The Economist has a very interesting piece on its website today about the opinions of residents of the Middle East regarding the upcoming elections. Not surprisingly, their preferences are most influenced by the candidates' views on foreign policy, but two things really jumped out at me.
The first thing is how close the ratings of McCain and Clinton are in the Israeli press (7.75 and 7.5, respectively, on a 10-point scale with 10 as the best - Obama gets a 5.12). McCain and Clinton obviously differ in their predictions and prescriptions for Iraq and the Middle East, but, at least in the Middle East, those differences clearly aren't seen as being all that important. Unfortunately, the article doesn't include any rankings of Bush, so we can't say for sure whether they see any difference between Bush's policies and those of Clinton/McCain. But if the view that McCain is just a wrinklier version of Bush is anywhere near as prevalent in Bethlehem, Israel, as it is in Bethlehem, PA, then the perceived similarities between McCain and Hillary can't be a good sign for her.
The other thing that stood out was Obama's support among the Arabs. Most interesting was the note about how badly the "Barack Hussein Obama" disparagements have played in the Middle East. Again, guys, the Middle East situation is as much about perception and framing as it is about actual policy. If we elect Hillary, not only will we have elected a president whom the Arabs are less enthusiastic about, but we will have failed to elect someone whom they do seem to support. I'm not sure which would hurt us more...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"we will have failed to elect someone whom they do seem to support. I'm not sure which would hurt us more..."
This is the most amusing thing I have read in a long, long time, my dear.
Post a Comment