Across The Pond | DW-WORLD

Time To Say Goodbye

For the first and last time here at Across the Pond I am writing not about international affairs but about our blog itself. I usually eschew writing about one's journalistic product and processes, because first, I believe the product should speak for itself and second, I don't think many readers are interested in journalists explaining how and why they do what they do.

But in this case, it's different since we will close Across the Pond at the end of March and this will be my last post. So why are we ending our transatlantic blogging venture on international affairs from a German and American perspective? Our original goal was to cover the U.S. election from a unique transatlantic perspective. But to be honest, when we launched Across the Pond a year ago we had no idea whether it would work. Would there be an audience for this kind of a blog? Could we get Across the Pond linked by relevant blogs and sites? Would we have the creativity and stamina to write entries on a daily basis?

In hindsight, I believe we can answer all those questions with a resounding yes. Our blog project with two journalists posting from across the pond did work. There definitely was an audience for a blog like ours as evidenced by the many comments and traffic we have received. It was rewarding to see how many important sites noticed our work and linked, often repeatedly, to Across the Pond (among them, Time Magazine, the Huffington Post, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, the Council on Foreign Relations to name just a few). And I believe that, for the most part, we possessed the ideas and endurance to keep the blog fresh and interesting.

So why are we quitting Across the Pond then? The answer is simple: This project from the beginning was only meant to cover the U.S. election. Across the Pond always was a true labor of love. It had nothing to do with our respective day jobs, so almost all of our writing was done in late evenings that often turned into late nights and on weekend afternoons. And it was a great challenge and even greater fun trying to come up with something worthwile to say every day.

After the election, we continued with the blog simply driven by the journalistic impetus to also cover the first months of an historic presidency. But while an election campaign has a clear focus, timeline and political players, covering the foreign policy of a historic presidency with its abundance of topics, venues and players is a whole different ballgame. And while I am confident that Tim and I would be able to report on the vast field that is American foreign policy under Obama as well, it won't be possible under the conditions and framework of Across the Pond.

But could there be a better moment to sign off as when President Obama embarks on his first official visit to Europe one year after we launched Across the Pond? I think not.

In closing, let me first thank all the readers and commentators who have followed Across the Pond over the past year. You are the reason why we started this blog. I hope you enjoyed reading the blog at least as half as much as I had writing it.

Second, a big thank you goes out to my blogging alter ego Tim in Washington. Without him, Across the Pond wouldn't have been possible. Tim is the only person I know who is equally well versed in writing about boxing and analyse the advantages of a southpaw as in writing about foreign policy and analyse domestic surveillance practices. He is not only an excellent reporter with flawless copy, but just has an amazing knack to find and explain the one aspect of the major story that every one else has overlooked. And last but not least, Tim is not just a great journalist, but also a good friend. Thanks again Tim.

Final thanks are also due to my wife, who for a year had to not only endure a husband hogging the family computer at night. She also had to deal with a frequently sleep-deprived partner. What's more, especially in the early months of Across the Pond, she was of invaluable help telling me what did or what didn't work. Thank you.

While we won't update Across the Pond any longer, it will remain online and can perhaps serve as an instant history file of the Obama election.

Thank you and so long!

Should Europe Do More To Stimulate The Economy?

Analysing the continuing rift between Europe and the U.S. how best to overcome the financial crisis, Robert Kuttner argues that both are right. President Barack Obama, writes Kuttner, is correct to demand that European countries, especially the continent's biggest economy Germany, do more to stimulate spending. But the Europeans are equally right to demand that international regulation of the financial system is given high priority.

While I generally agree with his analysis, he and many other critics of Europe's alleged meager stimulus policy, miss an important point. Compared to the U.S. many European countries have a much tighter social security and welfare net. In times of crises, this provides an important buffer against the most severe effects of the recession. In other words: The social and welfare act as a kind of automatic stimulus in many European countries. If those effects are factored in, the size of the German stimulus package for instance is basically on par with that of the U.S. An excellent analysis of this phenomenon can be found of all places in the Wall Street Journal.

Another Blow For Missile Defense

It's another sign that the Eastern European missile defense shield planned by President George W. Bush is unlikely to be implemented anytime soon. The Czech government withdrew a scheduled ratification vote on the treaty from the lower house of parliament. While Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek pointed out that the pull back didn't mean the end of the ratification process, he added that he would reconsider it after talks with U.S. President Barack Obama at the upcoming NATO summit in France and Germany. Given the Obama administration's sceptical stance toward missile defense it seems unlikely that Obama will press Topolanek hard on that issue.

The Globalization Of The Central Banking System

In a fascinating article, Ryan Grim examines how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank in recent months has literally pumped billions of dollars into central banks around the world. As Grim points out - and I concur -, this aspect of the global financial crisis hasn't been reported by mainstream media previously.

In essence, writes Grim, the Fed has been acting as the world's central bank since last year in a move that is a clear step into territory usually occupied by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to the article, 314 billion dollars are currently loaned to international central banks by the Federal Reserve, down from almost 600 billion in December. The central banks use the money to rescue financial institutions in their own countries. The transactions, writes Grim, are conducted as swaps, whereby the Fed receives the equal amount of its loan in foreign currency.

As a consequence of this money injection program, the Fed and other global central banks are very tighly linked to each other. If everything goes well and the central banks can repay their loans, this is not a problem. Difficulties for both sides could arise, if central banks can't repay their loans and thus internationalize their problem.

European countries participating in this program, according to Grim are, Denmark, Britain, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. To read the article in the Huffington Post click here.

Obama And Geithner Have To Repeat Themselves Again

They did it again: U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner once more called on other countries to do more to stimulate their economies. The answer by most European countries is equally predictable: Ah, no.

Just a few days ago, the Eurozone nations rather resolutely rejected demands by the U.S. that European countries increase their own stimulus packages to combat the financial crisis. It wasn't the first time that European governments gave Washington the cold shoulder. In February, Germany's outspoken Finance Minister warned that the U.S. stimulus efforts could lead to a new global bubble.

The continuing transatlantic spat intensifies just weeks before the crucial G-20 meeting in London in April, and one day before Geithner travels to Britain for a finance minister meeting in preparation for the summit. The expectations and the stakes for the G-20 meeting are high. It is the first major global meeting with Obama and Geithner representing the U.S., and it comes at a time when the fallout of the financial crisis can be felt across the world.

At the important G-20 meeting in Washington late last year, Obama was not sworn in yet. At the second major international economic event of the last months, the Global Economic Forum in Davos in late January, Obama and his team had just taken office and were not present. At the G-20 meeting in London, Obama and Geithner need, and are expected, to produce something.

A Foreign Policy Based On The Godfather?

I usually don't plug things here, but if you are a movie buff and a foreign policy wonk, you should check out The Godfather Doctrine, a book by John Hulsman and Wess Mitchell. But be warned. If you expect a purely cinematic analysis of the classic Godfather movie, or scholarly ruminations about international affairs, you might be disappointed.

The Godfather Doctrine, based on the authors' piece in the National Interest last year, is a brief, concise, and, yes, entertaining political parable against the backdrop of the quintessential Mafia flick. I read it in a couple of hours. The authors apply the various philosophical approaches taken by the Corleone sons in reaction to the shooting of the family patriarch to the world of foreign policy. Which of the three principals representing different philosophical schools, Tom Hagen (liberal institutionalism), Sonny (neoconservatism) or Michael (realism) should the U.S. emulate in its foreign policy? The authors fun to read and convincing answer is, of course, realism. Even more interesting than their answer though is the hands-on style in which Hulsman and Mitchell arrive at their thesis.

Full disclosure: I have known John Hulsman for a few years through some political roundtables in the U.S. and Germany and a hearty breakfast in Berlin.

Obama's Taliban Response Draws Lukewarm Response From Allies, Criticism From Experts

The reactions President Barack received for his proposal to talk to "moderate Taliban" are different in style, but not very different in substance from the comments Germany's former head of the Social Democratic Party, Kurt Beck, got: Mostly negative.

Jason Burke argues in the Guardian that talking to the Taliban has been tried on the local level for some time - and it has failed. According to a Reuters story, many experts in Afghanistan and Pakistan are skeptical of Obama's talk offer to the Taliban, questioning whether there are any "moderate Taliban," and calling negotiations with them useless. And Peter Bergen, an al Qaeda expert with the New America Foundation, cautions against making deals with the Taliban.

America's allies have been equally cautious in their response to the President's proposal. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said possible negotiations with moderate elements of the Taliban are primarily a decision of the government in Kabul. He added that the Afghan government must make sure that Taliban involved in possible talks have to distance themselves from violence.

Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said pretty much the same thing: "If the Afghan government at the end of the day desires to go out there and have discussions with people who fundamentally will renounce any forms of violence, we're quite comfortable with that," Cannon told public broadcaster CBC.

The best analysis I could find of why talking to the Taliban makes sense comes from Robert Dreyfus in the Nation who argues that given the dire prospects for Afghanistan the U.S. will have to strike a deal with the Taliban sooner or later.

And the price for the most sardonic reply to Obama's proposal goes to David Rothkopf.

And finally: Not surprisingly the Taliban flat out rejected Obama's proposal calling it "illogical."

Déjà vu for Germans: Obama's Taliban Proposal

Barack Obama's proposal to talk to moderate Taliban is especially big news in Germany. Why? Two years ago, the then head of the SPD, Kurt Beck, had pretty much the same idea. Negotiate with moderate elements in the Taliban, he suggested. The feedback he received from political colleagues and the media was mostly negative. There's no way we can negotiate with the Taliban, so the general opinion went.

Now, a new American President comes up with the same idea and the reaction is quite different. Here's a couple of editorial reactions from Austria and Germany.

"Obama does not only openly admit to the catastrophic situation, he also openly admits his helplessness," reads the editorial in Austria's Kurier. When the U.S. President speaks about a "very complex situation" and "a lot bigger challenges" than in Iraq, than this is as close to an admission of helplessness as is possible for the most powerful man of the world." The idea to solve the problems in Afghanistan through sending more troops has become a side issue, writes the paper. More importantly, adds the Kurier, there is a search of new concepts taking place right now. "That this new phase begins with the admission of failure shows that one is really willing to cast aside all ideological blinders and self-deception of the Bush era. And this is already a good start."

Duesseldorf-based Rheinische Post comments: "From sarcasm to outrage went the range of reactions when the the former head of the German Social Democrats, Kurt Beck, on the occasion of a visit to Afghanistan, suggested two years ago to negotiate with "moderate Taliban." Now U.S. President Barack Obama has taken up exactly that proposal - and no one is laughing anymore," notes the paper. "The situation in the Hindukush is confused and appears more unstable than ever." According to the paper, everyone who looked objectively at Beck's supposed capitulation statement two years ago had to raise the question whether there even are any "moderate Taliban." But, adds the Rheinische Post, "President Obama is definitely right with one thing: The West simply can't bumble about anymore in Afghanistan."

Clinton's Concept Of European Democracy

Hillary Clinton's European visit has been going well. On Friday, however, according to Reuters, she caused a bit of befuddlement in Brussels. The U.S. Secretary of State claimed that American democracy "has been around at lot longer than European democracy" and misspoke the names of the EU's foreign policy heavyweights Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

Bad faux pas? Not really. The "democracy" item is probably just a misunderstanding. It seems likely that Clinton - speaking at the European Parliament - was referring to the EU parliament and not European democracy. The European Parliament as an institution, of course, is a lot younger than U.S. democracy.

That she misspoke the names of Solana and Ferrero-Waldner is slightly embarrassing, but not a major deal. It didn't cause any diplomatic problems and rather shows her human side.

Obama's First Major Presidential Trip Scheduled For Europe

It's official: The Obamas are visiting Europe at the end of this month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced America's first couple's travel schedule in Brussels where she attended a NATO meeting. President Obama and his wife will visit Britain, Germany, France and the Czech Republic. The Europe trip will be Obama's first extended international travel and comes after visits from Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Clinton to the continent. It goes to show that Europe, despite some claims to the contrary, remains still very much on Washington's international agenda.

Gordon And Barack Talk About Tennis, But Not A "Global New Deal"

Here's a quick update on my recent post about Gordon Brown's idea of launching a "global New Deal" with the U.S. during his visit to Washington. On a personal level, U.S. President Barack Obama and Britain's Prime Minister apparently hit it off at their first meeting at the White House: Calling each other by their first names and talking about playing tennis together. Too bad that President Obama didn't mention the Prime Minister's big project by name at the press conference and at their lunch in the White House. But maybe he reserved that for his first official trip to 10 Downing Street.

Obama's Continued Dance With Russia

The rationale of President Barack Obama's proposed deal with Russia is puzzling. The U.S. would scrap its planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe, if Russia gets tough on Iran's assumed nuclear development. If Moscow's new, hard stance succeeds, so goes the logic of the deal, then Tehran's assumed nuclear weapons program will be halted and there will be no need for a missile defense system anyway.

As I wrote before, you can't really use something as a bargaining chip that you have already publicly disavowed. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, even before coming into office, stated their skepticism about missile defense. Trying to use it now as bargaining chip is not convincing.

Having said that, it's also not in Russia's interest that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a move that would drastically alter the power equation in an important part of what Russia considers to be its sphere of influence. What's more, Iran, as the country with the second largest gas reserves after Russia, is also Moscow's only competitor as Europe's major gas supplier, which is another reason why Russia may not want to be supporting Iran too much.

If Russia, in light of recent developments, decided that it ultimately doesn't want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and the U.S. decided that it doesn't really want to set up a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, why are they delivering secret letters instead of simply getting together, aligning their interests and striking a deal? Perhaps Washington and Moscow are just continuing their diplomatic dance. Kremlinologists and Obamaists please feel free to elaborate.

Will Gordon Brown's "Global New Deal" Ever Get Off The Ground?

Gordon Brown won the European race to the White House and will meet Barack Obama there on Tuesday. In a piece for the Sunday Times, he laid out his agenda for the talk with the President, calling for a global New Deal to be launched by the U.S. and Britain. The goal: To create an impact that "can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York – and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

Sounds like a tall order for the meeting between Obama and Brown. And while I am really tired of incessantly hearing the catch-all phrase "New Deal," I guess a globalized world - to use another catch-all phrase - requires some kind of binding, transnational agreement to remedy the current, and prevent future, crises.

I am just skeptical that much will come of it. Why? German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other EU leaders over the weekend rejected to bail out Eastern Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy recently offered state aid to French automakers, as long as they don't close French factories. And you probably know all about the various versions of the Buy American part of the U.S. stimulus package (a policy that interestingly is supported by the Communist Party of the USA). Notice a trend?

When push comes to shove, most national leaders simply focus on their clearly defined national constituency instead of an amorphous global one. With most countries struggling to save their troubled financial and automotive industries, it seems unlikely they will be willing and able to contribute to bailing out other parts of the globe, at least for now.

Finally, there's the question whether Gordon Brown is the right person to fix the global financial system through a new deal. Not just conservative critics are blaming the former long-time Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least partly, for the current crisis.

What do you think?

Kudos For Senator Lugar's Call To Re-Establish International American Centers

It doesn't happen often, but sometimes someone expresses an opinion one can entirely agree with. Even more rarely this someone happens to be politician. Well, this just happened to me after reading Senator Richard Lugar's article arguing why the U.S. should reverse its long process of closing its America Centers around the world.

I witnessed the closure of all U.S. government run America Centers in Germany over the years, with the last Amerika Haus operated by the U.S. government closing in Cologne in 2007. Sure, many of them have reopened through private initiative and do a great job in fostering transatlantic understanding. But I have always felt that for an issue that is as important for the U.S. as public diplomacy (as everyone has come to understood at least after 9/11) Washington should put its money where its mouth is.

To be clear, the internet and other modern information tools as well as private sponsors are and should be a big part of public diplomacy. But can and should they replace a live forum, a marketplace of ideas where people in cities across the world can meet, talk and debate with Americans, not in a virtual chat room, but in a real reading room? I think not.

Apropos reading room: Were the American Center in Frankfurt to reopen its library I would gladly donate the hundreds of classical Americana I schlepped away in dozens of bags after the library closed. Ok, maybe not gladly, but it would give them back.

Amid Increasing Tensions Between Kurds And Arabs, All U.S. Troops Supposed To Leave Iraq By 2011

According to media reports, President Barack Obama will soon announce his decision to complete the American combat troop withdrawal from Iraq by August 2010 and the pullout of all U.S. forces by December 2011. If implemented, the withdrawal will take a few months longer than Obama pledged during the campaign.

But I agree with Marc Lynch that this gap is insignificant. Obama's timetable for withdrawal shows that he is serious about keeping his commitments, while at the same time adjusting them to factors and events on the ground. By most accounts, violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically, a fact that has been underscored by peaceful recent regional elections in the country, which (perhaps for that reason) went largely unnoticed by international media.

However, it's also worth pointing out, as Michael Crowley does, that the real test might come if Iraq once again descends into chaos and Obama must decide whether to bring back the American military to stabilize the country or let the Iraqis deal with it themselves.

What's more, according to recent reports, escalating tensions between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs could complicate the planned American pullout. The Prime Minister of the Kurdish regional parliament demanded only a few days ago that the U.S. iron out problems between Kurds and the central government in Baghad before pulling out its troops.

German Carnival Featuring Obama, Clinton And Uncle Sam

With the German Carnival season coming to an official end on Wednesday, here are a few highlights of Monday's traditional parades in the German Carnival capitals Cologne, Düsseldorf and Mainz. As everyone who has ever been to one of those cities during Carnival season knows, celebrating it properly and extensively is taken very seriously. In Cologne alone more than one million revellers watched Germany's biggest Carnival parade consisting of more than 11,000 participants and more than 100 decorated floats. Keeping with the focus of Across the Pond, all pictures feature Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or the U.S. in general.

- Obama bites Clinton (Düsseldorf Carnival Parade)

- Uncle Sam's crumbling empire (Cologne Carnival Parade)

- Europe on the heels of America's Obama (Düsseldorf Carnival Parade)

- Obama trying to lift up the Statue of Liberty (Mainz Carnival Parade)

Rice Stiffed On Darfur By Libya

The new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, had to deal with a setback on her first significant issue at the UN. Libya defeated unanimous support for a U.S. draft proposal that would have condemned the increasing civilian deaths in Sudan's Darfur region and would have implicated the Sudanese government.

"We had hoped to have a presidential statement that would have spoken with one voice in condemning the ongoing violence," Rice told the AP calling the situation in Darfur "ongoing genocide."

The episode shows that even an administration with a multilaterialist bent, and a decidely more positive view of the United Nations than the Bush administration, doesn't necessarily guarantee progress on intractable issues.

Is Hillary Clinton Dissing China And Slighting Europe?

Is Hillary Clinton dissing China because she will kick off her Asia tour in Japan and visit China last? Or is it a sign that she is bowing to Asia's increasing power and thereby dissing Europe?

It's fun to interpret travel plans, but I think both of the assertions above read too much into the Secretary of State's itinerary. If Clinton left out China on her trip that could truly be considered a slight of the country. She isn't. And there's also another way of looking at it. By visiting China last, her talks in Beijing will probably have the most lasting news impact of the entire trip.

Example: Barack Obama's trip last year to Europe and the Middle East. He travelled to the Middle East first and also to France and Britain, but what do you most remember about the trip? His speech in Berlin, even though he really didn't spend all that much time in the German capital. What does that mean? Ultimately, content not the sequence of countries visited or time spent in capitals matters.

That's also the reason why Clinton's trip to Asia is by no means a slight for Europe. Just a few days ago Vice President Joe Biden delivered a major speech about the Obama administration's foreign policy agenda at the Munich Security Forum. And in April, President Obama himself is expected in Germany and France for the NATO summit. Therefore, it makes sense that Hillary Clinton visits Asia first. If she hadn't, Asia rightly could have felt slighted.

Shelved Missile Shield Won't Sway Iran's "Behavior"

Unlike the previous administration, the Obama administration's support for a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe is luke warm at best. Even before the inauguration, the incoming administration said it would review the plans, a clear signal that a shift in direction on the issue was coming. Recently, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the policy shift in favor of a possible sweeping nuclear arms reduction deal and better relations with Russia. Fair enough.

But then why try to create a nexus - as Secretary Clinton did - between Iran's "behavior" and the setting up of the missile shield after having all but announced that the missile shield had been shelved? You can't signal the Russians and the Europeans that the missile shield is history, and at the same time want to use it as a stick vis-à-vis Tehran. That's simply not credible and therefore not exactly a stellar diplomatic moment.

Time For Europe To Help Out Obama, Says Naím

In an interview I did with Moisés Naím about Barack Obama's international agenda and Europe's stance toward it the Editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy called on Europe to start helping the U.S. instead of merely applauding the new president. You can read the interview here.

Mixed Reactions To Biden Speech

Vice President Joe Biden's speech at the Munich Security Conference was generally well received. The AP thought Biden hit most of the right notes. Europeans liked what they heard. And the Russians were also warmed by Biden's remarks.

But that's not the whole story. An analyst for the BBC pointed out that Biden's speech was applauded around the globe, the proof whether it signalled a new world order was still outstanding. In a similar vain, Politico argued that Biden, despite his conciliatory tone, returned home with no concrete results.

Even more negatively were conservative commentators such as Nile Gardiner, who in his blog for the Daily Telegraph, called the speech weak-kneed and criticized the Obama administration for ceasing to use the phrase war on terror. In his blog for The Heritage Foundation, he wrote Biden gave "one of the weakest projections of U.S. leadership on foreign soil in recent memory." The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol called it vague and underwhelming.

While the wish to reap instant results after a speech that was intended to break with the rhetoric and policy of the Bush administration is understandable, it is unrealistic. Just because of Biden's speech, Russia will not immediately reverse its stance on Iran, Georgia or U.S. missile defense. And neither will Germany all of sudden commit to sending more troops to Afghanistan. But without such a speech, offering a new partnership, there wouldn't be even an impetus for any of those steps to take place. Now the ball has been passed back to America's partners and adversaries.

As for the criticism that Biden's speech was one of the weakest projections of U.S. Leadership, I am not sure that, at a time when America's economy and global image is lying in tatters and after eight years in which power projection appeared to many to be Washington's main political tool, the projection of U.S. leadership on foreign soil is what would be deemed very helpful right now.

Munich's Security Conference Kicks Off With High-Profile Line Up

For all foreign policy and international affairs buffs, the plans for this weekend are clear. Check out what's happening at Munich's Security Conference. The event is for the first time being headed by Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's former ambassador to Washington. There should not be any shortage of topics and there certainly is not shortage of high-ranking politicans.

Just have a look at the opening night line up here.

Obviously one of the highlights of the trip will be the outline of President Barack Obama's foreign policy plans by Vice President Joe Biden on his first trip abroad after taking office.

You can watch the live stream of the conference here.

Wikipedia's Wales On Knol, Obama And Jimmy Carter

In an interview I did with Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder talks about Google's Knol, why Wikipedia is so big in Germany and why he wouldn't want to trade with the founders of Facebook and Google.

And Wales also talks about his recent call from the Obama transition team and why he likes Jimmy Carter.

You can read the interview here.

Linkedin's founder impressed with Obama's start

I did an interview with Reid Hoffman, founder and CEO of Linkedin at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Here's what he had to say about President Barack Obama's first days in office:

"I think he has been very good at being focused. That's extraordinarily important. From what I can see and I don't have inside information, but I can see him focusing on two things.

One is stimulus package and fixing the economy. And he is soliciting ideas very broadly about how to do that well, which is very good, because it's open to a variety of new ideas. And the second one is the U.S. reputation internationally and communicating in the most tangible, possible way: We are a member of the world order, not ignoring it, not running roughshot over it.

So I think those are the exact right things to focus on. You have to get to a bunch of other ones later, but those are the right two things to start focusing on."

Closing Guantanamo Is Step In The Right Direction, Says Malcom Gladwell

I had the chance to interview Malcolm Gladwell about his new book "Outliers" today. But obviously I had to ask him about the effect President Barack Obama would have on America's standing abroad. "It can only go up," Gladwell who described himself as a centrist Democrat, answered, pointing out that while it is very early to make a call on that, the decision to close Guantanamo was an important step in the right direction.

After the full interview goes online at DW-WORLD.DE, I'll link to it from here.

Steinmeier's Agenda For The Day: Clinton And Guantanamo

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had a busy day today and was involved in at least two major international news stories. First, he talked to his new American counterpart Hillary Clinton to offer his congratulations. Clinton and Steinmeier agreed to meet soon.

And second, according to German tabloid bild.de, Steinmeier and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble agreed to meet in the next few days to iron out their publicly voiced dispute about whether Germany should consider taking inmates from Guantanamo. While Steinmeier said Germany should consider such a move, Interior Minister Schaeuble said he could not see why EU countries should grant sanctuary to people who are too dangerous for the U.S.

Obama To Visit Berlin In April, Says German Magazine

Recently I wrote about the new president's travel plans and the race between European leaders to be the first to visit Barack Obama in the White House. While there is still no news on the latter, German magazine Focus reports that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Berlin in April. According to the report, Obama's staff is preparing a trip to the German capital after participating in a NATO summit on April 3-4 in Baden-Baden and Strasbourg. With his trip to Berlin, Barack Obama intends to thank Berliners for their support during his big speech there last year. No word whether President Obama will be allowed to do what candidate Obama was not: Give a speech at Brandenburg Gate.

Inauguration Party Time In Germany, Europe And Around The Globe

Finally, transition time will officially come to end on Tuesday with Barack Obama's inauguration. It's about time. Putting the -elect every time after President for almost three months is really long enough. I think many journalists share this feeling.

So before all the hard work begins for soon-to-be President Obama, it's time to party. If you are in Washington, DC on Inauguration Day, you probably cannot escape some sort of party or another. Still not sure where to go to though? Then just click here for a whole slew of party offerings in the U.S. capital.

In Germany, probably one of largest inauguration party's outside the U.S. will kick off at Club Goya in Berlin at 4 p.m. The event is hosted by Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad. Around 1500 guests are expected, including staff from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. While there are lots of other partys in most major German cities, Munich will be the first German city to stage an Inaugural Ball hosted jointly by Democrats and Republicans abroad. It happens at the Arabella Sheraton starting at 4 p.m. For tickets (75 Euro), send a mail to munichinauguralball2009@gmail.com.

Elsewhere in Europe, Austrians are celebrating Obama's inauguration at the Vienna Marriott, while Luxembourg's inauguration fest will take place at the hotel Sofitel. For parties in other cities in Europe and around the globe, check out the homepage of Democrats Abroad and select a country.

Have fun!

The Wisdom of Obama: Books By And About The President-Elect Are A Hit In China

Not only in the U.S. are President-elect Barack Obama's books bestsellers. As German daily Die Welt reports, Chinese readers apparently just can't get enough of Obama and his writings. A collection of Obama aphorisms is a huge success in Beijing's bookstore Sanlian, only to be topped by John Talbott's "Obamanomics". According to Die Welt, the President-elect's "The Audacity of Hope" sold more than 100,000 copies. There are more than 20 Obama biographies – most of them unauthorized – on the market as well. For a comparison: Five biographies deal with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, three with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Global Poll Finds Decline of America's Image And High Hopes For Obama

A new global poll compiled by Austrian research company Triconsult right before the U.S. election (October/November 2008) provides some interesting data. It is essentially another confirmation of America's declined global image and the high hopes for President-elect Barack Obama. Here's a quick snapshot:

-Western Europeans (Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Finland) think that the U.S. will pay more attention to human rights under President Barack Obama and that America's image abroad will improve.

-Western Europeans believe Americans are more conservative and traditional than Europeans.

-In every country polled, a majority of people think poverty in the U.S. will tend to decline under Obama rather than increase. Americans also are of that opinion, but to a lesser extent than all the other countries.

-In every country but Russia people are convinced that environmental issues in the U.S. will improve under President Obama.

-Every country has higher hopes than the U.S. that the chances for world peace will improve under Obama. However, even in the U.S., more people agree rather than disagree with that view.

-A large majority (90 percent) of Western Europeans (75 percent of Americans) think that tensions between Muslims and Christians will remain the same or decrease.

-Three out of ten Americans think that the threat of terrorism will increase. Only one out of ten Western Europeans is of that opinion.

-Only in Turkey and Georgia do more people believe that America's influence in the world has increased. All other countries see the opposite.

You can get all the details and figures, as well as a lot more fascinating polling factoids here (in German).

Finland Open To Helping Obama Out On Guantanamo

In a good post over at the New Atlanticist, James Joyner outlines and analyses President-elect Barack Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo prison and the difficulties it presents. One of them is, as the AP reports, judging the mixed group of more than 200 inmates currently detained at Guantanamo. Another difficult step is to find countries willing to take the prisoners. Britain, who has been asked by the U.S. to take prisoners, said it was only inclined to do so if joined by other European nations. The UN has also called upon countries to accept prisoners. Not surprisingly, takers are not exactly lining up.

But in an interesting twist, Finland, which has no nationals detained in Guantanamo, has offered to take up to sixty inmates.

For a list (published in 2006) of prisoners at Guantanamo and their countries of origin click here.

Which European Leader Will Win The Race To The First Meeting In The White House?

As Tim wrote, Barack Obama, in keeping with tradition, chose neighboring Canada as his first country to visit. On that note, it will be interesting to see who will be the first European leader to visit the new President in the White House, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown being the obvious favorites.

After Obama's big fanfare trip to Berlin last year didn't go down well with the French and the British, let's see which European country is picked to receive the first presidential visit. According to media reports, Poland is not faring too badly, having already secured a visit by President Obama in June. For an interesting perspective on how President George W. Bush prioritized his foreign trips click here.

Predictions For China-U.S. Relations Under Obama

How will China-U.S. relations fare under President Barack Obama is a topic many commentators have been tackling recently, going beyond the latest news that U.S. debt is becoming less appealing to China. Howard LaFranchi deems it likely that Obama may pursue a tougher stance on China than the Bush administration because of an increased focus on human rights and statements criticizing Beijing's monetary policy. That puts Chinese officials in a tight spot. While they felt comfortable with the outgoing Republican administration, the Chinese people are rather fond of Barack Obama.

China expert David Shambough, in an article in the International Herald Tribune, presents a brief history of Sino-American relations calling them a marriage of convenience. In his opinion, relations between both countries are currently the best since the Tiananmen crackdown of 1989.

Focusing on the most critical issue between the U.S. and China - Taiwan -, Bonnie Glaser offers eight policy objectives that she thinks are likely to be pursued by the Obama administration. Among the points mentioned are a possible change of rhetoric, not substance of Washington's "one China" policy and firm support for a larger Taiwanese role in international organizations.

In an editorial for Forbes, Gordon Chang presents his rather gloomy outlook on China for 2009. He argues that the ability of China's leadership to govern the country effectively is starting to erode, which leaves Chinese officials little margin of error. According to Chang, with three historic anniversaries coming up, 2009 will be a crucial year for China.

Obama Style: German Social Democrats Make Internet The Heart Of Their Election Campaign

Yesterday I wrote about how Rotterdam's new mayor has sparked comparisons with President-elect Barack Obama. Today, in another sign how the former Democratic Senator from Illinois and his campaign resonate with Europeans, the German Social Democrats (SPD), the country's oldest major party, officially launched their new and improved homepage in preparation for Germany's general election this fall. And who do you think inspired the SPD in their efforts? Yep, that's right, Barack Obama.

"The online campaign will become the heart of our general election campaign," Kajo Wasserhövel, in charge of the Social Democratic election campaign said. Taking a page out of Obama's hugely successful online campaign, the SPD has decluttered its old internet site, which looked like old newspaper articles that were cut and pasted online, as Germany's tageszeitung mocked.

No more. The new site comes with lots of large pictures, buttons for online donations and links to social networking sites. And it's not just the new internet site that smacks of Obamamania. Want to know how the party's Germanized stab at "Yes we can" sounds? "Anpacken. Für unser Land" (Let's tackle things. For our country).

According to campaign manager Wasserhövel, the Social Democratic homepage is only the start. The next relaunch is just a matter of time. German Foreign Minister and Social Democratic candidate for Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier's personal internet site is scheduled to get a makeover soon too.

To compare, check out the SPD's new homepage here and an old version from last January here. You can find Frank-Walter Steinmeier's personal internet site here.

And here's the original: You can find Barack Obama's internet site here and the Democratic Party's homepage here.

Rotterdam Says Yes We Can Too

Amid all the major doom and gloom stories about the global economic crisis, the war in Gaza and Russia's power play with its gas exports, an important piece of good news was barely noticed by the international press. For the first time a major European city is being governed by a muslim immigrant. Ahmed Aboutaleb, Morrocan-born, was sworn in on Monday as mayor of the Netherland's second largest city Rotterdam.

Aboutaleb, who has been dubbed "Obama from the Maas" by Dutch media, is a Social Democrat who previously served as Secretary of State for Social Affairs in the Dutch government. The new mayor of Rotterdam was 14 years old when he immigrated to the Netherlands from Morroco. His job won't be easy: Rotterdam has the largest immigrant population among all Dutch cities and was the base of Pim Fortuyn, the right wing politician who was killed in 2002.

With Panetta To Head The CIA, Who Will Run The NSA?

With his decision to nominate Leon Panetta to head the CIA, President-elect Barack Obama has scored a huge surprise. While some politicians working on intelligence matters scratch their heads over the choice, other voices argue that intelligence experience may not necessarily be the most important credential for the job these days. And as former CIA director John Deutch told The Caucus, some of the most successful heads (George Bush senior being one of them) of the CIA possessed little or no intelligence experience.

By putting Leon Panetta in charge of the CIA, I think Barack Obama wants to achieve three things: He wants someone at the helm he can trust absolutely; he wants that person to put an end to interrogation/torture practices established unter the Bush administration; and he wants to symbolize a break from the past publicly. With Leon Panetta, there is a good chance he can fulfill all three tasks.

While the CIA, with its focus on human intelligence, is certainly the most widely known spy agency, the NSA with its focus on signals intelligence is arguably the more important one. Considering the recent warrantless surveillance scandal, it might be even more interesting to find out who Barack Obama picks to head the NSA.

Foreign Policy Predictions For 2009

Instead of looking back and writing a year-in-review kind of post as many others have done, I prefer to offer readers a few foreign policy-related predictions for 2009 from across the web.

Kathleen McFarland at The Fox Forum predicts:

- A resurgent Russia will lead Ukraine to cancel its plans for membership in the European Union and fall back under the Russian sphere of influence. Europe will do nothing about it.

- China will see social unrest by the end of the year. The Chinese government will quell the unrest and restore order.

Charlie Edwards at Global Dashboard predicts:

- Britain will increase its troops in Afghanistan by spring. Germany, France and Italy will do so as well in October after a deal with the Obama administration.

