Tony Blair officially announced that he would be stepping down as Prime Minister yesterday. He leaves a mixed legacy that ranges from socialist domestic reforms to his support for the Iraq war. What his legacy will be depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. The left and right weigh in.

A.N. Wilson finds Blair “a boundlessly superficial person.” That superficiality came in handy when Blair was brokering peace in Northern Ireland, but “his disregard for truth” led him into his biggest blunder—joining the Americans in the Iraq war.

Arianna Huffington says that “Blair was exactly what George W. Bush needed to sell his fraudulent and immoral war in Iraq to the American public: a seemingly reasonable and non-partisan stamp of international approval.” For all that he did in his ten years as PM, that role will be his legacy.

E.J. Dionne looks at Blair’s legacy with sadness: “Blair asked the right questions, and my hunch is that even critics to his left will find themselves building on what he achieved... We may be done with Blair, but his influence will long outlive his tenure -- and the war he embraced.”

The National Review has a symposium on Blair’s legacy. Conservatives from both sides of the Atlantic weigh in on Blair, the “third way” socialist turned Bush ally.

Peggy Noonan sees hope in Old Europe. With Sarkozy’s election and Blair’s legacy there is hope that new things can come from old—it is spring in the Old World.

Alan Blinder is worried about offshoring. It is likely to hurt U.S. companies and workers, and “may be the biggest political issue in economics for a generation.” His op-ed in the Washington Post about his worries is stirring up controversy. Today’s punditbuzz is dedicated to Blinder and his detractors.

Greg Mankiw thinks Blinder’s criticisms are overblown. Offshoring has many benefits and is unlikely to unsettle the U.S. job market as much as Blinder claims and "the very length of the transition will make it less painful."

Blinder recently debated the issue of offshoring with Bhagwati at Harvard. Dani Rodrik provides a summary.

Dani Rodrik says that, “Historians teach us that globalisation rests on delicate social and political pillars. The first order of business today is to strengthen these pillars, rather than to push market opening further.”

Dean Baker is at a loss to why Blinder is worried only about the threat to highly educated workers.

Sarkozy won Sunday’s election in France and his presidency has the potential to be a new chapter in France. What sort of chapter that will be is up for debate.

The New York Times worries that Sarkozy’s zeal for security will thwart his desire to be “president of all the French.” The Times says that, “he needs to recognize that there are many equally legitimate ways of being French. And that the problems of poverty and unemployment require much broader solutions than simple law and order.”

The Washington Times admits that Sarkozy is tough, but he is going to need it. “To enact the structural changes needed to shake up France's stagnant economy, Mr. Sarkozy will have to face down this opposition better than his predecessor.”

Anne Applebaum says farewell to Jacques Chirac: "Before Chirac fades from the scene altogether -- or before he becomes embroiled in corruption investigations -- I'd like to take this opportunity to recall some of the highlights of his diplomatic career.”

Suzanne Nossel believes that “it's just possible that Sarkozy's election could mark the start of the republic's first bona fide attempt to tackle its racial and ethnic tensions.”

Condoleezza Rice’s moment has come. She’s the last surviving member of Bush’s dream team and she is running much of the show. But who is she? Several recent articles have tried to answer that question.

David Samuels looks at Rice and her policy challenges in one of the longer features to run in The Atlantic Monthly. He paints a complex picture that might have some people changing their mind (either way) about Rice.

Joe Conason reviews Marcus Mabry’s new book on Rice. She never looks back, says Mabry, and that lack of reflection has cost the U.S. dearly.

Marcus Mabry questions Rice’s loyalty to Bush: “One of the secrets to the spectacular rise of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is that every boss she has ever worked for was convinced that she shared his worldview. And each, after she left his employ, was left scratching his head as he saw Rice make a 180degree turn away from the core beliefs he thought they shared.”

Armstrong Williams looks at Rice’s life and work and sees a person of great strength who should be an inspiration to all people - American or otherwise.

The French elections, closing in a few hours, are interesting as ever. No centrists here, it’s left against right—Royal the socialist against Sarkozy the slightly pro-American. What the election means for the rest of the world is up for debate.

Sophie Pedder looks at Sarkozy’s new book, Testimony, to see what kind of president he might be. She says that “President Sarkozy might even live up to the audacious politician who appears in Testimony: a risk-taker and pragmatist, pugnacious and nonideological.”

The Wall Street Journal sees the French elections as a test case for how Europe as a whole might go. “The campaign may have culminated in a clear left-right split,” they write, “but with little room for free-market ideas.” Until the free-market comes to Europe the WSJ sees little hope for a European economic renaissance.

John Nichols thinks Royal is smart to link Sarkozy to Bush. American politics are as much at play in the French presidential race as French politics.

John MacArthur, a dual French-U.S. citizen, joined the French literary set to decide how he would vote. He provides a “deconstruction” of his ballot.

The LA Times doesn’t think that the French election will make all that much difference for France’s relationship with the world. Though “the contest between ‘Sego and Sarko’ has attracted strong interest internationally…Whether either would bring noticeable change to France's external relations is an open question.”