Ok, I'm late, so I hope somebody still reads this.

"I'm suspicious of sweeping generalizations as a rule"

Good.

"Well, no. All French don't hate all Yankees. But many or most French (particularly in the chattering classes) see the US as variously an enemy, an adversary, or a vile bumbling interloper occupying the position which rightfully belongs to La France."

Not sure what you mean by "the chattering classes". The average Frenchman will be minding his own business, mostly. Not all Frenchmen obsess over France's position in the world at large all the time. In fact, very few of them do. Most of those work in the Quai d'Orsay or the Elysée Palace. It seems to be a common misconception of quite a few Americans that all Frenchmen can't stop drooling about setting up a global French hegemony in rivalry to some perceived American empire. In fact, the order of priority is a little different. The French worry about what's going on 1. at home 2. at their workplace 3. in their town/city 4. in their region 5. in France 6. in Europe 7. maybe, if there's still time, in all the rest of the world. I'd say the US rank 7th along with "the rest of the world" in our concerns. We don't spend all day thinking up new ways of how we can be anti-American or how we can occupy "the position which rightfully belongs to La France", you know. In fact, there are quite a few Frenchmen who are * gasp * pro-American in their general attitude. Count me as one of them. However, if rather large parts of the American media and the Bush administration could just get off our case every now and again, I'm sure that would help our general attitude toward the land of the free and brave.

"This doesn't answer to whether the French hate the US."

It doesn't have to since, get this, the French actually don't hate the US!

"Segoleme was perhaps the most ill-prepared and vacuous candidate fielded in a western election in recent years"

Well, if you're going to call her vacuous you might as well get her name spelled right: it's Ségolène, actually, or Mme. Royal, take your pick. And gosh, how often have I heard this "airhead" argument before. To be fair, over half of the French electorate fell for that propaganda as well, so you're not alone. Ah well, bygones.... Let's see if the US will actually fare that much better with Sarkozy. I'm still not convinced the White House and State Department aren't going to be in for a rude awakening next time they go head to head with our little Napoleon.

"Yanks know more about the French than the French know about the US."

Sure. Ask a Yank who's president of France and you'll be lucky if they don't say De Gaulle. If they even know De Gaulle. Or the fact that France has a president. Heck, the completely inane comments I got even from American graduate students about France or Europe in general are enough to fill a book.

" There is a certain air of sour grapes among those who are left behind. A large portion of the best and brightest go to the us - leaving behind those who may not be."

Except for the "sour grapes" bit, that is actually true. There is a brain drain and it's largely due to lack of funding in European universities. Incidentally, Mme. "Airhead" Royal had made it a big priority in her political program to refinance the French universities and research facilities. But hey, I guess that was just her being vacuous again.

"Germany was probably the #1 superpower globally in 1907. In 2007 it matters less than it did a century ago. Cold fact."

Cold fact n°1: Germany is the main economic engine of the EU and cold fact n°2: the EU as a whole is still the biggest global economic player, even more so than the US. Think again, Don. Think hard. You're making the same mistake that many people (and not just Americans) tend to make: you completely ignore the European dimension. Germany is plenty important, believe you me. It hasn't got an enormous army, but heck, who needs one these days.
Which of course shouldn't detract from the sheer population numbers in India and China. They are going to be quite a factor in the decades to come, but neither the EU nor the US are going to stand idly by.

"I'm afraid I've seen the increasing truth of this since 1992. Europeans behave as though the US electing Democrats is a condition for cooperation."

Huh? Whatever gave you that idea? Do you have any facts to back this statement up? The Europeans I know (and I know quite a few of them, seein' as I live here) couldn't care less about party politics in America. In fact, compared to European standards, we can't see there is a huge amount of difference between democrats and republicans. How did Bill Maher put it: if a democrat even thinks you're calling him liberal, he grabs an orange vest and a rifle and heads into the woods to kill something.
As long as the next guy/girl getting elected isn't as...errm... how shall I put this... vacuous as George Walker Bush, that'll be fine with us regardless of his/her party afilliation.

"The chattering classes are shorthand for the politically obsessed. Journalists, politicians, academics of certain stripes, etc. "

Well, in that case, the French "chattering classes" are pretty much divided on the subject. You already noted quite a few exceptions to your theory. I could cite quite a few more. Neither the politicians nor the media, and certainly not the academic community, are basically biased against the US. They do have a tendency to call the US on their perceived mistakes, and quite loudly so, but you should see what happens when the French government messes up in one way or the other. Anarchy, I tell you ;-). It's got nothing to do with Antiamericanism.
One caveat to the above statement though: since Iraq (and the French refusing to go there) we have been called all kinds of names by the US, particularly the media and the Bush administration. Being called "old Europe" by a certain ex-secretary of Defense was only one of the tamer insults. Now at first, the French public didn't really take much notice of this. But, as you say in German, "der Krug geht so lange zum Wasser bis er bricht". There comes a point where systematic French-bashing will get us to react. And the obvious reaction is: many Frenchmen are starting not to like the Americans in general too much anymore because of the continuous flak we get re: Iraq. Why, oh why, can't the American "chattering classes" understand that a. we had our reasons for not going into Iraq, that b. it had nothing to do with us being genetically programmed cowards or some such nonsense c. that it had nothing to do with us being anti-American (we warned Bush, remember) and d. well, we were correct, weren't we? The whole thing is a bit like somebody warning a friend not to jump off a roof, the friend still jumping, breaking his leg and then sueing the other guy because he didn't jump with him.
Oh, and also: the Germans (who, I might remind you, didn't go into Iraq either) don't get nearly as much loving attention in the bashing department as we get. Wonder why that is.