- The U.S. or France will fight a brief, but intense, war in Somalia.

- Benjamin Netanyahu will win elections in Israel in February.

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be voted out in elections in Iran in June.

- Prime Minister Recip Tayyin Erdogan will end Turkey's bid to join the EU and turn east instead.

- Mexico, the world's leading narco state, will descend into total chaos and destabilize the region.

Janet Daley at the Daily Telegraph predicts:

- No dramatic foreign policy shift vis-a-vis Russia, the Middle East and Islamist terrorism under President Barack Obama.

- No significant international agreement for global financial regulation will be reached.

Michael Goodwin at the New York Daily News predicts:

- Stories about friction between President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will surface within six months.

- Pakistan or Iran, not Gaza, will be involved in a serious international crisis.

Agree or disagree? What are your predictions for 2009?

Obama Rings In New Year In Hawaii, Merkel, Sarkozy And Berlusconi Favor Switzerland

While Barack Obama will round out his last pre-presidential Hawaii vacation with the traditional New Year fireworks, several European leaders will ring in the New Year in Switzerland. According to Swiss media reports, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has booked a place in Crans-Montana. Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are expected to vacation either in Klosters near Davos or in St. Moritz, depending on which media source you trust. Wherever they stay, there is plenty of snow to go around, which is after all one of the reasons why people go there.

Wherever you are celebrating 2009, Happy New Year to you.

Should Obama Say Or Do Something About Gaza?

With no sign of the violence in Gaza letting up, the pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to publicly take up the issue is growing. While Obama is in, what Tim aptly described, a holding pattern on Gaza, some critics from the left demand that he should become engaged now for Middle East Peace and speak out about the Gaza crisis. Meanwhile critics from the right argue that Obama is doing exactly what President George W. Bush has been doing and got hammered by the press – taking lengthy vacations.

I think both criticisms – from the left and from the right –are off the mark. Let's start with the easy one: There is one big difference between Obama's vacation in Hawaii and President Bush's: The latter one was in office when he was on his way to set a vacation record. Obama is not yet President. Let's see how long his vacations will last once he resides in the White House. And just for the record again: As a long vacationing European, I think even presidents deserve long vacations once in a while.

What about the demand then that "Obama and his aides should be openly counseling the Bush administration to use every diplomatic avenue to promote a ceasefire and, above all, to urge against an Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza"?

First, it may sound like a cop-out when Obama's team insist over and over again that there is only one president at a time. But it simply is true. Second, it is probably fair to assume that Obama and his foreign policy team are in constant contact with the Bush administration about Gaza. And third, what would such a public plea to the Bush administration or a clear condemnation of Israeli air strikes in Gaza achieve on the ground? Nothing much would be my guess. After all, at this point whatever Obama could say would be just words and no action. Would that make Israel halt its pounding of Gaza? Probably not. Would that stop Hamas shelling Israeli villages? Probably not.

What it would do though is already force Obama to reveal some kind of Middle East policy at a time when he and his team may not be ready to do so. As Jon Ward analysed in the Washington Times, Obama's silence gives him time to assess the situation and his reaction. I also agree with David Corn that Obama hopes that this crisis is over before he takes office and the Middle East will persist as a serious problem, but the immediacy of it will have passed.

Corn also makes a great point I haven't heard before. Asked about Obama's foreign policy priorities, he argues that because Obama is facing so many pressing global issues he doesn't have a vertical, but a horizontal to-do list.

Nobel Laureate Predicts Obama Will Change Economic Policy And Improve Regulation

Nobel-winning economist Robert Solow predicts that President Barack Obama will lead U.S economic and foreign policy in a different direction: "The Obama administration in the coming four, but probably eight, years will bring real change to economic policy and foreign policy," Solow told German business daily Handelsblatt in an interview (in German). "But I don't think that the nature of American capitalism will change dramatically. But at its fringes there will be changes and it will be better regulated."

Asked whether he would accept a position as advisor to Obama, Solow, who received the Nobel prize in 1987 for his work on economic growth, said that Obama doesn't need a 84 year-old advisor. Instead, Solow added: "Obama should look for younger advisors among my students – which he has already done."

Concerning the financial crisis, Solow doesn't think the current situation is comparable to the global crisis of 1929. "Nobody believes that unemployment in the U.S. will rise to 30 percent," he said. "We are talking today about an active fiscal policy that goes in the right direction, while taxes were increased in the 1930s. Today, no one in their wildest dreams would come up with something like that. We have learned from that crisis."

Oh, if you have been trying to figure out an explanation for the financial crisis and failed to come up with a cogent one, don't fret, even a nobel laureate in economics like Solow is flummoxed: "I don't think that normal economic thinking can help explain this crisis."

Christmas Celebration A La Obama, Merkel And Steinmeier

Even world leaders take some time off for the holidays. If you don't know by now where and how (turkey and ham in Hawaii) President-elect Barack Obama is spending his Christmas break, you have probably chosen to observe a self-imposed media blackout for the last days.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christmas vacation usually receives less press coverage than does Obama's - which she is probably not too unhappy about. Just like last year, she travelled to the mountains to do some cross-country skiing. As we are told, the Merkel family Christmas menu featured goose, prepared by the Chancellor herself.

Foreign Minister and Social Democratic candidate for chancellor, Frank Walter Steinmeier, spent Christmas with the family in Westphalia. For dinner on Christmas eve, the Steinmeier's had Kasselerbraten with Sauerkraut. The Steimeier Christmas also features singing under the christmas tree and going to church.

Whether you are on the beach, in the mountains, or simply staying at home: Happy holidays!

Change The Constitution For Arnie?

Let's be honest, ever since election night we have been inunandated with everything we ever wanted to know about the President-elect Barack Obama and his upcoming administration: his foreign policy team of rivals, his economic team, the challenges he will face as of January 20th, whether or not his cabinet choices include too many Clinton holdovers, whether or not Liberals or Republicans have reasons to be happy about Obama's cabinet picks, and so on. Let's not even start to look at the more gossipy aspects of the President-elect.

So while we are all a little fatigued after six weeks of incessant news about 44, let's look beyond the next four years of the Obama presidency and enjoy some news relief straight out of the state of California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told 60 Minutes that he would like to be President of the United States. Problem is the Constitution would have to be changed since Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in Austria. But as he told 60 Minutes: "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high they are almost impossible to achieve."

What are the odds that an Austrian-born Governor of California could become president? A presidential betting site for 2012 has odds for lots of possible candidates including Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Ron Paul and Brian Schweitzer. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not (yet) on the list.

Wishes For President Obama

Well, it's that time of year again. Reuters asked German analysts and fund managers what they would wish from President-elect Barack Obama if they could ask him for one thing. I gather that the response from the finance community wasn't exactly overwhelming. Here are two people who actually had a wish for Obama:

Alexandra Hartmann, fund manager at Fidelity International, hopes Obama will see to it that the current printing of money ultimately doesn't lead to high inflation. Jens Wilhelm, board member at Union Investment, expressed his wish "that Obama won't wall off the U.S. and hurt global business activity through protectionist measures. The U.S. still serves as an important role model for the global economy. Therefore it is critical that Obama throws his weight behind the global business and finance system."

Not asking for all that much, are they?

To read their wishes in German click here.

Is Obama's Foreign Policy Team Really As Strong As It's Cracked Up To Be?

President-elect Barack Obama has received lots of kudos, i.e. here and here, for the selection of his foreign policy team. But sometimes in order to reach a broader perspective on a topic, it is helpful to get a contrarian view. In this case, it is provided by Melvin Goodman, a professor of international security studies at the National War College who argues that Obama has actually compiled a weak national security team. Here are a few snippets of Goodman's argument:

-In keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon, Obama has a "secretary of defense who does not support many of the foreign policy positions that the president-elect took during the campaign."

-In selecting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama made a choice based on "domestic political reasons."

- In choosing James Jones to become his national security adviser, Obama has picked a person who has "never been known as a big thinker on foreign policy issues; his appointment, moreover, places another key position in the hands of the military."

- With Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, Obama selected two key figures who voted for the war in Iraq" and with Robert Gates and James Jones key players who defended the war in Iraq.

"With these inadequacies in personnel, it will be difficult to reform the policy process and flip the switch on a series of Bush administration decisions that have harmed the interests of the United States," writes Goodman.

With the exception that Hillary Clinton was picked merely for domestic reason (one can certainly make the argument that she possesses foreign policy experience), Goodman's other points are factually correct.

The question is what would have been a better alternative? Should a president choose only people who have shown total agreement with his campaign platform? Should a president forego political experience as a factor in making cabinet decisions? Should a president ignore the political landscape and the fact that the country has been rife with partisan divide for eight years?

I think not. A president should not select positions and govern along strict partisan lines or single issue stances, but instead must at least try to practice big tent politics.

Climate Cooperation Across The Pond

Another sign that under President Barack Obama Germany and the U.S. may become close partners in the area of renewable energy and climate change comes out of Washington this week. Germany's Ambassador to the U.S., Klaus Scharioth, introduced The Transatlantic Climate Bridge, a initiative to foster cooperation on energy and climate issues between the U.S. and Germany. Expressing hope that the new American administration will give great emphasis to the issue, Scharioth told the AP: "I think it is no coincidence that the first video message after his election given by the president-elect was on climate change and energy."

According to the Washington Times, Scharioth stressed that by working together Germany and the U.S. could become an engine for transatlantic and global climate cooperation. You can find out more information about the project here.

Is Kissinger The Key To Restoring U.S. Relations With Russia?

Henry Kissinger's visit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow last weekend went practically unnoticed by Western media. I only found a brief piece by AFP on the topic. Not so with Russian outlets. RIA Novosti and Russia Today reported on the talk between the former Secretary of State and the Russian President at Medvedev's residence outside the capital. Kissinger, according to those accounts, agreed with President Medvedev that U.S.-Russian relations could and should be improved. Coinciding with the talks, the Russian navy in a display of strength was on route to visit Cuba for the first time after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Kissinger, while pointing out that he wasn't speaking for President-elect Barack Obama, stated that he was maintaining contact with the new administration and was sure an attempt would be made to improve the relations. According to Russia Today, "Kissinger said the destinies of both countries are closely interlinked and both can contribute to peace and progress in the world."

Kissinger's visit was also the theme of a RIA Novosti editorial. In the piece, titled "Looking into Obama's eyes," Dmitry Kosyrev gives the foreign policy veteran an important role in the future of Russian-American relations. While the best and the brightest of America's foreign policy community are mulling about repairing the relations between the countries, the "Republican Kissinger is the number one magician there," writes Kosyrev and adds: "Mr. Kissinger is playing a key role in getting out of this deadlock."

Whether Henry Kissinger, who had endorsed John McCain, is in fact playing the pivotal role described in the RIA Novosti editorial is an interesting question that, unfortunately, I can't answer.

So I'll just end with the rather challenging conclusion offered by the RIA Novosti editorial: "Medvedev and Obama are not the only ones who should look into each other's eyes. Our two countries should do the same."

Washington's Cuba Policy Due For A Facelift

In a previous post, I wrote that under an Obama administration a change of U.S. policy towards Cuba would be in the cards. Over the last couple of days, there has been a slew of articles arguing the same case: President-elect Barack Obama has a historic opportunity to shift Washington's stance toward Cuba. In an editorial for McClatchy, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, argues that a "new, decisive policy toward Cuba, wrought by the new "change" president, will send a clear signal to the world that America is back." To that effect, writes Wilkerson, Obama should lift the American travel ban for Cuba, amend the Helms-Burton act and temporarily lift the trade embargo to allow humanitarian aid for Cuba.

A similiar line is taken by an editorial by Florida's Charlotte Sun newspaper. "Southwest Florida historically has enjoyed a fruitful relationship with Cuba. Now, we're merely a landing spot for refugees. It's time for a policy change," states the paper and calls for an end of the travel ban, reengagement of communication with Cuba, and the establishment of a comprehensive approach to the relationship with Cuba.

Articles in the Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor conclude as well that a change in Cuba policy under President Obama is symbolically important to his change agenda and at the same time doesn't force Obama to spend too much political capital.

Will President Obama Wake Up Solar Power's "Sleeping Giant?"

At Across the Pond, we wrote earlier about Barack Obama's fondness for Germany's rapid development of solar energy. The President-elect may want to look into the German solar success story even in times of economic turmoil because, as Reuters reports, the sector is comparatively stable and has the potential to create lots of jobs. The question is whether the solar power's "sleeping giant," as Frank Asbeck, founder of the leading solar company SolarWorld, has called the U.S., will wake up under President Obama.

Did Secretary Of State Rice Vote For Obama ,And If So, Does It Matter?

After lauding the fact the the U.S. elected its first African-American president, Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice in an interview with CBS Radio was asked whether she voted for Barack Obama. Her answer left Washington Post columnist Al Kamen who spotted the segment in the interview asking "So that's a yes?"

Rice's statement lead Toby Harnden, Washington Editor for Britain's Daily Telegraph, to conclude that the she had indeed voted for Barack Obama instead of her party's candidate John McCain. I think Harnden is right. The statement by the Secretary of State does give the impression that she voted for Obama. Question is: Does it matter if she did? And if so, should she come out and make it public as did her predecessor Colin Powell?

What do you think?

Cool Tool V: Advice For President Barack Obama

There are numerous reports, analyses and policy papers by think tanks, experts and policy wonks out there explaining what the next President should or should not do. Sure, you might ask, but who has the time to track them all down and decide which ones are worth reading. The answer: The Carnegie Foundation. They have compiled all the worthwhile stuff giving policy advice to President-elect Barack Obama starting with A as in ACLU to Y as in Yale School of Forestry and Environment. It is organized in five categories Defense, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security and U.S. Economy.

It's a great tool for policy wonks, but also for everyone interested in just browsing through interesting analysis. You can find it under advicetothepresident.org.

Supreme Court Rejects Hearing Obama Citizenship Case

As expected, the Supreme Court decided not to review a suit claiming that Barack Obama was born a British national and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States.

Here's the link to the document (via Below the Beltway)

Even though there is at least one more case challenging Obama's eligibility undecided, it looks rather likely that it also will be rejected.

So probably everyone making travel plans for the inauguration on January 20 can go right ahead.

Obama's Citizenship, A Topic For The Supreme Court?

It is unimaginable. What if the Supreme Court decides that President-elect Barack Obama can't become President of the United States after all because he doesn't fulfill the requirement of having been born in the U.S.? A suit, to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, claims that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore can't become president.

While it is an entertaining what-if game, experts find it very unlikely that the case ever will be brought before the Supreme Court.

The Blog House by the Star Tribune thinks if Obama's Haiwaiian birth certificate is forged, as alleged in the suit, then "a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of States office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies. Sounds like a Vince Flynn novel."

I concur. The authenticity of Obama's birth certificate had already been a topic in the campaign and has been refuted convincingly. Here are again the links to Factcheck.org and Politifact.com who covered the issue in great detail.

For a review of what other bloggers have to say about the issue check out the Daily Intel.

Update: Readers commenting that the current case doesn't claim that Obama was born on foreign soil are correct. The claim in the current case is that Obama was a British citizen at birth. Thanks.

Historic Window For Obama To Change U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Cuba

Even though Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is doing his utmost to antagonize the U.S., American policy toward his country and Latin America as a whole will not change drastically under President-elect Barack Obama, experts asked by the San Francisco Chronicle predict. Unless unforeseen events occur, the continent will remain on the foreign policy backburner for Washington compared to global hotspots such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Cuba, however, is one area where an Obama administration could alter its policy. With all the focus on Obama's foreign policy team, a major shift of opinion among Cuban-Americans went almost unnoticed. For the first time, a majority of Cuban-Americans support ending the economic embargo and restoring relations to the island. According to a new poll by Florida International University in Miami, 55 percent of those surveyed favor lifting the embargo and 65 percent favor normalizing diplomatic relations.

With the support of a majority of Cuban-Americans, Obama is in a great position to fulfill his campaign promise to lift travel restrictions to the island. His pledge to engage with leaders of unfriendly regimes, among them Cuba, also received further endorsement by the poll.

So while the big picture of U.S.-Latin American relations will probably remain unchanged, a reversal of American policy towards Cuba is definitely in the cards.

U.S. Ambassador To Germany: Obamas Team Of Transatlanticists Is Good News For Europe

William Timken, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, will leave his post after three years in Berlin on December 5. In an interview with the Hamburger Abendblatt Timken, a supporter of President George W. Bush, talked about German-American relations and his view of President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy team. Here are a few excerpts:

-Ambassador Timken on the state of German-American relations:

"As part of the transition process I have communicated President-elect Obamas team my information and my assessments. And I have said that the relations are as strong, mature, balanced and as versatile as never before."

-Ambassador Timken on what the world can expect from President-elect Obama:

"An outgoing administration should be cautious to judge about the next generation. But I will say that every change in the leadership of a country can lead to a new era. We believe that the extremly high platform of the relations between the U.S. and Germany that we have developed into a true global partnership is an excellent starting point for the new team. They won't find any problems that they have to solve."

-Ambassador Timken on the selection of veteran politicians like Hillary Clinton and James Jones to Obama's team:

"As I said, it is not up to me to judge that. But it is obvious to everyone that Senator Clinton possesses broad political experience and the future national security adviser Jones knows Europe and Germany very well. So the message is clear: Obama has nominated genuine transatlanticists to his team. That is good news for Europe."

You can read the entire interview with William Timken (in German) here.

Rice Nomination Says To UN: U.S. Is Open For Business Again

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama announced today that Susan Rice will become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. What the fact that her position will be elevated to cabinet rank means is best deducted from a sentence uttered by former UN ambassador John Bolton: "It overstates the role and importance the UN should have in U.S. foreign policy," he told the International Herald Tribune. From Bolton's neoconservative stance, that is defintely true. For others, for instance Tim Wirth, the head of the United Nations Foundation, Rice's selection, as well as the elevation of her post, are an important symbol to the world that the U.S. intends to reengage with the UN again.

From an international perspective, I think Wirth is right. Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. pretty much sidelined the UN from the beginning, calling for a radical overhaul of the institution. However, under Ambassador Bolton who once said the UN could lose 10 stories of the 38 at its headquarters building without anyone missing them, one could get the distinct feeling that even if the UN agreed to change, it wouldn't be good enough. With Susan Rice, the U.S. declares that is open for business at the UN again.

While Rice, who penned an interesting piece about Bolton's nomination for UN ambassador, will be less hostile to the UN, she certainly is no pacifist and is ready to have the U.S. act unilaterally, if necessary.

By the way, for an ununsual look at Susan Rice's background and family history click here.

Despite Obama, Continental Divide Between Europe And The U.S. Will Continue

Sometimes an article comes along that expresses exactly how one feels about a certain topic. Eric Frey's piece in the Forward about the continuing continential divide between Europe and the U.S. is such an article for me.

Never mind that Europeans in Barack Obama finally got the president they wished for argues Frey, managing editor of Austria's Standard. Americans still better not to expect very much support from Europe when it comes to stabilizing Afghanistan and closing Guantanamo. His conclusion: "The old division that America does the fighting and Europe pays the bill is likely to continue in the new era of trans-Atlantic friendship."

You can read Frey's excellent article here.

Is Gates A Republican Or Not?

Tim wrote a few days ago about Robert Gates being asked by Barack Obama to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Gates is certainly Republican-leaning and served under President George Bush senior, but as Tim pointed out, he is apparently not a card-carrying Republican.

That doesn't stop many American and international media outlets such as the AP, Time, The London Times, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Zuerich's Tages-Anzeiger from describing him as a Republican. That begs two questions: One, is there a reference guide or a data bank to check whether someone is in fact a registered Republican or Democrat? And two, is it fair to label politicians as members of a certain party because of their political past or inclination, even if they are not officially a member of that party?

Is The Obama Administration The Third Term Of The Clinton Presidency?

The trickle of daily and sometimes hourly news of the administration positions filled by Barack Obama's transition team is a topic for many global news outlets. Here's a selection of how editorial writers from Austria, Spain, Belgium and Germany think about the names that have become public so far:

President-elect Barack Obama's choices for top government posts are a sure sign that he has truly arrived in Washington and that he has to govern with the establishment and not against it, if he wants to accomplish something, comments Austria's Der Standard. "Obama's instinct switched the mode of operation to pragmatism, which is exemplified by his selection - Hillary Clinton, James Jones, Robert Gates, Timothy Geithner, Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano who are all veterans.

As a team, they stand more for roll-up-your-sleeves problem solving qualities than for partisan squabbles. The visionary element, for which Barack Obama's campaign was attacked by John McCain as "socialist" has no place anymore in this power game." But that, writes Der Standard, doesn't have to be a bad thing: "Someone who really wants "change" is better suited with pragmatism than with revolutions."

Spain's conservative daily ABC (via dpa) argues that Barack Obama distances himself more and more from the idea of change than was the essence of his campaign. "The team that he surrounds himself with consists almost completely of politicians who had important positions under Bill Clinton. So far Obama relies only on veterans of the old establishment. One gets the impression that the U.S. is headed for a third term of the Clinton era."

The Belgian paper "De Morgen" (via dpa) focuses on how Obama's cabinet selection is perceived by the liberal wing of his party. "The progressive Democrats expected a radical break with the past. Not just with eight years of Bush, but also with the preceeding Clinton years. Instead, they get Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, a chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel), an attorney general (Eric Holder) and an economics team (Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers) who all earned their credentials under President Bill Clinton. Defense (Robert Gates) and National Security (James Jones) fall almost certainly in the hands of Republicans, even though the biggest change could be made in those areas compared to recent years of war."

Obama displays "an audacity for risk," comments Germany's Financial Times Deutschland. "To keep Gates is a wise but bold step because in his two years at the Pentagon he did an excellent job." Whether the choice of Paul Volcker to head a new special economic advisory group is a smart one, is debatable, writes the paper. On the one hand, it makes sense to establish a new body that doesn't have to concern itself with daily crisis management and can focus on abstract and long-term big themes like the reform of financial markets and the rebuilding of the U.S. economy. On the other hand, it is open whether this won't become a competitive group vis-á-vis the Treasury Department and the actual economic advisory group in the White House - the National Economic Council (NEC)."

Hillary Clinton As Obama's Top Diplomat: Good Choice, But For Whom?

Although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the U.S. and international media are convinced that Hillary Clinton will in fact become Barack Obama's Secretary of State. One has to be careful with political guesswork, but I also think that it is a done deal. Since it became public that President-elect Obama has pretty much offered the job to Clinton and details of the vetting process have been reported, it is hard to imagine how Senator Clinton could not get the top foreign policy position. It would be a servere blow for Hillary supporters, Democratic party unity and Senator Clinton herself, if she didn't get the job after all. The only imaginable scenario, in my opinion, is some kind of serious ethical issue that would compromise her ability to function as America's top diplomat.

With Senator Clinton's ascent to the State Department considered to be a shoo-in, many outlets are already commenting what a Secretary of State Clinton would mean for the Obama administration, the U.S., and the world. Never shy to make his case, Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate why a Clinton in charge of foreign policy is the last thing we need. In a nutshell: "In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own." As far as Hitchens is concerned, to pick Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is not magnanimous and wound-healing, but foolhardy and masochistic.

Not impressed as well with Hillary Clinton as Obama's choice for secretary of state is the Financial Times. Not so much for the reason Hitchens' mentions, but for what the paper interestingly calls her lack of foreign policy experience. According to the FT, there are far more qualified candidates, so the question is why President-elect Obama wants her for the job.

Why did Obama pick Clinton is also the question David Corn poses. Unfortunately, he doesn't come up with an answer. Steve Clemons, a couple of days ago, took a pretty useful stab at answering the question, arguing that Clinton could play the role of bad cop while Obama portrays the good cop. For Clemons, Clinton as secretary of state is a brilliant, but also a risky choice.

Meanwhile from a more global perspective, the Jerusalem Post asks what's to worry about a Secretary of State Clinton that is decidedly pro-Israel, which is exactly why, according to the Washington Post, some in the Arab world are not enthused about that possibility.

And finally, Germany's daily Die Welt in an editorial already predicts the return of Hillaryland. Secretary of State Clinton, according to the paper, will serve President Obama until a point of her own choosing. This time frame, writes Die Welt, could last until before the next presidential election in 2012. Then, offers the paper, the slogan in Hillaryland could be that one term for Obama is good enough.

What Can The Catholic Church Learn From President-elect Obama?

Barack Obama clearly won the Catholic vote. And while President-elect Obama received a congratulary message from Pope Benedict XVI right after his election victory, the welcome message by many American Catholic bishops wasn't that friendly. Last week Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, made news when he called Obama's policies "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic". Already earlier, America's Catholic Bishops vowed to confront President-elect Obama on abortion, stating that this is not an issue of compromise, but "a matter of absolutes."

Keeping the statements about Barack Obama by American bishops in mind, it is interesting to read what the head of the German Catholic Bishops Conference, Robert Zollitsch, said about the President-elect. Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung asked Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg: "Barack Obama has inspired people for his ideas. Can the church learn from Obama?"

And here is Archbishop Zollitsch's reply: "Obama has raised high hopes. It is the dream of America, that he alluded to. Through it, it becomes clear that man lives by hope, and that he needs goals, and also those kind of goals that reach beyond today. I see the danger here with us that we are turning into a society that is old from within. But we need the drive to inspire people to get involved. We as church proclaim a message that gives orientation and keeps people grounded. We have a hope that points not just into this world. I don't mean that as an empty promise, but as an incredible force for renewal that fascinates me until today about the Christian message."

The interesting aspect comparing Archbishop Zollitsch's answer to the statement made by Cardinal Stafford isn't abortion or any other issue. Archbishop Zollitsch surely opposes Obama's stance on abortion as much as his American counterparts. The interesting aspect is the tone and the receptiveness of Archbishop Zollitsch's statement. He didn't take the question as an opportunity to attack Obama, but instead analysed why he won and how the Catholic Church could learn from Obama's success. Again, that is not budging on issues important to the Catholic Church. Instead it shows a serious observation of and a willingness to apply the lessons learned by Obama's victory.

Germany's Green Energy Companies To Profit From Obama Administration

German businesses stand a good chance of benefiting from the change brought by the President elect Barack Obama and his administration. "He will support renewable energy and that opens up great opportunities for German companies who are among the market leaders in that area," Klaus Zimmermann, president of the German Institute of Economic Research (DIW) told Focus magazine.

In fact, during the campaign Obama praised Germany's investment in renewable energy as a model.

Zimmermann is skeptical about the effects of a planned stimulus package by the new administration for the U.S. economy. The package with a planned volume of 60 billion dollars is rather modest, said Zimmermann and added: "I wouldn't expect too much from that stimulus package."

According to Zimmermann, due to the to massive budget deficit, the new administration will not be able to invest on a large scale. His advice to President elect Obama is to use the psychological effect that was created through his election to his favor and use it quickly. "In one year, this nimbus and all the glamor is gone."

Iran, Afghanistan, Russia Top Foreign Policy Priorities For President Obama

Sure, the economic and financial crisis will be the unrivaled number one priority for President Barack Obama after taking office, and as some argue, even now.

But as exemplified by Russia's special way of congratulating the newly elected president, and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's lengthy message of congratulation, caution and advice to the President elect, Obama will simply not have the luxury to focus only on financial and economic turmoil at home.

So what are the most pressing foreign policy issues Obama and his team need to stay on top of?

For Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to a lesser degree Iraq, should be the near-term foreign policy challenges for President Obama. Haas also thinks the new President should not make an early trip to Europe, since there is no crisis that needs immediate attention by the American president.

Getting out of Iraq, cutting the military budget and telling the world that the U.S. is open for diplomacy are among the most important foreign policy issues, if you ask Slate's Fred Kaplan.

James Downey of the Irish Independent braces his fellow countrymen that "pleasing Ireland" will not be among Barack Obama's priorities - "his remote Irish roots notwithstanding." Consequentially, the rest of Downey's good analysis examines many other global topics that are more pressing than events on the Emerald Isle.

Obama's number one foreign policy priority should be to demilitarize U.S. foreign policy followed by removing foreign policy capabilities from the Pentagon and bringing it back to the State Department, opines Eric Margolis of the Edmonton Sun.

And finally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia make the list of Brian Wilson, a former Minister of State at the British Foreign Office. I stumbled over his piece in Scotland on Sunday due to its slightly trashy, yet classy headline (next to the picture that will come straight to your mind when you read it): "Can super Obama save the world?"

Who is right, who is wrong, and what global hotspot do you think they all missed?

Brzezinski: American Foreign Policy Will Change In Substance And Tone

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, told Deutsche Welle what kind of change he expects President Obama to bring to U.S. foreign policy: "There will be a change. There will certainly be a change in its philosophy, in its priorities, but there will not be a dramatic change in all of its manifestations. You have to think of foreign policy as, for example, a boat moving on the sea. A huge ocean liner doesn't change its course in the way that a fast motor boat does. Therefore it is not possible for the United States dramatically to change every one of its policies. But I think there will be a significant shift in substance and in tone."

To read our entire interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski click here.

Interviews With Blix, Kempe, Steenblock About Obama's Victory

We try not to do much self promotion at Across the Pond. But since we have done some pretty good interviews about the U.S. election at DW-WORLD.DE, allow me to pass on some links.

Here is our interview with Fred Kempe, President of the Atlantic Council of the United States and former editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.

Here is our interview with Hans Blix, former UN Chief Weapons Inspector and former Head of the IAEA (in German).

And here is our interview with Rainder Steenblock, OSCE election observer in Ohio and spokesman on European affairs for the Greens in the German Bundestag (in German).

I'll update the post, if I can provide English versions of the interviews.

Vote, Watch And Party

Today is the day. If you live in the U.S. have fun voting. If you live outside the U.S. have fun watching how the election plays out.

In the mood for an election party? Go to The Washingtonian's After hours blog to find out where to hang out in DC. Go to Bild.de to find out where to party the election away in Berlin.

Wenders, Rosenquist And Jackson On The Next President

German daily Tagesspiegel asked a slew of prominent people what they would dream up for the next American president. Here's what director Wim Wenders, former NHL player and now coach of Berlin's hockey team Eisbären Berlin, Don Jackson, and pop artist James Rosenquist had to say:

Wim Wenders: "My hopes for the next American president are first that his name is Barack Obama and that he secondly brings this big, vast country out of its deep provinciality back to the world. Americans have been living far too long in an imaginary parallel world that is not taking into consideration the needs and hardships of our planet earth."

Don Jackson: "I am not saying that the current goverment was totally wrong, I liked some things about its philosophy. But the country needs a shift in direction. We had the "bad boy" Bush, now we need a more gentle face, because our image in the world has to improve."

James Rosenquist: "We will witness a slow, positive change in our economy should Obama win the election. I hope and believe that we will bring good statesmanship to our relations with the world because Obama is not afraid of negotiations. The new administration will not exhibit the same reactionary military conduct as the last one. I am an optimist because there are many good ideas out there that people could make use of. I look forward to better relations with Germany, Europe and the rest of the world."

For all the other voices collected by Tagesspiegel (in German), click here.

Obama Paid 700,000 U.S. Dollars For Berlin Speech, So what?

Some conservative media outfits have been trying to make an issue out of the fact that Barack Obama's campaign paid approximately 700,000 U.S. dollars to German companies in connection with his Berlin speech this summer. I really don't see what the issue with those expenses is supposed to be. Obama's European trip this summer was meant to bolster his foreign policy credentials and therefore clearly campaign-related. His highly anticipated speech at the Victory Column was as much targeted to Americans back in the U.S. as it was to a German or global audience. So it is not particularly newsworthy, nor scandalous, that the Obama campaign pays for lighting, sounds and other services necessary for the Berlin speech.

Having said that, I also don't think the fact the McCain campaign paid for Sarah Palin's outfit is a major issue. Palin, before being nominated as John McCain's running mate, didn't have to be present on the national and international stage. If she had to upgrade her wardrobe as a result of it, those costs are also campaign-related. Politically, the price tag of Palin's clothes could be more of problem for the self-proclaimed spokeswoman of hockey mums. Admittedly the new wardrobe wasn't exactly a bargain. But seriously: It should be common sense that a vice presidential candidate meeting international leaders at the United Nations needs the proper attire for those events. I am sure hockey mums agree with that too.

World Media's Predictions For An Obama Administration

Yesterday I wrote that many commentators in the U.S. already focus on what a Barack Obama administration would look like. Well, it's not just American editorialists that read the polls, commentators across the globe do too. So here's a sample of the how the world media projects an Obama presidency and what it means for their particular regions.

"Unlike Palin, McCain, or that Action Man doll of contemporary Republican politics, Joe the Plumber, no one in Europe is ever likely to call president Obama a European Socialist," reads the last sentence of Clive Leviev-Sawyer's blog post titled "Could Obama really be a president for Europe" in Bulgaria's Sofia Echo.

Another Eastern European take on an Obama presidency stems from Ukraine's Kyiv Post: "There are many ways that Ukraine and the U.S. can improve relations. Unfortunately, we believe both nations are heading into a period in which other priorities will trump bilateral relations. But we also believe that progress can best be made, and needless conflict avoided, by Obama as president." You can read the entire editorial here.

"What's next if Obama wins," asks Canada's largest urban weekly, Vancouver's Straight.com, The final paragraph of the longish article trying to answer the question reads like this: "Hopefully, as he tells us, Obama will bring "the change we need" and usher in a new day for the economy, social issues, and international relations. Before that day comes, however, we should probably follow Bette Davis’s famous advice in All About Eve: "Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night." For the extended version click here.

Out of Africa comes a sobering prediction what a President Obama will mean for the continent. "Not terribly much. The combination of American interests lying geographically elsewhere for the most part, and a predatory political class that sees control of the state in Africa primarily as a mechanism for personal accumulation, will determine that. The fact that Barack Obama is a black man will not change that stark reality," writes Bill Hansen, who teaches at the American University of Nigeria. You can read his editorial here and find his blog here.

The African perspective offered by myjoyonline.com, a leading information portal out of Ghana, is not as bleak as Bill Hansen's: "Evidence from the presidential campaign in the United States has shown that Americans are not looking forward to a black president in the White Hose, only an American president. Similarly, Africans are not expecting an African president of United States to deliver them from the negative aspects of their predicament; they expect an American president who will relate to the people of the continent with dignity, respect, and on merit."

What Will A President Obama Do?

With all the major polls for some time now signaling a lead by Barack Obama over his opponent John McCain, many commentators focus on what an Obama presidency would mean for the U.S. and the world. William Drozdiak is one of them. In a guest editorial for Deutsche Welle, the President of the American Council on Germany sketches the most pressing issues facing an Obama administration, and how the Democrat can go down in the history books as a truly transformational leader.

After you read William Drozdiak's piece here, drop us a comment and let us know whether you agree or disagree.

