You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Guardian: The World's Verdict Will Be Harsh If We Reject Obama
2008-09-10
The feeling is familiar. I had it four years ago and four years before that: a sinking feeling in the stomach.
So? Stop eating at "discount day old curry" stands, you wanker.
I think it was Ethel's chili ...
It's a kind of physical pessimism which says: "It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."

In my head, I'm not as anxious for Barack Obama's chances as I was for John Kerry's in 2004 or Al Gore's in 2000. He is a better candidate than both put together,
If I was Gore or Kerry I think I'd be insulted
Kerry was a bumbler who thought he should run for President because he was entitled. Gore thought he was entitled, but he was a pretty darned good politician who would have won in 2000 if he had run true to his roots. Obama can't run true to his and so has to be the flim-flam man ...
and all the empirical evidence says this year favours Democrats more than any since 1976. But still, I can't shake off the gloom.

Look at yesterday's opinion polls, which have John McCain either in a dead heat with Obama or narrowly ahead. Given the well-documented tendency of African-American candidates to perform better in polls than in elections - thanks to people who say they will vote for a black man but don't - this suggests Obama is now trailing badly.
Had to get that racism thingy in there, didn't ya?
More troubling was the ABC News-Washington Post survey which found McCain ahead among white women by 53% to 41%. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 15% lead among women. There is only one explanation for that turnaround, and it was not McCain's tranquilliser of a convention speech: Obama's lead has been crushed by the Palin bounce.
Remember....90% of blacks voting for blacks based only on melanin....good. 8% of women voting for women based only on X chromosomes.....bad, very bad, if she hasn't been vetted by NOW first.
So you can understand my pessimism. But it's now combined with a rising frustration. I watch as the Democrats stumble, uncertain how to take on Sarah Palin. Fight too hard, and the Republican machine, echoed by the ditto-heads in the conservative commentariat on talk radio and cable TV, ...
Does that include Olbermann and Matthews? Campbell Brown? Sally Quinn? I had no idea cable TV was part of the conservative commentariat. Methinks the writer uses commentariat incorrectly; it applies to the progressive types for whom commentariat is just a sub-set of the larger 'secretariat' ...
... will brand Democrats sexist, elitist snobs, patronising a small-town woman. Do nothing, and Palin's rise will continue unchecked, her novelty making even Obama look stale, her star power energising and motivating the Republican base.

So somehow Palin slips out of reach, no revelation - no matter how jaw-dropping or career-ending were it applied to a normal candidate - doing sufficient damage to slow her apparent march to power, dragging the charisma-deprived McCain behind her.
Has there been a 'career-ending' revelation in this election so far? I would have thought being associated with William Ayers was career-ending but obviously not.
We know one of Palin's first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a "rhetorical" question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m "Bridge to Nowhere" project in Alaska - in fact, she campaigned for it - but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough - but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state.

She claims to be a fiscal conservative, but left Wasilla saddled with debts it had never had before. She even seems to have claimed "per diem" allowances - taxpayers' money meant for out-of-town travel - when she was staying in her own house.
To which she was entitled, since she was commuting. Yawn. It's rather stupid for a columnist to cite things that have already been debunked -- it suggests that said columnist doesn't read the news ...
Yet somehow none of this is yet leaving a dent. The result is that a politician who conservative
???
blogger Andrew Sullivan calls a "Christianist" - seeking to politicise Christianity the way Islamists politicise Islam - could soon be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Yah, sure, cite Andy Sullivan, there's a sure ticket. Andy seems to have all the theology of Christianity worked out in his head, and if you don't believe in the authenticity of his Christianity, you're an evil Christianist.
Remember, this is a woman who once addressed a church congregation, saying of her work as governor - transport, policing and education - "really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God".

