Let my start with your finish. I share your observation that general attitude towards a country and personal contact are two quite different things. But may be the perception, that a political view should result in personal rejection isn’t completely true as well. Of course I can have opposite political views than you have (and it seems to be that way), but still hold you to be a nice guy otherwise – and have a friednly tone while discussing anyway. These two things don’t neccessarily correlate. So your personal experiences seem to be quite plausible, and they reflect what I experienced when I met Americans on my trips.

Another thing comes in play regarding that topic. This is: Europeans are not anti-Americanists per se! They just don’t like the way of your foreign policies of the recent years (okay, some of your habits look pretty weired to us, but this is not the basic point). See, when Obama came to Berlin, comments in America where pretty suspiciously. Eh, see that creepers, they want to cheer to the pop-star. While it’s indisputable that some of the visitors indeed were sensation-seekers a lot of other motivations played a role. One of them was to demonstrate, that Germans (and probably Europeans as a whole, as many visitors came from neighboring countries as well; furthermore lots of Americans living abroad were on the spot) are not anti-Americans as such. This is the impression you might have, when remebering how George W. had to be protected, during his visits in Germany. Masses of demonstrators! But when the chance was there to face a political leader from the US with a higher reputation, people liked to show that as ´the basic attitude they still like the states.

I don’t understand your remark about the media-bias. What do have your media to do with perceptions over here. Generally I don’t have the impression that media here are particulary unbalenced (which for the public broadcasters is forbidden anyway). Maybe – and that is an impression I gained whilst observing this blog – you should consider your attitude towards the media in general. If you don’t like the meaessage it’s not always the fault of the messenger.

Coming to Obama and his potential role in world politics. I guess the core of our controversy is how you and I expect Obama to act towards terrorism. To say it shortly: you believe through his overall conciliatory attitude he would invite terrorists and I do not. Well I have to admit that from distance I can’t finally judge his plan against terrorism. But lets face it, after 9/11 no American president would dare to misunderestimate this matter. And by all he says I don’t have the impression that Obama is a softie, but one who leaves the gun allways on the table. I’m not worried at all.

His plus on the other hand is his conciliatory attitude which may help getting things done. Eddio, you may have one ting with out letting the other! As I pointed out above with a general attitude, which puts mutual understanding, multilaterality, diplomacy in the first place chances are high to find a fresh start. The leap of faith Obama already receives is an asset not only when dealing with your European (and Asian, African etc) friends an allies, but might also help when dealing with more problematic counterparts, like Russia, arab countries.

Sorry to repeat the bully-picture, but this is how you are seen momentarily, by the people, but (less open) by politicians as well. You may still have the greatest power in terms of economy and military. But to be a leader you actually lack the moral integraty you once possessed.

I think you have to decide if you want to continue the current course (maybe in different shades), resulting in disrespect, hatred and, yes, more terrorists. Or if you like to chose a leader, who embodies some credibility and thius gaines trust – and could get things done. I do not assume that when the time of an Obama-administration has gone all the people in the world would live in peace and harmony. But its well woth a try – and as I see it the only promising alternative.

Some points to reflect?

I appreciated your comments and perspective. And it’s helpful having an international presence. You’re commenting much more frequently than our domestic liberal posters, so it’s nice to have some banter.

I can appreciate the “fresh” potential Obama brings to the world stage vis-a-vis your perception of the US. I have traveled through Europe, and have had heard diverse opinions shared about the US; everything from “Yeah America!” to “evil Yankee go home and die!” (I think the French were the worst, you know).

But the concern I have is that with Obama, to reach that place of conciliatory understanding with the world, it sure seems like we will need to “sell the farm” in terms of security. You may not be aware of it, but when Bill Clinton was in office, he gutted defense spending and initiatives (all voted for by John Kerry as well) that left our security in a place where 9/11 became a more plausible possibility. The fallout from the comissions showed how much of an impact that dismantling had.

