Are the French desparate enough for so called 'growth and more employment in bad jobs' to elect a despicable character like Sarkozy?

who is totally incompetent

This was our first French debate; I have no idea how they do things in the UK, Germany, etc.

We thought that this was a terrible debate.

In the US, a journalist asks a specific question, e.g.: what are your plans regarding mining Helium-3 on the Moon.  Then Candidate A has something like 3 minutes to tell you what he proposes to do; Candidate B then has 3 minutes to tell you why Candidate A is full of shit; then Candidate A has another 1-1/2 minute to laugh contemptuously at what Candidate B just said.

Then we move on to another question.

What this does is that it tells us, the viewers, where the candidates stand, and how they rebutt each other, on a very specific set of (presumably important) issues.

It is extremely informative, though obviously not enough to prevent a barely articulate chimp with a radio on his back from being elected, but I digress.

What I saw last night was a Cafe du Commerce argument, a show put together at the last minute by Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland in a barn.

The proceedings were chaired by two barely coherent, haggard-looking animatronics that looked like they'd seen better days at Eurodisney circa 1985 -- or maybe the aim was to make the two candidates look sparkier by contrast, like Cleopatra surrounding herself with monkeys to maximize the impact of her beauty?

The two "potiches" (come to think of it, two pots of geraniums would have been better) did not keep the two candidates from talking over each other, drifting into non sequiturs, being all over the place without rhyme or reason. It might have made for an amusing Café confrontation, but it wasn't the kind of serious wonky politics we're used to in the United Fascist States.

Segolene appeared to have a broom up her ass, except when she made us wonder if she had PMS. Sarko was weasely and condescending; he reminded me of the second-banana villain in the Disney movies (not the Big Bad, the one that hunches and saunters about, cackling about what a cunning plan this is). In fact, as I type this, I realize now that he reminded me of Blackadder, but not as funny.

After an hour, I had enough. After two hours, I realized that I was starting to miss George Bush, and I knew that that was bad.

Moving on from the format and style of the show to the actual contents.

I'm 100% in accord with the diarist. Segolene came across as well-meaning but clueless. Sarko came across as competent but dangerous, and deceitful.

Special demerits go to Sarko for pointlessly obsessing about the "35 heures" which, in the end, he has done and will do nothing about; and to Sego for the lunatic idea of having female cops escorted home by male cops.

France ought to be reasonably ashasmed of itself; this is the overall performance I would expect in a comic book, not in real life.

Then, his makeup starting streaking where he played with it, and it was obvious that he was heavily made-up, to make his jaw look squarer and his face more tanned.

The redness was not due to the lights, but to his composure, as the redness/violetness would get worse, then better as he spoke/calmed down.

The cameramen started playing with the camera angles to make this less perceptible but at some points, I didn't even listen to what he was saying but just stared at him, wondering if death was imminent.

First, the high popularity figures for Sarko in polls over the past few years should have been a hint of what is to be expected of the majority of the French electorate.

Second, for Royal to expose Sarko's constant lies, she would have to have been aware of them, which means being aware of a lot of erroneous conventional wisdom and media spin spreading around. But she is neither a blogger, nor a non-mainstream economist or journalist, nor a hard-left politician. So as good an effort as she has made during the campaign to mobilise base democracy, get input on ideas, and stand for a program, as a centre-left ENArque politician, she was still ill-equipped to stand against the stream of lies. (And this would be a foreboding of problems as President.)

Third, all mention what was plan for Sarko in the debate (e.g. "look presidential", "father/daughter relationship"), but what was Ségo's? As an ENArque politician, I'd expect her preparation to not focus on beating Sarko with facts but have some rhetorical or image-establishing strategy. If it was to make Sarko confused and angry, it obviously didn't work out well enough, but maybe there was more?

Fourth, if Sarko wins, what will be of the entire French Left? Unless a confrontation between Prez Sarko and the banlieues cannot be channeled and be kept focused, at the moment, it appears to me that self-destruction mixing the German, British and pre-2006 US ways is rather likely...

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

Also, if Sarkozy does win, I'm planning a Bill O'Reillyesque boycott of France. Who's with me?
My first act will be to stop drinking French wine. Instead, Hungarian wine all the way! Oh, wait...

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

The "spin" and insta-polls will always make it appear that the leading candidate "won" because there's no immediate evidence that the opponent turned it around. Most of the US media reported that Bush "won" the first debate over Kerry for a day or two. Moreover, given the late date, and the small number of voters whose opinions matter (Bayrouistes wavering between Royal and a blank vote; LePenistes wavering between Sarkozy and abstention; left-leaning voters especially older men wavering over whether to vote for Royal), we won't really know if this had any real impact until Sunday night.