If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country.
Prozac helps with that, you know, along with good nutrition and exercise.
The door to Canada is still open ...
A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.
Try running Colin Powell -- in either party -- and see what happens ...
But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most.
We don't, but then again, we're less inclined to consider the reactions of Europe. As I tell my European friends, my ancestors came to America to get away from their ancestors.
For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
So run Obama for Chancellor of Germany, or Secretary-General of the UN.
If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.
And if we could choose your leaders, virtually all of the mutts in office that the world has selected wouldn't be there either. Them's the breaks, kid.
The author assumes he still lives in a 'free' world, not recognizing what's happened to Europe.
The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of free beer his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war.
We got that message. Have you noticed what's been happening in Iraq lately?
McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
No, McCain has NOT peddled that lie. No one in the administration peddled that lie, either. We noted that Saddam had links to terrorists, and such links were intolerable in a day where terrorists such as al-Qaeda could attack our country.
Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies.
You're right. We desperately need to make sure the views of genocidal tin pot dictators are given the same respect as those of democratically elected leaders who represent the views and desires of the people.
When a group of democratic countries sit in an international forum with a group of thug states, and then try to 'get along' and 'work together', the result is usually much closer to what the thug states want, compared to what the democracies want. It's basic psychology. And then the democracies lament that they aren't trying hard enough and that their leaders don't 'understand' the world. That's basic psychology as well.
McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.
Uh, no, sweetie. (May I call you sweetie? Barack likes to call journos of the opposite sex that, so I figured you wouldn't mind.) Gov. Palin was talking about energy independence from psychotic idiots like Chavez and the Saudis, and the crowd responded.
The author focuses on one point of a multi-point energy plan. As Gov. Palin noted, we need to do it all.
If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.
Well okay then, you'll be unhappy. I think we'll just have to carry that cross ...
Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration.
Um, no, anti-Bushism has simply allowed anti-Americanism to come out more openly and more virulently. It's now acceptable for the elites in polite society to say what they've been thinking all along.
But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.
Oh dear. I think they're serious this time. They're gonna give us a few less frites in the bistro next summer if we don't do what they want! Oh, the inhumanity!
Note that the writer assumes that it's all our fault and that we're the ones who have to do all the changing and accommodating. The Euro elites don't have to change a thing, apparently.
And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh.
Because, as we know, America is the most racist society in the entire world.
In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem even less of a patriotic American than he already seemed. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.
Well, by all means, please start calling random voters in battlefield states in late October! The best time to call is right after we clean our guns, just before Bible study. We're generally not clinging to anything at that brief moment in time and would love to chat.
My hope is that we elect McCain and force the Euro elites to 'hear' the message, and then 'act' upon it -- oh silly me, getting the Y'urp-peons to 'act' is nonsense.
Posted by:Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields

#47  Who gives a shit what this asshole thinks. If europe was so f'n great my ancestors would've stayed there.

And what will the world do? Stop trading w/us? Stop asking us to send money to aids infested Africa? Stop buying levis and rock records? Make our military leave Germany? Last time that happened the German governors begged us to stay.

FUCK THE WORLD.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2008-09-10 21:12  

#46  "Be not of this world" KJV

That is what made America great. This is my opinion, that America was for a long time a Christian nation while much of the world was athiest or other and still is.

Why do we want to run with the third world? Or with countries where war has ravaged them?

In God WE trust.
Posted by: Tarzan Greack1035   2008-09-10 20:07  

#45  Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

Well, he has had dual citizenship in both Kenya and Indonesia. In fact, I hear Obama has already had great experience campaigning in Kenya. He and his candidate were able to whip the crowds into a barn church razing frenzy. I hear the crowds really went wild.
Posted by: Betty Grating2215   2008-09-10 19:13  

#44  What can I say, Condor Man. They obviously need more Moose Belle.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2008-09-10 19:10  

#43  Sarah Derangement Syndrome in Scotland
Posted by: 3dc   2008-09-10 18:49  

#42  "Nonetheless I dont see alienating populations as good, nor do I see the internal workings of French politics as something I would chalk up to the Bush admin."

To your first point, that depends on why the population is alienated. Foreign opinion is always a factor in policy decisions, but the masses of Europe and the Middle East are not more qualified than we are to decide our policies and we cannot allow them to do so.

To the second: If a rabid dhimmi, America-hating antisemite were elected president of France, that would certainly be chalked up to the Bush administration, or whatever administration is in office at the time. There is a monumental inconsistency.

