World Reaction to Obama's Nomination

As the Republicans gather for their convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, this week, it may be helpful to see what the world's reaction is to Barack Obama's historic presidential nomination in the other major party.

• Simon Jenkins writes, in the Times of London, that Obama's acceptance speech last Thursday was "an epic performance."
  
  Jenkins puts it this way: "Every American voter casts a de facto proxy vote for the disenfranchised millions who consume America’s foreign and military policy abroad ... Obama’s global popularity lead over McCain is thus more than a beauty contest. Were he to be elected, his country would unquestionably experience an immediate and dramatic surge in popularity."


• The Times of India raises the tired, old points about Obama's names.
  
  On the (at this stage) remote chance that you are unfamiliar with those points, Obama's middle name is Hussein (which is, obviously, the name of Iraq's deposed and now deceased dictator), and "Obama" sounds an awful lot like "Osama."
  
  (On the subject of his name, I've even read one article in which it was suggested that it doesn't take much of a stretch to make the Democratic ticket sound quite a bit like the name of America's top living nemesis — i.e., Obama bin Biden.
  
  (I ask you, is that a legitimate argument for or against either side?)
  
  Even if his middle name and surname are reminiscent of the most notorious American enemies of the last two decades, the Times speaks optimistically about what Obama's campaign means.
  
  "[T]hese are momentous times in America," says the Times. "It might not translate fully on November 4 into a 'Black man goes to the White House,' kind of storied ending, but Barack Obama has brought colour and panache to the usually monochromatic US elections.
  
  "Here’s a man who did not feel the need to change his name to 'Bobby' or whitewash his views to wow the mainstream. He just let it all hang out."
  
  Well, actually, I believe Obama went by the first name of "Barry" when he was young.
  
  But he's gone by "Barack" for most, if not all, of his adult life.


• Despite the glow among Democrats after their convention in Denver, the GOP designation of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the presumptive vice presidential nominee has "dragged the spotlight back to John McCain," says The Scotsman.
  
  The paper acknowledges that the selection "was cleverly designed to inject some youth and enthusiasm into the Republican ticket, together with a reminder to Hillary Clinton supporters that McCain, for one, was happy to put a woman in the White House."
  
  It remains to be seen if that will make the difference in the election.
  
  However, The Scotsman says, "This newspaper ... believes Obama should take over from George Bush. ... But we will not decide the outcome of this election. ... [F]or all the dazzling speeches and hope of change, Obama might not win."


• Der Spiegel writes about the "staged unity" at the convention.
  
  "The fact that the Clintons' two speeches calling for voters to back Obama were treated as great events attests only to the absence of real events at the convention," writes Der Spiegel.
  
  Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the main goal of the modern political convention is to give the appearance of a party unified behind a candidate and a message. It is supposed to be a positive experience.
  
  If there are no "real events" (read: real news), then the convention is a success in the eyes of the party officials.
  
  We all saw — in 1992 — how much the Republicans struggled when the overall tone of their convention was perceived by the public to be negative.
  
  And some of us are old enough to remember the problems the Democrats had after TV cameras broadcast the clashes in the streets between the Chicago police and the demonstrators in 1968.
  
  In the age of television, perception has become reality. The modern convention is about style — not necessarily substance.
  
  Entertainment — not education.


• Michael Gershon of the Calgary Herald wasn't impressed with Obama's speech.
  
  "The setting invited comparisons to John F. Kennedy," Gershon writes. "The anniversary invited comparisons to Martin Luther King Jr. The stage invited comparisons to Zeus."
  
  But the speech did not live up to the invitations, he says. "In tone, Obama's big speech was small, partisan, often defensive and occasionally snide. ... And some of the attacks were simply unfair."
  
  The speech was "aggressively unexceptional, as if he set out to be unmemorable," Gershon writes. "Ronald Reagan drew lines from Clint Eastwood movies: 'Go ahead, make my day.' Obama drew his tag line — 'Eight is enough' — from a 1970s sitcom. (The song, you might remember, goes, 'Eight is enough to fill our lives with love.')"