Why Are Most Russians Neutral On The Presidential Candidates?

Russia's relations with the West, particularly the U.S., are strained for a whole host of reasons. Russia's military action in Georgia, the Bush administration's plans for missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Russia's use of its huge energy resources as a political power tool are just a few of the issues of disagreement between Washington and Moscow. So one would think that for all these reasons Russians have a keen interest in the American presidential elections and hope that President George W. Bush's successor may want to give Russian-American relations another go.

So what do Russians think about the election, and do they favor Barack Obama or John McCain? Surprisingly, at least from my research, there is not all that much information about that topic available. So it's helpful that Deutsche Welle's Moscow correspondent Alexandra van Nahmen wrote about it in her weekly column. "I hope Obama wins," is a sentence one here's a lot in Russia when the topic is the U.S. election, writes van Nahmen. According to her article, Russians, like the rest of the world, also want Obama to be the next president. A recent poll found that 22 percent of Russians would vote for Obama; only six percent would vote for McCain. But the most stunning number is this: The remaining huge majority of those polled said they could not answer the question.

Assuming the poll is correct, why do the majority of Russians not have a clear opinion whether they want Obama or McCain in the White House. Unfortunately, since I'm not Russia expert, I can't answer that question. But perhaps some of the knowledgeable Russia bloggers like Robert Amsterdam or Sean's Russia Blog want to take a stab at it.

Are Europeans In For A November Surprise?

Based on the assumption that Barack Obama will win the presidential election, John Vinocur wrote an interesting piece in the International Tribune predicting that "Obama's fans in Europe are in for a big surprise." I had written about the same topic in June.

In a nutshell, Vinocur argues that Obama will disappoint his European followers by clearly putting American national interests first. A President Obama would not simply be one multilateral player among other world leaders that Europeans hope for, but instead decide what's in America's interest. Vincocur lists the economic crisis, but also foreign policy issues, such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia as examples where Obama would take a different tack than expected by Europeans.

What Obama would handle differently than his predecessor is style, writes Vinocur: "He would be following Bill Clinton, once described by Denis MacShane, then minister for Europe in Tony Blair's cabinet, as "a Social Democrat who put Europe on Valium, who could schmooze Europe, talk European."

So what is your take on that? Is a President Obama bound to disappoint Europeans, or will the honeymoon last?

Electronic Voting Machines Leave Room For Manipulations, Warns Europe's Biggest Hacker Group

Electronic voting machines used for the U.S. presidential election on November 4 are easy to manipulate and pose major security risks, warns Europe's largest hacker group. "The electronic voting machines by all manufacturers still have major security gaps," Constanze Kurz, spokeswoman for German-based Chaos Computer Club (CCC), told AFP.

According to Kurz, paperless voting machines, i.e., systems that don't record the results on paper as well, are especially problematic since neither voters, nor the election commissions have a reliable way of controlling the outcome. It is to be feared that the election result announced in the U.S. "hardly reflects the true intention of voters," Kurz said.

The security gaps affect both the hard- and software of voting machines, Kurz, who is writing her Ph.D. thesis on voting machines, told AFP. Memory cards, whose data is distorted when uploaded to the central election computer, are one example of the problems facing electronic voting machines, according to Kurz.

The spokeswoman for Chaos Computer Club criticized the manufacturers of voting machines who normally oppose the disclosure of their concepts and thus "give the trade secret a higher priority than the demand for transparent elections." She expressed the hope that electronic election machines could be phased out by the next presidential election in 2012, due to increasing public criticism and a looming lack of trust for politicians. Until then, however, manipulations are possible, said Kurz.

One of the goals of the Chaos Computer Club is to expose security risks to the public, not just in Europe, but internationally. Most recently, it has acquired and published the fingerprint of German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble to protest against the use of biometric data in German passports.

Europe Favors Obama And Yes So Does Asia

Generally accepted wisdom holds that people across the world would vote for Barack Obama for president, if they could. Not true, says Dominique Moisi, founder of the French Institute for International Relations (Ifri) and professor at the College of Europe in Poland. Moisi argues that while it is correct that Europeans favor Obama, most Asians, especially the elites, prefer John McCain.

"The perception that Obama can transform the view that the U.S. and the West have of themselves is an important factor in the emotional gap that may exist between Asia and Europe on the eve of America's presidential election. On that count, Asia tends to be a status quo continent, while Europe is a revisionist one. For many Europeans, a reinvention of America is Europe's last hope." That, in a nutshell, is Moisi's thesis why Europeans favor Obama and Asians root for McCain. You can find an English version of his editorial here, and a German version here.

Moisi's thesis is intriguing, but unfortunately not backed up by any evidence. In making his case that Asians, especially Asian elites, lean towards McCain, Moisi mentions five countries: Indonesia, Japan, China, India and Singapore.

Indonesia, according to Moisi, is an Asian "anomaly" as it favors Obama, because he lived there briefly as a child. That leaves four other countries: Japanese elites, writes Moisi, "tend to favor continuity over change," prefer American hard power over soft power, and perceive the U.S. mainly as counter-balance to China.

"The Chinese, too, may very likely be favoring McCain, for the opposite reason," opines Moisi. "The decline of America's image and influence in the world does not annoy them. As Asia's leading power, China has seized the mantle of "hope" from the U.S. America could regain it under Obama, but not under McCain. Why favor change, when continuity works so well for you?"

Indians also favor McCain, argues Moisi, because they have a positive view of the Bush administration, since it helped establish India's international status. Finally, a "very conservative regime" in Singapore "naturally tends to prefer a Republican candidate over a Democrat."

Let's look at the individual countries (without Indonesia) that Moisi mentions to make his case:

According to a new Gallup poll, two-thirds of Japanese adults surveyed said they "personally rather see" Obama elected than McCain. 15 percent would prefer McCain over Obama, 18 percent had no opinion. Contrary to Moisi's thesis, Gallup finds that "Obama may be tapping into the Japanese public's broader desire for change at a time when the country's politics may be viewed as stagnant and corrupt." Perhaps Moisi is still correct and Japan's elite - whoever that may be - favors McCain, but that would point to a huge disconnect between Japanese citizens and the country's elite. The more likely scenario is that even among Japan's elite - whoever that may be - McCain is not the clear preference that Moisi makes him out to be.

Polls surveying exactly how the Chinese feel about Obama and McCain are hard to find. But according to China Daily, an online poll conducted on its website by the U.S. embassy, shows that "Obama enjoys the support of 75 percent among the Chinese." In the same article, the paper quotes a survey by Horizon Research that found that roughly 36 percent Chinese "pay close attention" to the U.S. presidential race. "Even among these people, Obama's supporters exceed McCain's by 17.8 percent." So according to China Daily, a government-controlled paper, the Chinese favor Obama and not, as Moisi argues, McCain.

As for India, according to a new Gallup poll, a huge majority (91 percent) of people said they "don't know when they were asked whom did they prefer as the next President of the U.S., or simply refused to give an answer." While this doesn't indicate Indians favor Obama, it certainly also doesn't show a preference for McCain. As far as the elites go of whom Moisi speaks, The Times of India, the country's largest English-language paper, recently published a leader article favoring Obama. And in Singapore, Obama bests McCain by a margin of two to one, finds a new Gallup poll.

Moisi is certainly correct that Asians are not as enthusiastic about Obama as Europeans. But to conclude from that that McCain is the favored candidate by Asians or Asian elites is not supported by any facts.

Global Media: Powell May Well Be Decisive Domino For Obama Victory

If one had to pick the member of the Bush administration that was the least disliked internationally, it would have to be Colin Powell. So obviously the fact that President George W. Bush's former secretary of state went public to endorse Barack Obama didn't go unnoticed across the pond. Here's a selection of how the international media reacted:

"Powell's endorsement could prove to be very valuable to Obama," says Dutch paper Trouw (via dradio.de) and elaborates: "It tells voters who wonder whether Obama is too inexperienced in foreign policy that they don't need to worry because even the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces apparently doesn't see that as a problem. This is a alarm signal for Republicans. McCain's fellow party members don't seem to believe he has a chance fof winning, and more and more of them are turning away from him."

Germany's stern.de offers this analysis: "Powell's late endorsement is ominous for McCain because, in the worst case, Powell could function as the decisive domino that sets Obama's victory in motion. But even if in the end only a few voters are convinced by Powells arguments, the entry of the former general costs important time for McCain. In the next few days, the U.S. media will concern themselves predominantely with Powell. McCain will probably be hard-pressed to get his message across to the voters. For McCain, this is a harsh blow, because the time for a comeback is slowly running out."

"Former secretary of state Powell has endorsed Obama – and his support is more far- reaching than many other statements of support for the Democratic candidate," argues Norway's Dagbladet (via dradio.de). "Powell's endorsement of Obama is not aimed at the Republican candidate McCain: Both are Vietnam veterans and have tremendous respect for one another. Powell also said himself that he doesn't seek political office," writes the paper and adds: "But as secretary of defense in Obama's cabinet, he would face a daunting task. Powell, in that position, would have the responsibilty for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and would thereby help Obama to honor his campaign promise."

"Powells support for Obama invalidates the Republican presidential candidate's central argument that Obama is a risky choice," comments Swiss daily Die Südostschweiz. "In any case, McCain's charge of terrorism, and lately also socialism, against Obama appear more and more desperate."

And finally, Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent for The Australian, in a blog post with the title "The Powell Bombshell" offers this prediction: "Endorsements often don’t shift many votes, but Powell is one of the most popular centrist figures in the U.S. (80 percent favorability rating), and it will likely help Obama win over some undecided moderates."

Joe Wurzelbacher Goes Global

I really didn't want to write about Joe the Plumber (JtP). Not that I have anything against Joe Wurzelbacher. Quite to the contrary, I have grown very fond of his very German-sounding name, which I had actually never come across in Germany. (According to this database, the name Wurzelbacher is listed only eight times in German phone books.) And I wish him all the best for his plumbing career and hope he makes a lot more than the 250,000 dollars that everyone is talking about now.

The reason why I didn't want to write about JtP is simply that I think that his life story and plumbing expertise is not really necessary to understand the larger political question at issue between Barack Obama and John McCain: Should the tax cuts that both Obama and McCain envisage include the rich or not, and at what dollar amount should one be considered to be rich?

That is a fair enough question for a campaign during a financial crisis, but how can JtP contribute to answering that question? It is understandable that both sides would try to turn Joe into a living example of what McCain or Obama's tax plans or political philosophy would mean for the middle class, the rich, or up-and-coming entrepreneurs. JtP as a pars pro toto for the whole American nation.

Again, I just don't think it is necessary. Everyone who is half-way paying attention to the economic aspects of the campaign – its number one topic – will know whether he or she would be hurt or benefit from Obama's tax plans. And everyone will also have a sense from his or her own experience and life experience at what dollar amount the definition of rich should start. People then will make up their minds and vote accordingly. To know what Joe the Plumber (with or without his plumbing license) would or wouldn't do is probably not all that enlightened.

So why, you may ask, have I broken my vow not to write about JtP and devoted an entire post to him? Because to my deep disappointment, it is not just Americans who are talking incessantly about Mr. Wurzelbacher. The entire world is: "Joe the Plumber, the star of the internet," writes France's L'Express, "Joe the Plumber bursts into the campain," reads the headline of Spain's daily El Pais and Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet asks "Who is Joe the Plumber?" But the best international story on JtP clearly comes from Germany's Tagesspiegel, which starts its nice tongue-in-cheek article with the English headline "The Wurzelbacher Conspiracy."

So there you have it. And since the whole world is fascinated by JtP, we here at Across the Pond simply had to bite the bullet and write about JtP as well. Which we have done now.

Murdoch-Owned London Times Endorses Obama

Today the Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama for president. While the Post's support for Obama isn't necessarily a surprise, the London Times' endorsement of the Democratic candidate is. The Times is owned by Rupert Mudoch's News Corporation and is considered to be a conservative-leaning paper.

For the Times, Obama has the potential needed to be president. McCain is an "authentic hero" and "a brave politician," but his time "has gone." The reason: "His campaign has failed to inspire and his eccentric choice of a running-mate was irresponsible," opines the paper.

It is still unclear exactly where Obama stands on many issues and how he will deal with them, argues the Times. "The biggest question, for a European, over an Obama presidency is whether he would prove able to face up to the security challenges. It is impossible to be certain. But his words, for instance on Pakistan and Iran, have been reassuring."

However, in one crisis situation, the economy, Obama "has been better advised, shown better judgement, and been better at keeping his cool." Therefore, the Times "hopes that the outcome will be an Obama victory."

Just a few weeks back, Rupert Murdoch, in an interview with Fox News, called Obama's economic policy "naïve" and stated that "he was very worried." Obama, said Murdoch, "is a very intelligent man. But his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to be — and card checks — are going to do two or three things. It's going to give us a lot of inflation. They're going to ruin our relationships with the rest of the world. And they are going to slow down the rest of the world, too. And they're going to make people frightened to add to employment."

Global Media: McCain Put On His Best Performance, But Obama Still Wins The Debate

John McCain was really good in the debate, conclude the global media after last night's final presidential debate. But he was bested by Barack Obama. The Democratic contender didn't even need a stellar performance to come out victorious, all he had to do was not make any major mistakes. According to international media, now it's Obama's election to lose.

"Want to bet that Obama wins the election," reads the headline of Jan-Kees Emmer's blog post about the debate for Dutch daily De Telegraaf. "One expert thinks that the chance that a meteorite will fall on your head is higher than McCain's chance of winning. Realistically, only a national catastrophe or a war can save McCain."

"McCain gained some ground, especially on economic issues," writes Jörg Lau, who blogged about the event for Germany's weekly Die Zeit. "He came across as more concerned, warmer and not so aloof as usual. But then he overdid it with Ayers and he just couldn't stop attacking Obama relentlessly," observes Lau. He points out that Obama scored on the issues of education and abortion, but that he wasn't brilliant. "What was important for him was to get people used to the fact that he could be president soon and that that doesn't seem too bizzare. He achieved that. McCain, on the other hand, at times seemed very tense, which is understandable. Winners don't look like that."

The Times of India offers this take on the debate: "In the end, it was body language that appeared to let McCain down more than his debating skills, although he seemed to lose steam as the 90 minute event progressed. As they battled for points, McCain was repeatedly caught on camera grimacing, looking agitated, even angry. He seemed to clench his teeth and at one time rolled his eyes contemptuously at Obama's answer.

In contrast, Obama looked cool, calm, and composed, and ignored McCain's interruptions several times." All the odds are now in Obama's favor, argues the paper: "With less than three weeks to go for the elections, Obama now appears to have an insurmountable lead, including in some historically Republican leaning states such as Virginia. Most pundits seem to think it will require a miracle for John McCain to pull off a victory, although no one is putting it past a war veteran who survived for five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam."

One can almost feel sorry for John McCain, opines Austria's daily Kurier. "He has one of his best campaign performances; he takes his gloves off to attack his opponent and finally during the final TV debate at times shows the quick-wittedness which his followers love about him. But it didn't help him. One could almost have the impression that the 72-year-old senator could have put on the most brilliant performance of his life – the audience would still see it differently. The winner of the evening was once more Obama, and his lead grows and grows."

Obama Sweeps McCain In Austrian Poll

In Austria's recent national election, voters gave a big boost to the country's far-right. So it is interesting to note that an online poll finds that the overwhelming majority of Austrians would vote for Barack Obama as president.

According to the survey, conducted by market research firm psychonomics and reported by Austrian news agency APA, 79 percent of Austrians favor the Democratic presidential candidate and only seven percent would like to see John McCain in the White House. Asked to rate who they think is better prepared to lead the world out of the financial crisis, 65 percent of Austrians answered Barack Obama, only seven percent said John McCain.

The poll finds that Obama doesn't only garner the support of voters of the Social Democratic and Green parties (89 percent) and of the conservative ÖVP party (80 percent), but surprisingly also voters of the far-right parties FPÖ (72 percent) and BZÖ (69 percent).

Obama's immense popularity in Europe and the world is well known. But to my knowledge, even Obama's best international ratings have never been anywhere near his performance in Austria's state Vorarlberg: 100 percent. Just for good measure: John McCain polled best in the Austrian state of Carinthia. His take: 19 percent.

How to explain the huge difference between the results of the national election and the results of the poll? According to pollster psychonomics, the results of the survey are only representative of Austrian internet users (i.e., 67 percent of all Austrians claim market researcher GFK Austria). And they, says psychonomics, tend to be young and highly educated. Aha, so now we know.

Don't Expect Obama Or McCain To Reverse Washington's Stance Toward The International Criminal Court

A topic that hasn't been discussed at all during the presidential campaign is the candidates' stance toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court, based in The Hague, deals with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and was authorized through a treaty signed by 108 countries. The U.S. originally signed the treaty, later unsigned it and has not ratified it, therefore it is not bound by the treaty. The reason: The Bush administration is "concerned that its soldiers and government officials could be subjected to politicized prosecutions."

So what are the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on the ICC? Since both candidates haven't addressed the issue in the campaign, the AP asked McCain and Obama about it. While Obama and McCain are in favor of a standing tribunal to deal with war crimes, they share President Bush's anxiety about the potential of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials or soldiers, writes the AP. "They do not share, however, what has been at times Bush's outright hostility to the court."

Mark Lippert, a foreign affairs adviser for Obama, acknowledged that the ICC has a lower priority than nonproliferation, Iran and Afghanistan. "But it registers on (Obama's) radar," Lippert told the AP. He added that the Democratic candidate "has a wait-and-see, go-slow approach. The policy is unchanged from where he has been."

According to the AP, team McCain did not respond to its request to talk about the ICC, but the Republican candidate has given the following written response to questions from an international legal affairs organization about the matter: "I want us in the ICC, but I'm not satisfied that there are enough safeguards."

Judging from those statements, it looks like both Obama and McCain would continue - in substance, if not in style - the position held by the Bush administration. After all, this is an area of foreign policy where there hasn't been much daylight - in substance, if not in style - between the last Democratic president Bill Clinton and his Republican successor. (You can find a comparison of Clinton's and Bush's positions toward the ICC here.)

While American participation in the ICC may not be an important topic in the U.S., it is internationally. With the rejection of the Kyoto protocol and the Iraq war, the U.S. stance toward the International Criminal Court was routinely mentioned as a typical example of American unilateralism. So for all those interested whether a new administration would rethink its approach to the ICC, the bipartisan bottom line is this: Don't expect a sudden reversal of Washington's stance toward the ICC from either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Game Plan For The Next President: Playing Off Iran Against Russia?

How should the next president deal with Russia and Iran? We have written about the limited options the next administration has for tackling what are generally considered to be the biggest foreign policy challenges facing Barack Obama or John McCain. Now an editorial by Vali Nasr in the Wall Street Journal proposes a novel thesis that could be summed up like this: The U.S. should engage with Iran to confront Russia.

According to Nasr, "Washington cannot resist a Russian sphere of influence stretching from the Black Sea to Aral Mountains unless it plays the Iran card to its advantage." In order to do that the U.S. would have to change its position on these issues, writes Nasr:

- Drop objection to the flow of Iranian gas to Europe
- Engage Iran in talks on security and stability in the Caucasus region
- Accept building the planned new pipelines on the back of Iranian gas
- "Freeing Europe of Russia's clutches" is more important than "punishing Iran for its nuclear program"

Russia's military action in Georgia has altered the way Iranians view the country. As a consequence, says Nasr, Tehran is ready to talk to the U.S. about how to act jointly vis-à-vis a resurgent Russia. Thus, for Nasr, the decision is clear: "Talking to Iran is good Russia policy" because "only by engaging Iran will America draw a wedge between Moscow and Tehran and weaken Russia's hand."

Let's assume Nasr's ultra-realist strategy, which sounds like a new version of the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," works out and helps contain Russia. That still doesn't answer the question about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

What's more, Nasr's dichotomy "Freeing Europe from the clutches of Russia" versus "Punishing Iran for its nuclear program" in itself is debatable. First, so far the common goal of the U.S. and the EU wasn't to punish Iran for its nuclear program, but to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which is an important distinction. Second, whether Europe is really in the clutches of Russia is still a point of discussion. And third, whether containing a resurgent Russia has a higher priority than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is equally questionable.

So what do you think? Is it a sound strategy for the next president to play off Iran versus Russia?

Former German Foreign Minister Likes What Barack Obama Says About Transatlantic Relations

In an interview with suddeutsche.de, Germany's former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher gave his perspective on the current financial crisis, the future global role of countries like China, India and Brasil, as well as NATO and the West's relations with a resurgent Russia, the conflict in Afghanistan, and why he favors Barack Obama as the next U.S. president.

Genscher, a member of the Free Democrats (FDP), who was once called "A Man with a Dream" by the New York Times, was Germany's longest serving Foreign Minister (1974-1992). In the interview, he strongly criticized the Bush administration and expressed his hope that a new administration will mend the ties between the U.S. and Europe. Here are just a few highlights of the interview focusing on the presidential campaign and transatlantic relations. You can read the entire interview (in German) here.

When asked whether a new president would bring a new political style to the White House, Genscher said: "One can only hope that the new president understands that no country in the world is and can be so strong as to dominate the rest of the world. That, by the way, is one of the secrets of success of European unity. The success of Europe became possible because there were three big and three small founding countries. They had to learn how to get along and the bigger countries each had to check in their demand to be the biggest at the cloak room. In my opinion, that is Europe's message to the world: We have shown how to do it – not the law of the strongest country is imperative, but the power of the law is imperative."

Does Genscher feel that both candidates are equally committed to lead the U.S. away from the old unipolar way of thinking, asked sueddeusche.de. "Both candidates have been very careful in their statements. Barack Obama, in my estimation, is more open for an equal partnership than John McCain. I like what Obama has said about transatlantic cooperation, namely that it should take place on the same eye level. As U.S. president, he could do a lot and bring back the trust that was lost."

Genscher added: "Think about what John F. Kennedy said decades ago: The transatlantic partnershift rests on two columns – Europeans and Americans. With the current American administration, one feels that there is one column and and many little columns, i.e., 'old Europe' and 'new Europe.' This is an alarming antagonism to the thinking of the administration of Bush senior and (James) Baker."

On the criticism that Obama is inexperienced, especially on foreign policy, Genscher told sueddeutsche.de: "There is a misconceived opinion that the other candidate has been president before. Neither of them has experience as president. When I became foreign minister I also had no experience as foreign minister. There is a first time for everything."

Time For Obama And A New "New Deal," Demands Luxembourg's Leading Daily

One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to provide you with information and perspectives you probably won't get anywhere else. In that effort, we have shared with you not only our German and American takes on international aspects of the presidential election, but also how the campaign is perceived around the world from Switzerland to Brasil, from Hungary to Ireland.

One country whose position on the U.S. election we have so far ignored is Luxembourg's. You may ask why would I care how people in the small Grand Duchy feel about Barack Obama and John McCain? And sure, Luxembourg is not an important player on the international political stage. But it is an important actor on the world's financial stage, i.e. the country is the second largest center for investment funds after the U.S. Therefore, it is interesting what the take on the campaign is in Luxembourg, especially in light of the current global financial crisis.

And as luck would have it, this is exactly the focus of the main editorial in the country's leading daily, Luxemburger Wort. According to the paper, McCain as an "unconditional supporter of an ultraliberal market economy definitely personifies an economic and social order that has failed and that no one really wants to see continued. In the U.S., the time for a new "New Deal" has come," opines the paper. "Barack Obama - even before the financial crisis - hit a nerve with his interpretation of the "American Dream," which is based on social balance."

For the Luxemburger Wort, McCain symbolizes an America that is backwards-looking. McCain would be the oldest president in the history of the country to take office, which the paper calls not really a sign of renewal. A president McCain would also pose a security risk, because his vice president would be Sarah Palin, whose lack of qualification Americans noticed rather quickly, comments the paper.

Obama Victory Won't End Racial Problems In The U.S., Says Jesse Jackson

A win by Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election would be a break with the past, but it wouldn't be the end of racial problems in American society, the Reverend Jesse Jackson told Swiss news agency sda while at the World Policy Conference in Evian, France. Jackson said, Obama - contrary to his opponent John McCain - had run a "disciplined campaign." He added that an Obama victory should be used to open other important doors for African-Americans such as positions as governors or senators. Jackson told sda that African-Americans have been hardest hit by the sub-prime crisis and still have the shortest life expectancy in the U.S. About the situation in Iraq, Jackson said, regardless of the next president's skin color, he should end the war in Iraq.

International Media: McCain Commits Two-Worded Gaffe, Obama Wins Debate

Barack Obama is the winner of Tuesday's second presidential debate, reads the pretty much unanimous verdict of international media outlets, a day after the encounter between Obama and John McCain.

The Republican candidate missed his chance, opines German business daily Financial Times Deutschland (FTD). "In his ideal setting, the town hall format, this should have been a great night for John McCain. His chance to stop his sliding poll numbers. But his problem last night was that there was another guy in the room selling himself to voters as someone who understands their problems." And in the end, writes the FTD, according to a CNN poll, people declared Obama the winner. "If the world looked the same as two weeks ago, the audience might even have called the debate a tie. But the downward spiral of collapsing financial markets has increased the desire for change in the White House. A Democrat, who doesn't make a mistake, is automatically the winner on an evening like this."

"McCain doesn't seem to care much for fair play," thinks Switzerlands Tages-Anzeiger. He committed a big foul in last night's debate." By refering to Obama as "that one" he violated the rules of etiquette in front of an audience of millions. "While Obama didn't seem rattled by the incident, McCain after the remark appeared to be a little beside himself. The entire evening McCain didn't mention his biggest trump so far, Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, with one word. And at the end of the event, he even refused to shake Obama's hand. Usually only sore losers behave like that," comments the paper.

"Obama wins as McCain shows shades of McNasty" reads the headline of Alex Spillius' blog post at Britain's Daily Telegraph. Calling it a "boring day" in the campaign, "Tuesday night's debate was what we expect from politicians: half-answered questions, predictable answers and few specifics. Barack Obama won because he didn't lose. John McCain, trailing in the polls, needed to make a breakthrough, but was unable to take the opportunity in what is his preferred format for campaigning: the town hall meeting."

"Obama won the second television debate with McCain on Tuesday," writes Dutch paper De Volkskrant. Independent voters felt that Obama came across as more trustworthy and had better answers on economic issues than his opponent. This despite the fact that "McCain was in his element in the more spontaneous town hall format in Nashville. Walking around with a microphone and answering questions by voters is his speciality, which was clearly visible." But, adds the paper, McCain made the mistake of refering to Obama as 'that one.'"

Can McCain Make An Issue Out Of Foreign Donations For Obama?

With the campaign heating up during the last month before the election, John McCain and the Republican National Committee (RNC) charge that Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from foreign donors, which is illegal under U.S. law. After an article by Michael Isikoff about questionable donations, the RNC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Obama of "knowingly accepting excessive contributions and donations from foreign nationals" and calling it "a wide-scale problem."

While Isikoff's piece focused on two questionable donations amounting to less than $30,000, the New York Times checked out the RNC charge that the Obama camp has a wide-scale problem with foreign donations. According to the Times, Obama received $3.3 million in contributions in which the donor listed an abbreviation other than that of the 50 U.S. states and territories. That amounts to one percent of the $270 million raised by Obama. John McCain, writes the Times, took in $517,000 from such donors.

Just because donations originate outside the U.S. doesn't make them illegal. As the Times points out, as long as the donor is an American or green card holder, donations are legal even if the person resides outside the U.S.

So what is the effect of this on the campaign? And is it, as Marc Ambinder suggests, a "directed, political tactic designed to raise questions about Obama's foreign-ness and otherness."

As the British Independent points out "accepting money from foreigners is definitely a no-no" and "it is raising a red flag over whether the Obama camp has been doing enough to police where the cash is coming from." But the amount in question is roughly only one percent of Obama's total donations and, as noted by the New York Times and First Read, there probably won't be any action by the FEC until after the election. One more reason why the RNC's complaint probably won't have a big impact on the rest of the campaign is that John McCain has his own issues with questionable donations and has been queried by the FEC.

As for Ambinder's suggestion, of course the RNC's complaint is a "tactic" to damage Obama. But that is not really unusual for an election campaign. Whether it was as "directed" and politically motivated as Ambinder seems to insinuate is debatable, as the charge is basically fallout from various news reports rather than a long planned campaign tactic.

And to think the RNC launched the charge with the specific and well thought out goal to question Obama's "foreign-ness and otherness" may be giving more credit than is due. The answer may be far simpler: With McCain down in the polls, a festering financial crisis that won't help their candidate, and less than a month to go before the election, the McCain campaign might just take whatever issue it can get, toss it at Obama, and see whether it sticks.

Russia And Iran: Crucial Countries, Limited Options For Obama And McCain

In a series on the presidential election, the National Journal's James Kitfield takes an interesting look at foreign policy issues and how they might affect the next presidency.

What to do about Iraq and Afghanistan is not the big foreign policy question for November 4, argues Kitfield. Instead, the key question is how to handle the multitude of potential confrontations that are yet to come. "Put simply, the next commander-in-chief will have to decide whether these confrontations become wars and what exactly is worth fighting for."

Russia and Iran, according to Kitfield, fall under the category described above and pose the biggest challenges to the U.S. in the future. Both exemplify the foreign policy shift that has occurred during the campaign. Russia is classified as a long-term challenge by the National Journal, while Iran is termed a short-term threat.

Barack Obama and John McCain may have different approachs on dealing with Russia, but no matter which of them becomes president, the next president will have limited options, Stratfor's George Friedman told the magazine. The result is, says Friedman, that "neither Obama nor McCain wants to talk about the issue of Russia in depth because the answers are unpleasant -- either we withdraw some of the security guarantees we've been granting around its borders, or we spend a lot more on defense."

If the differences between Obama and McCain on how to treat Russia are clear, they are stark on Iran. "The Republican has hewed closely to the neoconservative policy adopted in the first Bush term and advocated by hardliners such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, writes Kitfield and adds "McCain rejects high-level negotiations outright, for example, and has stated unequivocally that the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to acquire the nuclear bomb."

Obama also finds Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons "unacceptable," but argues for direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions. "Even if such talks fail, he says, the attempt at diplomacy would make it easier to assemble a tougher international sanctions regime to contain Iran", writes Kitfield. "In so arguing, the Democrat puts himself squarely in the centrist camp of foreign policy experts who say that even a nuclear-armed Iran can be contained."

Unfortunately, Kitfield's article doesn't really ask the key question with regard to Iran. Despite the campaign rhetoric, especially from McCain, are the realistic options the next president and the EU have on how to deal with Iran not even more limited than the options vis-à-vis Russia?

International Media: Palin Better Than Could Be Expected In The Debate

Considering her inexperience, compared to her opponent and political veteran Joe Biden, Sarah Palin held her own in the vice presidential debate. That's – in a nutshell – the snap verdict of the international media a day after the debate in St. Louis.

Here's a sampling of opinion from Germany, Italy, Denmark, Mexico and Austria:

"Contrary to the hopes of the Democrats, Sarah Palin during the debate with Joe Biden didn't faint, call for the bombing of Iran, or demand the taring and feathering of the heads of Wall Street, argues Germany's Die Welt. "She didn't embarrass herself, she held her own." The paper adds: "In the second foreign policy part of the debate, Biden grew increasingly stronger while Palin often appeared to recite what she had previously learned by heart."

"The expectations for Sarah Palin were so low that it has to viewed as a victory that she didn't do any further damage to presidential candidate John McCain", opines Danish Berlingske Tidende (via dradio.de). "After the American voters have had some time to think about this first impression they will wonder whether Palin's performance really qualifies her for the post of vice president."

Both, Biden and Palin, like to hear themselves talk, says Italy's Corriere della Sera (via dradio.de). "Palin, because she tries to bury under a moutain of words that she is not familiar with relevant issues. Biden, on the other hand, talks a lot because he knows too much and because he is a tad egocentric. He is certainly better qualified than Palin."

"The Republican candidate for vice president didn't let her Democratic opponent Joe Biden intimidate her, even though he has far more media experience", argues Mexico's La Cronica de Hoy (via dradio.de). "The political crash course she has received the evening before the debate at John McCain's ranch bore fruit."

"After a lackluster start Palin became more secure with every strike she landed against Biden", opines Austria's Wiener Zeitung. "Overall – almost all media concur – Palin did surprisingly good. For this reason John McCain's running mate functioned exactly at the right time, because his popularity - after a brief high - had recently started to diminish again. The good performance by his partner may counteract this trend", writes the paper.

Scary Song: Children's Musical Praise For Obama

Because of Barack Obama's rapid political rise, his immense popularity with various groups of people, and his ability to draw thousands of fans to his public speeches in the U.S. and abroad, some conservative commentators have labeled Obama followers a cult and Obama the "messiah." I have always considered these accusations nothing more than a sign of partisan envy. Just because McCain doesn't energize the Republican base and is not able to attract the masses to his speeches, doesn't make a cult out of Obama supporters.

But after watching this video featuring children singing about Obama, which has been circulating on the internet and has received media attention since it was linked to via the Drudge Report, I am starting to wonder whether the phenomenon we all have matter-of-factly called Obamamania deserves a closer look.

To me it is scary seeing young children praising a political leader in a seemingly professionally choreographed setting. At first, I thought, perhaps as a German I am overly sensitive to things like this. After all, what's wrong with some kids singing about a politician they like? So I am glad that I am not the only one who has a problem with this video. Ben Smith and Mo Rocca have interesting takes on the issue.

But beyond its creepiness factor, what are we to deduct from this video? Assuming Obama becomes president, a lot of his supporters with expectations like those expressed in the video are bound to be bitterly disappointed, because those expectations are impossible to be fulfilled by a president.

Realists And Neoconservatives Fight Over Sarah Palin

We recently wrote here about the battle for influence within the McCain campaign between neoconservatives and realists. How deep the rift and how intense the struggle between the two Republican camps is exemplified by an open letter to Sarah Palin by the editors of The American Conservative magazine.

The letter, dripping with disdain for John McCain and well-known neoconservative figures, in a sarcastic tone, lists the main foreign policy grievances realists have with George W. Bush and his neoconservative agenda. Here are a few of them:

Russia:
- Realists don't think the U.S. and Russia are headed for a repeat of the Cold War. They feel that Russia's behavior doesn't constitute a major threat to the U.S.
- "Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It's a traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage."
- "Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have been."

Middle East:
-"Israel's problem isn't external threat so much as internal security and demographics."
-"The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians already in their midst — to suppress terrorism without suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to more bloodshed."
-"The most helpful role the United States can play is that of impartial mediator in the conflict."

Iran:
-"Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them."
-"Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America."