I realize one can never totally eliminate threats and suicidal attacks; but can we minimize the potential harm and collateral damage that comes with those events? If America is the leading economy of the world (hence the larger % of energy expended than say Ethiopia or Kazakhstan), then it would be in the world’s best interest to protect that for the benefit of all. Now I agree we shouldn’t rationalize that into a ‘carte blanche’ approach to military or political issues around the world; we need to work in concert with others around the world. But the stakes are high, and the need is there. And while I don’t like the perceptions of the US being a bully, how much of that is truly the case vs. what is presented by a slanted, biased media (both US and other countries like BBC, etc.)?

Ironically, what I hear most often from people outside the US in regards to attitudes about America in general vs. personal contact with me in particular is that while they may have neutral or negative attitudes (or criticisms) about the US in general, they have very positive experiences with me in terms of befriending and learning through our time together. Much of that distinction, I believe, is media driven, which is why I am merciless with our left-leaning, liberal saddled media and hollywood entertainment. They are sending warped messages that can only be corrected with personal contact. But which happens more frequently and repeatedly? Hence my distaste for the media.

I heard about all the achievements you attach to Palin. And I bet you heard about, that they are all refuted or at least relativized by the investigation, which took place after her appointment. But of course these investigations can’t be true because they were conducted by biased liberal media. Nice game. You always win. If investigation results are positive (from you perspective) you are content and praise her. If negative you blame the evil liberal and biased media for doing their job and praise Palin the more. For an outsider it seems that all it needs is literally “somebody”, who is anti-abortion, anti-gouvernment and reflects you cultural values and you run wild. Is it really so easy?

I don’t really have an opinion about drilling. But you might also consider to save some energy. You know the number that the US use 20-25% of the world-wide energy-ressources. As I learned from the blog here, some of you see this as a sign for your prosperity. You might consider that you contribute to global warming unproportionally, which affects me and my kids as well and makes it quite unplausible to tell the Chinese and Indians to save energy.

Can people from other countries judge what is best for the US? No, they can’t. Not in detail, as the example of drilling shows. What indeed we can is two things. We can argue about your philosophy of small gouvernment, why shouldn’t we? And we can point out that for instance the fact, that so many of you lack health-insurence or the fact that so many of you live in poverty pretty much contradicts and even ridicules the phrase many of you seem to like so much: “beeing no. one” and a “great nation”. It contradicts the christian value of grace of charity as well.

And of course we can point out every by and then, that decisions you take over there (foreign policy, energy policy e.g.) will affect us as well.

People from other countries need to realize that our government is different from theirs–different for a reason. Not that I’m lumping you in this category, but outsiders think they know what’s best for America. Sorry, but the majority don’t.

(I will add, I think you are brave to add your commentary to this site….even if you think your English stinks–which really, it’s not too bad; we have a difficult language after all!)

Let me tell you that I hold a PhD in physics to be worth more than a bachelor in journalism, ackquired by jumping over five universities.

Palin is not just a headscratcher, she is a real headshaker. In Germany we would not entrust her 5 bucks to buy some ice-cream at the cornershop, and you really want to offer her the white house??? Tell me just one positive thing about her.

Obama a devout Muslim? Yes sure! And did you know, he has little babies for breakfast.

thanks for your response.

Before I answer I have to state, that I always feel a bit uncomfortable, as you might consider my participation as somewhat assumptive or even audacious: who the f. … is that German guy who dares to comment our politics, care for your own business! Additionally I probably tend to formulate very direct, sometimes even harsh. In part as my English is not good enough – I probably can make myself understood, but to be really eloquent I lack quite a bit (thanks Gary, if you read, for your compliments). But in part this is also caused by my neglection of political correctness and I like calling things by their names. Bottom line: as a citizen of the world, who indeed will be affected by the outcome of your elections I indeed take my right to comment. But in the same time I do not intend to be offensive, even when being direct in the wording.

