In spite of leaving the G20 summit with less than he wanted, Nicolas Sarkozy’s victory parade is in full flow. The French president reckons he vanquished Anglo-Saxon capitalism, and he’s doing just about anything to make sure everyone knows it. Not even disparaging Barack Obama appears to be out of bounds.

People close to Sarkozy, I’m told, have been making it known that Obama wasn’t fully across his brief. He didn’t grasp the detail, they claim. Why? It all fits the narrative of Sarkozy coming to London knowing all the arcane regulatory details, standing his ground and outwitting the capitalists and tax-dodgers.

The catty assessment of Obama may just be some loose talk. But it adds even more colour to what has been an eventful day in Sarko/Obama relations.

I particularly enjoyed how Sarkozy responded after Obama successfully brokered a deal on tax havens, overcoming tensions between France and China. Once the deadlock was broken, Sarkozy was overheard telling Obama: “You have set a great example for a new and young US leader. This is multilateralism at its very best.” Well done young man!

Let’s see if Sarkozy decides to really turn on the charm at the Nato summit.

We all know it sounded wrong when Gordon Brown blurted out “Barack” in the Oval Office. But this wasn’t just a matter of straying from the West Wing script. Brown was officially in breach of protocol.

The only publication worth consulting on this terribly important matter is the Hand-book of Official and Social Etiquette and Public Ceremonials at Washington, a must-read for visiting dignitaries hoping to build special relationships.

FORMS OF SALUTATION. When addressed in person, the form proper to use upon all occasions is, MR. PRESIDENT, and nothing more. Mrs. Washington, contemporary history informs us, always addressed General Washington as THE PRESIDENT. Sometimes a military title, when entitled to the same, is used when addressed by a friend, but this is in bad taste.

Guido has more on Brown’s love of protocol.

The heaviest snow to hit the Washington area for years has disrupted Gordon Brown’s hopes for a statesmanlike press conference with Barack Obama in the White House Rose Garden, which is now better suited to building snowmen.

The Brown and Obama camp are trying to arrange a separate “press opportunity” in the Oval Office, which - as one British official put it - will leave the prime minister without “flags and podiums” when he appears on the television news.

I’m not sure if pictures of the two of them chatting cosily in the Oval Office would not work better for a prime minister who is anxious to prove the “specialness” of the relationship between Britain and the US. Incidentally that relationship is now called “a partnership” in the White House - a term which perhaps suggests less long-term emotional commitment?

The formal talks with Mr Brown are scheduled for a paltry 30 minutes, less than Mr Obama appears to be setting aside for his meeting with the Boy Scouts of America this afternoon. But this is slightly unfair on Mr Brown  - a lot of the real business will be done over a working lunch at the White House.

Officially Mr Brown wants Mr Obama to engage in planning for the G20 summit in London in April. But some nice pictures, a good atmosphere and - crucially - some Obama endorsement of his economic policies will be far more important in terms of domestic politics.

George Parker is the FT’s political editor

We’re all looking forward to Gordon Brown’s lecture speech to the joint session of Congress on Wednesday. This is his big chance to tell America’s lawmakers that they were responsible for the global financial crisis. His regularly repeated thesis, after all, is that the economic catastrophe started in the US (because of lax national regulation) and infected other economies (because of lax global regulation). He’ll surely take this opportunity to tell Congress how it is, to their face - won’t he?

There are plenty of past sound bites for his speech writers to choose from. Here’s a selection.

“It started in America, there was a lot of irresponsible lending taking place, a lot of it was completely unknown to the authorities, and people were passing the risks on from one person to another and a lot of them ended up in Europe. So it’s a problem of the banking system that has started with the tragedy of the sub-prime housing market in America.” BBC Politics Show, October 2008

“This problem started in America. They have got to sort it out. The Americans have a responsibility to the rest of the world.” Sky News, October 2008

“What caused it was not something that happened in Britain….I think everybody understands, even the Americans now say, this is a global problem that started in America…” BBC, November 2008

“I think everybody recognises that this problem started in America.” Downing Street press conference, January 2009

“What I regret is that we have been unable to remain unaffected by a global downturn and the.. events that started in America.” Downing Street press conference, December 2008

“I’ve been angry about the behavior of banks, starting with the sub prime market in America.” BBC, November 2008

“But what I do say to you is, this is an international crisis, it’s global, it started in America. We’ve had very little control over…” BBC, November 2008

“That is why, when threatened by the global financial turmoil that started in America and has now spread across the world, we in Britain took action to secure our banks and financial system…” Times, October 10

The London summit is in the first week of April — which happens to coincide with US banks putting out first quarter results. It could be messy. Nationalisation is rising up the Washington agenda. There is a chance — albeit small — that Obama will have to seize the banks around the time he’s due to hob-nob at the G20.

Here’s some background from Ed Luce:

The time for biting the bullet may also be fast approaching.

In early April, big institutions will publish their first-quarter results. If the intervening Treasury stress tests have not by then revealed the true state of their balance sheets, then their first-quarter results may do so.

“The first week in April – that’s when the children’s party is over,” says Chris Whalen, co-founder of Institutional Risk Analytics. “That is when the obvious will become apparent.”

It is a long shot. But one or two observers in London have already noted the tricky timing. The shock to the US psyche of its president nationalising big banks will be considerable. Could he pull the trigger from London? Or at the Nato summit after that? Probably not. He would need to be in Washington. It is unlikely, I know, but there’s a outside chance that Gordon Brown’s big summit could be missing its star attraction.

At last, we can reveal why Gordon Brown sold Britain’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market. The prime minister is a poor trader because he is too in touch with his feminine side. How do we know? From the length of his fingers.

Researchers have found a strong statistical link between the profits made by traders at a London bank and the ratio of index to ring fingers on their hands. Those with a lower “2D:4D” ratio were exposed to more male hormones in the womb, making them much better at playing the markets. The traders with the longest fourth digit in relation to index finger made 11 times more money than those with the highest ratios.

So how does the prime minister measure up? Brown’s digit ratios look pretty feminine to me. His index finger is clearly longer than his ring finger. Surely this is conclusive proof that he was never cut out to sell off Britain’s gold.

Making shrewd trading calls is only going to become more important for prime ministers in coming years. Think of all those bank stakes that need to be sold. Which brings us to the key question: should you trust David Cameron any more with your money?

The answer, according to the rule of finger, is no. Dave’s hands are no more manly, and could even pass as dainty. Crucially, in terms of the “2D:4D” ratio, there seems to be nothing to differentiate the two main party leaders. What happened to choice in British politics?

So, who can voters trust with their money? Need I say it?