Towards the end of the letter, the writers directly appeal to Sarah Palin to eschew the neoconservative agenda: "You prize localism, their vision is grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of ideology. But they'll tell you this alien vision — imported from the Left — is coherent and conservative."

Sure, The American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, is not the official mouthpiece of realism. And some of the specific points made in the letter, i.e. the stance toward Israel, will be considered too extreme and won't be shared by other outlets with a realist bent. Nevertheless the main thrust of the letter provides an interesting insight into the fierce struggle that is waging within the Republican party. The outcome of this fight for the soul of the GOP will definitely have consequences for the future of the Republican party and possibly the world.

And The Winner Of The Financial Crisis Is…Europe?

The global financial turmoil produces many losers, but also some winners. With the American banking sector currently melting down, it is hardly surprising that some commentators view the U.S. as the biggest loser in this crisis. Frank Herold is one of them. In a guest editorial for Russia's RIA Novosti (in German), Herold, an editor with Berliner Zeitung, argues that as a result of the turmoil, there will be a realignment of the global power structure.

To be sure, Herold feels that it is premature to sing the swan song for the U.S., but he thinks the time of American global hegemony, at least for the foreseeable future, is over. Possible beneficiaries of the crumbling old world order, according to Herold, are China, but also Iran, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the U.S. preoccupied with itself, who is supposed to keep Iran, Chavez and the Taliban in check, asks Herold.

But the most interesting aspect of Herold's analysis is that he proclaims Europe one of the major winners in the international power reshuffle: It doesn't matter who wins the election and becomes president, McCain or Obama. Whoever it is will have to seek common ground with Europe – and not with a particular European country - a position that George W. Bush felt was good enough - but with Europe as a supranational power, writes Herold.

Hence, Herold argues, after the failure of the Bush model, it is now the up to the Europeans, who rightfully have complained for a long time about American unilateralism and hubris, to confidently present their solutions for the global challenges the West is facing.

According to Herold, the financial crisis has brought the EU closer together and is in itself a convincing argument that the kind of integration the EU provides is necessary. Europe is back, writes Herold and warns that everyone who doesn't recognize that fact misjudges the signals of the current crisis. That goes for the U.S., but also Russia, who's foreign policy instincts, states Herold, were no less "American," than those of the U.S.

While Herold's analysis that the U.S. is weakened by the financial crisis sounds plausible, his deduction that therefore Europe is one of its biggest beneficiaries isn't. Politics isn't a zero-sum game. Just because, the U.S. loses some of its global stature doesn't necessarily translate into European gains. (Yesterday's historic election results of the CSU and the SPD in Bavaria proved that point.) If the EU's economic and foreign policy, as well as its structural fundamentals haven't changed - and they haven't - then why should Europe be in a better position now then a few weeks ago? What's more, the assumption that Europe, through this crisis, has become more cohesive, for the time being is just that – an assumption that hasn't been put to the test.

As far as the next U.S. president is concerned though, Herold is right. Whether it is Obama or McCain, he will have to seek common ground with Europe. Not necessarily because Europe is so much stronger than before, but because compared to all the other global players, Europe is simply the best option.

International Media On The Debate: McCain Seemed Like An Old Sheriff, Obama Like A Handsome Professor

So who won the debate, John McCain or Barack Obama? Neither of them is the answer, if you ask how the international media reacted to the first presidential debate, even though some political analysts give Obama a slight edge.

"A clear tie" headlines Germany's business magazine Wirtschaftswoche, and comments that both McCain and Obama came across surprisingly bland during the TV debate. One of the reasons for their rather dreary performance was that both wanted to avoid mistakes. The question which of them will be the next president remains open - although Obama is likely to benefit more from the financial crisis than his opponent, writes Wirtschaftswoche.

Poland's Rzeczpospolita (via dradio.de) argues along the same lines. Obama presented himself slightly better on economic issues, even though McCain gave a better answer to the question which concrete steps should be taken to solve the financial crisis: To freeze government spending with the exception of some key areas. But generally McCain and Obama talked as though the many dramatic events of the past few days simply hadn't happened. "McCain seemed like an old, experienced sheriff, Obama like a handsome university professor who is open for alternative views," says Rzeczpospolita.

"The debate only confirmed that both candidates can contribute nothing substantial to the discussion about the financial crisis," argues Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Both stuck to their old rhetoric, despite the fact that the crisis has thwarted their budget plans. Where foreign policy was concerned, McCain – as expected - managed to put his opponent on the defense. Repeatedly Obama was accused of being naive and inexperienced without being able to effectly counter the charges. But the Democratic nominee stuck it out and appeared presidential. Since there were no gaffes or big mishaps, the effect of the debate on the race will probably be negligable. This helps Obama who leads in the polls and has taken another hurdle on his path to the White House, writes the Swiss paper.

"McCain needed to win, but he couldn't pull it off," German communications expert Frank Brettschneider told DPA. Obama was well prepared and on foreign policy topics came across better than he had until now. McCain merely relied on characterizing Obama as inexperienced. "That is simply not good enough," said Brettschneider, who teaches at Hohenheim university near Stuttgart. All in all, Brettschneider saw the debate ending with a slight advantage for Obama.

Dutch communications specialist Eliane Schoonman agrees that Obama did better in the debate: Obama explained in great detail how the financial crisis has been created by the Republicans, how it affects the ordinary Americans and how he, Barack Obama, is going to solve the problem. McCain did better discussing the war in Iraq, casting himself as a war hero intent on winning, she told Dutch broadcaster RNW. So who won? As the debate mostly dealt with security, McCain's key issue, he should have won. Everything, though, points to a victory for Obama, who thus extends his lead over McCain, Schoonman was quoted by RNW.

So The Debate Is On, But Does It Matter?

After two days of uncertainty about the first presidential debate, John McCain finally said "Yes I can." So the event is on and we can all watch McCain and Barack Obama square off against each other on foreign policy, but probably even more on the financial crisis. Tim already laid out a way to do justice to both topics.

But the big question is: Do the debates even matter? Tom Holbrooke, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, argues in his blog (via scienceblogs.de) that debates usually don't have much influence in the outcome of the presidential election. His prediction for the current debate: "I don't expect to see large swings in candidate support following the individual debates, barring something really spectacular happening. However, even relatively small shifts in the same direction over the three debates could make this relatively tight race even tighter (if the shifts favor McCain), or could blow it open (if the shifts favor Obama)." Ross Barker, a political scientist at Rutgers, agrees that "debates aren't do or die".

Others disagree. Alan Schroeder, author of "Presidential Debates: 40 Years of High-Risk TV", told Bloomberg that the McCain-Obama debates are very different than previous debates and therefore may have a greater impact on the race. And Dan Balz in the Washington Post makes the case using historical examples, that debates are in fact "enormously important."

Who's right? We can all be the judge. Let's just wait, watch the debates, and see if there are major shifts in the polls afterwards.

Are Obama's German Roots Actually Swiss Roots?

Just before Barack Obama's visit to Berlin this summer, the German weekly Die Zeit reported via a press release and a follow-up article that the Democratic presidential candidate has German ancestors. According to the paper, Christian Gutknecht, Obama's grandfather six generations back emigrated with his wife from the Alsatian village of Bischweiler to the U.S. There, he changed his name to Goodknight and died in Germantown, Pennsylvania in 1795.

This is not Obama's only ancestral relation to Germany, reported Die Zeit. Another line dates back to 1616 and the German city of Heilbronn. According to the paper, after Kenian (50 percent) and English (37,7 percent) roots, Obama's German (4,68 percent) roots take third place in his ancestorial make-up.

But then yesterday, Swiss largest paper Blick said not so fast, and headlined an article on Obama's ancestry with the following: "Swiss blood runs through Obama's veins." The paper, refering to an interview by AFP with the archivist of Bischweiler, now Bischwilller, writes that Obama's ancestor Christian Gutknecht was probably a Swiss immigrant who had moved to Eschweiler. According to the archivist, Gutknecht had lived in a street in the Alsatian village that was built especially for Swiss immigrants. Many other Swiss outlets carried the story as well.

So is Obama more Swiss than German? And if so, does it matter? And what would that mean for his foreign policy positions via Germany and Switzerland? As soon as someone tackles these difficult issues, you can read about right here.

Global Media Outlets Focus On Presidential Debates

The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain with its focus on foreign policy and national security is garnering huge international attention. For campaign aficionados anywhere in the world who don't mind getting up early, or staying up late, that is good news because you'll almost certainly can watch the debate live.

Here's a sampling of international media outlets that will carry the proceedings from the campus of the University of Mississippi:
-CNN International
-CNN Espanol
-BBC
-Telemundo
-France 24
-ARD
-ZDF

In addition, the Campaign on Presidential Debates (CPD) and Myspace.com have teamed up to create a special online platform, where users can watch a live stream of the debates, and also interact with each other. You can check it out here.

Palin's Political Speed Dating Versus Obama's Whirlwind Tour

Barack Obama did Europe and the Middle East in a week to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Sarah Palin, in a political speed dating effort, will meet with nine international leaders in less than 30 hours without even leaving the U.S. Both Obama's whirlwind jet-setting tour and Palin's meet-and-greet with foreign leaders, show how serious a qualification international experience is for both campaigns.

Sure, Obama received some great media coverage and photo opportunties from his trip. Sarah Palin will also come out of those meetings with foreign leaders with at least some good shake-hands pictures.

But really, how much better equipped to deal with foreign policy are Obama and Palin after their respected ventures into global affairs? How much more do they know than they did before? Probably not that much. This is not to say that Obama's trip and Palin's New York meetings were in vain.

Let's just take them for what they are - highly choreographed efforts to showcase to voters and the media that the candidate is suited for the world stage. Neither Obama nor Palin are now all of a sudden foreign policy experts.

Wall Street Shock Could Help Obama, If He Seizes His Chance, Say International Media

It doesn't look like the financial turmoil emanating from the U.S. is going away anytime soon. Instead the malaise that was triggered by the housing bubble in the U.S. has spread around the world. Obviously the meltdown on Wall Street will also have an impact on the presidential race. The blame game is already in full swing between Barack Obama and John McCain. Who's fault is the crisis anyway and who is better equipped to lead the world out of it, McCain or Obama, Democrats or Republicans?

And of course it is not just the U.S. media that play referee in the blame game. Global media outlets also have their take on whether McCain or Obama will be hurt by or benefit from the crisis. For an overview of international English-language opinion on the issue, check out the Nieman Watchdog.

There are however some interesting takes on the blame game that are not published in English, so here we go: "Monday, September 14, the day the American markets crashed, should mark a turning point in the election campaign", writes the French daily Liberation (via AFP). McCain in the end supported the plan to save AIG after having rejected it the previous day. McCain basically wants to continue the course of his predecessor, opines Liberation and adds: Government is not a dirty word for Obama. But so far the Democratic candidate couldn't convince voters that he is better suited to fulfill the expectations Americans have, writes the French paper and argues that the financial crisis is the best example for the price that must be paid for Republican laisser-faire policies.

According to Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Obama benefits from the turmoil on Wall Street even though he is no financial expert and his remarks on the situation were rather simplifying. But for a long time Obama has called for stronger oversight over financial markets, a demand that is hard to counter after recent events, writes the paper. Another advantage for Obama is the fact that the economy is now the dominant topic and that - righly or wrongly - voters feel that the Democrats are better equipped to deal with this issue.

The German weekly Die Zeit agrees: "Traditionally Democrats are considered to be the party that is better on economic policy." Until now, however, Obama has not been able to profit from this sentiment. He has not proven that he can emphasize with the worries of the man on the street as Bill Clinton did in his time. One of Obama's problems on the campaign trail has been that he appears intellectual and aloof. While the crisis on Wall Street is eating up the savings of working class, Obama should should lay out his remedy. But exactly on that point he has fallen short so far, opines Die Zeit and sums up: "The political environment favors Obama - but he must seize the opportunity."

Obama Or McCain: Who Is Better For Germany, Canada And Europe?

One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to show how people outside the U.S. think about the presidential election and the candidates. Regular readers of this blog know of course that judging by opinion polls, the whole world clearly wants Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. So, case closed?

Not really. Polls, as every politician and every pollster will attest to, never tell the entire story. They are also not necessarily a good indicator of what is in the interest of the people participating in these surveys, as poll takers and voters don't always act rationally and choose the option that is in their or their country's best interest.

So when a leading German business magazine, a Canadian broadcaster and a Finnish EU parlamentarian asked whether John McCain or Barack Obama is better for Germany, Canada and the EU, we'll tell you about it right here.

Let's start with the German business magazine Capital, which headlines a lengthy piece (in German) on Obama and McCain, "Who is better for Germany?" According to Capital, it is not only Herr Müller or Frau Schmidt who prefer Obama over McCain, but also Germany's business leaders: Two-thirds of them, says a Capital survey, want Obama as the next president because they think the Democratic candidate would be better for Germany.

But they are wrong, conclude the authors of the Capital article. With one possible exception – climate change – a president McCain would be better for Germany on every business-related issue, i.e., free trade, subsidies, currency policy. And even on climate change, Obama is not the clear favorite since his plan for the 'greening' of U.S. automakers will be achieved through subsides for American companies like General Motors and Ford. This, says Capital, will hurt German automakers.

When it comes to free trade, Obama wants to renegotiate current trade agreements. What's more, writes Capital, the Democrats are not particularly fond of foreign companies. "There are repeated efforts to increase our taxes," Capital quotes an unnamed U.S. head of a major German company. "Almost always they are brought on by Democrats."

On foreign policy, Obama is pretty much a blank slate, while McCain knows Europe and is also well known there, argues Capital. McCain is a regular at Munich's Security Conference and his advisor for transatlantic relations, Richard Burt, was ambassador to Germany from 1985 to 1989. However, there is some anxiety in German business circles about McCain's hard-line approach toward Russia. While McCain wants Russia thrown out of the G8, the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce warn against isolating Russia.

In sum, writes Capital, an Obama victory in November would lead to dissappointment, and not only where matters of international business are concerned. Many Germans have not gotten the message that - like McCain - Obama will push for a greater international role for Germany, e.g., more German troops and money for Afghanistan. "Under Obama, there will be more complications in transatlantic relations than many people expect," the magazine quotes Eberhard Sandschneider, Director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Interestingly, an article by Canada's CTV, asks "Who would be the best for Canada: McCain or Obama?" and comes to similar conclusions: "On pocketbook issues, the sensible thing to do would be to hope for a McCain presidency," CTV quotes Greg Anderson, a U.S. foreign policy expert at the University of Alberta. On national security, however, it's a different picture. A dove is better than a hawk, Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto specializing in Canada-U.S. relations told CTV. But in the end, pragmatism reigns. Canadian experts quoted by CTV agree: "You work with whoever's there."

Pragmatic is also a word that comes to mind when reading Anneli Jäätteenmäki's analysis in the Helsinki Times, which also questions which of the two presidential candidates is better for Europe.

Jäätteenmäki, a Finnish Member of the European Parliament for the Centre Party, puts it this way: "What we all must realize is that both candidates recognize that American foreign policy must change. They both want to move away from the unilateralism of the Bush administration towards a more multilateral approach. I believe that this change will be good for both the United States and Europe." In a nutshell: "Either way, Europe is better off."

Where Do Obama And McCain Stand On Russia?

We have parsed and analyzed John McCain's and Barack Obama's reactions and stance vis-à-vis Russia and Georgia here at Across the Pond, while the military conflict between both states was taking place. But more often than not, after the dust settles and other topics make their way onto the agenda, journalists often neglect to follow up with a sober after-the-fact analysis of events. Even we are not blameless in this regard.

But sometimes when the media fail, academia comes to the rescue. In our case, it comes in the form of the Hungarian think tank Budapest Analyses, which has just released (via GMF) its take on the presidential candidates' stances on Russia. Here are a few nuggets from the BA's brief on McCain and Obama:

-John McCain reiterated his tough stance toward Russia, which is even more hard-line than President George W. Bush's.
-John McCain, as president, would carry on with President Bush's 'Democracy Project' where Russia and its neighbors are concerned.
-John McCain is "instinctively prone to shoot from the hip; second, he harbors deep personal enmities against Vladimir Putin; and third, his foreign policy advisers are a mix of Realpolitik practitioners and neo-conservatives."
-John McCain's neo-conservative advisers are pushing him toward a more hawkish stance toward Russia.
-John McCain is a staunch supporter of the planned anti-missile batteries in Poland (and the radar systems in the Czech Republic) and feels that they might be serving as a hedge against potential threats from Russia and China.

-"Barack Obama remained relatively aloof during the conflict and did not go beyond calling for vigorous diplomatic actions to reach a political solution."
-Barack Obama's Hawaiian vacation during the conflict doesn't explain his lackluster response on the issue.
-Barack Obama's only issued "one mildly directly critical comment about Moscow's behavior in the conflict," namely that genuine peacekeeping forces should be deployed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
-Barack Obama's brief statement during the conflict "implied that he did not consider the conflict as so serious a step by Russia that would necessitate a strong American response."
-Barack Obama and his team, in classical Realpolitik fashion, think the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on a host of issues.
-Barack Obama and "his foreign policy team - among others Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Gregory Craig - are skeptical about the wisdom of deploying the anti-missile batteries in Poland; that is, "provoking" the Russians unnecessarily."
-Barack Obama, however, has to convey that he is not "soft" on national security and has tried to position himself in the tradition of FDR and JFK as someone who can "blend foreign policy with moral considerations".
-Barack Obama himself has talked about a new type of leadership so much that "a conventional Realpolitik would be a big disappointment for a lot of his supporters."

To read the detailed analysis click here.

Palin Invites Media and Voters To Grill Her On Foreign Policy Details

In her first town hall meeting with John McCain, Sarah Palin was asked to address her perceived lack of foreign policy experience by giving specifics how she is prepared to deal with global affairs. Instead of providing specifics, Palin offered generalities, as Scott Conroy points out in From the Road. Palin, as any other candidate, is free to answer or not answer any questions. And it is also Palin's prerogative to let McCain speak about her foreign policy credentials in the town hall meeting, and let her spokesman provide details relating to her foreign policy experience at a later date.

That approach, however, won't work long term because it won't satisfy questions voters and the media have about her record. But, as has been reported here and elsewhere, the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin is still ongoing, and perhaps as the Alaska Governor said herself, the goal is not to be ready today, but to be ready come January 20, 2009.

Considering Palin's reluctance to address foreign policy issues at this point, the Republican vice presidential candidate went out on a limb, which she may live to regret, writes Mosheh Oinounou at Fox News Embeds. At the town hall meeting in Michigan, Palin issued the following challenge: "I have that readiness, and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead you can ask me to play stump the candidate if you want to."

What will Palin's dare mean for the campaign? "While Palin's offer of stump the candidate was partially meant in jest, media already eager to trip up the Alaska Governor on her perceived weakness now have even more incentive to — if ever accorded the opportunity to ask questions," writes Oinounou, adding that the last candidate to issue such a dare was Gary Hart. He ultimately lost that challenge.

But even more intriguing is the question why Palin even made such a challenge? It is a challenge that is her's to lose. One must only ask a fairly specific foreign question and pretty much every politician - whether veteran foreign policy official or novice candidate - will fail. What's more, to prove that one can memorize foreign ministers and capitals doesn't necessarily convey foreign policy experience, but rather good memory skills.

In a nutshell: By issuing such a challenge, Palin or any other politician, is in a no-win situation. If she answers a question correctly, it doesnt improve her foreign policy standing. If she makes a gaffe, it confirms her critics' perception that she is clueless on foreign policy. So why did she do it? What do you think?

As Americans Discover Palinmania, Brazilians Give New Meaning To Obamamania

After reporting numerous times about Barack Obama's popularity in Germany, Europe and the world, we here at Across the Pond thought we had Obamamania covered inside out and had pretty much considered that part of the election saga closed. We were wrong. We still managed to ignore reports coming out of Canada that it had been struck by a severe case of Obamamania.

But what is being reported now out of Brazil by the Guardian (via the Drudge Report) redefines the entire concept of admiration and adoration for Barack Obama the world has seen heretofore.

According to the Guardian, at least six Brazilian politicians have renamed themselves after the Democratic candidate hoping to be more attractive for voters. But it doesn't end with the name change. Change is also what one of the Brazilian Obamas, a man formerly know as Claudio Henrique dos Anjos, wants to bring Belford Rexo, a city on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro: "I say the same things. I talk about political renewal, change, about transforming the city."

While people were renaming themselves after Obama in Brazil, a totally different phenomenon is sweeping the U.S., as media outlets as diverse as Marie Claire and ABC News are reporting: Palinmania. For better or worse, so far no name changes to Palin have surfaced by admirers of John McCain's running mate. And so far, as the Daily Telegraph notes, Palinmania has been slow to cross the Atlantic. We'll keep you posted should that change.

Palin's Iraq Trip Clarifications: Intent or Rookie Mistake?

Sarah Palin visited Iraq, but stayed really close to the border for a really brief time. That sums up the most current version given by Palin's team of the Alaska Governor's trip to Iraq.

As Jazz Shaw points out correctly in The Moderate Voice, "it should be noted, once again, that there technically isn’t a lie in here per say. She apparently was inside of both of those countries and I suppose you could consider every square inch of Iraq a 'battle zone' if you parse the language closely enough."

Still, adds Shaw, "Palin is looking like far less of a rube or Washington Outsider than the original billing and much more adept at twisting political tales to the advantage of the campaign without allowing herself to get caught in an actual 'pants on fire' situation."

That assumes that Palin and her team deliberately released misleading information, which is not necessarily the case. It could simply be a rookie mistake by a team that has not operated in this kind of media and political environment before. If that was the case, then they better adapt fast, because after this incident the media will even play closer attention to all the information provided by Palin and her staff.

While Americans Still Mull The Candidates, 22 Countries Have Made Up Their Mind For Obama

Some things never change: Even as the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama in the U.S. is tightening, people across the world stick with their preferred candidate. According to a just released poll, people in 22 countries want Obama to become president, while McCain is not favored in a single country. The poll conducted by Globescan for the BBC included more than 23,000 participants in countries such as Australia, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Kenya, Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey and was carried out in July and August.

"The margin in favor of Senator Obama ranged from 9 percent in India to 82 percent in Kenya, while an average of 49 percent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 percent preferring Senator McCain," ABC News Australia reported.

According to ABC, the countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations were America's NATO allies -- Canada (69 percent), France (62 percent), Germany (61 percent), Britain (54 percent), Italy (64 percent), as well as Australia (62 percent), Kenya (87 percent) and Nigeria (71 percent).

For regular readers of Across the Pond, the world's staunch and consistent support of the Democratic candidate doesn't come as a suprise. We have written about various polls with the same outcome here repeatedly.

What is interesting though is that now that the campaign is really heating up and people in the U.S. and the world are learning more about both candidates - but especially about the relative newcomer Obama - how differently Americans and the rest of the world react to what they see. While Americans, according to most recent polls, haven't really made up their minds on Obama, people across the globe, like what they see and hear from Obama and really want him and not McCain in the White House.

Cool Tool IV: Foreign Policy Election Guide

Want to see how John McCain and Barack Obama stack up on major foreign policy issues? Want to participate in a poll on important topics such as NAFTA, Iran, Darfur and energy independence, and then see which of the two candidates shares your views? Want to compare campaign statements by Obama and McCain on international relations? Or find out which blogs to follow to get the scoop on foreign policy? If you do, then check out the just released election guide 2008 by the Foreign Policy Association. As you have probably guessed by now, I think it is really, really good.

After Obama, McCain and Palin: Now It's Joe Biden's Turn For A Pastor Problem

Ever since Sarah Palin joined Barack Obama and John McCain in the quest for the biggest pastor problem, I have been wondering: Is there some written or unwritten rule that every candidate on a presidential ticket must now bring his or her own pastor issue with them? I can't recall that in previous presidential elections, pastor problems were a campaign staple, but I may be wrong. Are pastor problems part of the vetting process now? And if so, when is Joe Biden's turn? Please enlighten me.

Palin's Problems With Her Pastors And Her Own Remarks

After Barack Obama and John McCain, it's now Sarah Palin's turn to have a pastor problem. And the way it looks right now, for the attention and the flak she's catching for her association with her former pastor Ed Kalnins, she is definitely competing with the trouble Obama faced with his problem pastor Jeremiah Wright earlier this year.

According to the Huffington Post, who reviewed sermons by the pastor, Kalnins "preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

What's more, Palin's current pastor Larry Kroon also doesn't shy away from controversy. He "gave the pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus", reports Ben Smith. Brickner, according to Smith, "described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."

But to make things even worse, it's not just statement's by Palin's former and current pastor that are controversial, remarks by the Alaska Governor herself have also caused a media stir. As the Wall Street Journal and many other outlets report, Governor Palin at the invitation of her former pastor Kalnins "appeared on stage in June before a youth group at Wassila Assembly of God, where she reminisced fondly about getting baptized there, before asking the young people to pray for a proposed natural gas pipeline in Alaska and for American soldiers."

Here's what Palin said: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

A lot of people, especially outside of the U.S., are uncomfortable with the important role that faith plays in American life and how openly and directly many Americans speak about their faith. I am not. As a European, I have always been fascinated by the sheer multitude of beliefs Americans hold and the very deep and personal faith many Americans profess. And I also don't take issue with the fact that many American politicians have strong religious beliefs that guide their lives.

But what I do think is problematic is when religion is invoked to justify or support narrow political interests. And that is exactly what Sarah Palin has done. But what do you think? Is it okay for a Governor to assert that the Iraq war is a task from God and to ask people to pray for a natural-gas pipeline?

Clooney Rakes In $900,000 For Obama In Switzerland

Last night's fundraiser for Barack Obama in Geneva, Switzerland featuring Hollywood star George Clooney was a big success. Despite the steep price of 1,000 dollars for the reception and 10,000 dollars for a seat at Clooney's table, all places were filled, Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger reported. Most of the 170 guests hailed from places like Los Angeles, Prague, London and Zurich, the paper quoted organizer Charles Adams. According to 20 Minuten Online, the 900,000 dollars that Clooney brought in with the event is the highest amount raised for Obama outside the United States. Still no word on the dinner menu.

Clooney Raises Money For Obama In Geneva

Are you an American living in Europe with 10,000 dollars to spare and no dinner plans for tonight? Actually, it helps if you are a fan of George Clooney and support Barack Obama for president. If so, then you should head to Geneva, Switzerland immediately where Clooney will headline a fundraiser for the Democratic presidential candidate tonight.

The event organized by Charles Adams, an American lawyer living in Switzerland, will kick off in Geneva's old town with a reception and continue at Adams' residence with a dinner, Swiss daily Blick reports. For the price tag of 10,000 dollars guests secure a seat at Clooney's table. For a mere 1,000 dollars guests may only listen to Clooney's remarks at the reception. The fundraiser in Geneva is the biggest of its kind outside the United States, Basler Zeitung quoted Adams who said that guests may also get treated with a personal video message by Barack Obama.

So what's for dinner you ask? Something exclusive like foie gras, Adams told Blick, adding that he doesn't really know himself since it is delivered by a catering company. So how can you find out if that coveted seat next to George Clooney is still available? Ask Charles Adams.

Poll Confirms: It's The (Global) Economy, Stupid

A new survey focusing on America's role in the world by the United Nations Foundation UNF (via U.S. Diplomacy Blog) doesn't offer too many new insights into what Americans want their next president to focus on, but rather confirms the dramatic evolvement of issues since the start of the campaign.

Iraq, once the number one issue, now is on par with health care when it comes to ranking the most important topics. Instead, the economy and energy prices now top the list. When asked specifically about the dominant foreign policy issue, unsurprisingly, America's dependence on foreign oil is the clear winner, followed by terrorism and global trade. The survey also finds that an overwhelming majority of participants feel that the U.S. is less respected around the world and that this presents a big problem.

According to the UNF, there is now a new consensus among core Republican voters, core Democratic voters, and swing voters that America's dependence on foreign oil is the key international issue. Other important issues shared by all three constituents are terrorism and global trade. However, when asked whether the U.S. should be more or less active in the world, there are different trendlines. While Democrats and Independents clearly want the U.S. to be less active globally compared to an earlier poll, Republican sentiment on the question remains unchanged.

So how atttuned are Barack Obama and John McCain to voter concerns about the economy and energy prices/dependence? Not much if one takes their recent choices for vice presidential candidates as an indicator. Neither Joe Biden (in contrast to Mark Warner), nor Sarah Palin (in contrast to Mitt Romney) are particularly strong on economic and trade issues. Couple that with the fact that neither Obama nor McCain are well-versed in that area either, voters won't find much economic experience on both tickets.

McCain's Pick Palin Gets Mixed Review From International Media

It's fair to say that most Americans were not familiar with the name Sarah Palin prior to John McCain's decision to pick her as his vice presidential candidate. So it's pretty clear that people around the globe – even politically interested ones who follow the campaign closely – had never heard the name Sarah Palin before Saturday's announcement.

So it's no surprise that many global media outlets (as did many U.S. outlets) headlined their reports about John McCain's running mate similar to how Berlin's Tagesspiegel did, simply asking "Who is Sarah Palin?" And also not surprisingly many news organizations then spent most of their time answering that question for themselves and their audiences by drawing up a basic biographical sketch of the Alaska Governor.

Analysis of what Palin means for McCain, Obama and the world followed only as a third step. Germany's Die Welt argues in an article titled "McCain and his women" that with the selection of Palin, McCain essentially scratched his main argument against Obama - experience. Instead, writes the paper, McCain's goal is to lure Hillary Clinton's 17 million supporters over to the Republican side with the help of Sarah Palin, his wife Cindy and his high profile advisers Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman.

Italy's La Republica (via Handelsblatt) agrees that by putting Palin on the ticket, McCain hopes to steal votes from the Democrats especially from Hillary supporters. "This is McCain's attempt to trump Obama", comments the paper. Dutch daily De Volkskrant (via Handelsblatt) takes a similiar stance and writes that with the surprising choice of Palin, McCain underscored that he is a more dangerous opponent than Democrats may have thought.

Finally, The Australian doesn't mince words: "Palin? For the US, she might be a great vice-president - her reformist agenda is admirable and she has star quality and a fascinating life story. But that's for Americans to debate...Australia, rightly, has no say in the electoral process in the US. We are observers. But this is a poor decision," editorializes the paper and concludes that "as an ally who has fought alongside the US forces in every conflict America has been involved in for the past 100 years, there is reason to be worried. As an ally, we deserved better than this from McCain."

Obama's Acceptance Speech Without An International Flavor

Unlike Bill Clinton's convention address, Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Denver was never intended to focus on foreign policy. And it didn't, as the word count of the speech proves.

While I can understand criticism that Obama's speech didn't really address the topic, I don't think it is justified. Michael Cognato at Real Clear World has got it right: "Senator Obama's speech did not include anything that indicated his approach to me - it was mostly just politics, which is appropriate for a convention speech anyway. I doubt Senator McCain will say much substantive or interesting in his convention speech either."

Addendum: Since many readers are interested in the full transcript of Obama's acceptance speech and other speeches as well, here are some links where to locate them:

For a transcript of Obama's acceptance speech, click here.

For transcripts of all other speeches at the Democratic convention, click here.

For other historical speeches, check out this site.

Bill Clinton Delivers A Big Foreign Policy Speech, Kind Of

Bill Clinton's convention address was billed (pun intended) as a foreign policy speech. Well, it wasn't. If one counts generously, then only 336 words of his of 1626 word speech dealt with foreign policy. The former president first presented a laundry list with the perceived failures of the Bush administration in the foreign policy arena, from unilaterialism to energy dependence and global warming to non-proliferation.

Later in the strongest part of his speech, Clinton contrasted Bush's perceived failures with a prediction of Barack Obama's handling of the same issues: "He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries... He will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort."

The foreign policy part of Clinton's speech climaxed in the sentence: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." But even that sentence, didn't really refer to foreign policy but rather to domestic policy differences between Democrats and Republicans such as health care and the economy. In this sentence, foreign policy is only a deduction of America's domestic policy, not a realm of its own.

So what was Bill Clinton's speech all about then? It was about one thing only: Party unity. After Clinton not long ago had basically insinuated that Obama was not ready to be president, he used his Denver speech to publicly show that he had come around.

One important element of rhetoric is repetition. The former president made heavy use of this element declaring numerous times his newfound conviction that Barack Obama is not only ready to lead, but ready to be president. And since one of the tasks Clinton wrote on Obama's presidential to-do list is to "restore American leadership in the world," the former president's speech in a way was a foreign policy speech after all. Or am I being too generous now?

Obama Rules The German Internet

Who creates the most buzz on the internet? Barack Obama or John McCain?

The answer to this question depends on which side of the pond you are looking from. In the German-speaking internet, Obama dominates the buzz (user statements in blogs, newssites, etc.) by an overwhelming margin, as German business daily Financial Times Deutschland (FTD) reports. With 78.5 percent of the buzz focusing on the Democratic candidate, his Republican rival McCain garnered only 21.5 percent. According to the FTD, the survey was conducted between June 15 and July 26 by market research firm Ethority.

In the English-speaking internet, Obama also lead the buzz, albeit by a much smaller margin. He attracted 54.4 percent of user commentary, while McCain didn't lag too far behind with 45.6 percent of user opinions.

The most discussed topic in both the English and German internet was foreign policy, followed by the economy and the political experience of the candidates.

And finally an interesting info nugget, as reported by the FTD: The tonality, i.e. the overall rating of both candidates on certain issues such as foreign policy, the economy, etc., was negative for McCain and Obama in the German internet. By contrast, the tonality in the English internet was overwhelmingly positive for both candidates. One explanation for this phenomenon offered in the article is the maturity, relevance and size of the English-speaking blogosphere, and the lack thereof in the German-speaking internet. However, one could also explain the different behavior as a reflection of how Germans and Americans perceive politicians and politics in general.

Russia Challenge For Obama And McCain: What Would You Do About The Recognition Of Georgian Rebel Regions?

In a defiant move, Russia has recognized the independence of Georgia's two rebel regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia. After President Dimitri Medvedev signed decrees to that effect, Russia now considers both regions as independent countries.

The decision is a slap in the face for Western leaders who had called on Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and warned Moscow not to take that step. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel just yesterday urged Russia not to recognize the rebel regions. French President and current EU president Nicolas Sarkozy convened a special EU summit to deal with the situation in the Caucasus for September 1.

But it seems that aside from symbolic gestures the West doesn't have a concept or the leverage to seriously influence Russia. Sure, in a show of solidarity and support for Georgia, the U.S. will dispatch Vice President Dick Cheney to the former Soviet republics Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan and has increased its navy presence in the region. And yes, President Bush, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others have stepped up their rhetoric against Russia.

