Both Clinton and Obama often tout their ability to repair America's reputation abroad after eight years of foreign policy blunders by the Bush administration. As a Republican, McCain shares many positions with Bush; most notably, he has been a chief advocate of the unpopular war in Iraq. Because of these factors, McCain has generally not been viewed as a particularly potent antidote for improving America's image internationally. The article linked above characterizes the British public as enthralled by the Democratic candidates in the race and largely disinterested in the Republican side.
However, certain groups abroad might be receptive to a President McCain. His reputation for being moderate and straightforward has earned him respect while his military background grants him credibility in matters of war. A recent editorial in the Times of London credits McCain with offering a solid assessment of the situation in Iraq and urges Prime Minister Gordon Brown to heed his advice. (True, the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a well-known conservative, but his editorial control is supposedly minimal.) The Times has a significant voice in London, the capital city of one of our most critical allies, so it's worth noting that this editorial quite forcefully backs McCain on Iraq. The Republican nominee also held a high-profile fundraiser in London.
These articles have me speculating about how McCain would be perceived abroad as Commander in Chief. As a successor to Bush, he would present nowhere near as stark a contrast as either of the Democrats, but his administration would surely be different in major ways. A New York Times article outlines ways that McCain tried to highlight those differences during his travels. What would a McCain presidency mean to our foreign friends...and to less friendly foreigners?
