EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Clear Winner in World Opinion
WASHINGTON - In a new international poll by the BBC World Service, all 22 countries surveyed would prefer that Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 4.
U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks to a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute awards gala in Washington, September 10, 2008.
(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) The 22 countries, drawn from six continents, preferred Obama over his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, by an average four to one margin.
The poll confirms the conventional wisdom that, while the race is tightening in the polls at home, the world wants to see an Obama presidency -- a notion that was mocked by the McCain campaign after an Obama speech in Berlin attended by 200,000 people.
'Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents,' said Doug Miller, the chairman of the international polling firm Globescan, who conducted the poll for the BBC with the help of University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes.
In another question in the BBC poll, more than three-quarters of the countries said that an Obama presidency would see improved U.S. relations with the rest of the world. On average, 46 percent of respondents think that relations would get better with Obama at the helm, 22 percent said they would stay the same, and 7 percent thought they would get worse.
One in five of those surveyed thought that a McCain presidency would bring better relations between the U.S. and the world. A plurality of 37 percent said that relations under McCain would stay the same, and 16 percent thought that they would get worse.
'Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the [George W.] Bush administration's relations with the world,' said Miller in a statement releasing the poll results.
A BBC World Service poll earlier this year showed that nearly half of the people in countries surveyed viewed U.S. influence on the world negatively.
In the recent poll, the U.S.'s allies in NATO -- many of whom did not participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as the non-NATO 'coalition of the willing' -- were the most optimistic that an Obama presidency would bring better relations.
More than 60 percent of respondents in Canada, France, German, and Italy, and over half of those surveyed in Britain said Obama would improve strained relations with the world.
Only China, Nigeria and India thought that a McCain presidency would improve relations with the rest of the world and in all three places that preference was only by a 'modest margin' over Obama.
In a separate poll released with the results of the international poll, U.S. citizens agreed with the prevailing world opinion that Obama stood a better chance of improving relations with the world. Nearly half thought that an Obama-led U.S. would have better relations with the globe, and 26 percent expected relations to be improved under McCain.
In Kenya, where Obama has roots through his father, people overwhelming support an Obama presidency -- 87 percent, the largest majority of the countries surveyed -- and nearly nine in 10 surveyed said both that they think U.S. relations with the world will improve and that 'their perception of the U.S. would fundamentally change' were Obama elected.
Nearly half of respondents worldwide -- and majorities and pluralities of 15 of the 22 countries polled -- agreed with the Kenyans on the issue of a 'fundamental change' in their perception of the U.S. Just over a quarter said their image of the U.S. would remain static if Obama is elected.
Just as in the U.S., Obama's international support was especially strong among young respondents and well-educated respondents. But the gaps with older and less-educated respondents were not significant.
While over half of those surveyed under the age of 35 supported Obama, his support among respondents over 55 years old was nearly equally strong at 47 percent. Six in 10 of those with university-level education and four in 10 of those with only primary education preferred Obama.
Turkey was the only country where significantly more people thought that U.S.-world relations would suffer from an Obama presidency rather than a McCain presidency. But in an apparent contradiction, Turks preferred Obama to be president.
Several of the countries polled had a majority of respondents showing no preference for either candidate. Most notably was recently re-emergent Russia, with fully three quarters of the respondents failing to express a preference. Middle Eastern countries Turkey and Egypt also had majorities of just over 60 percent with no preference.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

203 Comments so far
Show AllSo, our friendly democratic allies are for Obama, while corrupt nations taking our jobs or taking advantage of our oil needs want McCain or don't give a crap. Nice.
Wish people in these other countries could vote!!
What is WRONG with USAans?
I hear Illegal Aliens do in democratic districts so take heart
Obama's "World Popularity" is the kiss of death in a U.S. Campaign...as soon as Hamas endorsed him he was toast
Democrats supporting illegal immigration? Say it isn't so.