Btw, Merkel is indeed in a precarious position, but she is better off than the opposition, which is currently out of power.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2008-09-10 18:36  

#41  She's still going to vote Dem, poor deluded fool - so I am shipping her to Oregon.

LOL! Oppresoring your own daughter!
Posted by: .5MT   2008-09-10 18:34  

#40  My daughter, who just graduated college, informs me that a lot of her friends are going to vote for Obama (of course) because of how the Republicans in CONGRESS (and Bush) have given us the 'worst economy evah!', among other things. She knows the Dems hold Congress but seriously doubts many others do. She's still going to vote Dem, poor deluded fool - so I am shipping her to Oregon.
-------
1st generation to grow up during The Vacation Decade - have they got some hard knocks ahead.

Want to have some fun? Make them watch Miracle on Ice - I tell people you want to know what the world was like the 1st 20 years of my life?

1st 5 minutes was a real eye-opener I kept saying I remember that!

they'll see gas lines, signs of no gas today.....

Then came Ronnie..........
Posted by: anonymous2u   2008-09-10 18:27  

#39  LH, keep in mind that our policies and actions should reflect OUR needs. Sometimes we need to act when it is not a benefit to others to support us (ie, the EU and specifically France, Germany and Russia). It's nice when you have others supporting your actions but that should not you to "freeze" when action is called for.
Posted by: tipover   2008-09-10 18:07  

#38  even the Bush admin knows it these last couple of years.

That's why we charged into Iraq intemperately without Congressional assent or any allies. Sorry, LH, I sense a case of BDS.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-09-10 17:51  

#37  In general, the adults who run the chancellories of Europe are considerably friendlier to the US than a few years ago. We have Merkel and Sarkozy, for example, while the many friendly leaders in eastern Europe have stood their ground.

It would be an error to confuse actual policy with poll results and the attitudes of the media-brainwashed masses.

Merkel hangs on leading a coalition govt, with her party on top by the narrowest of threads. I cant see that alienating the German electorate helps give her more freedom of maneuver.

Sarkozy is a totally different thing - hes somewhat of a phenom, and of course in France its not just about how pro or anti US you are, its about French greatness - to the extent that theres really political space for Sarko to turn that in the direction he has, its largely because the weakening of the US position has made us less threatening, and left the French realizing that the other threats to French greatness are more salient. Im not so sure thats a good thing. Anyway, when Sarko goes, theres no one quite as good to replace him - we really want our position there dependent on Sarkos personal life, among other things?

But govts are ALWAYS going to be friendlier to us than populations - as long as we are the big dog with goodies to toss around -govts have to worry about the goodies, and cant be irresponsible the way populations can be. Nonetheless I dont see alienating populations as good, nor do I see the internal workings of French politics as something I would chalk up to the Bush admin.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-09-10 17:41  

#36  liberalhawk,
In general, the adults who run the chancellories of Europe are considerably friendlier to the US than a few years ago. We have Merkel and Sarkozy, for example, while the many friendly leaders in eastern Europe have stood their ground.

It would be an error to confuse actual policy with poll results and the attitudes of the media-brainwashed masses.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2008-09-10 17:35  

#35  Obama's Electoral Votes Map

http://penetratinginsights.blogtownhall.com/2008/09/09/obamas_electoral_map.thtml
Posted by: tu3031   2008-09-10 17:26  

#34  points.

1. The grauniad must LIKE Gop presidents, as this does the Dems NO GOOD. Nobody in any country likes furriners telling them how to vote

2. Its ironic, in that even McCain would be a substantial improvement over Bush in US - rest of the world relations, on many grounds

3. It IS a fact that we live in a dangerous world, and the US CANNOT achieve what we want in it acting alone. Whether its troops in Afghanistan, or support in imposing sanctions
on Iran, or money to rebuild Georgia, or Intell cooperation in many places, or just the impact that offering EU membership has in someplace like Ukraine or Serbia, we NEED allies. McCain knows that, and even the Bush admin knows it these last couple of years. Whether Obama will really be better at improving relations with those allies (and also fencesitters) than McCain, and if so, how much, is a legitimate factor for debate. I expect it will influence my vote.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-09-10 17:25  

#33  *bleep* the world and the space-time geodesic it rode in on!
Posted by: SteveS   2008-09-10 17:18  

#32  The reason for this is relatively simple. It is not that the people of the rest of the world are less intelligent or more venal than Americans; except perhaps in those European regions where any genetic prediposition to such qualities was depleted by emigration in past centuries.