Now to your statement.
I see your point of a prejudical-circular-conclusion. But I guess it’s in the nature of things, isn’t it? As neither McCain nor Obama have been in executional responsibility one has to judge them by their voting records and by the things they say. You may call that prejudice, I like to call that indicators. And at least these indicators give you some impression what the basic attitude of the candidate would be. And they are more or less reliable. Remember George W. in 2000? He came up as ignorant, little knowledge and little interest about foreign countries and as unilateralist. And he turned out to be … you might answer yourself.

As to Obama and McCain in that respect. First let me say some words, which you may consider as unfriendly. America once used to be a respected nation. As German I am honestly grateful for your participation in WW II and I personally know some people who got their first piece of chocolate from American Soldiers. You could be the friendly and gentle 10-pound Gorilla in the jungle. You could be. But actually you are perceived as the unfriendly, aggressive bully on the schoolyard. That guy that everybody fears and would like to avoid from but somehow has to deal with. I know that some of you don’t really care for but that is exactly why.
Obama spreads the hope and the believe that your basic attitude towards the world would change. Let me refer to his Berlin-speech, which was often criticised in your country. Somewhat telling, when you don’t like him, cause he is liked in Europe. Obama came as a proud American patriot. But he came as citizen of the world as well! This is a new tone in the debate. Of course his speech in the most topics was pretty vague and not specific. But the bottom line was that he aspires a world of peace and mutual understanding and acknowledgement of problems. His means would be diplomacy and multilateratility in the first place and armed forces as the last means. Trivial! But ultimately at least there was an American leader, who said it and made it as a principle. You have no idea how much that means! And I am pretty sure that this attitude converts in productive mutual politics when sitting face to face with heads of state.

As you may say, crap, he sells our American interests, consider this. Obama came to Berlin, spoke to 200.000 people and besides the message of mutual understanding he had the guts to tell us, that this would mean more effort from Europe. You could easily translate it in “we will not do the job in Afghanistan on our own, you have to deliver more money and manpower”. He made pretty clear, that he would not be the smart –poster-boy-president alone, but a demanding one, who would not hesitate to use force when necessary as well. Some around here had to swallow hard. But to accept it is so much easier, in a frame of mutuality and multilaterality.

To McCain: no I don’t tell you the more of the same – thing, though McCain played an important role to go to Iraq. My words were meant to confine Obama from the current Bush-administration and the cowboy-diplomacy-approach in the first place. McCain is certainly much more an internationalist than Bush is. And he is (as far as I know) respected over here among politicians – on the same level as Biden is by the way. But indeed there are fears that he would be an old-style-politician, who would be inclined to use armed forces easier than Obama would. Hawkishness is a nice word for the basic attitude he displays. The K-G-B he sees in Putin’s eyes tells a lot about his world view.

To compare Iraq with Chamberlain and Hitler sounds adventurous to me. You and I know that the decision to go there was based on intentionally faked intelligence information. Besides you certainly the old joke that Rumsfield didn’t have to got to Iraq to see which kind of weapons the own, as he had all the bills in his cupboard at home. And to see Iraq as a sideline battlefield what you like to call the war on terror, well even the Bush administration doesn’t tell any longer, as far as I know. Sideline, with that waste of people and money, come on!

The surge certainly was a success in terms of stabilizing Iraq, though some other reasons played a role. Finally we are glad, that only 20 people or so are killed a day and not the prior numbers. But wether or not the surge was a real success just proves the day you leave Iraq. Stabilization serves the purpose to implement a strong Iraqi government. And so far I can’t see that the situation has settled so that you could leave the country with out a civil war would start immediately.

“…I don’t want to have a woman in handsreach of the red button, who just started two weeks ago to think about foreign relations”

Have you considered German Chancellor Angela Merkel? A female politician from a center right party, and a scientist.

As for Barry Obama’s “living overseas”, that would be from age 5 to age 10 as a devout Muslim right?