Most Republicans and a sizable number of Democrats support "free" trade which pretty much results on both sides losing. In those scams, the trading partners povertize the citizens and citizens eventually have no choice but to seek what little employment they can in the US. US employers are ready to cash in and hire these immigrants. And don't forget that the US government and media often fight for bad leaders in most Latin American nations that oppress their own citizens and even dump them into this country. Vicente Fox, former CEO of Coca-Cola and later president of Mexico, followed by his party successor Calderon of Mexico is a perfect example.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0520-23.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0609-31.htm
By the way, Thomas, what's going on with that Trans Texas Corridor Plan? You know, that Super NAFTA Highway plan that can make it even more easy to dump immigrants?
AND Republicans...
Democrats want new Voters... Republicans want Cheap Labor....Both sides are dirty in this one...
If the Big Union Supporters here on this site want to know why wages are low its because Unscrupulous employers will hire Illegal workers for $6 and hour and they take it with a smile
and you know I'm right
Without the unions, that "Labor Contract" you bragged about wouldn't even have come to pass. Unions aren't perfect but they sure are a hell of a lot better than none. South Carolina could sure use labor unions these days given the rise in deaths and injuries of blue collared workers and illegal labor being put in place of them. Of course, as far as trade is concerned, those "free" trade scams which Mccain and even Obama support are just nothing more than backdoors to exploiting slave labor and allowing big business to slap phony patents and frivolous lawsuits against local governments so that they can bend the laws as they wish. It's time to CANCEL NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, FTAA, GATT, etc ...
There are plenty of illegals even in predominantly caucasian "conservative" districts and states. Even Pat Buchanan said that the largest growth of Hispanics is in North Carolina. Yeah, that bankrupted "conservative" ideology you support is doing a heckuva job in "conservative" America, LOL !
In republican controlled elections the numbers of voting machines are dispersed dependent upon whether that district votes GOP or Dem. In republican controlled elections letters misinforming voters where and when to vote are sent out. In GOP controlled elections registrations of voters choosing democrats are disposed of, quite a track record, Wolfie, and that was just Ohio in '04.
You claim to have retired from the military, yet each post is a bit more sophomoric than the previous one, makes one wonder whether you are, in reality, an acne scarred little boy living above his mothers garage....
Now those who study such things would, of course, note that democrats and republicans do have a record of manipulating elections and districts. You, though, see the world in black and white, unfortunate for you and for your reputation too.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
If we are the world's police (empire) and the president of the USA IS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, then the people of the world should get to vote. (if you believe in democratic rule,,,
Who still believes that stuff?? Even neo-liberals seem to buy into the old argument that "the world is waiting to return to its position of leadership in the world". I dont think they are at all! I think theyve had quite enought of it!
Why dont we just stop trying to police the world and give up the empire crap?!
This poll is meaningless, as is the article - does not address Obama's anti-Afghanistan and anti-Pakistan, anti-Palestine etc. policies. A poll of Iraqis would show that neither of these two would result in any change. The victims of US aggression have a far higher level of insight than so-called "friendly democratic states."
As the following paragraph, conviniently placed at the end of the article, shows, those who have experienced the aggressive behaviors know better. They definitely know better than the ignorant Obama fanatics posing as "progressives."
"Most notably was recently re-emergent Russia, with fully three quarters of the respondents failing to express a preference. Middle Eastern countries Turkey and Egypt also had majorities of just over 60 percent with no preference."
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Why would China and India prefer McCain?
Perhaps one reason is that the Republicans want the market to decide on the safety of imported goods. Obama may tighten controls on importing dangerous goods, beef up inspections and testing.
Good for them bad for us. Makes sense. Thanks.
Maybe they want 4 more years of American decline. McSame will surely deliver the goods.
I think sometimes you disagree just to disagree. So tell us, the actual choice is between McCain and Obama. You know that. A vote for a 3rd party, while it might send a signal, and a signal I personally would agree with, will be a wasted vote. You know that too. You're too smart...I've seen your posts. So tell us RichM, do you *really* plan on voting for someone other than Obama? And if not, please tell us how many school-aged children you have who will be growing up in the country another McBush presidency will leave them. Do tell.
How many school aged children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and on and on are you willing to sacrifice with your choice of Obama/McCain?
