunday: SPÖ win and conservative defeat for the first time after 50 years, Greens stay but Haider's FPÖ and the breakaway BZÖ gang drop out of the Landtag, Communists in after also a very long time.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 03:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She did campaign for the "oui".
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 04:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you mean with that afew? Is it to indicate what you feel is her political stance on Europe? I don't know your personal opinion on the European Constitution, nor did I see any Snark Technology, so I can't make heads or tails from your comment.

And, if I may say so, the European Constitution could (can) be explained in so many ways that anyone could righteously vote against it or for it - and still be a formidable candidate... Politically seen, the European Constitution meant for France a steadier hold on controlling European affairs. On the other side, accepting the Constitution would sacrifice a number of dearly cherished French privileges. So voting both yes and no would give a politician credit - in my mind. That, in a very, very brief is how I remember the analysis for France's position during the run-up to the referendum.

Care to enlighten?

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 07:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My comment was a brief reply to Jérôme's above, where he said he thought she was in favour of the "oui" during the referendum campaign. I was simply confirming that he was right -- Royal did, as a matter of fact, support the "oui".

(I don't know how you set your preferences, but you can have the comments threaded so it's easy to see what is a reply to someone else's comment).

As to the referendum, I think (don't want to force Jérôme's hand on this) that he and I agree that Socialist leaders (essentially Fabius) who campaigned for the "non" were motivated by personal ambition alone, and did a great deal of harm by using demagogy to divide the left. He (again, disclaimer, he's free to set the record straight if I'm wrong) and I are more favourable to PS leaders who were on the "oui" side. Personally, I wouldn't support a "non" candidate like Fabius.

Hope that makes it clearer.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Oct 4th, 2005 at 01:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series