The problem I have with your comments about world leaders respecting Barack already (and possibly implying that they do not respect McCain, or at least enjoy his positions) is that they are doing so with a minimum of personal contact, and no tenure of office to judge it against. All you have is a speech to your fellow Berliners and a few cups of coffee with some leaders. Not much to square away on the bigger issues. The only thing these European leaders have to base their opinions on is either the verbal promises and statements made on the campaign trail by Obama, or some website info. All of that, in my opinion, is vaporous at best.

To be honest, judging and therefore respecting (or disrespecting) prior to any sizable amount of evidence to demonstrate and reinforce those positions is called “prejudice”. That is exactly what many of us conservatives in the US can’t stand about European liberals. Whether perceived accurately or not, we feel like there’s an awful lot of positions based on little to no actual data, and therefore is prejudicial in nature. You are coming at this with pre-conceived opinions of what is best; and Obama fits those notions better than McCain, so therefore he is the “respected” candidate among Europeans. That’s circular, prejudicial logic.

And please don’t give me the “McCain is just another Bush – more of the same” arguement. That is just the Dem talking points, and if you believe that, than propaganda is more alive and well in the world today than I thought. I honestly believe that while McCain brings a level of “hawkishness” to the White House, he is an able communicator, especially in close quarters (i.e. negotiations). You cannot be a Senator and not learn how to negotiate win/win situations with your opponents. I do not fear impulsive responses to world crises; in addition, I believe he would be a better communicator than Bush. That’s been Bush’s biggest problem; whereas Reagan (and Thatcher for that matter) were excellent communicators and sold their big ideas, Bush just implemented some of them without the needed accompanying ability to communicate vision, need, purpose, etc. Failure to do so meant people were not coming along with the decisions and actions being implemented. That’s the source of the “cowboy diplomacy” issue.

In historical hindsight, we might agree that Iraq was a sideline battlefield in the war on terror. One can even argue that Obama would have been right for us to stay home and not go in the first place. However, judgment is based on decisions made, not hypotheticals raised. This is not Harvard Law School; this is real life, which gets quite messy. And there are times when delaying ugly action only means even more ugly action later (Chamberlain, Hitler and WW2 come to mind).

But now that the can of worms is opened (which cannot be argued), I believe McCain has a better grasp on the necessities of the situation vs. Obama. He called the surge rightly, which should count just as much (and I will argue even more than) as Obama’s prior stance of not going. The fact that Obama repeatedly called the surge a mistake BOTH strategically and tactically reveals a mistake in hsi judgment; again, point for McCain.

So saying Obama is inherently better because he lines up with your pre-conceived positions is fine as a personal opinion, but not a matter of fact. Also, McCain has demonstrated wise judgment in the situation as well (even against Obama’s), which as a world leader of a country, I want to see happening with the US leader with whom I may be working alongside of in the future.

Although, you can’t buy such comedy on the networks-

Lived overseas…check.

Studied overseas…I guess that depends on your defnition of “study”, but I’ll give myself the benefit of the doubt…check.

Majoring in International Relations…well…check!

Add that to the fact that I’ve also conducted business overseas and closed lucratvie deals oversease and I guess I should submit my resume to Team Obama. By his qualifications, I’m at least qualified to be Secretary of State…or Commerce maybe.

As for Alaskans being able to see Russia, its easier than you think. The Russian military regularly probes Alaska’s air defenses with their bombers. Alaska’s Air National Guard (something with which I’m sure Palin is familiar) is most likely one of the few ANG wings to have regular contact with foreign agressors in US airspace.

As to Palin: no its not only her remark, that from one certain point of Alaska you can see Russia. If we are symphatetic to her, we may understand it as a joke. What makes one really scary is the lack of any knowledge about foreign policy that she revealed at her recent interview. There was rarely a useful sentence, when she had to say something off the road of the script prepared by her advisers. I don’t want to have a woman in handsreach of the red button, who just started two weeks ago to think about foreign relations, or probably just memorized some sentences about it.