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
what is our alternative? I will vote Nader, but clearly McCain or Obama will win.
You must be very young. I love your idealism. But no matter how you spin it, Obama and McCain aren't the same. They may have similarities, but their worldviews are opposite. However imperfect, I believe Obama is basically a WE mindset. McCain/Palin, despite they're Country First lie, are basically of a ME mindset. Children everywhere stand a better chance under a WE mindset, however flawed a WE leader might be.
Judge them, not by their words, but by their deeds. You will then note they are far more similar than you now believe. They are both slaves to a rancid system and to the money that feeds their electioneering. Obama and McCain have raised hundreds of millions of dollars between them, do you not find that a bit sickening?
We need the idealism of the young,tempered by the experience of the more advanced in age. What is not helpful is believing that voting for that candidate who best expresses your own desires for the direction of this nation is a useless gesture, it is far from that.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
That is a Hobson's choice--they both want to continue war/war/war!
You didn't answer my question: how many school age children do you have who might have to live in a country remade by McBush? (And to the other poster's point...how many Afghan, Pakistan, children are you willing to sacrifice? My answer: With McCain the chances are far far greater that my kids and Afghan, Pakistan kids will suffer. Under Obama, despite his required-election-year-sabre-rattling, far far less.)
I couldn't agree more that Nader, McKinney, or best, Kucinich have the ideals we should aspire to. But under McCain/Palin we'll head in the exact opposite direction. With Obama we may head in the right direction just much slower. And maybe faster...he at least has the chance to surprise us. McCain...no possibility.
Two.
Am I allowed to not B.S. myself about Obama now?
Thanks.
Your partisanship allows you to dismiss the sabre rattling of Obama as electioneering while emphasising that of MccCain as reality, this sort of politics is silly stuff really. I believe them both and thus vote for a candidate who rattles NO sabres, Ralph Nader.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
As for this "wasted vote" pabulum that some people like to keep putting out there, when one votes their conscience one is not wasting their vote.
One could counter that "wasted vote" nonsense by saying it's a "wasted vote" to vote for Obama or McCain when Nader/Gonzalez are the REAL, TRUE progressives.
Obama and McCain = The Third Bush Term.
I'm not about to "waste my vote" and vote for some candidate I can't stand and who has been a Bush-enabler the short time he's been in the senate. Not about to do that.
If there is an "election," I will vote my conscience (Nader/Gonzalez). I will no longer follow the ignorant and uninformed corporate media-programmed sheep who can only think in terms of D and R, because that's how they've been programmed since childhood. And that (along with corrupt e-voting machines) and grandiose wishful-thinking got us to the rut we're in.
Definition of Insanity:
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Like voting for Dems one "election" cycle after the other and expecting positive change).
Voting or not voting is a personal choice. No one should be telling anyone who they should or must vote for. Period.
My personal choice and the two people I will be voting for:
------------> Nader/Gonzalez.
Bravo.......well stated.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Marginally different from McCain"
Agreed, sort of. More than marginal on some issues.
But consider: A marginal error sending a man to the moon and they will drift through space forever.
I disagree with you. There is a profound difference, and I wish it were more obvious to the casual observer. I dislike this spoon-fed vanilla blah very much, but it's feigning ignorance to see no difference.
Differences can be cosmetic or meaningful. Obama votes "present" when McCain votes yea or nay, is that meaningful? Obama calls for more deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan, McCain calls for more deaths in Iraq, is that meaningful? Obama supports NAFTA, as does McCain, meaningful? Obama has taken more corporate money than has McCain to date, meaningful as hell!
Perhaps you might enlighten this forum with a post that contains facts to support your emotional appeals. Of course it would almost be worth it voting for Obama if it keeps Ms. Palin in Alaska, now she is one dangerous fanatic, and darn ignorant of world affaris as well, but she knows her scriptures you betcha.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
World opinion is relevant. The fact that there are postings here that dismiss opinions from outside our provincial thinking (it's all about us (US)) is a sad indication of what American attitudes are, even here on the progressivish left. The sad truth is that Americans suffer a knee-jerk reaction to hearing the views of foreigners. It is similar to the juvenile reaction teenagers have when parents offer an opinion, suggestion, or observation. It requires action in the opposite direction. So, in a way, expressing that the rest of the world views Obama more positively will likely have the result of driving Americans to vote for McCain. We are so immature.
