How about that, some foreigners are apparently less equal than others when it comes to their preferences in the US presidential campaign.That's the smarmy impression conveyed by Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow, who could barely contain her mirth in response to a "Global Electoral College" survey at The Economist on how other countries would vote in the election.
Here's how Maddow described it on her radio show Friday:
I'm sure the McCain campaign doesn't find this embarrassing at all, but for me the most embarrassing McCain news today on the election is what you can discern by looking at the map that was posted by the Economist magazine today on what would happen if the world could vote in the US election.
Conservatives love this, they love to say, oh yeah, foreign countries would love for you to elect a Democrat 'cause Democrats are good for foreign countries but not for America or somethin'.
And so Democrats don't usually bring up these things very often, but when you do look at the map and you realize what countries in the world would be leaning strong McCain, there are three of them -- they are Namibia, Cuba and Iraq. Those are the countries that would vote for McCain. Everybody else, yeah (laughs) It's very sad. What's that an axis of?
Whether this is actually "sad" is in the eye of the detractor. But that a specific one of these three nations supports McCain is also rather interesting, yet the invariably inquisitive Maddow is oddly incurious about this.
I refer, of course, to Iraq's inclusion on the list. As in, an Iraq that McCain once suggested may require US troops for the next century to maintain security. As in, an Iraq that McCain staunchly supported invading to end the decades-long threat posed by a rogue regime. As in, an Iraq further bloodied by the surge, with McCain among its few initial proponents, and which helped turn the tide of the war as all but jihadists and those working at Air America and MSNBC are now willing to acknowledge.
In fact, not only did Iraqis express a preference for McCain, it was by an overwhelming margin, which Maddow also neglected to impart to her listeners -- McCain at 59 percent to 41 percent for Obama, roughly the margin of McCain's blowout defeat of George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.
The rationale for Cubans preferring McCain borders on self-explanatory, seeing how Republicans possess a visceral disdain for socialism and its various manifestations, such as the avowed, transparent versions in Europe and the sulking, dare-not-speak-its-name variety in the States.
As for Namibia? That any African nation prefers a white candidate for American president instead of one of African descent, whose father was born in Kenya, might strike many people as noteworthy. But again, not Maddow. And had she chosen to delve further, Maddow may have noticed that support for Obama from other African nations is hugely lopsided in the Economist survey.
Kenya, for example, went for Obama by 97 percent, Mozambique logged in at 96 percent and Cameroon tallied an impressive 100 percent for the Democratic nominee, most likely the result of limited responses and not just unabashed enthusiasm for a favorite grandson, as it were, of Africa. But not Namibia -- who'da thunk?!
The Economist survey is an ongoing one and support for McCain abroad has grown in recent days to include Sudan and Congo, with Cuba now considered too close to call (an example of ACORN's global outreach?).
Maddow's sneering disdain for the trio of Iraq, Cuba and Namibia became evident when she asked,"What's that an axis of?"
An axis of yearning comes to mind as a possibility, as it might for anyone willing to give the matter a second thought.
I refer, of course, to Iraq's inclusion on the list. As in, an Iraq that McCain once suggested may require US troops for the next century to maintain security. As in, an Iraq that McCain staunchly supported invading to end the decades-long threat posed by a rogue regime. As in, an Iraq further bloodied by the surge, with McCain among its few initial proponents, and which helped turn the tide of the war as all but jihadists and those working at Air America and MSNBC are now willing to acknowledge.
In fact, not only did Iraqis express a preference for McCain, it was by an overwhelming margin, which Maddow also neglected to impart to her listeners -- McCain at 59 percent to 41 percent for Obama, roughly the margin of McCain's blowout defeat of George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.
The rationale for Cubans preferring McCain borders on self-explanatory, seeing how Republicans possess a visceral disdain for socialism and its various manifestations, such as the avowed, transparent versions in Europe and the sulking, dare-not-speak-its-name variety in the States.
As for Namibia? That any African nation prefers a white candidate for American president instead of one of African descent, whose father was born in Kenya, might strike many people as noteworthy. But again, not Maddow. And had she chosen to delve further, Maddow may have noticed that support for Obama from other African nations is hugely lopsided in the Economist survey.
Kenya, for example, went for Obama by 97 percent, Mozambique logged in at 96 percent and Cameroon tallied an impressive 100 percent for the Democratic nominee, most likely the result of limited responses and not just unabashed enthusiasm for a favorite grandson, as it were, of Africa. But not Namibia -- who'da thunk?!
The Economist survey is an ongoing one and support for McCain abroad has grown in recent days to include Sudan and Congo, with Cuba now considered too close to call (an example of ACORN's global outreach?).
Maddow's sneering disdain for the trio of Iraq, Cuba and Namibia became evident when she asked,"What's that an axis of?"
An axis of yearning comes to mind as a possibility, as it might for anyone willing to give the matter a second thought.
