It's the most interstng race in a long time(thank goodness Le pen is so old)
A president in a bikini is not a bad thing

Sarkozy will take it. It's funny, I have one very right-wing Parisian friend, from a rather distinguished Parisian family, but who is a supporter of Le Pen (and my friend is in his 30's-he also happens to love the US-not very common in Paris) and another female friend who is a supporter of Sarkozy (she is an artist).

I think either Sarkozy or Royale will be a good choice for France-they really aren't that far apart, politically speaking.

If I could vote it would be for Royale, but I'd settle for Sarkozy. As in American recent elections, I don't think the French have a clear-cut good choice. Everyone's got drawbacks. I do worry about Sarkozy nosing up to Bush, though, which in my book is not only terrible thinking on its own but a deviation from that independent French attitude I've so come to appreciate.

Participation figures for the Americas and the Caribbean, which voted on Saturday: +10%
But for whom?

I'd like to see France work with the US to solve world problems. Those Iranian nukes could target Paris.

You have absolutely no idea, Northshore, how wrong your statement is-the French Intelligence Services work hand in hand with the US intelligence community-every day.

Girlspy, my statement is not wrong. I'm talking about broader political and economic action against Iran. It only stands to reason our INTEL services would share info.

Actually, France is very much in consonance with USG policy on Iran-Iran does listen to France, and France is joining in on the sanctions-it's Russia and China that are the problem -not France.

And it really doesn't stand to reason that our intel services would necessarily share information-you might be very surprised to find that underneath the surface, at the working level, the USG has some of its most difficult problems with those countries that are considered our closest allies.

Girlspy, I hope you are right. We will see when it comes time to put some real teeth into economic sanctions.
I don't understand why the Europeans just don't break off all contact with Iran, political and economic, until they give up the pursuit of nukes. Sure oil prices might go up, but Iran would hurt much more than the EU.

Iran has a civilian nuclear program. It has a democratically elected government.
Pakistan, does not have a democratically elected government and it has nuclear weapons.
Let's see, which country might be a better choice for breaking diplomatic relations...?
Oh, that's right! We don't care about dictatorships as long as they are on our side!
But what about China and North Korea then? Embargo? Preventive nuclear attack? What'll it be?

Kerouac, doesn't the thought of Iranian having nukes concern you? Just because we didn't right right in the past doesn't mean we can't be smarter in the future.

We wait much longer and Isreal will do the dirty job for us.

Iran, quite simply, is, and has been, the greatest danger in the world going all the way back to 1979. Because you see, virtually every single attack against the US, its institutions and those countries allied with the US, and of course Israel, have had the hand of the Islamic Republic of Iran behind it, and in the picture-everything from Pan Am 103 to the 9/11 attacks, to Khobar Towers, to the hijacking of TWA 847, the list goes on and on and on.

Iran must be handled surgically, and the cancer that has metastasized there must be rooted out- there is no other way. And it will be very very bloody when it happens-something wicked this way comes.

Right, talking gets you nowhere but closer to big trouble.

We are dealing with crazy people who believe angels are returning to earth soon and the Nazi didn't kill any jews in WWII. Nut jobs like that can't be allowed to have nukes. Why is that so hard to understand?

It would be different if the Persians were reasonable people, like Arabs, who are amenable to compromise, but they are not. One must never be fooled by what the Islamic Republic says on the international level-Persians don't negotiate, and they don't compromise-ever. It is their way, or the highway, this is a country where still waters run very very deep-and they are vindictive, to the core, which is what makes them so dangerous.

Got back from France yesterday evening, after the third week long trip in 6 months. It's pretty clear that the movement is to Royal, both from Beyrous and Sarkozy. (never take a poll in isolation- it's the way they shift that matters). From a point when it looked like Beyrous would split the "left" vote, and the second round MIGHT be between Le Pen and Sarkozy (again), it's clear Sarkozy will win the first round and Royal will be second.

I listened to the radio phone ins in the morning- Culture had an interview a day- and some of the interviewees (the candidates) were really scary, particularly on isolationsim and immigration.

Sarkozy is way right of Blair, but Royal has spent MONTHS saying the sum total of nothing (just as Blair did in the run up to 1997), and I fear she'll be much more right wing than she'd have people believe.

I THINK Sarkozy will win; but the doubt has to be the black and Arab vote. How can those people vote for him? And, more to the point, how can they NOT vote for his opponent?

"Iran must be handled surgically, and the cancer that has metastasized there must be rooted out- there is no other way."

Iran (pop. 70 million) must be handled surgically? Like Iraq (pop. 26 million)? What is this cancer? Democracy? (after the Shah's dictatorship which brought on the revolution?)

If the US had not forgotten the meaning of the word 'diplomacy,' the world would not be in such a mess.

But to get back to the original subject, one of the only points on which I completely disagree with Ségolène Royal is that she is the only major candidate who came out against Iran's nuclear capacity. The other candidates find it totally normal.

Kerouac-I understand that many people, like yourself, and in this country, feel the way you do, and it is difficult, because the USG has cried fire too many times in the concert hall, now no one wants to listen when there really is a fire.

Many many people believe that the problem with Iran is that the US refuses to "negotiate" with Iran. That is a falsehood, it has attempted, on many different levels, to do just that-but it has not been, and indeed cannot be successful, for the reasons I mentioned above.

I repeat, Iran is the greatest threat facing the world today, and it is only going to get worse, not better. Now that you told me the candidates positions, that will put me strongly in Royale's camp.

Are you really serious about trying to talk to Iran? They are crazy people who want to convert the world to Islam. What is there to talk about? Which country converts first?

Are you confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia?