I like to start with France, a civilization which naturally is the implacable enemy of every true “real American” cultural warrior – oooh la la Gov. Palin!

From Sylvain Cypel, New York correspondent for Le Monde (Guantanamo, financial crisis, Iraq . . .: The dossiers that await the president):

The new president intends, as he has repeated, to take during the first year of his term a series of “spectacular” decisions and initiatives. He should therefore, within the first 100 days after 20 January, give an “address to the Islamic world” designed to improve current relations and to scotch any idea of a “clash of civilizations.” But his decisions will be squeezed in a vise of, on the one side, the impact of the economic crisis and, on the other, the need to put into effect several costly [election] promises, while the American public deficit approaches $1 trillion.

And he adds about Guantanamo (a subject of interest among Europeans, you can be sure, and for quite a while):

Closing Guantanamo poses a logistical problem of unprecedented scope. Whom to set free, whom to keep in detention? Knowing that the material under secret seal held by the prosecution includes tens of thousands of pages, although one suspects that a number of the confessions have been obtained through torture. Where to place the prisoners, and on what basis to judge them equitably?

From Laurent Joffrin of Libération (It’s time):

It’s time, in fact. [Il est temps, en effet.] . . .

It’s time, in fact, to put an end to a brutal, mendacious and dogmatic foreign policy that has dug a ditch between rich and poor nations. It’s time to finish an Iraq war which has resuscitated the specter of colonialism. It’s time to stop a social policy defined by the rich, for the rich. It’s time to claim back from finance the monopoly that it had arrogated to itself on the course of globalization. It’s time to return to the citizens of the United States, through means of their elected representatives, a certain minimum influence on their economic destiny – that is, on their destiny, period. It’s time that America cooperated with the common efforts for safeguarding the planet. It’s time, finally, that the greatest democracy be incarnated not by a senator coming out of a dominating Western conservatism that is sure of itself, but by a man of the new century, of mixed culture, open to differences.

Now to Germany. From Torsten Krauel, Washington correspondent of Die Welt (What’s awaiting the new president):

Today in [US] domestic policy there are three great tasks – the stifling of the financial crisis, the transformation of the welfare state, the general refurbishment of infrastructure including ecological measures. All three areas cost a lot of money. The budget situation after the financial aid [i.e. bailout] package is so dire that the new president will have to decide immediately which of the three tasks will have to be temporarily put off to the side. The struggle about this will mark the first half of 2009. A strong faction of Democrats wishes to immediately address climate change, a just-as-strong Republican faction wants energy-autarky for the US. An even stronger faction from both parties wants to introduce national health insurance, the Democrats somewhat more insistent than the Republicans. And all politicians, Democrats as well as Republicans, want to save the credit and real estate markets right away. It’s this last that will become first priority, at the cost of climate-change and maybe even of the health system.

We can’t neglect Die Zeit, of course. Here is Andrea Böhm (The white-black president, and datelined on 6 November 08 – but then, the Die Zeit paper edition is a weekly):

Now America has its first black president, who in reality is a white-black president. And the world has, at least for a moment, “its” America back: from George W. Bush to Obama, from Saul to Paul, from the war-making superpower to the leader of the ecological transformation. About whether and how Obama will fulfill these enormous expectations, one in the next few months can certainly doubt. Right now, though, the symbolic impact of this victory takes one’s breath away.

Never before has a presidential election had so much to do, in such a dramatic way, with the myth of resurrection – that quintessentially American belief, according to which everyone, even a whole nation, after falling into the bottomless pit, can pull one/itself together and invent one/itself anew. To put it in the prosaic words of American TV comic Sarah Silverman: America has, within one election night, transformed itself from “asshole of the universe” [that's given in the original English] into a land of the politically-enthused with a “world president.” That is the global effect of this electoral victory, that might soon just dissipate – but that goes much deeper in inner-American reality.

And then from Munich’s Süddeutsche Zeitung, their Washington correspondent Reymer Klüver (Arising from ruins):

The election of Barack Obama was for America an act of self-liberation, indeed, of self-cleansing.

Forty-five years after a black preacher spoke on the white marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial of his dream of an America without racial barriers, this land has shown once more that that can come to maturity. It has overcome hundred-year-old prejudices. Forty-five years after Martin Luther King’s great address, the Americans have made a black their president. . . .

All of this gives motivation to the justified hope that he in fact has the capabilities to lead the land in a superior and considered way – other than the case with the president still there in office. That he possesses the capacity and the will to build bridges over the moats that his predecessor wantonly has torn open and which have so deeply divided not only US society but the entire world. That he can restore to a land that in recent years has lost its direction a new confidence in its own capabilities and values.

Now to the Netherlands and Juurd Eijsvoogel (you can tell from that name that we’re not in Germany anymore, no?) of the NRC Handelsblad (America chooses a world-citizen):

After eight years of Bush, in which superpower America first was hit in the heart and then frittered away much regard and authority in the world, American voters have now opened the way for the recovery of their land’s reputation.