But the EU wouldn't be the EU if it didn't send out mixed messages: On the same day that Russia said it would recognize Georgia's breakaway provinces, the EU Commission stated its support for Russian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). While it is true that Russia won't be phased much (since its main exports oil and gas are in high demand with or without a WTO membership) if its bid to join the WTO were put on hold, it signals that the West is pretty much at a loss at how to deal with Russia.

Since it is unlikely that the Russia question will go away anytime soon, this would be a good time for Barack Obama and John McCain to lay out a comprehensive plan on how the next president and the West should deal with that country. So far both candidates - with McCain taking a tougher stance from the beginning - have sided pretty much with President Bush's stance on the issue: support for the territorial integrity of Georgia and criticism of Russia's behavior.

Now that the West's main principle on the issue - territorial integrity of Georgia - has been violated by Russia, the big question for the foreign policy teams of both campaigns is: What can and should the U.S. and the EU do about it besides sending more surrogates like Cindy McCain to Georgia?

Biden Gets Thumbs Up From European Politicians, International Media Less Enthused

Barack Obama's decision to add Joe Biden to his ticket was received well by European politicians and got a mixed reaction from the international media. German politicos across the spectrum lauded the choice, as did the British politician whose speech the Democratic VP candidate plagiarized earlier.

Global media reactions however were more subdued. While the Times of India welcomed Biden's selection as vice presidential candidate, Germany's Welt am Sonntag (this and all other paper excerpts via dradio.de) argues that Biden could threaten the fragile peace that the Obama campaign made with team Clinton.

Swiss paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung opines that by choosing Biden, Obama has revealed his own weaknesses. According to Serbian daily Politika, Obama, with the selection of Biden, acknowledged the realities of the election campaign. The decision came not one minute to soon, adds the paper, since McCain just started to jump ahead of Obama in the polls.

Finally, Danish paper Berlingske Tidende writes that Obama's decision to nominate Biden - one of his most prominent critics - will not only be used against him by McCain. Obama's decision will also draw cricticism from other Democrats. After all, argues the paper, Biden represents anything but the change that Obama supporters crave for so much.

Biden Helps Obama On Foreign Policy, Hurts Him On Message Of Change

It's official: Barack Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate. The decision, which doesn't come as a huge surprise, was announced by the Obama campaign today.

Obama basically had two options: One, to play it safe and work on his weaknesses. Or two, to raise the ante and play to his strengths as a candidate of change and Washington outsider. Obama chose option one. So what does Biden as Obama's VP choice mean for the campaign?

The upside: With the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as his running mate, Obama shores up his major weakness – his inexperience in foreign relations. Biden is a well-known political quantity that can take on John McCain on any international topic that has already come up during the campaign (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia) or others that may still come up (China, Darfur, Simbabwe). Biden as a veteran senator is well respected in international foreign policy circles. Many global leaders will be relieved to hear that Obama picked Biden. While Obama is still pretty much a blank slate for them, Biden isn't.

The downside: Biden as a veteran senator and Washington insider doesn't represent the main theme of Obama's campaign: change. And while he is a foreign policy heavyweight he originally voted for the Iraq war as did Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama has been constantly hammering both Clinton and McCain for their lack of judgement on this issue. With Biden as his running mate, he won't be able to make that charge anymore. Biden also doesn't really improve Obama's chances of clinching a major state.

The Unknown: How will supporters of Hillary Clinton react to Biden's selection?

HuffPost's Failed Comparison Between Russia And Nazi Germany

Until today I had never heard of Tom D'Antoni. But since he writes for the Huffington Post, the biggest political blog out there, that surely is my fault. Anyway, D'Antoni, in his latest piece for HuffPost, tries to argue that Russia should be the biggest foreign policy issue in this campaign.

This is not a very novel insight after two weeks of hostilities between Georgia and Russia. And it is also debatable whether relations with Russia are more important than the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, how to deal with Iran's nuclear plans, or with the political shift that has taken place in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But to simply write, "a few religious nuts in the mountains of Pakistan don't even come close," as an explanation why Russia is supposed to be more important than all other foreign policy topics swirling around is just not good enough.

D'Antoni also seems to believe that conclusions based on his mindreading abilities and the use of the f-word make a foreign policy article so much more credible. I disagree.

But what irks me, as mentioned on a different occasion, are frivolous Nazi comparisons. D'Antoni, without using the words Nazis or Hitler, compares Russia's push into Georgia with Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland and Russia's recent statements toward Poland to those of the Nazis. That comparison is wrong and ahistorical. There are a plenty of good reasons to critizise Putin and Medvedev. But neither of them is a new Hitler. Comparing them and their actions to Hitler distracts from a serious discussion on how to deal with a resurgent Russia and mitigates the Nazi terror.

And what irks me even more than frivolous Nazi comparisons are frivolous Nazi comparisons where the author doesn't even know how to spell the name of the region he is alluding to. The region annexed by the Nazis was called the Sudetenland not Sudatenland as D'Antoni writes. When making baseless comparisons, it helps to adhere to at least one rule: You can call me whatever you like, but spell my name right.

McCain And Obama Debates Focus On Foreign Policy And Economy

The campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain have agreed on three presidential debates. They will take place at the University of Mississippi on September 26, on October 7 at Belmont University and on October 15 at Hofstra University. Both campaigns proudly proclaimed that it is the earliest time an agreement between the Democratic and the Republican candidates was reached in recent history.

More interesting, however, is the change of focus of the debates. As the Memphis Commercial Appeal reports, Ole Miss officials were surprised to learn that the first and usually most watched debate to be held in Oxford would deal with foreign policy and national security. Previously they had been told that the focus of the debate would be domestic policy for which they had prepared accordingly.

The decision by the campaigns to have McCain and Obama debate foreign policy first is another sign of the ever-increasing significance of the issue as an election topic. The other major topic of this election – the economy – will be discussed in the third and final debate. The second debate won't have a predetermined focus.

Why the McCain team wants to debate foreign policy first is obvious, since this is an area where their candidate is perceived to be strong. Why the Obama camp agreed is more interesting. It does convey the message that Obama feels confident enough to go head-to-head with McCain even on his opponent's favorite topic. And that, in turn, could also be interpreted as another indicator that Obama knows that by then he will have shored up his lacking foreign policy experience with outside help: Joe Biden as his running mate.

Pollster: Biden Not As Appealing To Voters As One Might Think

If the media are correct in their predictions, than Barack Obama will select the candidate with the biggest foreign policy resume as his running mate: Joseph Biden.

With news outlets from the Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Times agreeing that Biden's stock has shot up in recent days, and foreign policy becoming an ever more important topic in the campaign, the British Guardian lays out the case for Biden. Newsweek's The Stumper matches speculation with reporting to conclude that Biden will become Obama's vice presidential candidate. Jonathan Cohn at The Plank, as well as Steve Clemons at The Washington Note, agree that all circumstancial evidence points to the Delaware Senator and also agree that Biden wouldn't be the worst choice Obama could make.

Just for good measure, let's throw a contrarian view into the mix. It comes via Jim Wooten at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "If there’s a politician in America who matches Obama for arrogance, it’s Joe Biden."

But the most useful take on Biden as a potential running mate is provided not by journalists but by a pollster. Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight, to my knowledge, is the only one who has actually tried to figure out how a VP candidate Biden would fare with voters.

According to Silver, the veteran senator's favorable/unfavorable ratings are almost even and his strong unfavorables exceed his strong favorables. On the upside, Biden scores with older people, a group of voters where Obama is weak, and could shore up Pennsylvania for the ticket. Silver's verdict: Biden is not "quite as appealing to the electorate as the conventional wisdom seems to hold."

Role Reversal With A Reason: Obama More Hawkish On Pakistan Than McCain

Match the politician and the sentence: "There can be no safehaven for terrorists who threaten the American people." No, it wasn't President George W. Bush. And it wasn't John McCain either. The sentence stems from Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

It highlights an interesting foreign policy role reversal. On Russia and its conflict with Georgia, McCain took a much more hardline approach than Obama. But when it comes to Pakistan and its role as an American ally in fighting Islamic terrorism, Barack Obama's rhetoric was considerably more hawkish than that of his Republican rival.

To be sure, both presidential candidates welcomed President Pervez Musharraf's decision to step down. And both, Obama and McCain - contrary to the White House - avoided any praise of Musharraf's role as an important ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism. But while McCain didn't say much beyond reiterating the importance of Pakistan, Obama used the opportunity to restate his conviction that instead of Iraq, the U.S. should have focused its fight against terrorism on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In a clear swipe at Musharraf and his inability or unwillingness to fully control Pakistan's security and intelligence, Obama said "U.S. policy must focus on assuring that all elements of Pakistan's government are resolute in shutting down the safe havens for al Qaeda and the Taliban." He added that he had urged earlier "that the U.S. move from a 'Musharraf policy' to a 'Pakistan policy.'"

How to explain Obama's hawkishness and McCain's blandness? As Jason Zengerle points out at The Plank, there is a pattern here. McCain until recently had been quite supportive of Pakistan's autocratic ruler, while Obama had taken a tough stance vis-à-vis Musharraf already earlier.

For the campaign, the resignation of Pakistan's President means three things: One, Obama can claim that on an important foreign policy topic, he, and not McCain, had the right judgement. Two, next to a resurgent Russia, the next president must also deal with a dramatically changed political landscape in Pakistan. Three, in a mere two weeks, foreign policy has reasserted itself as the major campaign issue next to the economy.

Biden's Trip To Georgia Doesn't Effect His VP Chances

Mikhail Saakashvili is receiving lots of visitors these days. From the leaders of Eastern European countries and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to German Chancellor Angela Merkel – Georgia's President is trying to rally support wherever he can. But not only heads of state and foreign minister are travelling to Tbilisi, McCain and Obama have dispatched their men to Georgia too. For team Obama, Senator Joseph Biden spent the weekend there and is expected back in the U.S. today. McCain's emissaries, Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are scheduled to arrive in Georgia shortly.

No word yet what Biden discussed with President Saakashvili, who asked him come to Georgia, or how the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee views the situation on the ground there. Instead, as soon as his trip was announced it immediately became part of the vice presidential picking game equation. Does this increase or decrease his chances to become Obama's running mate?

Probably neither. If Obama wants his VP pick to be a foreign policy heavyweight than Biden is his man. If instead he wants his running mate to represent change, than Biden is out of the picture. Senator Biden's trip to Georgia doesn't serve as an indicator for whether he will be on the ticket with Obama or not. It only indicates what everyone knows: That he is a foreign policy heavyweight.

How Will Clinton Supporters Cope If Obama Doesn't Pick Hillary As Running Mate?

Now that Barack Obama has returned from his trip to a "foreign" vacation destination, suspense is building over who he will choose as his running mate. With the announcement expected before the Democratic convention, speculation is running high. Judging from the media chatter, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tom Kaine appear to be the frontrunners in the vice presidential picking game.

One name seems to have been scratched from the Democratic VP list: Hillary Clinton. Obama's much debated decision to agree to a roll call vote for Clinton at the convention in Denver is one more indicator that she won't get the VP slot. The possibility that Clinton won't be on the presidential ticket has already caused uproar among Democrats – in Sweden. But joke aside, the reaction by the Swedish Democrats raises an important question: How will supporters of Hillary Clinton stomach that their candidate will not be on the presidential ballot in November? Will they and the Clintons be placated by the fact that not only will Clinton get a roll call vote at the convention, but she and Bill will also give speeches there? (Never mind that as Michael Barone contends, because Obama didn't sweep the primaries, he had no choice but to give Hillary ample time at the convention.)

It seems unlikely that some of Clinton's most ardent and influential fans like Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will switch over easily. According to a recent poll almost 20 percent of women who supported Clinton previously now plan to vote for John McCain. Obama can't afford to let those votes slip away, but if he doesn't do the one thing that would assure their votes – putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket – he can't do much more than make some symbolic gestures at the convention. That means it is up to Clinton to bring her supporters on board for Obama. The big question is: Will she do it?

John McCain vs Barack Obama On Foreign Policy

When it comes to analysis of the foreign policy positions of the presidential candidates, there are a number of excellent sites around (e.g., FP's Passport, the German Marshall Fund, CFR's The Candidates and the World ). We here at Across the Pond try to contribute our share as well.

But sometimes, instead of a detailed analysis, a synopsis of where the candidates stand is good enough. And that's exactly what the Arizona Republic did in publishing a great issue-by-issue comparison of McCain's and Obama's foreign policy stances. It's an updated and brief compilation ranging from Afghanistan to Darfur and Russia. Worth checking out.

Should Obama Vacation In A "Foreign" Destination Like Hawaii?

Barack Obama's decision to vacation in Hawaii during the campaign has earned him lots of criticism. Even though I don't agree with it, I can understand that the Republicans try to make an issue out of it. But why some journalists feel that Hawaii is too foreign a destination for Obama to travel to, I can't understand. What would have happened if he had decided to relax in Bora Bora or the Seychelles?

As a European with six weeks of vacation I am biased, but I don't think Obama or anyone else needs to justify taking a week off. For those who feel differently, Andrew Romano has done exactly that very convincingly. With one exception: How can Obama vacation during the Russia-Georgia conflict, ask some critics. My answer: Neither Obama nor McCain is commander-in-chief yet, George W. Bush still is. While it can be expected of both candidates to react to the crisis, at this point there is no reason or need for them to drop everything else and pretend they are president already.

McCain Helped, Obama Hurt By Reactions To Conflict Between Russia and Georgia

While I agree with Tim that the reactions to the Russia-Georgia conflict won't be a dealbreaker for either John McCain or Barack Obama, I think that as things stand now, it has the potential to help McCain and hurt Obama.

First, because on a rational level it re-emphasizes the argument that Obama lacks foreign policy experience through a live international crisis instead of a goofy Obama in Berlin ad. Second, on a more psychological level, in times of crisis people tend to favor experience over change. The McCain campaign will surely frame the Russia-Georgia as a 3 am call situation, asking voters the question who they want to have in the White House when push comes to shove, someone with a foreign policy record or someone without one.

Third, McCain can claim that he was right on the issue. After Obama's initially rather neutral reaction to the conflict, the Democratic candidate felt forced to follow McClean's lead and up his rhetoric against Russia in recent days. This has lead to questions even by Obama supporters whether he is tough enough. Fourth, while the situation in Georgia seems to have stabilized recently, it is by no means solved and will probably linger in the background until November, if it doesn't escalate again. Fifth, Russia's push deep into an American ally's territory put the question of how to deal with a resurgent Russia that may use oil and gas as a weapon on the campaign agenda where it wasn't until now.

Sixth, the Russia-Georgia conflict will raise again the relevance of foreign policy as an election topic and, in turn, help McCain and hurt Obama. Seventh, there are numerous other geopolitical hotspots just waiting to erupt in the former Soviet Union and in other parts of the world as well. Ukraine could be just one of them.

While Putin Is Still President For McCain, Obama Decides To Get Tough On Russia

In what has been described as a 3 am situation - the military conflict between Russia and Georgia - John McCain continues to maintain his hawkish stance toward Russia. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has switched from a more neutral position to a more hardline approach vis-à-vis Russia, since this foreign policy crisis began a few days ago.

McCain, who said he had talked to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili again on Saturday, called Russia's military actions "totally, absolutely unacceptable." The Republican presidential candidate advised President George W. Bush to "talk to the American people and talk to the world."

"I would be very direct with President Putin that these actions will have consequences long term, in terms of our relationship with Russia, and it is in violation of the norms of international conduct," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press in Las Vegas. In a follow-up-story, the AP confirmed that McCain did indeed mistakenly refer to Vladimir Putin as Russia's President. Since the election of his successor Dimitri Medvedev, Putin is the country's Prime Minister.

Barack Obama said he had also talked to Saakashvili and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire," Obama said in a statement, "Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

He also demanded a neutral mediator other than Russia start a negotiation process. Previously, Obama, similiar to the messages coming from the Bush administration, had called on both sides to end the conflict and avoided naming one party as the agressor.

Does the fact that Obama now feels he must join McCain's position in the conflict and step up his rhetoric lend credence to McCain's claim that Obama lacks the requisite experience with foreign policy to be president?

That depends on what really has been taking place in this conflict. But as it looks now, and Russia did indeed react in a disproportionate way, than it will boost McCain's stature as the strong foreign policy candidate. And one can bet that the McCain team will make an ad claiming that their candidate had the the right judgment in handling this 3 am phone call while Obama was vacationing in Hawaii.

But then again, the Obama camp can hit right back saying that whoever answers that 3 am call should be awake enough to know the correct title of the foreign leader who may be on the line.

What Impact Will American Expats Have On The Election?

With the election date nearing, the McCain and Obama campaigns are stepping up their efforts to get Americans living abroad to vote. A few days ago, U.S. expat Gwyneth Paltrow participated in such an effort. Today the Economist offers a good analysis of the American expat community. It is roughly six million strong, diverse, from soldiers to bankers, and is willing to give: There are more donations by American expats than ever before, with Obama leading the pack.

But as the article details, in recent elections very few members of this large expat community actually cast a ballot. Only 5.5 percent of Americans living abroad participated in the 2006 Congressional election.

Unfortunately, the Economist doesn't have a go at the big question, so I'd be interested what you think: Will voter turnout by American expats be higher in 2008 than in past years? And if so, why? Could it even be a decisive factor in a close election?

McCain Hawkish On Russia, Obama In Sync With Bush

I had written a couple of times that Russia is strangely absent as a foreign policy topic in this presidential campaign. Well, now it looks like the question of how to deal with Russia might insert itself with a vengeance after Russian and Georgian military forces have clashed in a dispute over the breakaway republic of South Ossetia.

With Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Georgian President Michail Saakashvili both describing the conflict as a war, a quick resulution of the situation seems more unlikely than a further escalation of events.

Barack Obama and John McCain's reaction to the outbreak of hostilities between Russian and Georgian troops were very different. The Republican candidate squarely sided with Georgia on the issue: "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," John McCain said in a statement. He also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to put pressure on Russia.

His Democratic rival, meanwhile, took a more balanced approach: "Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis," Obama said in a statement.

With his statement, as Jonathan Martin points out accurately, McCain took a tougher stance on Russia than President George W. Bush. The White House's response was basically in line with Obama's demanding respect for Georgia's territorial integrity while urging restraint from all parties.

What's the reason for the different reactions by McCain and Obama? As Martin writes, the McCain camp sees a "commander-in chief opportunity" for their candidate. But, adds Martin, Obama's team also sees an opportunity: To show that McCain is beholden once again to lobbying interests. His foreign policy adviser Randy Scheuneman lobbied for Georgia from 2003 until recently.

Justin Login at the Cato blog has an interesting take on the issue as well. He alludes to Scheuneman's various hats and McCain's relationship with Russia, but thinks that Obama gets Russia totally wrong as well. And he is glad that Germany spoiled Georgia's membership in NATO, something both Obama and McCain favor.

But what do you think? Who has the better argument on the Russia-Georgia conflict McCain or Obama?

Ohio Senators Want McCain And German Government To Lobby For Wilmington

Germany may just become a permanent topic in the 2008 presidential campaign. Barack Obama already paid a visit to the country a few weeks back. And John McCain also has serious business to attend to in Germany, thinks Sherrod Brown. The Senator from Ohio urged the Republican candidate to send his campaign manager overseas to convince the parent company of DHL, Deutsche Post, to keep DHL's air freight hub in Wilmington, Ohio.

"Rick Davis earned hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for DHL," Brown, who supports Barack Obama, said. "Now it's time to see if he and John McCain will use their considerable clout to lobby for Ohio families." Brown was refering to the fact that Davis, now McCain's campaign manager and McCain himself had lobbied Deutsche Post and DHL's effort to buy Airborne Express and its hub in Wilmington in 2003, which was detailed first by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Ohio's Republican Senator George Voinovich called upon the German government for help: "We are going to need some involvement by the German government," he said, adding that the involvement of both McCain and Obama indicated it merited global attention. Voinovich didn't elaborate what the involvement by the German government could look like.

DHL announced in May that it plans to outsource some of its operations to competitor UPS, which would render the Wilmington hub unnecessary. The move threatens 8,000 jobs in the region.

Responding to Brown's criticism, the McCain campaign said DHL's current plans were not foreseeable in 2003 and added that Davis had not lobbied for Bonn-based Deutsche Post since 2005. McCain was scheduled to appear in Wilmington to talk about DHL's plans on Thursday.

Olympic Water Polo To Be Interrupted By McCain And Obama Ads

With the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics approaching fast, John McCain, in a surprising last minute ad buying coup, relegated Barack Obama to second place. The Republican candidate bought six million dollars worth of airtime during the 2008 Games, outspending his Democratic opponent by one million. It is the first time presidential candidates have purchased national network airtime in 12 years. Obama and McCain both had called on President George W. Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics as a reaction to continued Chinese human rights violations.

While the candidates eschew attending the Games, watching them (and the candidates' political ads) is perfectly fine. With his ad coup probably in the works, McCain said so recently: "As a private citizen, I think that the television coverage of it is going to be very excellent."

Also timed with the upcoming Olympics, a new study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (via CFR's The Candidates and the World) finds that Americans generally favor engagement over confrontation with China. However, China's rise as an economic competitor is viewed mostly negative. The study shows that Obama and McCain's positions on China are pretty much in line with the perception most Americans have of the country.

Still Not Enough Foreign Policy in Presidential Campaign, Say Foreign Policy Analysts

The thrust of a Bloomberg story citing many experts about Barack Obama's foreign policy is that, despite his "overseas spectacle," the Democratic candidate's positions on many important global topics are still rather vague. While acknowledging that foreign policy issues play a major role in the current election season (a fact we had written about here at Across the Pond earlier), "questions remain" about the details of Obama's policy toward Afghanistan, Iraq, China and many other countries.

The observation is correct. Questions also remain about specifics of John McCain's policy toward many countries in the world. Questions also remain about specifics of President George W. Bush's policy toward many countries. And questions also remain about Germany's, France's or Britain's foreign policy agenda. Is there ever a point when there are no more questions about a constantly evolving topic such as relations with other countries in a globalized world? And if there were such a point, would it be a good thing if every detail about a policy toward another country was etched in stone?

That is not to deny that many important foreign policy issues don't get enough attention in the campaign. We wrote about the fact that Russia and also Zimbabwe haven't received much attention by the media or the candidates. In the case of Zimbabwe, one could argue that despite its importance as a human rights issue, the country's plight is neither a national security issue nor of direct relevance to American voters. Why a discussion about relations with Russia is largely absent from the campaign, despite a national security nexus and implications for American voters (energy prices), is more perplexing.

Sure, it is understandable that each expert pushes his area of interest. In the Bloomberg article, the Pakistan analyst wants Obama to focus on Pakistan while the East Asian expert presses for policy details for that region. And of course every one else demands to know what exactly Obama and McCain intend to do about the more prominent issues Iraq and Afghanistan. But the candidates have to walk a fine line here. They need to have a global policy plan that is specific enough to reveal a international relations blueprint. Yet it also needs to be broad or vague enough to be adapted to changing circumstances or new information without being branded a flip-flopper come January 20, 2009.

Still, for everyone interested in foreign policy this election campaign is a boon. Even if some questions remain open.

Negligible News III: Gwyneth Paltrow Urges Expats To Vote For Obama

Finally, after Susan Sarandon, Bryan Adams and Ricky Martin, yet another international celebrity is campaigning for a presidential candidate. This time, it's Gwyneth Paltrow who lives in London with her British husband Chris Martin, singer of the band Coldplay. In a video, the American actress calls upon U.S. expats to vote for Barack Obama. The clip was produced by Democrats Abroad (DA), the official Democratic party organization for U.S. citizens residing abroad. According to DA, there are approximately seven million Americans living abroad.

If celebrity endorsements bring out more people to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain, more power to them. But I don't think so. Will anybody who didn't plan to do so anyway vote for Obama because Gwyneth Paltrow or Susan Saradon endorses him? Or will anybody who was previously undecided cast his or her ballot for John McCain because country star John Rich or Sylvester 'Rocky' Stallone tell them to?

I like what former tennis ace Pete Sampras said recently on the issue: "It's not my place to tell you whom to vote for, to take any political stand, to tell you what religion to believe in. I am an athlete. I can influence certain things, but when I see other athletes and celebrities telling you whom to vote for, I actually get a bit offended."

McCain And Obama Both Get Russia Totally Wrong, Experts Charge

A few months back, I wrote about the fact that Russia doesn't really play a role in the U.S. presidential election campaign. Nothing much has changed since then. Interestingly enough, despite soaring energy prices, the question of how to frame future relations with the world's largest gas and second largest oil exporter is pretty much absent from the presidential race.

Probably Paul J. Saunders and Brooke Leonard regret the omission of Russia as a campaign topic as much as anybody else. Why? Because in an article for The National Interest, a foreign policy publication with a realist bent, they argue that both Barack Obama and John McCain have an overly simplistic and unrealistic perception of Russia.

As an example of how Obama is wrong on Russia, Saunders points to the Democratic candidate's take on the tensions between Russia and Georgia. Saunders agrees with Obama that only a political settlement can end the conflicts in the region. But he calls the rest of the Obama campaign's statement on the issue "a confused combination of superficial and misleading analysis with unrealistic goals, framed by tired liberal sloganeering."

Saunders especially takes issue with Obama's characterization of Georgia. According to Saunders, Obama in his statement implies that Georgia is a "helpless victim of someone else's war plans. On the contrary, on several occasions it has been precisely Tbilisi that has threatened armed reintegration of the two territories (and likewise intimidated leaders of another renegade province, Adjara, in 2004)."

Saunders also criticizes Obama for his repetition of "tired liberal calls for the 'international community” to become 'more active.'" He asks: "But what is the 'international community' and why should it be unduly concerned about events in Georgia?" Saunders answers his own question by saying that aside from Georgia's neighbors and possibly the EU, no other countries have a reason to get involved.

Finally Saunders calls Obama's reasoning that Russia can't be a mediator in the conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia because it is part of the problem naive. Saunders points to the Middle East where the U.S. is a mediator and also an ally of one of the parties namely Israel. And by eliminating Russia as a meditator, Saunders asks, "does he think that any settlement could work without Moscow? This weak analysis betrays the senator’s lack of international experience — and poor advice from his foreign-policy team."

Saunders advice for Obama: Temper your hope and your calls for change with a big dose of reality.

John McCain, the perceived foreign policy expert, doesn't fare any better in his knowledge and analysis of Russia according to Saunders's colleague Brooke Leonard. To prove this point, Leonard looks at some recent statements McCain made about Russia.

McCain's most famous remark on Russia is perhaps his threat to throw the country out of the G8. That, writes Leonard, is an idle threat that no other country supports and Russia doesn't take seriously.

Leonard also takes issue with the Republican candidate's statement that Russia is blocking action against Iran in the UN Security Council: "Russia’s record on Iran in the UN Security Council is far more complex than McCain suggests. Moscow has blocked some measures against its longtime partner, but has supported others. The Russians clearly do not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, and have taken a variety of steps to negotiate with the Iranians outside of the Security Council as well."

Finally, Leonard thinks McCain gets the leadership situation in Russia wrong by stating that he is confident that former president Vladimir Putin is still in charge. According to Leonard, most Russia experts agree that some sort of powersharing agreement exists between President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. McCain, however, sounds quite certain that he knows something that even the Russians themselves do not, quipps Leonard.

So what's Leonard's overall assessment of John McCain's expertise on Russia? "His overly simplistic answers seem to show, in the words of the Senator himself, 'a fundamental lack of understanding.'"

While the Saunders and Leonard bash Obama and McCain for what the authors think are unrealistic perceptions of Russia, unfortunately, they don't tell us, which of the two candidates they view as the lesser evil concerning Russia. I guess, they want to leave that up to the readers and voters.

Obama The Realist, McCain The Idealist

A few weeks ago, Fareed Zakaria argued in a Newsweek piece that according to traditional foreign policy classifications Democrat Barack Obama is a cool conservative while Republican John McCain is an exuberant idealist.

Bill Ahlstrom and Theodore Couloumbis take the subject up again in an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer and come to same conclusion: In this campaign, McCain is the idealist, Obama the realist. As models for these categorizations, the authors refer to George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger and George Kennan as typical realists. Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter are considered classical idealists.

What then makes McCain an idealist? Ahlstrom and Couloumbis point to his idealist rhetoric that becomes evident in his proposal for a League of Democracies. His stance on the Iraq war – to finish what was started – is also considered to fit the political mold of an idealist.

What then makes Obama a realist? According to the authors, the Democratic candidate's foreign policy toolbox - consisting of containment, deliberations and a return to multilateralism – is that of a quintesstial realist.

For Ahlstrom and Couloumbis, voters have a clear choice in this election: "We believe that the worldviews of the presumptive presidential candidates do reflect the fundamental idealist-realist split, and suggest the broader outlines of the policies either would follow if elected."

So is Obama a realist in the school of Bush Senior and McCain an idealist in the school of Jimmy Carter? What do you think?

Did Obama Get A Bounce From His European Trip?

At least since Barack Obama appeared in front of an excited crowd of 200,000 in Berlin, there was the question lurking whether his trip would give him a boost in the polls. Two new surveys, one by CNN, the other by Gallup try to answer that question. Both polls show that the race is all but over, but the rest is - as usual - up for interpretation.

While Charlie Cook at the National Journal thinks Obama may have benefited from his trip and may be gaining momentum, Rachel Marsden at Human Events sees a virtual tie in the polls that the Democratic candidate's cheerleading squad just chooses to ignore.

For Andrew Malcolm the new polls even beg the question 'Where did Barack Obama's mojo go' which Todd Beeten tries to answer at Mydd.

Do we at Across the Pond think Obama benefited from his trip? Tim wrote about it long before the current polls were out and his summary is still worth reading.

McCain And The Republicans: Wir Sind Keine Berliner

It is understandable that John McCain isn't too happy about Barack Obama's European trip. It is also understandable that the Berlin leg of Obama's trip was especially hard to stomach for the Republican candidate. After all, his Democratic rival's speech was cheered by a crowd of 200.000 at the Victory Column in the German capital.

But instead of acknowledging a savy campaign ploy from the Obama team when they see one and moving on quickly to other issues the McCain camp seems to think they can get some political mileage out of Obama's Berlin appearance. First, McCain's spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama prefered to speak to "fawning Germans" instead of visiting a U.S. military hospital in Germany. Second, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released a video (via Eve Fairbanks) that was supposed to poke fun of Obama's Berlin trip. The spot shows various young people uttering each a sentence or two about Obama, references to marxism, Che Guevara and, yes, Oprah – all mixed with a techno beat and shots of David Hasselhof.

Tucker Bounds statement is not accurate. Never mind, whether the Germans listening to Obama's speech were actually fawning. (Bounds choice of words has caused quite a stir in the German press.) The fact is, that Obama in Berlin did not just speak to fawning Germans, but to fawning Americans and fawning people from all over the world. Also incorrect is Bounds statement that Obama chose to speak in Berlin instead of visiting the U.S military hospital in Landstuhl. There was no decision whether to visit either Berlin or Landstuhl.

As for the RNC's Berlin video, I guess it is supposed to invoke some sort of Eurotrash revulsion impulse among potential Republican voters. The question is whether a Eurotrash clip on Youtube is the best way to reach culturally conservative voters? By the way, I happen to like the RNC parody. But then I also like Boney M.

Half Of Germans Think A President Obama Would Make World More Peaceful

Let's wrap up Barack Obama's Berlin visit with this: 62 percent of Germans liked the Democratic candidate's appearance at the Victory Column in the German capital and thought he gave a great speech. That's according to a poll conducted for Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag by Emnid. Only 19 percent of Germans didn't like Obama's speech.

The same poll found that 63 percent of Germans think a president Obama would be good for Germany. Only 20 percent think otherwise. And finally: 51 percent of Germans think a president Obama would make the world more peaceful, 40 percent don't think so.

Hard To Believe: Not All Germans Enthused By Obama’s Berlin Speech

As expected and widely reported Barack Obama's Berlin speech was a huge hit in Germany. Most politicians liked it, the media liked it, experts liked it as did most Germans. The chief editor of the German news magazine Der Spiegel's foreign desk was so warmed by Obama's speech that he declared the Democratic candidate already the next president of the U.S.

As I explained yesterday, I was disappointed by Obama's speech. Today, I am somewhat relieved that I am not alone. In an editorial in the German magazine Stern headlined "Barack Kant saves the world", Florian Güssgen writes: "The man is perfect, impeccable, slick. Almost too slick…Obama's speech was often vague, sometimes banal and more reminiscent of John Lennon's feel good song 'Imagine' than of a foreign policy agenda." Still, Güssgen adds, in the end Obama achieves his two goals: "to convince Americans that he will make the Europeans step up to the plate and to convince Europeans that he will end Bush's foreign policy and try to work with his European partners."

Obama's main goal was to avoid mistakes at all costs, writes Julia Bähr in Focus Online. To achive that end his speechwriters stayed clear of all possibly controversial points. This approach was exemplified by Obama's closing words, 'Let's remake the world again'. "Who could possibly be against that", asks Bähr. Some other, mostly smaller, German papers struck a similar tone warning of a possible dissapointment by a President Obama.

Could they and Clive Crook be right in the end? Crook predicts: "How long, one wonders, will Germany stay in love with Obama if he is elected? My guess is not long."

Obama Gives A Speech We All Can Agree With

Sometimes the promise of an event is bigger than the event itself. Barack Obama's speech at Berlin's Victory Column fits into that category. To be sure, the Democratic presidential candidate delivered exactly what he announced: Obama had warned, he wouldn't give a wonkish foreign policy speech. He really didn't. The speech he gave instead is best described by the headline the Drudge Report chose to write about it: love parade.

In his speech the Illinois Senator went through a whole laundry list of international hotspots. From Amman to Iran, from Belfast to Burma, from Darfur to Pakistan. No crisis left behind seemed to be the unspoken motto of the speech. And the solution offered to the various global problems was always the same. If we all work together, overcome our differences of the past we can succeed.

Some would say these are just platitudes. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with an appeal to renewed international cooperation, especially after the Bush presidency, but it is just a tad vague. And for anyone who has listened to any domestic speeches Obama has given the theme is very familiar: Yes, we can.

Again, Obama didn't need to spell out how exactly he would try to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or a detailed plan how he intends to solve the crisis in Darfur. But a little more than 'Let's all be friends' would have been nice.

One issue where Obama was trying to be somewhat specific was Afghanistan. He basically called on Germany - without mentioning it by name - to expand its mission in that country. But even on a topic as important to Obama as Afghanistan, his rhetoric was strangely vague, bordering on sloppy. Obama said: "The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now."

The German government and any other European government that already has troops there can wholeheartedly agree with that sentence and point out that that is exactly what they are doing. If Obama wants more from the European allies, he needs to say it. He needs to say it not just to international leaders, but even more so to international audiences.