No, the real reason is that the rest of the world is behind us on the saturation media learning curve. The US, after all, invented high-intensity media, specifically television, and was the first to make those media a major factor in the political dynamic. Even in supposedly sophisticated Europe such media are significantly newer on average. A majority of European households did not have TV sets until the 1970s, for example, and the perceptual kaleidoscope of cable and satellite TV is even newer. The glamorous talking heads, melodramatic visual advocacy, and multi-level manipulation have not quite lost their shine, nor has organized opposition to media rule taken root as it has in the US.

Many in the UK, for example, actually believe what they see on the BBC, receiving it not as propaganda supporting an agenda, but as divine wisdom handed down from the gods of culture.
This phenonmenon is even more apparent in the Arab world, which went from parchment and smoke signals to 80s style glitz virtually overnight.

This is all old news in the US, where we have reached a level of understanding, and consequent skepticism, that is still several years off for most of the rest of the world.

Obama is the media culture's last chance to retain power. Their grasp is slipping and that is why they are desperately and foolishly bringing in foreign reinforcements.

Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2008-09-10 17:14  

#31  After the election, ask how many of your daughter's friends actually made it to the polls, Glenmore. And give the girl a chance -- we all were young and stupid once; I'm sure you became old and wise the way I did, by learning from the consequences of my errors.

Spolurong, some of you are utterly delightful, thank goodness!
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-09-10 17:10  

#30  The UK media needs to mind its own business. Although saying that this is the self righteous British I'm talking about /scum

America had the misfortune of meeting one of our top wankers at the MTV video awards.
Russell "scag" Brand DOES NOT REPRESENT THE REAL ENGLISH PEOPLE but represents the asexual, incapable and opinionated, accidental celebrity misfits that plague our lives on this island.
Posted by: Spolurong   2008-09-10 16:55  

#29  My daughter, who just graduated college, informs me that a lot of her friends are going to vote for Obama (of course) because of how the Republicans in CONGRESS (and Bush) have given us the 'worst economy evah!', among other things. She knows the Dems hold Congress but seriously doubts many others do. She's still going to vote Dem, poor deluded fool - so I am shipping her to Oregon.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-09-10 16:17  

#28  Besoeker,

Your close. Imagine Zimbobwe where both sides have nukes and heavy weapons. Then throw in the Sudanese and Somalis and give the Darfuians nukes too.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-09-10 16:16  

#27  Ya' know, if millions of young people who are going to vote for Obama become cynical and decide that voting and politics simply isn't worth the effort, well, I say good for them.

If you can't take the time and effort to exercise your franchise, won for you through the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots, handed down to you by men who, if they had been caught by the other side would have been instantly executed, exercised for you by tens of millions of previous generations of voters, and guaranteed to you simply because you are a citizen of this country - if all that means absolutely nothing to a young person (or a person of any age), well, you don't deserve to vote or have a decision in how this country goes forward into the 21st Century. In fact, I don't want you voting and helping to decide who leads this country because you simply don't care, are too cynical, or too distrustful of the system or disrespectful of it and everything else I've pointed out.

Oh, and as for how Europe and the rest of the world feels about us, screw 'em. They object to the fact that this young upstart nation without even a hint of an aristocracy leads the world in all things. They would much rather we followed their lead. After all, the Old World and its elitist rulers know precisely what's best for the masses, right? Europe's doing so much better than the US is, right? Europe confronts evil wherever it arises, right (oh, wait - Europe doesn't recognize evil, does it)?

The blue states can go screw themselves too. They don't like being part of this country, let 'em try to secede. The Constitution is not a suicide pact and the blue states do not make up the majority of this country.

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2008-09-10 15:23  

#26  #25 If I had a planet to go to which was properly governed and could watch the show I'd love to see Obama elected.

It's pretty simple to be a Obama futurist, just take a look at South Africa or Zimbabwe.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-09-10 15:15  

#25  If I had a planet to go to which was properly governed and could watch the show I'd love to see Obama elected.

