How to lose a presidential debate

Sarkozy was certain he'd crush Hollande, like he had crushed his ex-common-law wife five years before, but this time it didn't work; the magic was gone. The resulting stalemate had actually nothing to do with magic; it was a blatant lack of strategy and lack of discipline at work.

For some weeks, I have thought that Sarkozy strategists were missing the target by not fully taking into account the deep-seated anger that a majority of French electors harbored towards their president and that the latter had brought this wrath upon himself through his vulgarity and erratic behavior, at times.

These advisers should have factored that, to address that pent-up dissatisfaction they had to stress their candidate's essential qualities: Pragmatism, unbound energy, ability to govern under stress and road-tested experience.

In the debate, Sarkozy just had to wait for Hollande's barbs, answer them by asking probing questions in order to debunk them and challenge their inaccuracies, always remain dignified (no name calling, please) and state over and over again that he, Nicolas Sarkozy, had huge energy in store for another five years, offered crisis-tested governmental experience and thus stood as the perfect and more desirable alternative to his opponent.

It's possible that this approach precisely was what his advisers had told him to follow, but a pugnacious and defiant Sarkozy believed he could crush Hollande and even obliterate him forever by being plain disagreeable instead of disagreeing with class and smart tactics. I tend to believe in that second possibility, based on my grasp of the incumbent's personality.

In spite of that poor performance, will he lose the election? Perhaps not as the difference between the two candidates is likely to tighten-up as we move towards election day and as the French polls have proven to be a poor indicator of way folks actually vote. At any rate, I predict a cliffhanger...