But perhaps I am being unfair to Obama. Perhaps in such a highly symbolic location and with the media buzz that surrounded the Berlin event, Obama did the one thing that he could do as an American presidential candidate campaigning abroad: give a well crafted, highly symbolic speech that is largely devoid of any substance.

What Barack Obama Might Say In German To His Berlin Audience

Much has been written about what German sentence Barack Obama might utter during his foreign policy speech at the Victory Column in Berlin on Thursday. So far the clear favorite is "Ich kann zuhören" (I can listen).

Fair enough. Listening skills are important not just for a Democratic presidential candidate. But we here at Across the Pond have a few more suggestions how Obama might impress his German followers. To be taken with a grain of salt, please:

"Ich bin ein Popstar."

"Ich mag George W. Bush genauso wenig wie Ihr."
(I can't stand George W. Bush as much as you guys.)

"Ich wünschte Ihr könntet wählen."
(I wish you could vote.)

"Ich wünschte ich hätte für diese Veranstaltung Eintritt verlangt."
(I wish I would have charged admission for this event.)

Other suggestions what Obama should tell his German audience? Let us know.

The Broadcasting Of Barack Obama

So it's not only the American networks that will make the extra effort to beam Barack Obama's Berlin speech its viewers across the pond. Most major German television networks will do the same for German audiences and adapt their planned programming to televise the Democratic candidate's appearance in Berlin, reports German news agency ddp.

German public broadcaster ARD will show the event live as will Phoenix, a public broadcaster focusing on live political events and documentations similar to C-SPAN in the U.S. Germany's second national public broadcaster, ZDF, has not yet decided whether it will broadcast the speech. News channel N24 will show the speech live in its entirety during a two-hour Obama special and SAT 1 will broadcast its nightly newscast from Brandenburg Gate instead of from its usual Berlin studios, reports ddp. Finally, RTL said it won't go live with the speech, but plans to report from the Victory Column during its evening news show.

How Obama Will Spent His One Day In Berlin

Now that the decision where Barack Obama will speak in Berlin has finally been made, more and more details about his visit have been made public. According to German media reports, the Democratic presidential candidate will stay in Berlin for one day before continuing his whirlwind tour through Europe.

Here's how Obama, according to German press reports, will spend his time in the German capital: He will arrive on Thursday morning at Tegel airport in his new Obama One plane, featuring his campaign logo and slogan. Obama then will meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Chancellory around noon. They will have a photo taken, but not give a joint press conference, since Obama is a candidate and not an official state guest. At 2 pm Obama will meet with Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. According to press reports, he might spend the rest of the afternoon taking what has been described as a private walk through Berlin, visiting places of significance to German-American relations such as Tempelhof Airport, Checkpoint Charlie, the historic Bernauer Straße or the Holocaust Memorial.

Obama's much debated speech at the Victory Column is scheduled for 7 pm and will last up to one hour. Obama will stay at the Berlin Intercontinental Hotel and will head to Paris at 9 pm Friday morning. Until now, no details how Obama will spend the rest of the evening after his speech have been published.

Since Obama's only public speech in Europe at Berlin's Victory Column is a public, free event without much prior notice, Berlin officials are not quite sure how many people to expect. Estimates range from 10,000 to one million. (If the weather is nice, my guess is the number would be closer to one million than to 10,000.) Officials are in a hurry to prepare the area around Großer Stern, which will be open to the public as of 4 pm. Obama was given the second highest security status by German officials, the highest being granted only to the heads of state of the United States, Israel, and Russia.

According to the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel, Obama's campaign team, unsurprisingly, has focused its media attention on the bulk of American journalists traveling with the candidate. Tagesspiegel reported that the Obama team originally showed little interest in working with German journalists wanting to cover the event. Now, the paper writes, a decision which German journalists will be accredited will be made shortly before the speech.

With Obama's evening plans for Berlin apparently still shaping up, maybe he needs some help. What do you think? How should Obama spend his one evening in Germany's capital city?

German Politicians Criticize New Venue For Obama Speech in Berlin

Even after Barack Obama's change of venue for his speech in Berlin from Brandenburg Gate to the Victory Column, the controversy over his choice of location continues. German politicians from both the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) as well as from the opposition Free Democrats (FDP) critized the Obama campaign's decision to hold what was billed as a major foreign policy speech at the Victory Column.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU), after objecting against a speech at Brandenburg Gate earlier, accepted the Victory Column as the venue for the Democratic presidential candidate's speech. She told German public broadcaster ARD, "we now take the venue as it is."

But Andreas Schockenhoff, deputy head of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, told Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag: "The Berlin Victory Column is dedicated to the victory over neighbors, who today are our European friends and allies. To me that is an unfortunate imagery." Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the Free Democrats said in the same paper, that the column was moved to its current location by Adolf Hitler. Brüderle added: "For him (Hitler) it was a symbol of German superiority and victorious wars over Denmark, Austria and France. I ask myself whether Obama was well advised to choose the Victory Column as a venue for a speech about his vision for global cooperation."

Back in the U.S., Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was quoted by Berlin daily Tagesspiegel, saying that the Victory Column was a good choice for Obama's speech and that she sees no problems with campaigning abroad.

So after the Brandenburg Gate gaffe did the Obama team make another mistake in choosing the Victory Column or is the criticism overblown? To be sure, the Victory Column is connected to Prussian history and Adoph Hitler. But so are many other historic monuments suitable for a public event in a city like Berlin. And as I wrote earlier, today the Victory Column is primarly associated with mass events that draw thousands of young people from all over the world like the Love Parade or as the place where Berlin celebrates the annual Christopher Street Day as German online portal Spiegel.de noted. So, as far as I am concerned, the Victory Column is as good a choice one can make in Berlin to give a speech about international relations to a global audience.

But what do you think? How do you feel about Obama speaking at the Victory Column?

Barack Obama Will Speak At Victory Column, Not Brandenburg Gate

Barack Obama will give his much talked about Berlin speech at the city's monumental victory column, not at historic Brandenburg Gate. Berlin dailies Berliner Zeitung and Berliner Morgenpost both report that a stage will be set up at the victory column so that Brandenburg Gate will be visible in the background. According to the Morgenpost, Obama's public appearance at the victory column is scheduled for 7 pm on July 24. Both papers report that the Obama campaign will announce its Berlin plans today in Chicago.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had voiced objections against an Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate, will meet with the Democratic presidential candidate in the chancellory next Thursday morning.

Regardless how one feels about Obama's trip abroad, the victory column is a great choice for a public venue. Of course, there is the highly symbolic name celebrating Prussian victories over Denmark, Austria and France. However, the location of the monument is equally striking. It lies in the center of Berlin's great Tiergarten park surrounded by a circle of boulevards called Großer Stern. The elegance and beauty of this place was captured best in the movie Wings of Desire by German director Wim Wenders. But it also featured prominently in the world's biggest techno event, love parade, while it was still in Berlin. And finally, its German name, Siegessäule, is also the title of Berlin's gay magazine.

Why Obama Gets More Media Coverage Than McCain

Barack Obama's trip to Europe and the Middle East will receive unparalleled media attention for a presidential candidate, as all three major U.S. networks will send their news anchors overseas to cover the presumptive Democratic nominee's trip. This, of course, is a déjà vu moment from Obama's fierce primary contest with Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama getting a free ride by the media?

Let's look at the numbers: Jim Rutenberg reports in the New York Times that since June news shows of the major U.S. television networks have spent 114 minutes covering Obama and 48 minutes covering John McCain. A check of the blog search engine Technorati Thursday night finds that the name Obama is mentioned in roughly 722,000 blog posts with some authority (636,000 in English language posts, 6,400 in German language posts), while the name McCain is mentioned approximately 340,000 times in all blog posts (356,000 in English language, 2,500 in Geman language posts). The gap in blog appearances between Obama and McCain holds when looking at political blogs only through election buzz tracker Wonkosphere. What's true for TV and the internet is also true for magazines, where Obama was on more front page covers than McCain.

So is Obama getting a free ride by a worshipping media as Hot Air and many other blogs claim? Will the networks mention possible negative aspects of his trip in their coverage, as Jim Geraghty asks over at the Campaign Spot?

Difficult and legitimate questions. I haven't done a count, but I would guess that we at Across the Pond have also written more about Obama than McCain. So how to explain that discrepancy? First, by saying that amount of coverage doesn't necessarily translate into positive coverage. (Having said that, I would guess that Obama also leads McCain in a count of positive press coverage.) Second, let's not overestimate the reach of media outlets, especially the networks, who struggle with shrinking audiences.

Still, that doesn't explain the huge discrepancy, which in my opinion is driven by the factors momentum, hard news, soft news and novelty, and yes bias. Through his long tedious battle with Hillary Clinton, Obama gained a momentum that is hard to overcome for John McCain who sat on the sidelines for a long time. Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani experienced the same in the primary. He chose to sit on the sidelines. When he finally decided to enter the stage, the spotlight was and remained on McCain. Giuliani ended up with mostly schadenfreude coverage.

Barack Obama probably dominates the hard news category as well because he is a newcomer, and because he made some newsmaking statements. As a relative political greenhorn, Obama's political statements often simply are more newsworthy because the public doesn't know where he stands on many issues. What's more, he also has voiced some positions that dominated the news cycle for days, e.g. negotiating with leaders of rogue states.

Soft News and Novelty: Obama, as a relatively young, politically inexperienced candidate who a few months ago was almost unknown to the general public, was bound to receive a lot of coverage due to those circumstances. Did I mention that he will be first black candidate of a major American party?

Finally, bias. Yes, some in the media have a bias toward Obama that goes beyond the factors that I outlined above. However, that is also true for some journalists who favor McCain as George W. Bush lamented years ago. Journalists should try to remain neutral, but as we are only human too (yes it's true), sometimes we simply fail.

Did The White House Pressure Germany To Prevent Brandenburg Gate Speech By Obama?

Did the Bush administration pressure the German government to prevent a speech by Barack Obama at historic Brandenburg Gate? This rumor has been floating around for a while now, so here's my quick take on it.

While there has been a lot of speculation about the White House strong-arming the Chancellory, both the German government and the Bush administration have said there wasn't any pressure by the White House. I tend to believe them. First, because aside from a comment by Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt that was disputed later by his office, there is no evidence to prove it. Second, what kind of pressure could an outgoing and highly unpopular American administration put on the German government to not allow an Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate? Cut diplomatic ties to Berlin? Impose trade sanctions? I don't think so. And third, I think the White House has a few more pressing issues (i.e., the U.S. economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran) on the table than a possible Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate.

That is not to say that the Bush administration is necessarily happy about the coverage and treatment the Democratic presidential candidate gets in Germany. And perhaps some American official mentioned this to his German counterpart, which then the media picked up on and that's why we talk about it now.

Obama And Merkel Strike Conciliatory Tone As Speech At Brandenburg Gate Is All But Ruled Out

Barack Obama's Berlin visit was supposed to be a great opportunity for the Democratic presidential candidate to boost his foreign policy credentials, meet German chancellor Angela Merkel, and prove that not every American politician necessarily must be reviled abroad. Instead, the Obama campaign's purported wish to have their candidate give a major foreign speech at historic Brandenburg Gate has not only caused a tiff between German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit and politicians across the politicial spectrum. It has also distracted from Obama's intended goal of proving to the American public that he is interested in global affairs beyond Iraq and can maneuver in the international arena. On the contrary, the row over his possible Brandenburg Gate speech has led to criticism of Obama at home that he has a big ego.

Hopefully, for Barack Obama, the debate over his Berlin trip will end soon. According to German press reports, the German government wants to resolve the issue quickly. A government spokesmen on Monday reiterated again that the German government is working toward a mutually agreeable solution with the Obama campaign, whose representatives are expected in Berlin today. A solution concerning the venue could be finalized by Wednesday, the spokesman said. Refering to a speech at Brandenburg Gate, he added: "Theoretically it is still a possibility. But judging by what we are hearing now, this place possibly does not have the highest priority anymore."

Obama, who is expected in Berlin on July 24, had tried to play down the Brandenburg Gate row over the weekend by telling reporters that "I want to make sure that my message is heard as opposed to creating a controversy. Our goal is just for me to lay out how I think about the next administration's role in rebuilding our transatlantic alliance. And so I don't want the venue to be a distraction," he said. German Chancellor Merkel, who voiced objections against an Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate earlier, tried to strike a conciliatory tone as well by telling Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag that "I look very much look forward to the visit and our conversation...."

So what do we learn from this? Four things. One, Obama, will not give a speech at Brandenburg Gate. In the current political climate in Germany, where the fact that Obama had contributed nothing to German reunification was now being brought up by the head of the CSU, that would have been impossible. According to German media reports, other possible sites are Gendarmenmarkt, Rathaus Schoeneberg or Tempelhof Airport, all places with historic significance in terms of German-American relations. Two, the Obama team did underestimate the possible fallout his Brandenburg Gate plans could cause for a divisive German coalition government in election mode. Three, Germans will cheer Obama whether he speaks at Brandenburg Gate or some other venue. Four, if he delivers a convincing speech on the future of transatlantic relations in Berlin, the Brandenburg Gate mess up will soon be forgotten in the U.S. too. After all, a revitalization effort of the transatlantic alliance is what atlanticists on both sides of the pond have been waiting for quite some time now

Obama's Berlin Visit Sparks Debate Among German Politicians And Irks Bush Administration

Barack Obama's upcoming visit to Berlin has sparked a debate among German politicians whether to grant the Democratic candidate the privilege of speaking at historic Brandenburg Gate. The mayor of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit, supports the idea. Wowereit told the German News Channel N24 that "we would be happy if... Barack Obama would use Berlin as a platform... to send out his messages." Wowereit acknowledged that Brandenburg Gate is of high symbolical value, but added that he doesn't expect any problems with the Chancellory.

Earlier, German news site Spiegel Online and Berlin daily Tagespiegel reported that the Chancellory wasn't so keen for Obama to give a major speech at Brandenburg Gate. Brandenburg Gate is the most famous place in Germany and one that is most deeply rooted in history, an unnamed source in the Chancellory told Spiegel Online. In the past, the place was used only for very special occasions and was reserved for elected presidents, the unnamed source added.

According to the Tagesspiegel, a government source told the paper, while Brandenburg Gate in fact was not only reserved for elected heads of state, it was never used for a campaign event. Spiegel Online had reported previously that the German government was worried that through an Obama campaign speech at Brandenburg Gate, the historic venue could become a preferred campaign stop for other candidates as well. According to the site, the Chancellory emphasized that John McCain would be very welcome in Berlin as well and that no decisions would be made during talks with the Democratic presidential candidate.

While the head of the German Liberal Democratic Party (FDP), Guido Westerwelle, urged officials to let Obama speak at Brandenburg Gate, the head of the German Greens is skeptical about an Obama speech there. "I am not sure whether it is smart by Barack Obama, as an American presidential candidate, to want to speak at Brandenburg Gate," Reinhard Buetikhofer told daily Saarbruecker Zeitung (see my take on a speech there here). Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy came as presidents when they gave their famous speeches, he added. Refering to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Buetikhofer said, "it didn't help him at home to show how popular he is in Europe."

Meanwhile, all the recent attention Obama has been getting in Germany has ruffled some feathers with the Bush administration. "It would be nice if the German government would intensify the contacts with us again and not already look over our shoulders at our successors," Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the German daily Bild. He pointed out that the current administration is still in office until January 20.

72 Percent For Obama, 11 Percent For McCain - In Germany

Just in time for Barack Obama's trip to Germany, a new poll shows (once more) that an overwhelming majority of Germans favor the Democratic presidential candidate over his Republican rival John McCain. A poll conducted on July 3 for the German Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag found that 72 percent of Germans want Obama as the next U.S. president. Only 11 percent hope for a McCain victory in November.

Similiar to U.S. polls, Obama is especially popular among people with a high school degree (86 percent). Interestingly, East Germans (77 percent) favor the Democratic candidate more than Germans in general. A possible explanation for this factoid could be that East Germans on a whole are more inclined to vote for left-of-center candidates than Germans in general.

When asked about their priorities for the next president, the answers given by Germans differ quite dramatically from those usually given by Americans. Almost every third German (34 percent) views the global fight against poverty and hunger as the most important issue for President Bush's sucessor. For 22 percent climate change is the dominant topic. Only 18 percent say staving off a global economic crisis is the most pressing issue. Even less (14 percent and nine percent respectively) perceive the fight against international terrorism and improving relations between the U.S. and Europe as the most important topic.

In American polls, the energy situation (gas prices), the state of the economy and the war in Iraq are usually always ranked as the most important issues, whereas climate change and the fight against poverty don't normally come up as individual topics. If they are perceived as election topics than only in relation to energy costs and the economic situation in the U.S., but not on a global level.

Obama Must Carefully Weigh Possible Public Appearance At Brandenburg Gate

It seems like Barack Obama's trip to Berlin is taking shape. According to Berliner Morgenpost Online, the preparation team for the Democratic candidate's European trip made an inquiry for the last weekend in July for Obama to travel to Berlin.

The internet portal reports that there are deliberations for an Obama appearance at Brandenburg Gate, or a speech at a think tank in Berlin. However, the Secret Service voiced objection's against a public Brandenburg Gate visit that is hard to secure, Morgenpost Online reports. As far as Berlin-based think tanks with a U.S. affiliation are concerned, the American Academy as well as the Aspen Institute Berlin come to mind. Both are located outside of the city along beautiful Wannsee and are thus more easily secured.

While Germans would surely relish a public appearance by Obama at historic Brandenburg Gate, there are not only security reasons that speak against it. While an Obama speech there would definitely invite renewed comparisons with John F. Kennedy's famous Berlin visit ("Ich bin ein Berliner"), it could also backfire.

How would American voters feel if they see televison pictures of the Democratic presidential candidate in front of thousands of enthused Germans? Many would surely be glad that after almost eight years of President George W. Bush his possible successor is not greeted by mass protests but by throngs of fans. On the other hand, for some Americans it might have the contrary effect.

If the Germans (and God forbid maybe even the French too) are enthralled by Obama and greet him like a pop star, that alone could be reason enough for some to vote for John McCain. I am sure the Obama campaign is acutely aware of this phenomenon and will try to tightly manage the public appearances by their candidate.

Obama's goals during this European trip are to bolster his foreign policy credentials and get some photo ops that show he is comfortable with European leaders. Enjoying a bath in a German or French crowd is not necessarily one of them.

Obama Or McCain: Angelina Jolie Still Undecided Who Will Get Her Vote

Unlike her fellow celebrities Susan Sarandon and Bryan Adams as well as Ricky Martin, Angelina Jolie has not decided yet whether she will cast her vote for Barack Obama or John McCain in November. "Everyone thinks that I have made up my mind," she told German daily Frankfurter Rundschau in an interview. "But my decision is still very much open. I have listened very carefully for what Obama and McCain stand for, which is something that every voter should do. I will make my decision only after I know what both candidates plan to do in the areas that are important to me," Jolie added.

One of those areas of interest to the actress, who is also an ambassador for the UN Refugee Agency, is Iraq and the refugee situation in that country. With that in mind, Jolie said it is "not possible right now to simply hand over the reins to the Iraqis and pull out. The U.S. has not only a moral obligation to help the Iraqi refugees, it is also a US national security interest to end this crisis."

In the interview, Jolie critized the Bush administration's "highly questionable foreign policy," but said that was not the reason why she and her family live mostly in France. "French is the second language in our household, so it is good to be there right now," the actress said.

Germans Elated By Obama Visit May Be Surprised By Tough Talk On Afghanistan

Some time ago we wrote about the possibility of Barack Obama traveling to Europe during the campaign. Now it is definite, the Democratic presidential candidate will visit Germany, Britain and France as well as Jordan and Israel this summer. The exact date of the trip has not be disclosed, but according to media reports it could be as early as mid-July.

Unsurprisingly, Germans are elated by Obama's decision to travel to Berlin. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier would be very happy to meet him, a Chancellory spokesman said on Monday. He added that no date had been set yet. The German government's coordinator on U.S. relations, Karsten Voigt, previously even went as far as telling a German paper that the German government would welcome every American presidential candidate, but especially Obama.

While Germans will be more excited to see a candidate Barack Obama for the first time than they were ever to see George W. Bush in his two terms as president, it may come as a surprise to some that a difference in style does not necessarily mean a difference in issues. The prime example of this will be Afghanistan. The Bush administration in the last years repeatedly called for Germany to send troops to fight the Taliban in the more dangerous Southern region of that country. The American demand was rebuffed several times.

It will surely be revisited by Obama during his visit to Berlin and brought up again should he become president. He stated so in other words when announcing his trip: "France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are key anchors of the transatlantic alliance and have contributed to the mission in Afghanistan, and I look forward to discussing how we can strengthen our partnership in the years to come. This will be an important opportunity to have an exchange of views with leaders in these countries about these and other issues that are critical to American national security -- and global security -- in the 21st century."

The theme of burden sharing is not new for Obama. Already in January he said that Europeans couldn't just leave the "dirty work" in Afghanistan to the Americans and the British. As the presumptive Democratic candidate with a good chance of winning the election, his words will have more resonance now then earlier. And just by Obama not being Bush, Germans will have a harder time rejecting his plea.

Possible Obama Presidency A Reason For U.S. And Israel To Speed Up Iran Plans?

The question whether the Bush administration mulls attacking Iran's suspected nuclear weapons sites before a new president is sworn in has been raised for quite some time. There has also been a continuous debate about Israel's ability and willingness to strike targets in Iran, should Tehran continue with its enrichment efforts and the U.S. decide not to persue a "military option."

In the last days, however, the discussion of a possible U.S. or Israeli attack against suspected Iranian nuclear weapons sites has intensified: Israel recently conducted a large military excercise that could be interpreted as training for a military strike against Iran, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and an ardent supporter of military action against Iran, John Bolton, predicted an Israeli attack and Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker that the U.S. has stepped up secret operations inside Iran and its funding of Iranian opposition groups.

So how do Barack Obama and John McCain figure in the equation? So far neither presidential candidate has commented specifically on these latest developments. McCain's position toward Iran is pretty much in line with that of President George W. Bush. Obama, on the other hand, has suggested direct talks with Iran's president, but has toughened his stance toward Iran lately.

Still, an election victory by a more dovish Obama has been mentioned as one reason for the U.S. and Israel to hasten their preparations for a possible strike against Iran. The argument that a prospective Obama victory in November is pressuring the Bush administration and Olmert government to speed up their military plans has been put forward by neoconservatives like John Bolton and William Kristol, but also by Israeli foreign policy experts.

Leaving aside the usefulness of a strike against Iran, I don't think that assessment is correct as far as Israel is concerned. When it comes to Israel's national security - and an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is considered a grave threat to the country's existence - Israel will do whatever it deems necessary to diminish or eliminate that threat. It doesn't matter whether Obama is in office or not. As far as the Bush administration is concerned, however, that rationale might hold more water.

Barack Obama Alienates Europeans By Favoring Dealth Penalty And Right To Bear Arms

While Barack Obama continues to be Europe's favorite presidential candidate, his stated support for the death penalty gave Europeans an important reality check. Obama disagreed with a recent supreme court decision to prohibit the death penalty for child rape. Apparently suprised by the presumed Democratic nominee's hard-line stance toward the death penalty, German politicians unanimously condemned his remarks.

The fact that so many high level German politicians were surprised by his position, speaks to the continued Obama fascination in Europe, but also to a certain lack of insight or naivete about American politics. To win the election, Obama needs to woo independents and moderate conservatives. By demanding the abolition of the death penalty, as suggested by German politicians, he would make liberals happy, but alienate independents and conservatives. The Obama campaign figures since liberals have nowhere else to go in this election anyway, their candidate can only win with his pro-death penalty stance. They are probably right. You can read a good exploration of Obama's political strategy here.

Interestingly enough, another high profile issue for Europeans on which Obama has chosen to take a more hard-line approach didn't get much attention across the pond: gun control. Obama, in response to a supreme court decision, stated that he supports an individual's right to possess guns. Surprisingly his remark didn't trigger the same political outrage in Germany as his statement about the death penalty. Maybe because of Euro 2008.

What is politically interesting is that Obama has arguably switched to the right on two key issues for conservatives in the last week: gun control and the death penalty. Which brings up the old issue of flip-flopping again. Does this make him a flip-flopper or a savy politician? That probably depends on whether Obama can argue his switch convincingly. What do you think?

In Energy Policy Speech Obama Praises Germany, But Leaves Out Important Details

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama praised Germany for the development of its solar power industry and urged the U.S. to follow suit. In a speech outlining his energy policy in Las Vegas he said:

"Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that."

Obama is correct in stating that Germany over a relatively short time has become the world leader in solar, but also in the wind power industry. (You can find a good analysis of Germany's renewable energy policy here.) He is also correct in his assessment that Germany's renewable energy production has skyrocketed and created jobs - by how much depends on which time frame one takes into consideration.

Obama's statement that German companies used technology that was developed using U.S. tax credits is probably also correct, but not all that remarkable in a global business environment. (The MP3 player, for instance, was invented by a German scientist working for a German research instution funded to a large extent by German taxpayers, but cleverly marketed by a company called Apple.) And is also true that the German government provided the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart the renewable energy sector.

What Obama left out, however, was the tool by which the German government collected the money to allocate these investments: the ecological tax or ecotax. The basic premise of the ecotax, which was implemented starting in 1999, is that energy use is taxed. Therefore consumers as well as businesses have an incentive to save energy and use energy efficient products.

As part of the ecotax the gas price in Germany increased 3.07 Euro cents (ca. 5 U.S. cents) per year per liter (0.26 gallons) from 1999 to 2003. Obviously, many Germans were not very happy about paying not only more at the pump but also for energy consumption in general. And even today, the ecotax is a divisive topic in Germany, that had to be taken up by country's highest courts.

So yes, Germany in a pretty short time established a viable renewable energy sector. But it comes at a price. And someone who brands himself as a new kind of politician like Barack Obama should tell people not just the goal, but also name the price. In his speech on energy policy he didn't.

McCain And Obama Should Laud EU For Sanctions Against Iran

The European Union deserves a big round of applause by Barack Obama and John McCain. After the Bush administration thanked the EU for adopting new sanctions on Iran, both presidential candidates should do so as well.

Why? Because over the years the Europeans have been criticized by the U.S. - rightfully in my opinion - for trying to have it both ways on Iran. Europeans have always detested President George W. Bush's saber rattling, but have also not been willing to impose tough economic sanctions as an alternative out of fear it could hurt Europe's trade with Iran.

That has changed. The EU, and Germany in particular, as a traditional trading partner of Iran, have stepped up to the plate recently and done their homework. The latest round of sanctions against Iran's Melli Bank combined with travel restrictions for officials underscores the EU's seriousness on the issue. While McCain and the EU have a different take than Obama on the usefulness of direct talks without preconditions with Iran, both candidates should be appreciative that the EU is participating in the effort to halt Iran's nuclear plans.

McCain Aide Regrets Terrorism Gaffe

We all know there are many things one just doesn't say, even if they are true. That applies to conduct in private life. And it applies to conduct in public life and the political realm.

John McCain's senior advisor Charlie Black violated that basic rule of conduct by telling Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack against the U.S. would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential contender. Black's remark was in bad taste and shouldn't have been made.

We all know as well that sometimes people do say things that they shouldn't have, even if they are true. That, too, applies to private and public life and the political realm. So what does one do, if one said something that shouldn't have been said? Apologize.

And that is exactly what Charlie Black did: "I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," he said.

So Black made a mistake and apologized. Since no one really was hurt, except perhaps John McCain and Charlie Black himself who has been critized for his past lobbying work, it's time to move on.

Just for the record: The Obama and McCain campaigns reacted as expected to Black's remark. And Mark Finkelstein at the conservative media outfit Newsbusters pointed out that former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had made a similiar remark previously. Which is good to know, but doesn't make Black's remark any better.

Immigration Flip-Flop By McCain?

One of the challenges John McCain faces in this campaign is being perceived as a flip-flopper by the electorate. I wrote about this a few days ago. Now McCain is being accused by the Obama campaign of trying to have it both ways on immigration.

It all started with a private meeting McCain held with Hispanic leaders in Chicago on Wednesday. Since the meeting was private, no official transcript of McCain's remarks exists. Between Wednesday and the weekend two different accounts of what the presumptive Republican candidate said to the group of Hispanics have emerged. Rosanna Pulido, who attended the meeting and heads the anti-illegal-immigration group Minuteman Project in Illinois, says that McCain talked about immigration reform before the assembled Hispanic leaders.

"He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another," Pulido told Political Punch's Jake Tapper. "I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus." According to Pulido, McCain's "mantra" at the meeting was comprehensive immigration reform. This would run counter to his promise to focus on border security first before tackling immigration reform. McCain made that promise after his immigration reform proposal failed in Congress. You can find a good analysis of McCain's stance on immigration here.

As mentioned above, Pulido's version is one side of the coin. The other is presented by Rafael Rivadeneira, a vice chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Illinois. "This was not a secret meeting," he told the AP. Rivadeneira added: "There was nothing he said that they wouldn't want people to hear."

While the McCain campaign has been silent on the controversy until now, the Obama team hasn't. Obama's communications director lashed out against McCain, saying he was having a "tortured debate" with himself on the issue.

Whether McCain really is trying to have it both ways on immigration or not doesn't really matter politically. What matters is that if McCain continues to open himself up to charges of flip-flopping like he has been some of them will surely stick over time.

Obama Criticizes McCain For Free Trade Speech In Canada

The second largest country in the world doesn't usually get much press coverage by its smaller southern neighbor - or by many other international media outlets for that matter. But when a U.S. presidential candidate visits Canada during his election campaign, all eyes are briefly on the only constitutional monarchy on American soil.

But to be frank, even then the focus was not really on Canada, the focus was on what John McCain and Barack Obama made out of the McCain's trip to Ottawa. A trip with a special history. Earlier this year a memo by the Canadian government had been leaked that said Barack Obama's opposition to NAFTA was just political posturing and not meant seriously.

So the Republican candidate had travelled to Canada to emphasize his support for free trade and NAFTA and to distance himself from his Democratic rival. In his speech to the Economic Club of Canada, McCain didn't say anything surprising. He pointed out that "cross-border trade has more than doubled since NAFTA came into force." He suggested harmonizing U.S. and Canadian energy policies. And he took a swipe at Barack Obama, by saying that "even now, for all the successes of NAFTA, we have to defend it without equivocation in political debate" and by promising his audience that "if I am elected president, have no doubt that America will honor its international commitments."

So how did Obama respond to McCain's trip and his remarks? Poorly. "It's interesting to me that he chose to talk about trade in Canada instead of in Ohio or Michigan", the Democratic candidate said on Friday, adding that thousands of jobs had been lost in those states during President George W. Bush's tenure.

That is simply not logical. Does talking about trade in Canada exclude doing the same elsewhere? Who said McCain will not talk to voters in Ohio and Michigan about trade? In fact, McCain will have to address trade and NAFTA in detail in those must-win states. It looks like, Obama's reaction to McCain's trip to Canada will be water under the bridge for those skeptical about the Illinois Senator's perceived isolationist economic tendencies.

McCain And The Danger Of Flip-Flopping

John McCain has a problem. He has to play to the Republican base whose support he desperately needs to be viable in November. But at the same time he has to court moderates and independents since conservative votes alone won't win him the election.

Sounds like a tightrope walk? You bet. And if McCain doesn't tread real carefully he might end up like John Kerry, as the FT explains in a brilliant take on the Republican candidate's strategy.

Don't Expect A Reversal Of U.S. Foreign Policy Under Obama, Says Hungarian Think Tank

We all pretty much know what the major countries in Europe and the rest of the world think about Barack Obama and John McCain. We wrote about it here many a time and it was also reported by various other outlets. But how do smaller countries in Europe feel about the election? Are there aspects that are important to them that are neglected because we tend to look only at the big players?

On that note, there is a good piece on Obama and McCain's foreign policy stance from a Hungarian perspective in Budapest Analyses, which is worth checking out anyway if you are interested in other international topics. The bottom line of the article is that both McCain and Obama want to bring back a multilateral approach to U.S. foreign policy. For NATO members this will mean a new push by the U.S. to contribute to global missions.

Both parties, according to Budapest Analyses, are unhappy with the work of existing international organisations, which underscores the fact that continuity in American foreign policy is more of a pattern than discontinuity. Because America's interest remains the same it would be delusional to believe that Obama would bring radical change, writes Budapest Analyses and quotes Josef Joffe.

Therefore the only real foreign policy differences between Obama and McCain are the Democratic candidate's anti-free trade stance and his Republican opponent's tough position on Russia especially on security matters.

China's People's Daily: Don't Believe The Obama Hype

Guess what the Swiss business community and China's Communist Party have in common? That's right, both are skeptical about Barack Obama's "change" platform. I wrote about the Swiss' reasons here.

China's Communist leaders for the first time in this campaign gave some clues on their view of the candidates. Of course they didn't come out themselves and speak their mind. Instead they let the government's main newspaper do it for them. In the English language overseas edition of the People's Daily, senior desk editor Ding Gang analyses the "Obama phenomenon in (the) U.S.".

But while both Reuters and AFP interpret Gang's article as a clear rebuke of Obama, I am not so sure that it really is meant as one. What I gather from the article, which is at times difficult to understand, is that Obama will not be able to deliver all the things he has promised during the campaign and that his presidency would not end America's racial problems.

Let's review the article then. According to Gang, the Democratic Senator's skin color and his change rhetoric are the dominant aspects of his candidacy. They are also the reason why Western media outlets are fascinated by Obama.

So let's look at the skin color argument, as presented by the People's Daily. He is "the representative of the racial merging rather than a symbol for assimilation. So his rise has not done away with privileges for the white Americans but reinforces their privileges on the contrary", writes Gang in a sentence that I don't understand.

Never mind what Gang means by the privileges he is writing about. But how does Obama's multi-ethnic background reinforce those privileges?

Also, according to Gang, Obama, has a "different skin color (than whites do), but shares the same American background". Then a few lines later, Gang asserts that Obama because of his skin color "needs all the more to display his American values than any white presidential candidates." That doesn't make sense. First, to even emphasize that someone whose skin color is not white can also share an American background is very revealing about the author's thinking. And second, if Obama shares the same American background then why does he need to display his American values more than any white presidential candidate? Are American values not automatically part of an American background?

Now let's look at the second major factor, as seen by People's Daily: change. "In the case of (the) Iraq war, Obama is quite determined and resolute with his attitude against the war", writes Gang. He adds that it is very hard to believe that Obama's approach to simply bring the troops home as soon as possible is feasible because the issue is too complex for such a move. "And similar or identical issues also exist in such fields as economy, social security and education."