Yesterday they not only chose a new president, they also – although they weren’t meaning to – gave a signal to the world. With Barack Obama they have made a world-citizen their leader.

And that did not slip by the world’s attention. Did not Obama himself say, when this summer he addressed a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin, that he was not only “a proud citizen of the United States” but also “a fellow citizen of the world”? That sounded much different from: who isn’t with us, is against us. Not only Americans were yearning for change, after eight years of Bush – a big part of the world was, too.

Now to Denmark: the lead-editorial from Berlingske Tidende is entitled A victory for the USA:

It’s almost too banal to say that it was a landslide victory. It was a victory that was national and that far exceeded what is normal for a presidential election – a land divided in two. . . .

The war against terror has cost much in the way of both human and economic resources. The fight has also split the rest of the world. The USA is far from alone in this fight. But the Americans have also gained a long series of new enemies, which it will cost just as many resources to fight in the future. Also, the lands allied with the USA, which normally could be counted upon to be among the USA’s friends, have begun to hesitate before the war against terror. Not because they don’t believe in it, but because the present president George W. Bush no longer has much to offer. Obama will be able to put things in the right direction again. He represents more than any other president in recent times a unified USA. This imposes both national and international obligations. The expectations for him are therefore sky-high.

By the way, you can see here an embedded interview with Berlingske’s US correspondent, about how all this US election stuff has been playing in Denmark. Of course, the actual name Berlingske Tidende is no where to be seen on the post, and is only heard out of the mouth of the Danish reporter, Karl Erik Stougaard, because such a name as that is too confusing for American ears to be captured and accurately transcribed.

Then we head across a chilly November’s Copenhagen to the edge of the Rådhusplads and the daily newspaper Politiken; foreign editor Michael Jariner’s analysis is entitled America writes history:

The election of Barack Obama does not mean that there is no longer a division between black and white, for the poverty and criminality statistics show with all clarity that there is.

But Americans have moved closer to the realization of that dream that the black civil rights activist Martin Luther King formulated 45 years ago in his famous I have a dream speech. . . .

For the night’s voting [Copenhagen time] blacks and Latinos put themselves together as a voting-group that can decide elections, and this will unavoidably rub off on the composition of the many thousand of political and administrative positions which now must be filled. It potentially has wide-ranging implications for the whole of American society.

And then to Poland, to the “election newspaper,” of course, Gazeta Wyborcza. Witold Gadomski demands that Obama must remember his promises:

The president-elect has carefully avoided answering questions about who will finance all these gifts [this refers to the many programs involving new spending cited in the previous paragraph that Gadomski claims Obama promised during his campaign - national health insurance, aid to defaulting homeowners, etc.]. To be sure, he has announced a rise in taxes, but only for the 5% best-paid Americans. He also has not occupied himself with those problems whose solution will be neither easy not pleasant for Americans – the hole in public finances and the galloping indebtedness of America, the wasteful administration of public institutions established in the last half-century for addressing the standard of living of the poorest Americans, such as Medicare, Medicaid and the “sponsored enterprises” to assist housing construction.

By the way, that Gazeta article also has a great picture of Obama at his local Chicago polling-place, looking straight at the camera in a determined, even defiant, manner and holding up his ballot. The picture is credited to Reuters, but I hadn’t seen it anywhere else; you should click through to check it out, even if all those funny letters of the Polish language somehow intimidate you.

That’s about all I can do for now – I know, I neglected Belgium, the Czech Republic, Uncle Tom Dooley, and some other countries as well, but that’s just the way it is. By the way, comments are certainly welcome via e-mail on this Andrew Sullivan format: to a great degree, I feel, it’s rather superficial, since almost all of the articles from which I took these extracts had other sections that deserved mention too. Plus, I generally like to think that some accompanying analysis from yours truly is in order – for instance, did you catch that one citation where it was clear that the correspondent didn’t know what he was talking about regarding American politics? In a nutshell – and as all long-standing €S followers (if there are any – Hi Mom!) already know – I like to go mostly with deeper but narrower coverage, rather than this more-extensive but shallower reporting.

Of course, ideally I would go with extensive and deep coverage, but certain restrictions of time, space, and finance preclude that for now. On this same subject, let me voice my suspicion that we actually have Andrew Sullivan’s editorial assisant (a certain Patrick Appel) to thank for the Election Reax post and that extract-anthology “Andrew Sullivan blog-post format” generally. I’m afraid we can’t afford editorial assistants here at EuroSavant.

                          

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying here to push any Republican-inspired “Messiah” or “Moses-parting-the-seas” irony to cast last evening’s events in a disparaging light. Indeed, it was an impressive spectacle – complete with letter-perfect weather! – that itself rightly dominated the news-cycle and to which reactions still dominate that news-cycle this morning.

