FRENCH ELECTION UPDATE : Women voters shun Royal

The Sunday Times UK ^ | May 6, 2007 | Matthew Campbell

[Cincinna]

What a load of BS. If Royal hads not been a Socialist and not an absolutely terrible incompetent politician, perhaps she wouldn't have lost.

She didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost because of the kind of woman she is, the beliefs she has, and her own incompetence.

[Army Air Corps]

Well, you know my nickname for her: La salope méchante.
That was my first thought when I watched debate between her and Sarkozy this past week. She came-across as a shrill fishwife.

[Cincinna]

Expect to hear a lot more whining from the Socialist sore losers and their apologists, both in France, and right here at home.

The intelligent members of the PS like Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Laurent Fabius stated outright that is was a resounding total defeat. They said the PS must reshape itself, modernize, and move away from the old Socialists ideas.

Who will lead the PS into the Legislative Elections in June? The long knoves are out for Sego. Heads will roll.

Stay tuned!

[Army Air Corps]

When does Sarkozy officially take the reins?

[doug from upland]

She is no Hillary Clinton

[JennysCool]

As I’m certain the Democrats here will discover in the near future, there is indeed a limit to the amount of pandering the voting public can stand.

[GiveEmDubya]

According to Wikipedia, a week from Wednesday.

[Army Air Corps]

Gracias.

Much mischief can take place in that time.

[EagleUSA]

What a load of BS. If Royal hads not been a Socialist and not an absolutely terrible incompetent politician, perhaps she wouldn’t have lost.
She didn’t lose because she is a woman. She lost because of the kind of woman she is, the beliefs she has, and her own incompetence.
:::
Send this to Hillary — people can and do get tired of socialists and socialism and incompetence in government. This could be a preview of the next four years of our country...

[Aria]

It’d be nice if women cost Hillary any further wins.

I suppose the Muslims didn’t want a women either.

[Darkwolf377]

An article was posted here yesterday about how America might take France's lead and choose a woman as they were possibly about to.

The MSM and the socialists throughout the world are entranced by novelty, because the simple facts that hard work and appealing ideas that are SANE are too confusing for them. They want to pass off their fairy tales about the joys of socialism as something other than what they are, pipe dreams that have failed every time they've been implemented, disastrously so.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

She [Royal] came across as a shrill fishwife.

The women of the left usually do.

[xc1427]

I know I am not Cincinna, but I recall it will be May 16th or 17th.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #3

One thing lefties are great at is to talk to death. They will weave all kinds of convoluted sophistry to get people confused and disoriented, attempting to win the debate by making them incomprehensible to their opponents. They are good at it.

By next year, I am sure that they will publish hundreds of books full of opaque leftist jargons purporting to show why the French left lost.

[Cincinna]

The Inauguration will be May 16 2007.

[Cincinna]

Cut from the same cloth, but with a better plastic surgeon and a bit more chic.

[gridlock]

She didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost because of the kind of woman she is, the beliefs she has, and her own incompetence.

I have to admit, I never followed French politics closely until recently. What I remember from six months ago, however, was all sorts of references to Segolene Royal as the Next President of France. In much of the media, her election seemed to be a mere formality. There was no way she could lose.

So, was that all just pre-election hype, similar to the way many in this country seem to want to coronate Hillary! Rodham Clinton two years early? Or is Royal that bad a politician, that she managed to fritter away an insurmountable lead in six short months?

[gridlock]

Royal’s inability to rally women to her banner was not the only failure. One of her allies was temporarily suspended from the team for identifying François Hollande, the Socialist party’s secretary-general and father of her children, as her “biggest defect”. For a while he had given the impression of believing he, not she, was the candidate, apparently bitter about seeing his own presidential ambitions trampled on by his common-law spouse of the past three decades... He repeatedly contradicted her, on one occasion even announcing tax rises, to the horror of the candidate, in the event of a Socialist victory... Sarkozy also swooped on Hollande as the weakest Royal link in his debate with her on Wednesday when he reminded more than 20m television viewers that the partner of the Socialist candidate had once said: “I don’t like the rich.”

A Preview of Coming Attractions for the US electorate, perhaps?

[gridlock]

Cut from the same cloth, but with a better plastic surgeon and a bit more chic.

Segolene Royal is an attractive woman, no doubt. Surely that is not all creditable to the sugeon's knife?

Where as Rodham is just not attractive at all, in any way.

[D-fendr]

Royal appealed to “all those women who have trouble making ends meet at the end of the month, saleswomen, cashiers, auxiliary nurses, cleaners”.

Yeah. And she's never worked a day in the private sector.