Nice Première: What is your feeling after the three debates?
Frédérique Grégoire: I dreaded these debates. I feared that the Socialist Party would come out battered from these confrontations and appear too divided.
On the contrary, this debate was very constructive and gave a very good image of our party, showing all the richness of viewpoints we are capable of, building on the common foundation of the project with more personal solutions for each candidate.
Garibaldo: A mixed feeling in the face of three parallel interviews rather than a real debate. I believe that from confrontation, even a slightly tense one, comes clarity. While we are now a bit more informed about everyone’s positions and capabilities, many areas remain unclear. The last video on the 35-hour workweek for middle school teachers is an example.
Olivier Tafanelli: These debates managed to illustrate the PS’s project, the different ways of interpreting it, and the leeway it offers to the three candidates, given that they must respect the “common core” in any case.
But these debates were also… painful because they unfortunately revealed all the cunning our “male” candidates can muster.
Overall, I fear the French will remember that these debates were mainly used by DSK and FABIUS in an attempt to discredit Ségolène ROYAL.
They did not succeed.
NP: How would you analyze each individual’s performance in a few words?
FG: It must be said that these debates were requested in an attempt to challenge Ségolène Royal, with claims that she would not be capable… That she wouldn’t measure up…
These debates proved the opposite. They helped to dispel many prejudices, which claimed she had no economic solutions, was shallow, and had no ideas. These debates demonstrated the opposite in every respect.
Not only did she prove to be capable of a real economic and political vision, but she is also the only one proposing new ideas, a new way of doing politics without forgetting the fundamental values of equality and respect that the Left defends.
As for DSK, he was as expected. Scholarly and didactic. However, even though I approve of his social-democratic vision of society, I do not believe that this concept alone will create new momentum and hope for change, capable of creating the dynamic we need for this presidential election.
Finally, I cannot find credibility in Laurent FABIUS in the role he intends to play as the man bringing together all Left factions.
G: They, it seems to me, lived up to expectations: Laurent Fabius, “All left”, Ségolène Royal more general, with a few hiccups (on the composition of value-added in the 1st debate, on Iran in the third) and DSK as an assumed social-democrat.
OT: Laurent FABIUS: a constant over-promise of often untenable commitments.
Dominique STRAUSS-KAHN: a somewhat opportunistic “catch-all” stance, even though he could have shone more on certain topics he indeed masters, such as addressing the effects of globalization.
Ségolène ROYAL: she demonstrated her respect for all party components and strived to show the great consistency of her program.
NP: Were you surprised by any of the candidates?
FG: I was particularly saddened by what happened at the Zénith Paris, I didn’t think the DSK camp was capable of acting in such a manner.
G: Not surprised, but disappointed by one of the three who no longer passes the media test as soon as he is out of a monopoly situation. However, in 2007, there will likely be a tough televised debate between the two candidates resulting from the first round, and due to the anticipated narrow margin, this debate will count for a lot in the final result.
OT: I must say that DSK disappointed me; he couldn’t resist trying to undermine Ségolène ROYAL, which was not the original goal of these debates, as far as I know.
NP: According to you, will a second round be necessary to elect the Socialist candidate for the Presidential election?
FG: I hope not. While the holding of this debate was enriching for the Socialist Party, I think we must designate our candidate in the first round. The candidate we designate must be driven by strong momentum.
What message would our party send by endorsing a candidate who is not even capable of gathering a majority within his own party?
For this reason, I continue campaigning for Ségolène Royal, going to sections to defend her candidacy.
G: A month ago, I would have said no because things seemed settled. Now, I think there will be a second round and at that point, anything can happen. This proves that even these semblances of debates have changed things.
OT: I think and hope that Ségolène ROYAL will win in the first round, but by a very narrow margin.
NP: Finally, what will you do on the day of the member vote?
FG: I will continue to mobilize and remind everyone of the necessity to go out and vote, as no election is ever won in advance, even within the Socialist Party.
G: As I am not directly concerned because I’m not a member of the PS, I will probably be at home or with some friends.
OT: I will work! and I will go vote for Ségolène ROYAL in the evening.