That said, she was much, much, much better than she's been the entire campaign. She was sharp on most of the facts -- whatever you want to say about "electricity" vs "energy" she won the point, because Sarkozy conceded he didn't know the dossier -- and most of all, on the offensive throughout. She never let his attacks, now matter how snide, go unanswered, and when he was most snide ("Hollande ... ca ne vous concerne pas?" ..."je ne vous parle pas dans cette facon ...") she was the sharpest: "Vous pouvez debattre Francois Hollande quand vous le souhaiterez," ...." Moi, je ne mens pas.")

The "summum de l'immoralite politique" was clearly a set-piece and she used it at just the right time, though I think she kept at it for too long. She made her point clearly and sharply and should have let him stew in it by asking him to respond, rather than letting him escape with his pre-planned "il faut du calme ..."

Sarkozy's tic to turning to LA Chabot as if appealing for his mother to break up the fight came across as pathetic, and while I think Lupin is wrong on most of his points, the "broom up her ass" has been a problem for her throughout the campaign. She was much less stiff, much more animated and loose last night, than any other time I've seen her, especailly last Saturday.

What gives me some hope is that from anecdotal evidence (mostly reading and hearding), the hesitation of a lot of center- and left-leaning voters, esp older voters, had to do with perceptions that she lacked toughness and personality. I think she showed without a doubt last night that she can be tough, and she showed real passion (though it did appear pre-programmed that it rushed out all a once, then went away by the end. (She seemed exhausted by the end.)

Obviously she did not succeed in making Sarkozy blow a gasket but we knew he wouldn't, not last night. But just as he's had years to build up support on his right that he won't lose, he's also had years to terrify the center and left, and that won't go away from two hours of staying calm.

What might change is that some of those hesitating to vote for Royal might have seen enough to close the deal. It certainly gave enough inspiration to Bayrou, who had nothing more to gain, to come out against Sarkozy this AM.

She's got a terrific attack on Sarkozy's program in her "Lettre aux francais" published in at least one of today's dailies, and without a doubt, she's had a much, much better entre-deux-tours than anyone had expected (especially after her dismal speech the night of the first round).

I think there's some chance that among late-deciding voters, she's at least created a perception of a meaningful vote, and although I'm as skeptical as I've been for 2 years of her chances to defeat Sarko, I'm as impressed with her this morning as I've ever been.

My theory about close elections is that late deciding voters return to the position where they were most comfortable, and I guess he convinced enough of them not to be more comfortable with her, whose commitments and intentions are clear even if her presentation of them in the campaign was not, than with him, who is by his own admission capable of anything, even if his
campaign suggested he would be a country priest looking after the poor and downtrodden.

Its frustrating really, to see a guy whose evident lust for power and whose ridiculously tendentious positions and deliberately provocative style should repulse the electorate, win because he was able to play the part better. Its frustrating because the sad and undeniable reality is that if she had learned to communicate in a more emotionally pleasing way, her message of institutional change and renovation of democracy, ought to have been a winning formula.

On the "we may never reach the height of political immorality" front, I was reading reactions to the debate on Libe and noticed something I had missed -- that when she raised Darfur, he responded by
treating it as an issue of immigration : not all of Africa can immigrate to France. I don't know whats worse -- to believe that he has shamelessly exploited National-Front ideology to win, or that he really thinks that way.

Because of the singularity of the electoral calendar, even if she loses, a strong showing is very important; a better than expected showing could not only enable her to establish a place among the first rank of political leaders -- remember that prior to the final results of the 95 campaign, everyone thought Jospin was a sacrifical lamb, to be slaughtered by Fabius & Emanuelli after the election. He scored 48.5% and two years later was prime minister. I doubt Royal will follow the same trajectory but, I think she's shown in the last two weeks the basis for an effective opposition to Sarkozy -- tactical alliance with the center on institutional issues, direct confrontation on economic and domestic social issues.

If nothing else, we saw graphically how Sarkozy will react to a challenge : he'll appeal to his friends in the media to bail him out.

But like in the US, the full effect of the internet in politics only began to be felt after the election -- when the mainstream media totally ignored the minority democrats in 2005 on the first big fight with Bush, Social Security, the internet provided the ground on which they built their opposition.

Today, Thursday in the US, MSM picked out some parts of the debate and showed it with subtitles.  The part shown was invariably Royal, acting angrily to Sarko, and appearing to lose control.  he, unfortunately, countered very well by asking if he could respond, but she angrily refused, and continued to berate him.  he said a french president needed to remain calm.

Unfortunately this is the part played for an American audience, and I think an American reaction to this is very negative toward Royal (of course who cares, because we don't vote in France.)  But I'm wondering what the French reaction to this part of the dialogue would be.  Is it as negative as I think it is in the US?  And were there other parts of the debate that would be more positive for Royal?  I'm hoping it is not as negative as this would appear, because as I have said before, I think a strong continuation of the French economic system is critical, and important to prove that a more socialized society is workable--as the last few years of France's economic numbers have shown.