The same is not quite true in Europe, which has plenty else to talk about today, but Barack Obama’s speech has still gotten plenty of attention even now (i.e. as your EuroSavant writes this), less than 12 hours after it was delivered. Let’s again start with reactions from those who were vouchsafed their own up-close look at the Senator’s speechifying, last July in Berlin, namely the Germans.

First to Sabine Muscat, Financial Times Deutschland (Obama – on firm ground):

It was a place for great words, but this time they stayed away. For it was more important for Obama this evening to hit the right tone. But he thereby lost his own style. . . . His speech had to fulfill many demands. It had to be personal, for many voters still maintained that they didn’t know him. It had to be specific, so that it could finally become clear that Obama stood for a program and not just pretty words. It had to attack his Republican opponent John McCain, in order to show that it was not only Republicans who could hit hard. A bit more of the down-to-earth would also be good, for sometimes Obama seemed scholarly and arrogant. Unifying the Party was a further necessity, to seal the peace after the hard primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. . . . [Nonetheless] Obama delivered a completely normal political speech. Even in front of the Greek columns, the bold vision that usually his is identifying characteristic went missing. There were many very good phrases in this speech, yet none of them really had the sort of impact that would propel then into the history books. . . . his politically wise and artfully delivered, if not very innovative, speech . . . showed how quickly an Outsider on the way to the White House has to adjust his individual style to the mainstream.

From the Neue Presse (of Hannover: Obama’s Night: Gripping election speech – but without exuberance):

It was a Hercules-size assignment that Obama was taking on: he had to enthuse and inspire, living up to his reputation of being as charismatic as John F. Kennedy once was. But he wanted to avoid gestures and phrases that would make it easy for the Republicans to defame him as a hollow pop-star or even as a presumptuous prophet. Obama was supposed to describe aptly the promised “change” for a “new America” but at the same time not be too vague, and to take on the economic fears of the middle-class, to reassure them. He wanted to attach himself to Martin Luther King’s dream, but he didn’t want to make himself into the black people’s candidate, but rather a politician of a unified, reconciled America that had finally overcome at least politically the racial divide. Obame showed himself equal to this gigantic task. . . . In Denver stood what was already a Barack Obama with his feet firmly planted on the ground, who deliberately forswore emotion on the stage defiantly decorated with Greek columns.

From Die Zeit (Obama’s Coronation Mass):

Barack Obama in his speech showed America the way into the 21st century. He raked his competitor John McCain and the Bush Era over the coals. Whether patriotism, arms control, or the duties of a commander-in-chief, he left no sensitive subject unmentioned. He painted the bigger picture and at the same time remained concrete. Obama spoke of the necessary painful realizations and of the duty of moral and political renewal. “America,” he called out,” we cannot turn back. Not in front of the many tasks that lay before us.” And under the ear-splitting jubilation of his 80,000 supporters he declared: It’s time that the Republicans admit their mistakes and that the Democrats carry out the necessary turn-around. “Eight years are enough” became the battle-cry that will ring into the following weeks.

From Christian Wernicke, correspondent in Denver for the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Obama speaks plainly):

Another great speech, naturally. That the Democratic presidential candidate is a master wordsmith is something that America has almost gotten used to. Especially at such an occasion as this – his acceptance “with humility” of the nomination before more than 80,000 supporters in Denver’s football stadium. And yet his verbal fireworks offered three surprises: Seldom has the Senator from Chicago spoken so sentimentally (about himself), so concretely (about his program), and so aggressively (about his opponent John McCain). . . . Obama called McCain out, politically and very personally. At the latest on Monday the opponent will fire back. Then the Republican convention begins.

And now to France: From Patrick Sabatier, special correspondent in Denver for Le Point (Barack Obama and the “promise of America”):

Obama’s speech did not reach the heights of lyricism of that of Dr. King, nor the force of that of Roosevelt or the vision of Kennedy, but the candidate nonetheless once more gave a demonstration of his very great eloquence. He presented a pitiless indictment of the bankruptcy of the Bush presidency, which he claimed had put in peril “the promise of America.” He mounted a frontal attack on the dogmatic ideology of the conservatives, whose “ownership society” (Bush’s slogan) has been revealed as “a society of every man for himself, and you’re on your own.” “Tonight, I tell Americans: enough!” Obama proclaimed, and was echoed by the crowd. Above all, he launched a bitter attack against John McCain, mocking him on the economy and social security. (“It’s not that he doesn’t care. It’s that he just doesn’t get it.”), as well as on the subject of national security. . . . He occupied himself above all, as had Al Gore before him, with depicting the Republican candidate as a simple continuation of the Bush policies.