I agree. But, in places where obama still needs to win support, I think most people are focusing more on domestic issues. It only stands to reason that it is hard for people to care as much about what is going on in the rest of the world if they are sleeping in their car or ready to. But, then I'm not a true Obama supporter.I would NEVER vote McCain.
Ohio newspapers printed a bunch of horseshit that Obama wants to trade public schools for Charter schools. The teachers in my building are livid and gullible, but swearing to vote for McCain. I am trying to rescue the truth. Wish me luck.
I'm afraid both Mccain and Obama want to continue that plan that has been ongoing for at least 8, if not 28 years. Sorry.
I'm here in Ohio--Obama DOES plan to support MORE charter schols, faith based initiatives and No Child's Behind Left. It is one reason I cannot suport him. But, voting for mcCain certainly wont help teachers
But Obama plans to help public schools not hurt them. That is what his speech said. How is the NEA in favor of Obama if he brazenly plans to hurt public schools? His sister is a teacher.
I just asked my building principal if I could print excerpts of the whole speech and put them in everyone's mailboxes. Typical admin response: "No."
NEA, like all of us, has little choice. We must start running people with integrity for Congress and local offices and build something from the ground up.
Joe
"That is what his speech said". Isnt that a rather odd way of referring to a person? I'm not trying to be glib--I just think that so many people got caught up in his "speeches" (like he is "going to help public school"--how??? WHAT is he goin to do?) that they dont "listen" to them.
He said he would fully fund us and reward us (raise salaries) for succeeding.
Please dont hold your breath.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
So you answered your own question, didn't you?
The NEA supports Obama because he will -or at least may- raise federal funding and raise "teacher" salaries.
Naive, uninformed, "teachers" is what keeps my children out of "public schools".
Thank you for confirming this decision.
Actually, far far too little effort has been made to explain the impact of government interference in public schools. This problem actually began as a populist reaction to public school integration, and has been the object of cryto- racism since.
If one considers the impact of No Child Left Behind and the diversion of school funds toward implementing it's 165 or so days of testing, it would become more readily apparent that what the R's want is to so thoroughly discredit and disable public schools that charter schools become a necessity if you want your kids to get any kind of education.
This arena has been one of numerous and significant victories for the far right for at least the 28 years you count. Public education needs to be revamped from the bookkeeping up. The present system considers buildings to be assets, but teachers as under a "liability" classification. It is the best example I know of how our ability to promote and develop our common wealth is hamstrung in favor of those endowed with "uncommon" wealth.
I really believe that they want to do away with public schools altogether in order to give their progeny a competitive advantage. They want to 'dumb down' the populace to prevent their greed from being understood. It should be no surprise that their successful efforts have left us far behind other nations in the global competition for jobs and wealth.
He has made these disingenuous pandering statements - so shame on him. This is confusing and self defeating. As you mention, he is eroding support among those who would be his natural supporters. But in general, I believe he sees the value of public education. Remember the "army of teachers" statement.
McCain-Palin are more likely in the end to support private schools and home schooling.
So good luck myconscience.
Joe
Try reminding them that No Child Left Behind and 165 days of testing when teaching might be accomplished. Charter schools aren't so burdened. If the money spent on teaching and testing materials required by NCLB could be spent better by permitting better teachers to be hired.
Unfortunately, the world doesn't vote in our elections. The next election will be decided by the Elmer Fudds, Gomer Pyles, Ozzie Nelsons, Karl Roves, Charles Gibsons, Katie Courics and Diebold voting machines of what used to be called The United States.