"It doesn't. Chirac won in a landslide in the last election but one but only because he was facing Le Pen. So his opposition and backstabbing (the volte-face of early 2003) may or may not have helped him."

If you're talking about Iraq, consider: French presidential election (in which Chirac faced off against Le Pen): april and may 2002. Iraq: february/march 2003. Iraq wasn't even a marginal topic in the 2002 presidential race, so there is no, repeat, absolutely no way Chirac's opposition to the war at a later date could have influenced the election.

"Schroeder made opposition to the US a major issue in his 2002 re-election campaign - and won an election he probably deserved to lose based upon performance to date. He did it again in 2005 - and barely lost. That would support the thesis that 'exploiting anti-american attitudes' works in Germany but there is less solid evidence of that in France - although it may be so."

Ah, now you're talking. Indeed, Iraq was a topic in the 2002 Bundestag election, but only because the whole thing had evolved towards a marked German/French opposition at that point (remember: in september 2002 the US were already pushing hard for an invasion). So the whole thing was much less about anti-Americanism than about anti-Iraq-ism. The rationale was: if we elect Stoiber, we'll have to send troops to Iraq into a war we don't really want. Following the American lead into Afghanistan wasn't that much of a problem because it was perceived as morally ok after 9/11 to weed out the terrorist camps. Iraq was a completely different ballgame and therefore the Germans ruled they didn't want any part in it. Not really that much anti-Americanism involved, actually.

"Generalisations such as 'all French' or 'all Americans' are meaningless. Certain portions of the population evidence such hate but not even that is universal."

Yup. True enough. Thank god (or whatever deity you prefer) for that.

"Particularly when it prevents France from acting as an ally should - and it did."

Clarify please. How did France not "act as an ally should"? We're allies of the US, not blind servants who jump when the US say we should jump.

"Gerhard Schroeder. Jacques Chirac. Joshka Fischer. Zapatero. And (above all) those millions of demonstrators in the streets of Berlin, Dusseldorf, Munchen, Paris, London, Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Roma, Stockholm, etc. The ones carrying signs and shouting slogans telling me that I am a facist and the US a facist power. We were directed then to elect the Democrat or there would be no cooperation at all. And they were correct - there hasd been next to no cooperation in real terms."

Nope, you're missing the point, I'm afraid. The whole "elect Kerry" campaign thing was due to Iraq and the German/French reaction to it. It hadn't anything to do with democrats or republicans. Had Bush been a democrat, the Europeans would've supported the republican candidate.
As for that cooperation bit: what exactly do you mean? Do you mean the lack of enthusiasm in Europe for running to the rescue of Bush in Iraq? Well, that's understandable, isn't it? If Bush gets himself into a quagmire (against our warnings, I might add), why should we be stupid enough to follow him in and get our noses bloodied in the process? Especially if we don't have nearly the necessary military capacity to solve that particular catastrophe?

And for the record: I don't think you're a fascist :-).

"In 2007 Germany is not even first among equals in the EU. Perhaps potentially so - but France would vigorously dispute the assertion. In 2007 Germany is a middling-size economic power with no military power of major consequence. Both France and the UK would have to be accounted greater powers than Germany if the military dimension is accounted for. So would China, India, and possibly Brazil."

Well, all I'm hearing is "military". Actually, in terms of economics, Germany is the master of Europe. GDP-wise it ranks way over the next two European runners-up, the UK and France, and at number 3 in the world, right after the US and Japan. Incidentally, GDP-wise the EU as a whole outranks even the US.

"I know that NATO is a hollow sham. A pometking village of an alliance. It may take 20 years to expire with a whimper rather than a shout. But it's walking dead after the past decade."

Oops, yet another can of worms. Nato was made for a very specific purpose: countering the Soviet threat. Now that threat is gone, it serves no purpose other than coordinating military "policing" operations around the globe. Since, after Iraq, the US have used up all their credit as "leading nation" in Nato, the other Nato nations will think twice about blindly following the US into any operation in the future. Therefore, I have to agree with you: Nato is probably doomed in the long run. Which is why the Europeans should very, very quickly set up their own defence initiative.

"They are not percieved so. The small portion of all the analysis which gets translated into English or gets noticed by English-language journalist tends to be 95% against - and the most scathing part of it I suspect. It leaves a certain perception. That may be the intent."

True enough. There seems to be a certain amount of "filtering" going on in the English translations of the French media.

"That is absolutely hilarious! I could write the precise same passage substituting 'France' for US - it would be an equally true expression of my feelings. Indeed I HAVE written such things! LOL!"

Have you? Must've missed that ;-). There is no question that there is quite a bit of bashing going on on both sides of the pond. Well, you can argue endlessly about who gets bashed most by whom, except that such discussions are pretty pointless. Perhaps we should stop bashing and start reflecting a bit. Therefore I won't comment on that "self-fulfilling prophecy" stuff you said about Chirac. The man's no longer president and, eventhough I still believe he was absolutely right on Iraq and Bush was absolutely wrong, I'm too much of a leftie to still go on defending him after he steps down :-). Let bygones be bygones.
However, whether Iraq is a nightmare or a victory is pretty much irrelevant. The problem is: what to do about it? Any takers?

As for cheese: from Wisconsin, eh? Well excellent. Chirac's not president anymore so you can come over visit now ;-). Plenty of cheese to go around in Normandy where my parents live, and I'll throw in a bottle or two of Calvados ;-). We'll discuss what to do about Iraq :-D.

Wow, it seems you really know your way around France, then. Better than me, probably. In that case, I suggest you comment on Superfrenchie every once or again. I'm pretty sure you'll be appreciated :-). As for Paris: I agree. Not my kind of city either. Too big, too fast-paced. The saying goes that in Paris, if you cross the street walking, not running, you'll be identified as a tourist ;-).