I fear the results of a Zero election, not so much because of what he would do (though that's bad enough). But what he would cause/enable in the rest of the world.

If Zero is elected I predict that there will be MAJOR War between India & Pakistan, India & China, China & Taiwan, Russia & Ukraine, Israel & somebody or everybody. Not to mention all the various permutations and combinations.

And after that, revolution in Europe in some way, shape or form. Anarchy, fascism, communism or Islamism or all of the above would take to the streets and fight for control.

I consider the US as the damper in the skyscraper that slows the vibration of the earthquake. Obama and his ilk would drain the fluid from the damper and the next small shock would bring the world tumbling down.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-09-10 15:04  

#24  This article is the manifest form of the fecal stink of the post-modern, socialist, antireligious bigots that comprise the bulk of Europe (and nearly 100% of their ruling class).

Europe has lost the torch of the West because they actively detest the things that made it great. Which explains their love of Obama.
Posted by: no mo uro   2008-09-10 14:52  

#23  Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American.

Bottom line, it is NOT 'incredible' at all. The average American is sick and tired of bailing Europe out of it'w own miserable kak, and could care less what a bunch of socialists and closet communists think.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-09-10 14:35  

#22  Instead of us worrying about the world's verdict--we don't--the world should worry about our verdict of them. They should.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2008-09-10 14:09  

#21  If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger

You got it, punk. A big, fat upraised middle finger to you. We don't give a flying about what you think and NOTHING you can do will change that.
Posted by: Chusosing Johnson3827   2008-09-10 13:58  

#20  Actually, I think there is one respect in which the world is pretty sensible on this subject. They all have one view in common - Big O should be the leader of some foreign country, as long as it's not theirs. I, too, think Obama should be some country's leader, as long as it's not ours. For example, North Korea or Sudan could certainly do worse than with a leader like Obama.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2008-09-10 13:48  

#19  I remember reading the Guardian many years ago, it took only one reading to realise that it was complete Crap.

I see nothing's changed, I'm frankly surprised they're still around, I thought they'd folded their tents and moved for lack of people able to read, but unable to think.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-09-10 13:21  

#18  I just want to tell you that the grauniad would go bankrupt without the support of

a) The taxpayers advertising non-jobs.
b) AutoTrader magazine (selling used cars personal CO2 producers.)
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-09-10 13:19  

#17  Brave twit who wrote the article turned off comments before most of the US woke up.
Posted by: 3dc   2008-09-10 13:09  

#16  Let them hate us so long as they fear us. It's time to pull out of EUrope, NATO, the UN, etc. Let the wankers take care of themselves.
Posted by: Spot   2008-09-10 13:02  

#15  Well when Bin Laden and Doc Knothead actually get pissed off when they're not given credit for it, yeah, I kinda do.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-09-10 13:02  

#14  tu3031, are you expecting all 1.2 billion Muslims to see it our way?
Posted by: Darrell   2008-09-10 12:52  

#13  My God, if we've lost Andi Sullivan, then teh terrorists will have won...or something. I could give a sh*t what this tool or similar hand-wringers and pussified Yurpeons think or who they want as our President. I despise their mealy-mouthed appeasement, social policies, willing kneeling subjugation to the EUcrats, and sneering at American culture while they trash their own. F*ck em.
Posted by: Frank G   2008-09-10 12:47  

#12  Here's one more reason why I could give a shit what the world thinks of us...

No consensus on who was behind Sept 11-global poll

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday.

The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.

U.S. officials squarely blame al Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden has boasted of organizing the suicide attacks by his followers using hijacked commercial airliners.

On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.

The poll was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in the United States.

In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians.

Respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda, the poll found.

Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians.

In Mexico, 30 percent cited the U.S. government and 33 percent named al Qaeda.

The only countries with overwhelming majorities blaming al Qaeda were Kenya with 77 percent and Nigeria with 71 percent.

Interviews were conducted in China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Egypt, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, the Palestinian Territories, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Ukraine.

The poll, taken between July 15 and Aug. 31, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 to 4 percent.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-09-10 12:46  

#11  "It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."