I've always accepted and understood the 'hands off' approach taken by people in other nations toward US politics, but, as we all live in the same world and we're by far the biggest camel in the tent, I'm beginning to wonder. In a close race, I might even be influenced by what other peoples thought. We have to live with them and they with us. We've held ourselves out as a light to the world for more than a couple of centuries, and it's been beneficial. Certainly we can respect the fact of that influence and consider what it's effect yields from those who have so benefitted.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158392/output/print
‘Jim Crawford’ Republicans
The GOP is working to keep eligible African-Americans from voting in several states.
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 2:37 PM ET Sep 11, 2008
It was a mainstay of Jim Crow segregation: for 100 years after the Civil War, Southern white Democrats kept eligible blacks from voting with poll taxes, literacy tests and property requirements. Starting in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court declared these assaults on the heart of American democracy unconstitutional.
Now, with the help of a 2008 Supreme Court decision, Crawford vs. Marion County (Indiana) Election Board, white Republicans in some areas will keep eligible blacks from voting by requiring driver's licenses. Not only is this new-fangled discrimination constitutional, it's spreading.
GOP proponents of the move say they are merely trying to reduce voter fraud. But while occasional efforts to stuff ballot boxes through phony absentee voting still surface, the incidence of individual vote fraud—voting when you aren't eligible—is virtually non-existent, as "The Truth About Vote Fraud," a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, clearly shows. In other words, the problem Republicans claim they want to combat with increased ID requirements doesn't exist. Meanwhile, those ID hurdles facing individuals do nothing to stop the organized insiders who still try to game the system.
The motive here is political, not racial. Republicans aren't bigots like the Jim Crow segregationists. But they know that increased turnout in poor, black neighborhoods is good for Democrats. In that sense, the effort to suppress voting still amounts to the practical equivalent of racism.
In Crawford, the court upheld an Indiana law essentially requiring a passport or driver's license in order to vote. But more than two thirds of Indiana adults have no passports and nearly 15 percent have no driver's licenses. These eligible voters, disproportionately African-American, will need to take a bus or catch a ride from a friend down to the motor vehicles bureau to make sure they obtain a nondriver photo ID. Otherwise, they cannot vote in Indiana this year.
To get an idea of how many African-Americans nationwide lack driver's licenses, recall Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when thousands were stranded without transportation. "Crawford Republicans" could make the old "Jim Crow Democrats" look like pikers when it comes to voter suppression.
*************************************************
Republicans should be arrested for treason! They're trying to get away with yet another stolen election.
Its great that the rest of the world loves Obama, but I'm more concerned about how voting Americans feel. They appreciated Kerry more also, unfortunately we got Bush.. Have a Great Weekend
"Its great that the rest of the world loves Obama, but I'm more concerned about how voting Americans feel. They appreciated Kerry more also, unfortunately we got Bush.. Have a Great Weekend"
We got Bush because both 2000 and 2004 WERE STOLEN! We got Bush in the first place because the Supremes selected Bush/Cheney. It's amazing to me how many people conveniently forget all this.
2000 was stolen in FL.
2004 was stolen in FL AND OH. Even though Edwards had said "all votes will be counted." Meanwhile, Kerry couldn't get to the microphone fast enough to concede to Bush.
And since the voters will be voting on the same corrupt, fraudulent, dishonest easily-hackable electronic voting machines (Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Hart Intercivic, et al) why would 2008 (if there is an "election") be any different? Granted, most people choose to live in Denial about this. They don't like to talk about it and most refuse to talk about it. Well how on Earth is that going to solve the problem? How does silence solve a problem? Duh.
The corrupt electronic voting machines are all the nation now. They also flip votes without the voter even knowing it.
So when the world says it favors Obama. That's one thing.
But clearly the world is not aware that we have these damnable voting machines owned by Repugs (and the Dems helped put them in place). So the world lives under the illusion that we have fair and legitimate elections. Hardly!
I expect 2008 (if there is an "election") to be stolen just like 2000 and 2004 because nothing has changed with the corrupt voting system. And since most people even refuse to talk about it and want to "wish" the problem away, why would anything change? It's not about to.
Yeah, why even participate. It is so MUCH easier to whine, and invent strange conspiracy theories. I remember when the 2006 election was going to be cancelled, but it wasn't....
And then you wonder why you LOSE, LOSE, and LOSE some more...