Most experts agree that a rapid withdrawal of American troops regardless of the situation would be counterproductive. It seems pretty obvious that Obama is aware of this and would not pull out all troops immediately. As to the other fields mentioned by the People's Daily - economy, social security, education - Obama hasn't really made revolutionary promises.

To sum it all up: Will a President Obama deliver everything he said and turn the country upside down? Probably not. But most people with experience in democratic election campaigns inside and outside the U.S. are aware of this. Perhaps for some people the mere fact that a person with a multi-ethnic background can become president of the U.S. is already change enough.

Obama Angst In Switzerland

If the world could vote Barack Obama would be the next U.S. president. There are however still some international holdouts. Switzerland, or the Swiss business community to be exact, is one of them. "McCain is for free trade and a free market economy and against protectionism and government interventions," Martin Naville, CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, told the Swiss business publication Cash.

While Swiss companies had nothing to fear from a President John McCain, a leftist President Obama might hurt the Swiss economy in several ways, writes Cash. Swiss pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and Roche would face lower margins in their most important market due to Obama's plan to lower drug prices through imports from other countries. Swiss banks and their booming wealth management sector would suffer from Obama's goal to restrict the exodus of capital to low tax countries like Switzerland. And finally, according to Cash, Obama is skeptical about globalization and has vowed to curb outsourcing, which would also affect Swiss suppliers.

But will Obama as president really be as radical as he was during his campaign, asks Cash. "He has talked so much about 'change' that he can't really wiggle his way out of it," answers the CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, Martin Naville. "After the Bush era it might very well be that the pendulum now swings back to the opposite side."

Ron Paul Ends His Campaign And Makes Global Headlines

It happened already two days ago, but you know that we can't let a good story just zip by us. On Thursday night, more than three months after John McCain effectively sealed the Republican nomination, Ron Paul ended his presidential bid. And while Paul never stood the slightest chance of becoming the nominee, let alone president, the news of his decision reverberated around the globe. From MTV in the U.S. to Le Figaro in France, from Scotland's Herald to Germany's Focus Online to China's Xinhua – never have so many outlets reported news about a candidate without a chance.

Of course, for regular Across the Pond readers Ron Paul's international newsworthiness doesn't come as a surprise. I wrote - and wondered - about the maverick Republican's global appeal earlier. And quite frankly, I am still perplexed by it today. But I am also happy that Ron Paul stuck to his spiel and left with a bang that won't rock the world, but serves as a nice closer for his campaign: The Republican candidate announced that he would support not his party's candidate John McCain, but instead campaign for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.

However, this may not be the last word regarding Ron Paul's support for a presidential candidate. That's because another maverick contender out there has also reached out for Paul fans: Ralph Nader. The former Green party and now independent candidate is always good for a surprise or two himself.

McCain attacks Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo

On certain issues there is a clear difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. The legal status of foreign terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, also called unlawful combatants, is one of them. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied foreign terrorism suspects access to courts, unconstitutional.

That same day the presumed Republican nominee, McCain, was still carefully mincing his words. He stated, that he had not read the ruling yet, but the decision concerned him. He added, however, that it was time to move on. That sounded like the end of the story.

Not quite. On Friday, McCain had apparently decided it wasn't time to move on too quickly after all. "I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," he blasted. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."

Tim wrote about the ramifications of McCain and Obama’s position for various voter groups yesterday and pointed out that McCain has been carefully trying to distance himself from President Bush while at the same time agreeing with certain positions held by Bush. Obama on the other hand, has been trying to portray McCain's Guantanamo stance as a mere extension of Bush’s Guantanamo policy.

With his statement today McCain made not only clear where he stands on the issue, but also made it so much easier for Obama to link his Republican opponent to President Bush.

Gaddafi goes from insult to conspiracy theory against Obama

Haven't heard from Col Muammar Gaddafi in a while? Yep, it's true, since the Libyan leader morphed from strongman of a rogue state to partner of the West, he has managed to tone down his rhetoric. But now Gaddafi is back. In a speech in Tripoli he not only attacked, but insulted Barack Obama. Referring to Obama's speech earlier this month at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which the Democratic presidential candidate stated his support for Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, Gaddafi said Obama was either ignorant of Middle East politics or lying to further his campaign.

Gaddafi elaborated in his speech marking the 38th anniversary of the departure of U.S. troops from Libya: "We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites." And just for good measure, Libya's military leader threw a bit of conspiracy theory in the mix. "We suspect he may fear being killed by Israeli agents and meet the same fate as (assassinated former U.S. President John Fitzgerald) Kennedy when he promised to look into Israel's nuclear program," Gaddafi speculated about the reasons for Obama's pro-Israel stance.

What does this tell us? First, that an old hand like Gaddafi, once called a "mad dog" by President Ronald Reagan, doesn't learn new tricks. And second, it might make Barack Obama rethink the usefulness of his approach to talk to leaders of rogue states unconditionally.

Repeat Of 2000 With Obama And McCain?

Very interesting analysis by Stuart Rothenberg regarding the Obama/McCain electoral map. According to Rothenberg there exists a "serious possibility" of a repeat of the situation in 2000. One candidate could win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To find out where Barack Obama and John McCain end up in this scenario click here.

McCain's New Blog Tries To Take A Stab At Obama, ABBA – And McCain

Just in time for the campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama to start in earnest, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has kicked off a new blog. Called The McCain Report, the first entry was posted yesterday by Michael Goldfarb, formerly of The Weekly Standard. The new blog is apparently an addition to McCain's already existing blog. The official goal of the McCain Report is to give journalists and bloggers more insight into the campaign and "to provide quotes and information you won't be able to get anywhere else." Another, unstated goal of the blog, appears to be to poke fun at Obama and to mellow McCain's image as an old Cold Warrior with a history of getting angry.

The subtitle of the McCain Report, "A blog you can believe in", is obviously a spoof on the Obama theme "Change you can believe in" - albeit one that's not exactly knee-slapping funny. The other goal, mellowing McCain's image, is tackled by displaying a picture of McCain from 2004 that shows the Arizona senator clad in t-shirt and baseball hat holding an alligator. And, by revealing that McCain is an ABBA fan, Hillary-leaning readers are invited to "Take a chance on McCain". Also not exactly hilarious (pun intended), but you shouldn't judge a blog by its first posts, so let's wait and see.

Interestingly, and contrary to popular belief, McCain has been very active in reaching out to the internet community. Obama, of course, has been regarded as a master of utilizing the internet to pull in money and connect with voters. But John McCain, at least as outreach is concerned, doesn't lag far behind, and may even be on par with Obama. For details about McCain's internet strategy, check out this piece from The Nation.

Obama, of course has had a blog - the Obama blog - on his site for quite some time. Unlike McCain's new blog, it is a pretty straightforward campaign tool with lots of excerpts from Obama's speeches and quotes by campaign managers. No effort to be humorous or reshape Obama's image. What's good about the Obama blog is its interactivity through readers comments and its savy use of the internet with videos, pictures and social networking sites. Overall, the Obama blog has a sleaker, hipper feel to it than the McCain Report. However, should the McCain Report over time become a tongue-in-cheek campaign chronicle that doesn't take both Obama and McCain too serious, it could fill a niche. And win McCain some sympathy points as well.

Americans Support Barack Obama's Stance On Iran, Or Do They?

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a new Gallup poll that said a majority of Americans think Barack Obama's idea to talk to hostile leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, makes sense. According to the poll, even half of the Republicans questioned felt that way. These figures were a slap in the face for John McCain who has attacked Obama constantly on this issue. That's what I wrote then, because that's how it looked then.

Now, three days and two polls later, the picture of how Americans feel about talking to Iran looks different. A new survey by Public Agenda finds that 47 percent of Americans think using diplomacy is the best way to deal with the current situation in Iran, while only seven percent feel military action is the best way to handle Iran. This seems to confirm the findings of the Gallup poll, but only at first glance.

The Public Agenda study, which didn't receive much press coverage (Democracy Arsenal, Think Progress, and the Iranian outlet Press TV, being one of a few who reported it), is part of a larger, multi-year study called the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. The survey was conducted from mid-March to the beginning of April and therefore long before the Iran debate between McCain and Obama started to really heat up. What's more, due to the nature of the Public Agenda study, the questions are more general: Probably most people would agree that diplomacy is the best idea to try to deal with the current situation in Iran. But as we have learned, what one means by diplomacy is very much up for interpretation. In a nutshell: The Public Agenda poll is not a valid indicator as to whether Americans support Obama's Iran policy or not.

The latest Rasmussen poll is. According to the survey, conducted on June 3, most likely voters (45 percent) agree with Obama and think it is a good idea for the U.S. president to meet with his Iranian counterpart. However, when asked whether Iran should be required to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities, 59 percent answer with yes. When asked who would do a better job negotiating with the Iranian president, McCain and Obama fare the same, each receiving 42 percent of the vote. The Rasmussen Poll was also not widely reported, CQ's Polltracker being one the few to do so. (Iran's Press TV didn't mention the Rasmussen poll.)

So what do the results of both polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, mean for Obama and McCain's position on Iran? Americans want a middle of the road approach. Most people favor negotiating with hostile leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but not under any circumstances. Their message for McCain and Obama is: Let's try something new and talk to Iran's president, but only if Iran shows some goodwill as well.

High Hopes And A Dose Of Pessimism For Obama In Africa

Worldwide reactions to Barack Obama securing the Democratic nominiation for president against his tenacious rival Hillary Clinton were overwhelmingly positive, sometimes bordering on hysteria. We wrote about international perceptions of Obama many times in this blog. But it is fair to say that all the enthusiasm about Obama's win in the U.S or Europe pales in comparison to how Africans feel about this historic event.

Kenya, Obama's father's native country, obviously leads the continent in elation about the Senator from Illinois' nomination. Mukau Mutua in The Daily Nation calls it an understatement that Kenyans are ecstatic about the possibility that Obama "a Kenyan-American of Luo extraction" might become president. "Judging by word on the street, one would be forgiven for thinking that Mr Obama was poised to become either the president of Kenya, or of Africa. There are many reasons for the hysteria, but the immediate one is national, racial, and ethnic pride that a black man can become 'king' of the empire."

Ugandans, too, are excited about Obama's victory, and optimistic that he can defeat Republican John McCain in the general election in November, writes Uganda's New Vision. According to the paper, Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa described Obama's win as historic because a black man was for first time contesting for the U.S. presidency on the ticket of a main party.

Ray Hartley comments in his blog The Wild Frontier for the South African Times that Obama's ascendency "has raised the hope that the US will finally assume its role as a responsible super power that will extract itself from the conflict in Iraq." For Hartley, Obama's win "signals the long overdue deracialization of American politics. Should he become president, it will go a long way towards removing racial loyalty from politics."

How important the Obama nomination is to Africans becomes clear when Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade calls it "a revolution". "I think the fact that whites can choose a black candidate to represent them in presidential election is a good thing," Wade was quoted as telling reporters, adding that "this is akin to a revolution of attitudes in the United States." But what underscores the relevance of Africa's feelings about Obama even more is the fact that the Chinese news agency Xinhua published this story refering to a report by the Senegalese News Agency.

While Africans are generally enthusiastic about Obama and his prospects, there is also scepticism whether Obama can fulfill high African hopes. Makau Mutua writes in Kenya's The Nation that "the United States has had a structurally racist and exploitative relationship with Africa." Mutua continues: "It is partly because of these traumas that Africa is so underdeveloped and marginalised in global politics. That is why to America, Africa has either been an afterthought or an object of pity and charity. It would require an ideological shift by the U.S. to change its relationship with Africa to base it on equality, fair trade and investment, and a voice for Africans in global institutions."

According to Mukau, this cannot be done by the president alone because it requires a realignment of U.S. foreign policy away from what he calls Eurocentrism. I think Mukau makes an interesting point about Africa-U.S. relations.

Where I and probably many Europeans and Americans disagree is that American foreign policy still is Eurocentric. In recent years, the U.S. has refocused its foreign policy away from Europe (military, diplomatic, economic). This has been much maligned here. However, the benefactor of this realignment was not Africa, but Asia.

Eight Reasons Why Clinton Lost And Obama's Soft Spots

International reactions to Barack Obama's victory and Hillary Clinton's defeat are pretty much as expected. Most commentators are not surprised and glad the Democrats finally have their candidate. You can find an overview of global reactions here and here.

Let's look at two more interesting takes on the end of the Democratic campaign:

In an editorial titled "The Weaknesses of Barack Obama," Austria's Die Presse argues that John McCain stands a good chance of becoming President because for many Americans Obama is "too liberal, too black and too aloof." Obama's pros are his drive, his refreshingly positive style – and McCain's age, adds the paper. But Obama's long campaign against Clinton has revealed weaknesses. "The black darling of the educated elite has considerable difficulties with white workers and in large states, which were all won by Clinton. Should McCain manage to hold on to Florida and Ohio, and win Pennsylvania, than the Democrats have a real problem on the 4th of November."

Torsten Krauel, Washington correspondent for the German daily Die Welt, lists eight reasons why Clinton lost against Obama: 1. Clinton focused on the large states and neglected the small ones. 2. Clinton neglected important new donors in Silicon Valley and instead relied on her old Hollywood connections. 3. Clinton's election campaign was still from the 20th century while Obama's was from the 21st and harnessed the power of the internet. 4. Bill Clinton's vicious comments that often had a racial undertone. 5. Lack of Brutality: When the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced Clinton could have played them constantly in her campaign and seriously damaged Obama's chances. She chose not to for fear of dividing the party. 6. She hesitated to distance herself clearly and convincingly from her vote for the war in Iraq. 7. Proportional representation hurt Clinton. In this campaign there was only one chance to build a lead among delegates: Super Tuesday. Had it not been for proportional representation, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee on February 6th. 8. Race beats gender: Clinton thought women's rights were the core question for liberals. She was wrong. The race issue was.

What is your explanation of Clinton's defeat and Obama's win? What are Obama's weaknesses in the race against John McCain?

President Obama Bound To Disappoint Europeans

It looks like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will make the world outside the U.S. happy tonight. Obama by becoming the official Democratic nominee for the presidential election in November, Clinton by finally deciding to end her campaign and by her willingness to be Obama's vice president.

Lots has been written about the world's infatuation with Obama, here and elsewhere. With Obama's candidacy assured, however, how he is perceived by an international audience and what is expected of him becomes more important. No more fantasy football. Now it's the big leagues.

A lucid analysis of Obama's international role and its possible problems offers Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund of the United States: Entitled The Dalai Obama, Stelzenmüller writes that Germans' high hopes for an Obama victory are not unfounded, but they may still be dissappointed.

First, because John McCain is a veritable opponent. Second, because no one knows whether racial prejudices will play a role on November 4 or not. And third: Should there be a deterioriting financial situation or a downturn of events in Iraq, Americans are more likely to vote for someone who stands for security than for someone promising change.

Even if Obama defeats McCain and becomes President, the end of the euphoria is foreseeable writes Stelzenmüller. "Obama will call on the help of Germany and the rest of Europe to combat authoritarian regimes worldwide. Iran, NATO in Afghanistan, engagement on Europe's borders, diplomacy in the Middle East, and perhaps stabilization assistance in Iraq. As an idealist, Obama hopes his appeal to Europe's sense of responsibility, but if that fails, he must continue as a realist - without Europe."

That sounds about right. What many people in Gemany and Europe who hope for a Democrat in the White House don't realize is that a President Obama can and will ask for so much more of Europe than President Bush ever could or John McCain will or can.

Americans Support Obama's Approach To Talk With Iran And Other Enemies

Food for thought for John McCain. According to a new Gallup poll, 67 percent of Americans think it's a good idea that the U.S. President meets with leaders of countries the United States considers enemies. This sentiment is so strong it even holds when asked specifically about Iran, the nation that is perceived to be the country's biggest enemy. When asked whether it would be a good idea for the U.S. President to meet with his Iranian counterpart 59 percent answer with yes. Interestingly, not only most Democrats and Independents agree with the idea, but also almost 50 percent of Republicans.

What did McCain do the same day the poll was released? He blasted Barack Obama again for his earlier suggestion (which Obama had altered recently) that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), McCain portrayed Obama as a candidate inexperienced in foreign policy and out of touch with the situtation in the Middle East: "We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before," the presumed Republican nominee said without mentioning his Democratic rival by name.

McCain's problem is that most Americans apparently don't care whether the idea is old, bold or new. They simply think it's a good one. They say let's give it a shot and talk to the president of Iran and other hostile leaders. And by supporting that idea, they also clearly support Obama, who brought it up in the first place.

The poll is great news for Obama in an area where he really needs it – foreign policy. It shows that large numbers of Americans are willing to consider a different foreign policy approach in dealing with rogue states. It also shows that at least on this important issue McCain's finger pointing at Obama is simply not good enough. If McCain wants to keep the status quo, he has to convince people of his reasons. He hasn't been able to do that yet. Just calling Obama and his ideas naive won't do the trick.

Negligible News Day II: Ricky Martin Says Si To Hillary Clinton

Remember Ricky Martin? Yep, the crooner who is responsible for the tune Livin La Vida Loca, which we all had to listen to for what felt like an eternity after the hit was released in 1999. Well, Martin, a Puerto Rican, now has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton ahead of the Democratic primary in Puerto Rico on Sunday.

"These elections will have historic repercussions both in the United States and the world. Senator Clinton has always been consistent in her commitment with the needs of the Latino community," Martin said in a statement released by the Clinton campaign. The former First Lady stated in a press release she feels "honored to have Ricky Martin's support. He is a very important voice in the Latino community and together we will work to improve the lives of families and children across the country."

In the 2001 presidential campaign, Martin had supported then Governor George W. Bush. The duo apparently hit it off so well that Martin performed at a pre-inaugural celebration for Bush.

A later falling out was triggered apparently by the Iraq war, which Martin opposed.

Now Martin is backing Hillary Clinton, who, by the way, in 2001 also backed the Iraq war. So maybe the war isn't the only reason Martin is supporting Clinton instead of Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the get-go. What are Ricky Martin's reasons then beyond Hillary Clinton's "committment" to Latinos? Hard to say, and also not that important. Clinton was already projected to win big in Puerto Rico prior to Ricky Martin's endorsement.

So what does all this signify? Nothing really. Just another piece of Negligible News.

Negligible News Day: Susan Sarandon And Bryan Adams Back Barack Obama

There are days when it's good enough to just kick back. Today is one of those days. Forget about Iran, Iraq, kooky pastors and controversial foreign leaders. Forget about Hillary Clinton's remarks, Barack Obama's gaffes and John McCain's bladder stones. Just for now. Relax and read.

Actress Susan Sarandon might relocate to Italy, Canada or somewhere else should John McCain become president. "If McCain gets in, it's going to be very, very dangerous," Saradon, who supports Barack Obama, told the Irish Independent. "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I'll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss." No word if husband Tim Robbins would also leave the U.S. By the way, Sarandon's new movie Speed Racer is now playing in theaters.

Canadian Rocker Bryan Adams didn't mention any moving plans should McCain win, but he also hopes for an Obama election victory. "I hope Obama will win," Adams said in Berlin, where his photo exhibition, Hear the world, is being shown. "Everything is better than what we have now", he added according to German news agency dpa.

What does all this signify? Nothing really. Just a piece of Negligible News.

Obama Thrashes McCain In European Election Poll

Nothing has changed. Europeans continue to be enamored with Barack Obama. According to a new poll conducted for the Internet portal of Britain's Daily Telegraph, Obama would score a blow-out victory against John McCain if voters in Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia could elect the next American president. The presumptive Democratic candiate received 52 percent of the vote across those five countries. McCain, his Republican rival in waiting, fetched only 15 percent.

Obama is most popular in Italy with 70 percent and Germany with 67 percent of the vote, respectively. Only in Russia is the race even remotely close. Here, Obama registers the least amount of support with just 31 percent of the vote compared with 24 for McCain. In Germany (six percent) and in France (eight percent), McCain doesn't even make it out of the single digits.

When asked who they think is better prepared to lead the global economy out of the current crisis, the winner is also Obama. Only in Russia do more people believe McCain (36 percent) would handle the current economic turmoil better than Obama (28 percent).

Among the five European nations polled, Italians are the most pro-American. Almost half of the Italians (49 percent) consider the U.S. a force for good in the world. In all other countries, the majority of those asked perceive the U.S. as a force for evil. In Russia, a whopping 56 percent of those polled feel that way.

So what do we glean from this poll? First, that the Obama swoon in Europe may be over with some in the media and policy wonks, but definitely not with the general public. Secondly, that anti-American sentiment is alive and well. And thirdly, that Hillary Clinton has been counted out of the campaign by Europeans. Clinton's name wasn't even mentioned in the poll.

Foreign Policy Blunders By Obama Help McCain

John McCain appears to be convinced that he can win the election against Barack Obama largely based on his foreign policy experience. It seems as though McCain thinks he owns the issue. I wrote about his sharp attack and his offer to tutor Obama on Iraq yesterday. But it's not just Iraq, McCain and the Republicans claim that Barack Obama simply lacks the experience to deal with international relations in general or with Iran, Russia, or North Korea in particular.

Obama, to be honest, doesn't possess a foreign policy or military background. Neither did George W. Bush and Bill Clinton prior to taking office. But because of his lack of international experience, Obama has to be especially careful on this topic. With his engagement-not-isolation proposal, he has laid out a vision to deal with unsavory regimes, which despite being criticized by McCain and the Republicans, promised a clear break with the past and could be perceived as cogent and sensible by the average voter.

Now a couple of botched remarks by Obama could be interpreted as a confirmation of McCain's claim of inexperience on the part the presumed Democratic candidate. First, Obama misspoke about his uncle's role in World War II. The Illinois Senator said in a Memorial Day speech that his uncle had participated in the liberation of Auschwitz. After a quick intervention by the Republican Party, the Obama campaign corrected the statement by saying that he had meant Buchenwald and not Auschwitz. While it probably was merely a mix-up, it is problematic for Obama. Since he has no military background, he was trying to become part of a one by familial extension. It backfired. Instead of his family's service in the war, his verbal blunder made the news.

Even more dangerous for Obama and his goal to be viable against John McCain was his remark about negotiating with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So far, Obama's position was that he was willing to meet with Ahmadinejad. That changed yesterday: "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran", Obama said. Haaretz' Shmuel Rosner calls this a 180 degree change and offers an excellent exploration of the issue. However, I don't share Rosner's final analysis that this episode is merely a case of lesson learned for Obama and the voters.

In my opinion, that would be underestimating the potential Obama's reversal presents for Republicans on an important election topic. Already Senator John Ensign of Nevada accused Barack Obama of a "John Kerry-type" of flip-flop. Republicans will monitor closely media reactions to Obama's changed stance and be on look out for further opportunities to stick the flip-flop label on Obama.

Risky Business: McCain Separates Himself From Obama And Bush On Iraq

It looks like John McCain has chosen to pursue an interesting Iraq strategy in his campaign. He is not only distancing himself from President George W. Bush and his presumed Democratic opponent Barack Obama at the same time. McCain also believes that with his foreign policy credentials, he can actually score points on the Iraq issue against Obama.

Clearly separating himself from President Bush, McCain said yesterday in a speech to veterans marking Memorial day, "I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them." He added that "we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq." (Dispite McCain's statement President Bush will appear at fundraiser with him today.)

On the same day, McCain also took a hefty swipe at Obama: "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," McCain told the AP. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly." McCain went on to attack Obama for not having visited Iraq enough. Asked whether he would take a trip to Iraq with his Democratic rival McCain said yes and offered to "to educate Senator Obama along the way."

McCain's Iraq strategy is bold - and risky. He is correct in his assessment that President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq is very unpopular. But to assume that it's primarily the bungled management of the war and not the war itself that irks people is dicey. Most recent polls indicate that a majority of those questioned think that it was wrong to start the war in the first place and are in favor of bringing it to an end as soon as possible.

Among Republicans however, McCain's assumption holds more water. Many criticize the handling but not the war itself and oppose a quick withdrawal. If McCain hopes to reach out to this voter group, his strategy might work.

But it comes at the risk of alienating independent voters which he also needs for a chance to win in the general election against Obama. And whether non-Republican voters appreciate McCain's paternalistic offer to "educate" Obama is also questionable.

Clinton, Obama And The Media Play The Blame Game

This story isn't going away fast. On Friday Hillary Clinton - mentioning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - made a controversial argument why she believes a long Democratic campaign won't hurt party unity. Today, three days later, what Clinton said or meant, or could have said or meant, and whether her remark had anything to do with Barack Obama or not is still a dominant media topic. You can find my take on Clinton's comment here.

But now the American media as well as the Clinton and Obama campaigns have moved to the next stage of the news cycle. Having discussed the issue at length, it's time for the blame game. Who's fault is it that the story is still alive?

At this phase of the news cycle, the surrogates take over. (While Hillary Clinton in a piece in the New York Daily News tries to explain what she really meant, she doesn't point a finger.) That's Howard Wolfson's and Terry McAuliffe's job. Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, called the Obama camp's reaction to Clinton's statement an attack and inflammatory. McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman, accused the Obama team of keeping the story going over the weekend.

McAuliffe was probably alluding to an e-mail sent out by the Obama campaign on Saturday highlighting Keith Olbermann's blistering comment about Clinton's remark. When asked about it, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod dogded the question.

So is the Obama campaign stoking the fire? Hardly. The campaign's rebuttal after Clinton's statement on Friday was in line and its wording didn't fan the flames. To send out the Olbermann transcript points more in that direction. But if one wanted to incite the issue, there sure are better ways than to send out the manuscript of Olbermann's televisual rage to reporters. Every journalist who has anything to do with campaign coverage has seen or read it before.

So what's next? Well, Obama, Clinton, their surrogates and the media have dissected the remark itself, its historical and current context. Now that we also had a go at the blame game, I would think enough is enough. But who am I to say?

What Clinton Was Asked And Said And What Some Journalists Make Of It

Wow. Just yesterday I lauded the U.S. media's coverage of McCain's health records. Today, in my estimation, many American outlets get the controversy over Hillary Clinton's remark about Robert F. Kennedy wrong.

This is what Clinton said in an interview with a South Dakota paper when asked about whether the long race could hurt the Democratic party: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Sure, to bring up RFK's assassination at a time when the Kennedy family is dealing with a serious healh issue is insensitive and in bad taste. And true, any talk about assassination in conjunction with American presidential elections understandably is dangerous territory, especially when there have been concerns about the safety of her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

But that still doesn't justify what many outlets made of her remarks, which by the way she had stated before. Let's look at the facts: First, Clinton' s answer was in response to a question whether the drawn out campaign could damage party unity and not – as was widely reported – a reponse to a question why she was staying in the race. Second, she didn't mention Barack Obama by name at all in her answer. Third, the RFK remark made up only half of her argument why party unity was not hurt by a long campaign in the past. The other half consisted of a reference to her husband's campaign in 1992.

So in essence, Hillary Clinton said – in a stupid way - that Democratic primaries have gone into June before and it didn't damage the party. Of course everyone is free to interpret what Clinton really meant or insinuated like Bob Cesca of the Huffington Post or Keith Olbermann.

But if a one really believes or fears that Hillary Clinton is somehow hoping for a climactic event - such as an assassination - that could win her the nomination after all, one should get her to say exactly that in an interview. And if one really considers her remark as part of a pernicious plan to steal the nomination and invoke fears about Obama's safety, there is an easy way to spoil those efforts: Don't write about it.

McCain's Health: Of Bladder Stones, Basal Cells And Prostate Tissue

-Cholesterol Level: 192
-Resting Pulse Rate: 88 per minute
-Weight: 163 pounds (6 pounds less than last year)
-Blood Pressure: 122/78
-Four malignant melanomas removed since 1993
-Some basal cell and squamous cell cancers removed
-Small kidney stones and benign cysts in both kidneys
-Four bladder stones removed by laser in 2001
-Benign enlarged prostate tissue removed in 2001

This, of course, is John McCain's health status in a nutshell. To get more, a lot more, click here or here. There has been much media focus on the timing of the health facts release and of the limitations set by the campaign.

But what strikes me the most is the sheer depth and detail of the candidates personal health that are made public. Probably most Americans now know a lot more about John McCain's medical status than about their own or their spouses.

I know that health issues have always been an important aspect in American presidential races. And yet, as a German, I still find it fascinating how the release of very personal details of a candidate is simply part of what is required if one wants to get in the White House. What is also astonishing to me – in a positive way – is how the majority of media outlets deal with the issue. Most of the coverage is analytical, serious and fair.

In Germany, this whole process is inconceivable. First, the right to privacy - even for top politicans - trumps the public's right to know. Second, an important part of the media, the tabloids, would sensationalize the issue and dig merely for juicy details.

My guess is that this is true for most other countries as well. If you know of countries that are closer to the U.S. model, I'd be interested to find out about it.

So which model is better? Hard to say. Probably most people wouldn't want the world to know their entire medical history. And is it really necessary and helpful to publicize how many bladder stones were removed at what time and by which method?

On the other hand, most people also don't run for the highest office in the country. If you want the responsibilty to be president, chancellor or prime minister, I think it is fair that the people you want to govern know in advance whether you're fit for the office. If that requires listing every single bladder stone is another issue.

McCain's Double Pastor Problem

Let's hope that Barack Obama and John McCain have a better sense for selecting running mates and cabinet positions than for picking pastors they associate themselves with. Usually what one hopes to gain from religious leaders is spiritual or moral support and guidance on how to deal with life's difficult issues. For some reason, this doesn't seem to work out with Obama's and McCain's pastoral affiliations. Instead of providing support and guidance, they mainly cause trouble for their prominent followers.

While Obama had one problem pastor, McCain bests him with two. One of them, John Hagee, has stated that God sent Adolph Hitler to help the Jews reach the promised land. He also characterized the Catholic Church as a "great whore," a remark for which he apologized later. The other pastor, Rod Parsley, according to ABC News, has called Islam "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil," and an "anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world." After the remarks received a lot of media attention, McCain distanced himself from Parsley and rejected Hagee's endorsement.

To be sure, as McCain was quick to point out, Hagee and Parsley were not his pastors and he didn't belong to their churches. But McCain accepted Hagee's endorsement in February at a time when the teleevangelist's statements about Catholicism were already causing ripples. As for Parsley, McCain didn't seek his endorsement. But, as Tim pointed out earlier, applying McCain's own flawed logic of association ties him to Parsley even though he never officially supported his positions.

It is understandable that McCain who has had difficulties with Christian Conservatives wants to bolster his credentials with this important voting block through the support of prominent preachers who represent that group. It was also understandable that Obama didn't want to cut his ties with a prominent preacher in the African-American community.

However, this attitude is very shortsighted. Over the duration of a long campaign, every potentially controversial statement or affiliation will be vetted either by the opposite side or by the media. Obama and McCain would be prudent to do some serious vetting themselves. Better to fess up about a problem early on and steer the process than do damage control later.

Slow Campaign Money Flow From Foreign Companies

It was that time again: The presidential candidates filed their monthly fundraising statements with the Federal Election Commission. And again, no surprise. In April, Barack Obama easily beat his two competitors in the money race raking in $31 million.

So let's look at a more interesting aspect of that race. Foreigners are by law barred from donating money to federal, local, and state elections in the U.S. It is, however, possible for foreign companies to contribute to political causes through Political Action Committees (PAC) set up by their American subsidiaries.

And some international corporations are doing just that. According to Opensecrets.org, one of the best political money tracking sites, foreign-connected PACs in the current election cycle so far have contributed roughly $7.3 million to Democrats and Republicans, with both parties basically splitting the money.

With almost $6.7 million, the overwhelming majority of donations stem from companies headquartered in Europe. Of those, most are based in Britain ($2.4 million) and Germany ($871,000). Among those listed are well known firms such as Deutsche Bank, SAP, GlaxoSmithKline and Rolls-Royce, but also lesser known companies such as Lehigh Cement or Kennecott Holdings. According to Opensecrets.org, the largest contribution from a German headquartered corporation came from T-Mobile USA with $220,000, the largest contribution from a British headquartered company came from GlaxoSmithKline with $478,000.

By the way, most of the money doesn't go towards presidential but to state and congressional candidates. What do foreign-connected PACs hope to gain from their donations? The same as domestic PACs: access and influence to candidates. So the big question is: Why aren't more foreign companies with business interests in the U.S. pouring money into the campaigns?

Cuba: Isolate Or Negotiate

It looks like the question whether the U.S. should engage or isolate hostile states is here to stay. First it was Iran, now it's Cuba. John McCain attacked Barack Obama for stating that he would negotiate with the Cuban government if necessary. McCain vowed to keep the American trade embargo in place, if elected. Obama fired back that McCain was merely continuing President George W. Bush's failed policy.

Who's right? Probably both candidates would say that their goal is to topple the Castro-led regime and to establish a democratic Cuba with free and fair elections. The U.S. trade embargo has been in effect now for almost 50 years. During that time no negotiations between a U.S. president and Fidel, or now Raul, Castro took place. In essence, John McCain's current stance toward Cuba has been carried out for almost five decades. The result? The Castro clan still rules the island, democracy is still absent, as are freedom of the press and other basic human rights.

So Barack Obama is correct that the policy of economic embargo and political isolation has failed to achieve its intended goal. What he conveniently left out is that it's not all George W. Bush's fault, but that this stance has been a pillar of American foreign policy for close to 50 years regardless whether a Democrat or Republican was in the White House.

What's more, if Obama believes that this policy has failed, one would think he would reverse the course. But all that he has said on the issue until now is that he would allow Cuban-Americans to send money and visit relatives, and that he would be willing to meet with Cuba's leaders. Letting people wire money and visit Cuba is a far cry from lifting the economic embargo. Today, President Bush announced that he would allow Cuban-Americans to mail cell phones to relatives. It seems like Obama – despite his rhetoric – may be continuing Bush's Cuba policy after all.

Chavez And Ahmadinejad Mum On Preferred Presidential Candidate

What a shame: Venezulean President Hugo Chavez - always good for outrageous oratory - chose the high road in an interview with a group of American journalists by declining to take a position on the U.S. presidential election. He ventured only so far as to say that he has a preference. That leaves the world guessing. Does Chavez favor Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

But would that be Chavez-style? My hunch is that Hugo Chavez (click here for a collection of the best Chavez quotes) is a secret admirer of Ron Paul, who despite John McCain's insurmountable lead still hasn't officially ended his campaign. Paul's strict anti-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy agenda, his opposition to NAFTA as well as his tendency towards rhetorical outbursts could have won over Chavez' heart.