From Sylvain Cypel, writing for Le Monde (Barack Obama promises the renewal of America):

In a speech marked by his hymn to the “American promise,” to the “American soul,” to his desire to reconcile Americans with each other, the Democratic candidate nonetheless dedicated a part of his appearance to defining his socio-economic priorities. Two axes predominated: the intervention of the State to relaunch the economic machinery and the re-establishment of the purchasing-power of wage-earners. . . . But did this speech remove the doubt about his personality? . . . The assignment will in any case be arduous. In the first place, his virtuosity does him a disservice: deep America does not hold “pretty talkers” in very high esteem. And who can believe, as the Democratic convention tried to paint him, that he is only “an American like all the others”? In the eyes of most he can only be outside the norm, by his origins, his career, his unexpected rhetoric. And in any case, as “the first black candidate in American history” his “exceptionality” is set. “Obama is so far from us. McCain does not formulate more practical proposals, but the average American can more easily identify with him,” said Jim LeMaster, a delegate [presumably Democratic!] from Nebraska. . . . Above all, the unanimous reactions [to last night's speech] were that, with a tone less lyric but with an unaccustomed firmness, he had shown that he will be for John McCain an entirely tougher adversary than John Kerry was four years ago for George Bush.

Oh, and if you’d like to see Obama’s speech translated into French, in its entirety, just go here: Verbatim: “We fall and rise again as a single nation. You can also peruse a minute-by-minute recounting of the events of last night at Invesco Field (i.e. pretty much live-blogging – and in French of course, since this is also from Le Monde) here.

Bleaches Whiter-Than-White?

Moving to Denmark, the daily Politiken takes a unique viewpoint on Obama’s speech (Obama woos the white middle-class), or at least adopts that viewpoint from its interviewees. The article begins by noting that the name “Martin Luther King” was itself not pronounced once during the speech. This is consistent with the thesis propounded by two “experts” (Danish academics with a specialty in US affairs) that an important function of Obama’s speech last night was downplaying his Afro-American aspect, in favor of trying his best to address and ingratiate himself with the white middle- and working-classes – the latter of which, in particular, he often seemed to have difficulties connecting with during the primaries. He succeeded, they both say – and managed to add some attacking licks on John McCain to boot.

Oh, and what a shame! Denmark’s Berlingske Tidende reports here (Grandma slept while Obama spoke) how Obama’s grandmother – on his father’s side – did not get to share in his Democratic presidential nomination triumph. She could not follow along with his great speech on TV, in the first place because the village where she still lives in Kenya does not have electricity. (And in the second place because it took place very early the next morning, Kenyan time.) Still, she’s quite confident that he’ll eventually make it all the way to the White House as President.

American Politics Too Emotional

Finally, a couple of what you could call “accessory” articles. In the first one, Der Spiegel writer Severin Weiland interviews CDU politician Peter Hintze, a close political colleague to Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel who attended the Democratic National Convention, in an article entitled “In Germany one is allowed to be more dispassionate.” Yes, the festivities and general hullabaloo at Denver’s Pepsi Center, and then at Invesco Field, is what really made an impression on Herr Hintze. Although it created truly moving moments – for Hintze it was the appearance of the dying Edward Kennedy – he is sure that this sort of emotionalism will never come to German politics: Germans are suspicious of it, out of bitter historical experience, and also from a desire to leave even top politicians at least a little bit of privacy. It follows, then, that politicians’ wives will surely never have the prominence they have in American politics. Interestingly, according to Herr Hintze neither will the Internet – that is necessary as a political tool in the US because the country is so big, whereas attempts to use it for German politics have so far failed.

And then another article from Der Spiegel, this from the magazine’s correspondent in Denver, Marc Pitzke, about Republican attempts to interfere in the Democratic National Convention (Republicans send saboteurs to the big Obama shindig). The lede: “A cease-fire during the party-conventions – that is almost an unwritten rule in the USA. Nonetheless the Republicans did not want to leave the big stage to Barack Obama alone; their trouble-makers showed up even in the Democrats’ convention-hall.” And he goes on to describe the impressionable 20-somethings sent by the Republican Party to Denver to make various mischief. It’s not as if they are in camouflage: they do wear their McCain t-shirts, yet not only manage to find their way into the Pepsi Center but also attract a healthy amount of attention from the press. There is simply too much press there at the Democratic Convention, you see, and too little authentic “Democratic news” available to fill their needs. Apart from this, there is also the Republican “Command Center” set up near the convention site. (This is apparently the installation which also served as the site of the “Happy Hour for Hillary” that I covered here previously.) There you can find Republican luminaries like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani – when the latter is not strolling into the Pepsi Center as well to greet his many “friends” in there – spouting anti-Obama talking-points.

But that’s OK: as Pitzke notes, the Republican convention follows next week – and the Democrats have already rented office space in Minneapolis. At this point let me go to my dictionary to remind myself the German for “good for goose” and “good for gander.”