Obvious a socialist to the core. Anyone who conducts a 'scientific' experiment three times and does not get the anticipated results goes back and reexamines the preface for the hypothesis. It never dawns on the socialists why their system keeps failing, either dramatically or slowly. Same concept here, ASSUMING that it was "an election they should win".

A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all.

Because socialist like you, the rest of the MSM, and their unionists teachers never told them the truth about true constitutional DEMOCRACY. Just the failed 'Peoples Democratic Republic' tripe. Checking the Constitution, I can't find anything in there that said the left or the MSM were entitled to run our government or society. They had to earn it just like anyone else.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-09-10 12:44  

#10  The world can't stand Republicans. Men like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Martin Luther King Jr. and Reagan should never have risen to prominence.

"...Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory."
And the world just loves excitement. How else can you explain famous world leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Mugabe? Clearly the world should make this decision, not us!
Posted by: Darrell   2008-09-10 12:44  

#9  Luckily for us (and them) "the world" doesn't elect our President.
Posted by: Goober Phitch2747   2008-09-10 12:04  

#8  It's time the world faced the reality that America does not belong to them, but to its own citizens. The funny thing is that John McCain is apparently fairly popular in international government circles, agreeing on many issues and disagreeing on some, but always with a core of respect. I expect more Cowboy magazine covers and headlines, just like the previous several presidents received.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-09-10 11:57  

#7  Note to world: We lead. You follow.

It's not the other way around, and that is what's really bugging you.
Posted by: Iblis   2008-09-10 11:56  

#6  My email to the author:

"Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities..."

Fine. When will a black man be running for office in any of these countries? When that day comes, citizens of these nations will be free to vote for him.

Until then, shut the f*&% up.
Posted by: Parabellum   2008-09-10 11:52  

#5  "The world doesn't much like the US because we're filled with people that already rejected the world and voted with their feet to get here"

You remember this description of yours perfectly applies to modern-day illegal immigrants as well?
Posted by: Ar.is.Katsaris   2008-09-10 11:49  

#4  The World's verdict will be harsh if we do elect Obama.

The world doesn't much like the US because we're filled with people that already rejected the world and voted with their feet to get here and those same folks have made the US dominant beyond all belief.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-09-10 11:43  

#3  I want America to be the leader of the Free World (since Europe is unable/unwilling to be). And free people tend to more easily follow ones they like.

Difference is that many Republicans seem to want America to be the leader of the world without the word "Free" anywhere in the sentence; most of them barely seem to want America to be a *member* of the Free World, let alone its leader.
Posted by: Ari.s.Katsaris   2008-09-10 11:36  

#2  this comment is unparodyable:

http://tiny.cc/OUb2Y

SFDavid

Sep 10 08, 2:52am (about 13 hours ago)

What many of us Blue-State Americans have sadly come to realize is that the US has never really been "our" Country. The US has never been a country of intellectuals or sophisticates or much given to nuance and analysis. Starting from Andrew Jackson with minor detours for the Roosevelts and Wilson, and of course the founding fathers, most Americans have always taken the dim view anyone who is an intellectual is effete, ineffective, and somehow alien. Americans have always valued action over deliberation, excess over moderation, gut instinct over reasoned analysis and an excess of hyper-emotional patriotism & religious fervor. That's why Caibou Barbie Palin has generated such a huge response here. She is the perfect embodiment of the American mentality - with the added benefit that she is a mother. Nothing strikes a more perfect note in the juvenile American psyche than mom. There seemed to be a moment during the Clinton administration when it seemed that America had turned the corner. That the forces of innovation and entrepreneurialism would help us see beyond our usual narrow conceits. Unfortunately it was just attributable to the fact that flat screen TVs & SUVs finally became affordable for the Bubbas, and sated with consumer goods they could go back to their usual narrow mindset. Needless to say if Obama loses this election it will be the clearest sign of all that you can't take back what you never owned.

Also from the link, wtf is the grauniad *thinking*, chiseling it's logo into Mt. Rushmore? (The ad in the right sidebar)
Posted by: Seafarious   2008-09-10 11:25  

#1  I love watching these Euro Nancy Boys squirm...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-09-10 11:20  

00:00