Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Kerry was just repeating what the mainstream Democrats
were saying at that time (with his foot in his mouth).

the difference with Sego is that she pretends to represent a "new style", a "rupture" like Sarkozy but of course in a different direction. The problem is that her discourse isn't coherent, to the difference of Sarkozy's.

she had gathered amazing statements about the role of diplomacy (in general), Iran, "participative democracy" to name a few since she started her campaign. That shows instability.

by oldfrog on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 09:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know what I'd call Kerry, and airhead isn't one of those things, though most of the rest of what I'd have to say is no more complimentary.

As for Royal, you have to consider what happened in 2002 on the left (and by this I mean all the left), and importantly, why it happened. For all this talk about rupture, the more important thing imho to consider on the Royal side is fracture.

Here you have a candidate who needs to speak to multiple left constituencies. These constituencies are quite different, running from the social democratic wing represented by DSK and favored by quite a few PS partisans (among others, Jérôme I believe) all the way to casual supporters of a far left, Laguiller and Besancenot, in passing by those (like me) who favor more conventional (and comprehensive) approaches to countering creeping anglo-saxon neo-liberalism.

Don't forget, that Jospin lost in 2002 because of an extremely fractured left, which got 42% of total votes (and a bit more than half of all non-Le Pen votes) but Jospin only a bit more than a third of these.

Why did this happen? Everyone has their opinion. Mine has to do with how Aubry and Jospin implemented 35 hours and how that played with the left rank-and file, then less with security issues that Chirac and Le Pen trumped up.

So now you have Royal needing to look forward in recreating the left as well as the public image of the left (which is why both DSK and Fabius were imho not optimal candidates), and at the same time appealing to multiple constituencies which are ideologically quite disimilar.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 10:14:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know where you see that. He's an even worse oportunist and liar than Chirac. He believes in nothing, and adapts his message to whatever the polls tell him. He's been worried of appearingtoo much to the right lately, so he has latched onto the "fracture sociale" theme, à la Chirac, again, after having supposedly supported unashamedly real liberalism.

In Bercy, he was the worst kind of interventionist one can imagine, and he was totally incoherent in his actions.

I see a lot more coherence in Ségolène Royal, who makes very specific points with her most provocative moves (grabbing the theme of security and toughness, for instance, neutralises a big angle of attack against her while not changing much her attractiveness to the left).

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series