Another outspoken orator of our time also hasn't publicly endorsed a candidate, at least not to my knowledge. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is keeping his cards close to his chest. He probably wants to make his preference known when it will have the biggest impact, which is close to the election. Or maybe he is just too busy. He hasn't gotten around to posting any new entries in his blog since December 2007.

Barack for Bavaria

Barack Obama is an inspiration – to the Bavarian Social Democratic Party (SPD). The Social Democrats want to apply Obama's successful method of online fundraising to the state election in Bavaria this fall, German news agency ddp reported. According to ddp, Parlamentarian Thomas Beyer said during a party delegation visit to Washington the SPD hopes to raise a large number of small donations through an internet campaign like Obama did in the primary campaign. The Alpine states' Social Democrats also hope to increase the identification of donors with the party.

The Bavarian SPD needs all the help it can get. In all state elections since the founding of Bavaria as a German state in 1945, the SPD was the strongest party only once – in 1950. The last time an SPD governor (Ministerpräsident) ruled Bavaria was in 1957. In the last election in 2003, the Social Democrats received 20 percent of the vote, the Christian Social Party (CSU), which has been ruling non-stop since 1957, scored 61 percent of the vote.

So there is room for improvement and copying Obama's internet fundraising success may just be applicable to Bavaria's SPD. However, looking at the Social Democrats dismal election record in this state, it seems to me the Bavarian Social Democrats may have missed the more important lesson from Obama's success: You need an inspiring candidate to have a chance of winning.

Bush's Failed Nazi Comparison

Should the U.S. negotiate with unsavory regimes, terrorist organizations or autocratic rulers? President George W. Bush used his visit to Jerusalem to mark Israel's 60th anniversary to talk about this politically charged topic. "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," he said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ""Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."" We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Bush's remark was generally interpreted as a slap in the face for Democratic candidate Barack Obama who had stated that he would negotiate with Iran.

As a German, I am sensitive to Nazi comparisons. Actually, I generally think that Nazi analogies are made far too often and far to easily which tends to minimize the holocaust. What's more, most comparisons between Hitler and other political figures are ahistorical and don't work. That goes for Bush's remark as well. It is so unspecific and vague that it defeats the intended purpose of warning the public about the perceived or real dangers of appeasement.

What does President Bush mean when he warns of negotiating with terrorists and radicals? In the 1980's and 1990's, most people would have classified the PLO and Sinn Fein as radical organizations to say the least. That didn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with them. Most people would have considered the Communist Party in the Soviet Union a radical entity. That didn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with its leaders. Most people today would consider North Korea's dictatorial dynasty a radical regime. That doesn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with it.

If President Bush wanted to say that Obama's approach to directly negotiate with the Iranian regime is wrong and dangerous because of repeated statements by its president to wipe Israel off the map, he should do just that. To merely lump the words radicals, terrorists, Nazis, Poland, Hitler and appeasement together undermines a serious discussion of the issue.

Europeans Would Be Crazy To Wish For A President Obama Writes German Editorialist

In an interesting editorial for the German business daily Financial Times Deutschland, Wolfgang Münchau argues that Europeans would fare better with Republican John McCain as President than with his Democratic rivals. Headlined "McCain for President", Münchau writes that, as usual with U.S. presidential elections, Germans and other Europeans are hoping for a Democratic victory. "We dream of a Kennedy and are disappointed when we end up with a Nixon, Reagan, or Bush…And we celebrate every time when the Americans elect a Clinton, Gore, or Obama because their politics most closely reflect our nebulous European sentiments."

Münchau astutely points out that Germans and Europeans on a whole often underestimated the larger trends in American politics, such as the conservative revolution. And he says they are doing it again by underestimating the current trend of American protectionism. (which for an export-driven Germany spells bad news.)

Of all the candidates, no one symbolizes the trend toward protectionsim more than Barack Obama, writes Münchau with reference to Obama's "Invest in America" policy. According to Münchau, the presumptive Democratic candidate's "Fair Trade" policy will lead to restrictions on global trade, but it will be cloaked under the banner social justice for his clientele.

Adding to his list why Obama is bad for Europe, Münchau says that Obama is a mostly reactive politician and not a policy wonk.

For those reasons, Münchau thinks Europeans would be crazy if they wished for a President Obama. He points out that - contrary to Obama - until now McCain has clearly supported free trade, even though he is generally not very interested in economic issues. For Münchau, Hillary Clinton is also preferable to Obama since her economic policies probably would be pretty much in line with her husband's, which he calls a big exception among Democrats.

Is Münchau right? Should Europeans be afraid of a protectionist America under an Obama administration and thus wish for a President McCain?

While it is true that both Obama and Clinton have struck a protectionist tone in their campaigns while McCain has not, we all know that campaign rhetoric doesn't always translate into political action. Secondly, can a single country - even a superpower such as the U.S. - in a globalized economy pull up the drawbridge on world trade without negative consequences for its own people? Not really. And thirdly, Münchau doesn't really sound all that convinced about McCain himself. In Münchau's entire editorial, McCain is mentioned but four times. Let's hope that there are more reasons to support a candidate than because he is the least worst alternative.

McCain To World: Global Warming Is A Problem

In a move that will be welcomed by Europeans and especially by environmentally conscious Germans, John McCain vowed to take action against global warming and distanced himself from President George Bush. In a speech at the Oregon plant of Danish wind turbine producer Vestas, he pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050 and to make the U.S. the leader in the fight against global warming.

In a jab at the current administration's reluctance to take climate change serious and agree to the Kyoto protocol McCain said: "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto."

He also vowed to push China and India to agree to international solutions to curb greenhouse gases. But he stressed - again distancing himself form President Bush -that the United States has an obligation to act even if efforts to include China and India in an international settlement fail.

Reactions to his proposal from experts were mixed at best. Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly lauds McCain for facing the issue, but calls his cap-and-trade-solution "pretty weak tea." Bradford Plummer of the New Republic writes that Obama's stance on the issue is a lot stronger. The environmental organization Sierra Club went even further and in a press release called McCain's proposal bound to fail.

Never mind the actual merits of his plan, which are hard for non-experts to analyse. On a psychological level, McCain's speech will have an impact. To Europeans, his proposal signals that the presumed Republican candidate is part of the political mainstream on this important global issue. Bush's long resistance to even acknowledge that there might be a problem convinced many European that his administration was on the fringe bordering on kooky where environmental issues are concerned.

For the conservative wing of the Republican party, it will reinforce the conviction that McCain is too moderate. Larry Kudlow in the National Review probably speaks for many conservatives by calling the plan a "huge government command-and-control operation that taxes, spends, and regulates on a grand scale."

So the key question is: Will McCain's environmental position win him enough independent and moderate votes to offset losses from conservative Republicans?

Lesson Learned: McCain's Convention Manager Steps Down

Whoever said that politicians never learn their lessons? After Barack Obama's enduring trials and tribulations due to his reluctance to cut himself loose from pastor Jeremiah Wright, all candidates are now trying to sever ties swiftly with controversial aides and staff. As we wrote earlier, an Obama advsior who had met with Hamas has resigned.

Now it was John McCain's turn. After Newsweek revealed that Doug Goodyear, the organizer of the Republican convention and a fellow Arizonan, had lobbied for Burma's military junta through his company, DCI, the McCain campaign wasted no time. Goodyear resigned shortly after the story broke. In a mail to Politico, Goodyear said it was his decision and the right thing to do. He is definitely correct on the latter point. His representation of the military regime not only clashed with McCain's stark rhetoric against Burma's authoritarian ruler General Than Shwe. The horrible failure and negligence of the junta to help its people would have ensured continuous negative media coverage of McCain's choice for convention manager.

Whether the first point – Goodyear's statement that it was his decision to step down – is entirely true, or whether there was a hint from the McCain team, is water under the bridge. More important is the fact that there is a learning curve in the presidential campaign 2008.

Cool Tool II: Political Trends

Earlier I wrote about the US Election 2008 Web Monitor, a project that tracks the international coverage that presidential candidates receive. Another great tool for reviewing the trends of the current campaign is PoliticalTrends.info.

It tracks political blogs according to various topics and candidates. Want to know the dominant foreign policy topic of the last two weeks? If you read this blog regularly, you probably already know what it is. If not, click here and find out.

Web Tip For Election Afficionados: Real Clear Politics

If you are someone who just can't get enough news and information about the campaign, there is one site you shouldn't go without: Real Clear Politics is probably the best one-stop-shop for all the latest news about the presidential election.

Whether it's polls, commentary, videos or analysis, if it's worth while, you probably find it at this great aggregator portal. And if you're looking for some distraction, hey they even have a Fantasy 08 Game available.

American Expert Warns Germans: Beware Of Friend Across The Pond

There are American experts on foreign policy and the U.S. who are probably more familiar to Germans than to Americans. Marcia Pally might be one of them. She teaches at New York University, is a regular contributor to German newspapers (see the English versions here) and has just published a new book.

As far as I can discern, at the moment it is only available in German under the title "Warnung vor dem Freunde: Tradition und Zukunft amerikanischer Außenpolitik" which translates: "Beware of the friend: Tradition and future of American Foreign Policy". However, the translation offered on Pally's home page sounds quite different: "The Religion, Values, and Foreign Policy of the Country with the Biggest Guns".

Why the pun on "Beware of the dog" for the German book title? Well, according to a recent BBC poll, Germans overwhelmingly have a negative view of U.S. influence in the world. The publishers surely are aware of this perception and hope to capitalize on it. They are probably right.

Bittergate Reloaded: Clinton’s Remark About White Americans

Hillary Clinton's campaign is over. At least that was the verdict of international and U.S. media right after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on Tuesday. Of course the media is not always right. So it is perfectly fine that Senator Clinton vowed to press on with her campaign.

However, the way she has chosen to justify it smacks of bitterness to many commentators. In an interview with USA Today she cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"This won't go over well at all" writes Kyle E. More in Comments from Left Field: "In the end, this is not what any of us needs. It's not what Clinton needs as, even if she is holding hope of winning the nomination, she can hardly be helped by a racially charged gaffe. It's not what Obama needs, as I've outlined in my post linked above. We know there are regional struggles with white voters he has ahead of him, but he needs a comment like this like he needs a baseball bat to the head. And it's not what the party needs, not at a time when the focus should be on repairing unity and gearing up for the fight against McCain."

"How bad was Clinton's remark", asks Isaac Chotiner at The Plank. His answer is that she should be able to state her opinion. But, he adds, she is saying these things about the Democratic candidate and not in a vacuum. "And if she really cares about electing a Democrat in November, she probably should not be saying such things."

The Roland Report points out that in order to win the election the candidates need to build a broad coalition instead of focusing on narrow constituencies. With her remarks about hard-working white Americans Hillary Clinton alienated many in the Democratic Party. Unnecessarily so. It won't bring her any closer to the nomination. In fact it will only increase the pressure on her to quit the campaign. Until that happens, John McCain and the Republicans can relax and enjoy.

Obama's Strong Showing Means Clinton Needs A Miracle

Now we know. Hillary Clinton lost decisively in North Carolina and barely won in Indiana. For the international media the case is clear. Clinton is out, Obama will be the nominee. Whether its Germany's Die Welt headlining "Hillary Clinton's ultimate defeat", Austria's Tirol Online leading with "Hillary Clinton's defeat is definite" or Britan's Daily Telegraph writing "Barack Obama tightens his grip as Hillary Clinton falters": Most commentators agree that the Democratic race is all but decided.

Up until the primaries Obama has been hammered by the press about his relationship with his controversial former pastor. The fact that he won North Carolina handily and lost Indiana by a slim margin shows political stamina and resilience. "Bittergate" and his dealings with Jeremiah Wright were the first serious threats for his candidacy. In the end, he came out pretty much unblemished.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand didn't profit from Obama's recent political troubles. One wonders how she would have fared without them.

Despite her poor showing, she vows to stay in the race. Why? A German paper wrote "Now Hillary needs a miracle". Perhaps that really is her only rationale for continuing with her campaign.

Russia: Energy Giant Under New Leadership Is Hardly A Campaign Topic

When foreign policy becomes a topic in the presidential campaign, candidates talk mainly about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and sometimes China. One country is strangely absent in the debates and in media coverage: Russia. As the world's largest gas exporter and second largest oil exporter the country plays a leading role in the energy market. With energy prices soaring and a new Russian president taking office one would think that the candidates policies toward Russia would be an important topic in this election.

They aren't. So far the candidates haven't really focused their attention on Russia, so it is no wonder that their stance toward it is defined largely by a few strong one- liners. John McCain famously quipped: "I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B", refering of course to President Bush's well known remark that he saw President Putin's soul. Hillary Clinton, refering to the same remark, proclaimed that Putin doesn't have a soul. Only Barack Obama so far hasn't come up with a memorable one-liner on the subject.

But beyond bashing Bush and Putin and brief comments on issues such as the missile defense shield and the expansion of NATO the candidates have not laid out a Russia strategy. So it was up to the Moscow Times to try and paint a broader picture of how the candidates view Russia. To do that the paper interviewed the Russia policy advisers for John McCain and Barack Obama. And yes, they have more to say than one-liners. You can find the article here. For a brief summary of the candidates positions toward Russia you may also want to go to the Council on Foreign Relations website.

Core Question About Iran Remains Unanswered

There wasn't really anything new to be learned from Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's appearance on different Sunday talk shows on U.S. televison. From a foreign policy perspective the most interesting aspect was a virtual exchange about Clinton's recent comments that as President she would obliterate Iran if that country launched a nuclear attack against Israel. When asked about it Obama critized his opponent for using the language of George Bush and engaging in saber rattling. When confronted with Obama's statement Clinton defended her remarks.

Obama went on to say that his goal was to not let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. But that goal is not the issue. Everyone agrees that it's better to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place than to deal with the consequences later. The issue is how to achieve that goal.

Unfortunately, on that most important aspect Obama remained rather vague, mentioning three points. He said he wants to engage the international community. He stated that he wants to apply a carrots and stick approach. And he again called for direct talks with the Iranians.

The first and second points are not new. In fact, the international community has been engaged with Iran both through the IAEA, the group of the UN security council members and Germany and the EU. The sticks and carrots approach has been discussed for a long time as well and is actually making progress. The Europeans and especially the Germans have fulfilled their committment and increased the economic sanctions against Iran. (But China has to some extent stepped in and taken over the business the Europeans left behind.)

So the only point really worth discussing is the suggestion of direct talks. But again, the Europeans have held and are still open to direct talks with Iran. The question is: What do you talk about with Iran that has not been adressed within the other frameworks mentioned above? What could the U.S. offer through direct talks that could make Iran rethink its strategy? Would lifting the sanctions and restoring diplomatic relations be enough to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions?

Which brings us to the core question for the presidential candidates: What would you do if Iran has decided that it in fact wants to continue its nuclear program and when do we know that this is the case?

Germans Say Draft The Man Of The Century For President

With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama mired in a bruising battle that only helps John McCain, Democrats are looking for a way out. How about a neutral candidate that could unite both camps, has political experience and is beloved internationally? In other words, how about Al Gore?

Sure, last year's Nobel Peace Prize recipient has repeatedly said that he has no plans to run for the presidency in 2008. Perhaps Mr. Gore will rethink his decision when he finds out efforts to draft him have crossed the Atlantic. Germans, who unfortunately can't vote yet in the presidential election, are urged via www.algore2008.de to push Al Gore to run this fall.

The team behind the site – a lawyer, a historian, a business economist, a sociologist and a computer scientist –don't fail to lavish him with praise. They declare the runner-up for Time's Person of the Year award 2007 as the Man of the Century in their page header. With such an honor bestowed upon him, the century being only yet 7 years old, surely that will make Al Gore rethink his plans, won't it?

Clinton Wants To Debate Obama Lincoln-Douglas Style

Hillary Clinton's repeated calls for more debates with Barack Obama after the Pennsylvania primary haven't been having much of an effect. No public outcry demanding another face-off by the two Democratic candidates. No media frenzy around the idea of another Hilllary vs Obama encounter.

So Clinton yesterday upped the ante by challenging Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. It worked. The media took the bait and dutifully reported about the proposed duell. After all, who knew at the time that the Lincoln-Douglas debates would become an oratorical landmark? Who knows, if Clinton and Obama debated under the Lincoln-Douglas rules maybe it would transform the event from slugfest to rhetorical masterpiece.

But it wouldn't. While Clinton challenged Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, she didn't really mean it. First, there was not one Lincoln-Douglas debate, but a series of seven debates. Second, each debate lasted three hours and had a set format. The first candidate would start speaking for one hour, followed by the second candidate who had an hour and half after which the first candidate closed the event with a thirty minute rebuttal. Third, in today's media world no one but C-SPAN would broadcast an event lasting three hours where the shortest answer lasts a half hour. Today, we wouldn't consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates as debates. Instead, we would call them three very long speeches by two candidates with the possibility to react to what the opponent said.

Even if Lincoln and Douglas were around today, they would find it hard to reach an audience if they stuck to the format. For the Democratic presidential candidates, it would be impossible.

Hillary Clinton knows this. As all trailing candidates do, she simply wants another chance to square off against Obama. That's why she conveniently interprets a Lincoln-Douglas style debate as simply having a debate without a moderator, when it actually entails a lot more than that. But that wasn't Clinton's point. She wanted to increase the pressure on Obama to agree to another debate and she achieved it by throwing Lincoln and Douglas in the mix.

Obama Swoon Over In Germany Too

As mentioned previously in this blog, the Obama swoon is over. Not just in the U.S. but also in Germany. The most recent proof of it can be found in today's edition of Die Welt.

The paper published a blistering critique of Barack Obama. In a lengthy article entitled „Invisible Man: The Unscrupulous Barack Obama (or The Conscienceless Barack Obama, depending on how one translates gewissenlos) Fred Siegel, Professor at Cooper Union, Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and former advisor to Rudy Guiliani, argues two basic points: One, Obama is a great orator with nothing to back up his fancy rhetoric. Two, despite his camelot rhetoric, Obama is simply a product of the traditional Chicago-style politics of corruption. Perhaps, these arguments aren't new, but while they wouldn't have gotten any traction a year ago, they do now.

I was going to elaborate on Siegel's points, but then found out that he had stated most of them at a discussion hosted by a neoconservative frontline magazine. Read them here for yourself.

Just one more thought on Siegel's charge that Obama is a product of Chicago-style politics. What about Hillary Clinton then? Does Park Ridge not count?

Cool Tool: U.S. Election Web Monitor

There's an interesting project taking place right now that tries to measure how presidential candidates fare on the Internet. It's called the US Election 2008 Web Monitor and is conducted by ECOresearch, a network of scientists from different fields. The Web Monitor analyzes the coverage candidates receive on an international basis.

So how does it work? The system scans on a weekly basis the web sites of 150 media organizations from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as of 50 environmental organizations, the Fortune 1000 companies and 1000 relevant political blogs.

According to ECOresearch the data is analyzed in three ways:

- Attention presents the number of references to a particular candidate as a percentage relative to all candidate references in a given week. The percentages next to each value indicate weekly changes.

- Sentiment tracks the co-occurrence (semantic association) of a candidate's name with positive and negative terms taken from a tagged dictionary.

- Keywords identify topics associated with the presidential candidates by comparing the frequency of terms in sentences that contain the name of a candidate with a reference distribution taken from the sample's complete set of documents.

I found some of the results rather interesting, especially the country comparisons. Just go the web site and check it out yourself. By the way, ECOresearch is nonpartisan and funded by the Austria's Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) and the Austrian Research Promotion Agency.

Mike Huckabee Writes A Book

I liked Mike Huckabee from the start. Not because of his political positions or a conviction that he would be a good president. Actually, I'll admit that I had never really heard of him during his tenure as Arkansas Governor, even though Time magazine named him one of the five best governors.

So my fondness of Huckabee is entirely apolitical and starts with his name. As a boy, I had read and loved Huckleberry Finn. How cool is it that decades later someone with a similar sounding name comes along and runs for president. To top it off, he was the last man standing against John McCain long after Republican heavyweights Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney called it quits.

What's more, Huckabee plays in a band called Capitol Offense that covers CCR, the Rolling Stones and the Eagles, and after being diagnosed with diabetes he lost more than 100 pounds and kept it off – unlike a former German foreign minister.

Now that we are left with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fighting it out until the bitter end and John McCain trying to sound presidential, it often feels like the last smidgeon of fun, ease and amateurism has vanished from the campaign. Everyone is so dedicated and determined all the time.

Today, it was announced that Mike Huckabee is writing a book about his failed run for presidency. The still unnamed oeuvre is supposed to hit the stores two weeks after the election. Immediately after reading the news, the thought crossed my mind whether Mike Huckabee got into the campaign just to right this book. And I have to admit, I like that thought.

Europe's Reaction To Pennsylvania: The Misery Continues

The analysis of Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania in Rome's daily La Repubblica is rather sober. Clinton needed to win badly. Not just to keep her hopes of moving into the White House alive; it was also a matter of not running out of money. According to the paper, her victory in Pennsylvania was the only chance of convincing donors to reopen their wallets and prevent a shameful defeat.

The clash of the titans continues, writes Germany's Die Welt, adding that it already has produced one definite loser: the Democratic party. "One year ago a victory by John McCain was unthinkable. McCain can thank the clash of the Democratic titans that it isn't anymore." Many other European commentators agree. Martin Kilian, who blogs as Der Amerikanist for the Swiss Tagesanzeiger sums it up nicely: "The Democratic agony just won't end."

"Hillary Clinton has her Rocky Balboa moment in Pennsylvania," headlines Britain's Daily Telegraph, but emphasizes that her opponent has an "insurmountable lead in the numbers of pledged delegates chosen during the primaries and caucuses...." Therefore she can only win by twisting the arms of the undecided super-delegates. "But winning by a super-delegate coup would be a victory that many Democrats would consider a low blow, and not worthy of Rocky at all."

So what should the Democrats do then? Well, according to many European commentators the answer is clear: End the stalemate, choose a candidate and focus on the real opponent – the Republicans.

Obama Raises More Money In March Than CDU Spends In Entire Campaign

It sounded like a typical Bloomberg story: Lots of numbers, jargon like "in line with previous estimates", and descriptions about raising cash and filings with government oversight committees. But it wasn't. What looks like your average business story about an IPO or the issuing of new shares was a story about the latest figures from the presidential campaigns.

According to Bloomberg, Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama raised $41 million in March, while Hillary Clinton raised about $20 million and John McCain came in last with $15 milllion.

That means that Barack Obama raked in about the same amount of money in March that Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats spent during the entire federal election campaign in 2002, the last regularly scheduled election. According to a summary (in German) of election spending in 2002, the SPD invested approximately €26 million or $41.5 million, while the Christian Democrats spent €24.5 million or $39 million. The smaller parties were clearly outspent by SPD and CDU and came in between €3.5 and €5.8 million.

No doubt, the U.S. election campaigns are far more professionally orchestrated than German ones. But when you look at the outcome, do voters really get more bang for the buck?

On-The-Job Presidential Training

The next president of the United States will have no experience in managing a large organization. Neither John McCain, Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton possess any first-hand knowledge of how to run a huge bureaucracy such as the executive branch of the U.S. government. As senators, they lead a relatively small staff that doesn't compare to the managerial challenges presented by larger institutions. None of them has headed a large company, served as a cabinet secretary, or as a state governor, a traditional training ground for future presidents.

The last president who wasn't a governor before being elected was George Herbert Walker Bush. Still, as a former director of the CIA, one could certainly argue that he had experience in managing a huge bureaucracy.

In Europe, as in the U.S., many politicians have experience running smaller governmental entities before taking over the top job. In Germany, Angela Merkel's predecessors, Gerhard Schröder and Helmut Kohl, both served as "Ministerpräsident" (governors) of a German state. Chancellor Merkel has not, but she gained executive experience during her stints as a cabinet minister in the Kohl administration. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French Premier Nicolas Sarkozy both learned the ropes of running an executive during long years in government positions.

Is managing a large organization a prerequisite for running a country then? Well, it certainly doesn't hurt.

Europeans And Presidential Hopefuls In Sync On Iran

Gordon Brown's visit to Washington went practically unnoticed last week. The timing was bad. When the pope is in town, a British prime minister just plays second fiddle.

Still, one important issue was addressed during Brown's meeting with President George W. Bush. Both are united against Iran's nuclear program and want to increase the pressure on Tehran. "I make no apology for saying that we will extend sanctions where possible, on Iran," Brown said, adding that he was in talks with other European leaders about how to achieve that goal.

The prospects for stepped up sanctions don't look bad. French Premier Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated his tough stance against Tehran's nuclear ambitions last month by saying that Europe's security was at stake because of Iran's missile plans. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly voiced her opposition to Iran's nuclear program and vowed to step up sanctions if necessary.

In their debate in Pennsylvania, Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made it clear that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would be high on their priority list if they were elected. Republican candidate John McCain, considered to be a foreign policy hawk, has often stated his opposition against Iran's nuclear program in stark terms.

What does all of that mean? It shows that their is a common view among the major European players and the presidential candidates from both parties about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Whether it will last beyond the campaign remains to be seen.

Different Tax Debates Across The Pond

As the last of the three presidential candidates, John McCain released his tax returns yesterday. According to documents published on his campaign website, his income last year was $405,409. McCain was under pressure to release his tax returns after both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made their statements public.

Immediately after the tax dump on Friday, an interesting debate ensued: Not about how much McCain earned, or how much taxes he paid. Instead, the debate focused on the fact that the Arizona senator had only released tax returns for the last two years and had not included his wife's income, while Obama and Clinton had published their tax returns, including their spouse's income, back to 2000.

This would never happen in Germany. Candidates for the chancellorship releasing copies of their official tax returns? Angela Merkel, Kurt Beck or Frank-Walter Steinmeier publishing not only their incomes, but also their investments and donations down to the last cent? Unthinkable in Germany and probably most other European countries.

Just last year, after nine months of deliberation, Germany's supreme court narrowly rejected a suit by nine members of parliament who didn't want to publish the additional income they make on top of their fixed salary. Their reason: It isn't the public's business to know what they earn in addition to their salary. Germany's former Interior Minister Otto Schily until now has refused to provide the required information. Next week the presidium of the Bundestag will decide whether he will be fined.

The Obama Swoon Is Over

What goes up must come down. That is an experience Barack Obama is making right now. Gone are the days when it seemed like the world media were entangled in a love affair with the candidate. In those days, it seemed like no story about Obama could be published that did not include a comparison of him to either JFK oder MLK. No story could go online without declaring that he represented the "politics of hope."

Epitomizing the Obama swoon was conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. "It may not be personally convenient for him, but the times will never again so completely require the gifts that he possesses. Whether you’re liberal or conservative, you should hope Barack Obama runs for president," Brooks wrote in October 2006, calling the Illinois senator a "new kind of politician."

Less than two years later, disappointment has set in. In his latest column titled "How Obama Fell to Earth", Brooks notes that "Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal."

Brooks is not alone. The media are taking a second look at the candidate. Statements or actions by Obama that wouldn't have been newsworthy a year ago now make the headlines.

Is that fair? Perhaps not, but who said it would be.

Who Gets The Catholic Vote?

Pope Benedict's visit to the U.S. has sparked a media debate about the Catholic vote in the presidential election. Catholics account for approximately 20 percent of the American electorate and until recently were considered a safe bet for the Democratic candidate. Not anymore. Like many other groups, Catholics are no longer a monolithic voting block united around one candidate or cause.

That makes wooing them so much harder. So far, Hillary Clinton has done the best job appealing to Catholic voters. "On the Democratic side, they're the biggest single reason Sen. Hillary Clinton is still afloat," writes CNN Vatican expert John L. Allen jr. Among Catholic voters, Clinton beat Barack Obama decisively in Texas and Ohio and hopes to pull it off again in all important Pennsylvania, where Catholics make up more than 30 percent of the population. What makes Hillary Clinton so attractive to Catholics? It helps that she is popular among Latinos, who are predominantly Catholics. But as Allen points out, Clinton also carries the "Catholic 'Reagan Democrats,' meaning socially conservative blue-collar voters." Obama's "Bittergate" remarks could alienate him even further from mainstream Catholic or Christian voters.

On the Republican side, John McCain's biggest plus among Catholic voters is his pro-life stance. His biggest drawback for Catholics is his ardent support for the war in Iraq.

It is too early to tell who will end up with the Catholic vote in November. However, a check of the Catholic Voting Guidelines 2007 reveals that "Catholics know that the protection of the unborn is the 'dominant issue' among all politics issues." Based on this premise, Catholics would have to vote for John McCain in November.

Mitt Romney and Ron Paul do well in Al Jazeera Election Poll

On its English language website, Al Jazeera, the Arabic news channel keeps its readers updated on the U.S. election campaign. Without taking part in the ongoing debate about Al Jazeera's alleged bias, I found the results of an ongoing online poll about the U.S. election very interesting. Users are asked to choose among seven candidates (3 Democrats, 4 Republicans) who they would like see as the next president of the United States. They are also asked to check where they live based on a list of world regions. Obviously, the results of online polls are not representative. But as Al Jazeera points out on its poll results page, they may be indicative as a representation of the views of Al Jazeera readers.

Not surprisingly Barack Obama is the current overall winner. As of Wednesday night, Central European Time, Obama received 40.5 percent of 11,493 votes. Guess who comes in second and third? Mitt Romney with 19.2 percent and Ron Paul with 15 percent of the vote respectively. Never mind that Romney dropped out of the race some time ago, as has Mike Gravel on the Democratic side, and Ron Paul is not actively campaigning anymore. It is simply mind-boggling that Ron Paul apparently has a rather strong international following. Perhaps not surprisingly, due to their stated or perceived positions concerning the Middle East, Hillary Clinton and John McCain garner only 7.7 percent and 4.9 percent of the vote respectively.

European and U.S. poll takers overwhelmingly (63.5 percent and 44.1 percent) want Barack Obama as president, followed by Ron Paul (15.4 percent and 18.1 percent).

Voters located in the Middle East, however, have a very different perspective on the candidates. With a whopping 71.5 percent of the vote, they favor Mitt Romney, who in all other regions never makes it out of the single digits. Romney's exceptional standing with Middle Eastern poll takers may be explained by a yearning for a savy business professional as president of the U.S. Needless to say that Ron Paul again comes in second with 14.1 percent. None of the three viable candidates, McCain, Obama, Clinton is a hit with Middle Eastern poll takers. McCain and Clinton stay below the two percent mark, Obama gets barely 10 percent of vote. If these results are indeed indicative of the views of Al Jazeera readers, it does not bode well for American-Middle Eastern relations.

Addendum: Multiple votes by a single user are technically possible in the Al Jazeera U.S. election poll. This may explain some of the results.

McCain's gas tax holiday could be popular on German Autobahn

The preferences of the German public among U.S. presidential candidates are clear. If Germans had a vote in the election, Barack Obama would be the next president. Until today. With his proposal to institute a "gasoline tax holiday" John McCain is sure to win the hearts and minds of German motorists. Every summer, just before Germans hit the Autobahn to drive to their vacation destinations, there is an emotional public debate about price fixing by the major oil companies. The media and politicians demand investigations of the issue. Then everyone goes on vacation and relaxes. The following summer we start the debate again.

McCain cleverly proposed his "gasoline tax holiday" on the day millions of Americans file their tax retuns and with gas prices reaching new heights. It comes with almost no political cost for him. The bill that is apparently being prepared by the Senator's staff will probably never make it into law. But that doesn't really matter. Whether the summer gas tax break is passed or not, McCain has positioned himself as someone who cares for ordinary people and is no elitist.

Interestingly enough, German politicians have not yet taken up McCain's idea of an abolition of the gas tax during the summer. With taxes amounting to roughly 70 percent of the gas price of approximately eight dollars a gallon at the pump in Germany, motorists would surely appreciate the move.

With a national election looming here in Germany next year, here are some German suggestions for the presidential candidates how to reach ordinary voters: The grand coalition just voted to increase state pensions for some 20 million people, more than originally planned, in 2008 and 2009. Others are calling for increased benefits for families with children and for the reinstitution of tax breaks for people commuting to work.

More proposals from this side of the Atlantic are surely yet to come. Barack Obama is apparently in desperate need to connect with American workers. Perhaps he should take a page from the playbook of German politicians.

Matters of Faith

For the European observer, one of the most fascinating and sometimes perplexing aspects of the election campaign is the role religion plays. By that I don't mean the influence of organized religious groups (i.e. Evangelicals) on party politics or candidates, but the very personal statements candidates make about their religious practices and experiences.

Over the weekend it seemed like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama competed for an award for the most publicly outspoken candidate on personal faith. Both appeared at the appropriately named Faith in Public Life's Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania to talk about their belief. The event was broadcast live by CNN and will also be shown by CCN (Church Communication Network) next Sunday at congregations nationwide. According to CNN, Clinton said, "I don't think that I could have made my life's journey without being anchored in God's grace and without having that, you know, sense of forgiveness and unconditional love." Obama claimed that nobody in a presidential campaign on the Democratic side in recent memory had done more to reach out to the church than he had.

Now, obviously each candidate is free to talk about his or her religious beliefs, especially when ones faith is an important factor for a large segment of the electorate. But how valuable are those statements really for devout voters, when they are made at an event just set up for this occasion in the very state that could decide the Democratic primary?

Heinz-Gert for Hillary

What do journalists do when they want to know what the average Joe thinks about a certain topic? Right, they ask a taxi driver. So that is exactly what I did to find out how Germans feel about the presidential race. On a brief and pleasant ride in Bonn, I asked my driver, Heinz-Gert, what he thought about the U.S. election and who his favorite candidate was. Obviously when you ask a stranger about a political issue – or any issue for that matter – you never know what you get. So I was secretly hoping for a useable answer. I wasn't disappointed. Heinz-Gert is definitely rooting for Mrs. Clinton. "Hillary has that special something you need for this office." When I asked, whether he thought that her gender would influence voters, he said: "No. She has a lot of experience and is simply qualified for the job." That, according to Heinz-Gert, is just what Barack Obama is lacking. "He seems to young." What about John McCain then? I attribute it solely to his politeness, but when I brought up McCain, Heinz-Gert smoothly switched the topic of conversation to the weather. Everyone in the Cologne-Bonn region beware: At the end of the week a cold front is approaching. One minute later we arrived at my home. I paid and Heinz-Gert pointed out that he was a 30-year veteran taxi driver, a factoid I was welcome to use in my post.

Michael Knigge

Michael Knigge
Michael has headed up the German editorial team of DW-WORLD.DE since 2004. Previously, he worked as a reporter for the English service of Deutsche Welle Radio, as well as for various news agencies. Michael is an alumni of young professional programs with the Aspen Institute Berlin and the American Council on Germany and he was a RIAS Media Fellow at Duke University in 2006. He studied in Germany and the U.S. and holds a Master's degree in American Studies. Michael is based in Bonn, Germany.