Mr. Gerson might want to stick to bloviating on events that have already happened, instead of reporting on his dreams.
Apparently you don’t read entire threads before replying either.
Little point.
What I see in the original post, not following any links, is that the world would consider Obama’s election to be the biggest change in American policy.
The OP then goes on to presume that this change would a) Be good, and b) Furthermore, be a change in a good direction.
Hell, I could have told you without any polls that Obama’s election would be a huge change in our image, simply off his voting record. When was the last President with a political ideology so sweeping? FDR? Teddy and his breaking of the trusts and Boss Tweed’s NY machine?
What’s this lumping Clinton in with Bush? Clinton was the anti-Bush, world-respect wise. He was probably our most admired former president on the world stage in the past generation or two. They’re polar opposites in that regard.
Is Clinton? Cite, please.
Mind, “the last generation or two” takes us back to the early 60s- right after Ike.
I don’t have a cite. Just my own (maybe flawed) opinion. I of course never spent the time to determine which president was the most popular abroad. So maybe it’s Bush for all I know (altho I doubt that). I do seem to recall him being popular overseas based on news reports I saw. And I think he was more popular than Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and Johnson. Not sure about Carter.
If I was out of place to make the observation, I’m sorry. I probably shouldn’t have said that…
Reagan was generally popular (ending the Cold War!), as was George W- I believe George W. was the most popular during his presidency worldwide for how he conducted the Gulf War (actually acting like the US was a partner in the UN, and collecting worldwide consensus! Gasp! How un-American!), although he might actually not be #1. Nixon I had thought was quite well-regard worldwide, especially since he withdrew from 'Nam and “opened” China, although recent generations don’t look at the times the way they were. Carter made major efforts at peace in the MidEast.
Clinton, however, did the Bosnian hokey-pokey, launched missile strikes into South Africa, and bullied Haiti. The Clinton years weren’t the utopia people want to revise them to- I presume you’re both a Democrat and young, 26 or younger? Don’t wear rose-colored glasses about the Clinton years just because they preceded the “hated, evilz Bush” years. The economy was showing rock from the dot-com bubble burst before Clinton left office.
Clinton may be looked upon relatively fondly by the world now, simply because GW has done as he has. This doesn’t mean he was favorably regarded during his term, especially to the point of being the tops in the last couple of generations.
I seem to remember Reagan being quite unpopular at the time. Of course I was very young, so I’m probably wrong there too. Was Reagan more popular than Clinton? I’d have thought Clinton was at the time of their presidencies. Well, I’m not going to make out of my ass observations anymore, as I’m obviously wrong here. But I’d be interested to see what those who do know about this have to say about it.
And yes I am an idiot and will stay out of GD as has been my policy til now.
Really, I think Reagan had the biggest shifts in world opinion during his term I’m aware of, from low to high. Then again, GW Bush had the highest approval ratings ever right after the Gulf War and still managed to lose the election in the following year. Clinton was absolutely brilliant at selling himself.
I currently have visitors from Germany.
They told me that recently on German television, there was a special broadcast that had a team go to Obama’s father’s village in Africa and interview Obama’s grandmother! She was very gracious and gave her best wishes to everybody watching the show in Germany.
Sounds to me like the rest of the world is indeed somewhat interested.
Who said they weren’t interested?
But being popular with other nations- particularly since a lot of other nations don’t like us- is not a good indicator of competence for the presidency.
I mean, really, introducing the issue smacks of peer pressure. “Britain will think we’re cool if we elect Obama, they might even let us smoke with them and France behind the UN building and ditch Security Council meetings.”
Except we rely on the world for our standard of living… China and Gulf States buying our debt so that we can spend more than we have… not to mention selling us oil in dollars… watch out if they reset things into Euros.
Which is relevent only if China and the Gulf States will buy less debt if Obama’s not elected and more if he is, and there’s no connection between that and what the original poster brought up.
Since Reagan and the first Bush were so popular overseas mean that McCain should be the obvious preference of the rest of the world? Why Obama?
Well McCain would simply look like all the rest of the presidents. Obama, obviously, not so much. Human perception is very important in the judgement and decision making process. Look how divided the dems are with a black man and a white woman. But of course that all only has to do with their respective personalities. 
As a rule I see this as a non-starter. We vote for President based on if they can improve our lot in life - or harm it least. At this point, I do think that the good will of the world would help, but a President who is overly occupied with keeping them happy… might not be listening to the electorate. It nets to 0.
And I did vote for Obama and hope to in November. I don’t like the argument that the world likes him and I think it plays horribly to the masses.
Most of the world is dark skinned. Even in America many are a little embarrassed by the rich white guys running our country ,over and over. Obama would show the world that we can esteem black people. They are aware of our history. From slavery to violence against those who sought equal rights, our anti black story is known.
Obama as president would help temper our perceived hypocrisy.
Obama’s ambitions are quite modest compared to the nation building agenda of the neocons.
As for international popularity. GHWB and Clinton were about the same. Poppy was much better at foreign policy than domestic and (unlike his idiot son) viewed the international community as important. That’s why he built a real colition before GWI (as opposed to Jr’s paper “coalition of the willing”), and why he didn’t invade Iraq.
Clinton brokered at least some temporary peace initiatives in Israel, deposed a brutal Hatian dictatorship without firing a shot, lost no casualties in Kosovo and and (for whatever its worth) signed NAFTA.
Poppy and Bubba both were pretty well-liked during their terms. It’s really GWB who’s taken the image of the US as essentially good guys to being aggressive, arrogant, warmongering, torturing, hypocritical bullies.