VOTERS of America, well done: you are less racist (or sexist) than Europeans had feared. Remember, though, that you are rather naive: please try to pick a competent president this time. This dismissive summary, combining condescension with distrust, captures all too many European reactions to the duel between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in this year's presidential election (and, given the gulf between most Europeans and the Republicans, this is the contest to be Europe's preferred candidate as well—although a few Europeans retain a soft spot for John McCain).

A French newspaper, Libération, said that the arrival in the White House of “a black man, married to a black woman, [with] a black family” would be an act of “atonement” that would restore the image of an America “shunned in every corner of the planet”. A German tabloid, Bild, offered praise for Mr Obama's “sexy” charms, under the headline: “This Black American Will Become the New Kennedy!” In Spain El País trumped all others, telling readers: “The question is whether the United States is ready for a president who is black, a woman, an evangelical minister, a Mormon or a Catholic.”

You might expect even cynical Europeans to be impressed by the sight of ordinary Americans tramping through the snow in Iowa and New Hampshire to hear politicians speak. Not the writers at a German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung. The duel in New Hampshire, it grumbled, had degenerated into an apolitical beauty contest. Mr Obama's appeal to voters was based on sentiment without substance: if only Americans would heed the lessons of the Bush years and choose the experienced Mrs Clinton. A Belgian newspaper, Le Soir, struck a kinder note. Writing after Mr Obama's win in Iowa, it argued that the signs were that “this time, Americans will not be duped” by calculating politicians, but were seeking leaders with convictions. Their optimism is not without naivety, Le Soir cautioned, “but who is going to complain after the dark years of Bush junior?”

In a random sampling in the streets of Nuremberg, in Bavaria, ordinary Germans seemed impressed by the two things they knew about Mr Obama: he is not George Bush, and he is the son of an African. Dirk Hellwig, a graphic designer, said he would feel more “positive” about America if Mr Obama won the presidency. “I don't know what he wants to do,” Mr Hellwig admitted. “But I think Germans will think Obama is a sign that something is changing.” A win by Mrs Clinton would also send a signal of American change, Mr Hellwig said. “But the signal would be bigger from Obama, because he is black.”

It is striking that many Europeans skate over the political views of Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama and instead treat their fight as a simple Rorschach test of the health of the American dream. In fact, both Democratic frontrunners' policy platforms answer (at least superficially) some of the biggest European gripes about Mr Bush over the past eight years. Mr Obama, unlike Mrs Clinton, consistently opposed the Iraq war—although changes of government in France and Germany have largely healed transatlantic wounds over Iraq. Both candidates take positions on climate change that are far closer to Europe than anything Mr Bush has offered. Both have called for the closure of the Guantánamo detention camp. Both have echoed the outrage of many Europeans at the feeble federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

In the first Democratic debate in April, Mr Obama even hailed the European Union as among America's most important allies. Recently he refuted charges that he had never actually been to Europe. Telling an Iowan reporter he had been to Europe “multiple times”, Mr Obama recalled meeting Britain's then prime minister, Tony Blair, in Downing Street, during a stopover in London. He has also spoken proudly of a 2006 meeting in Washington with Nicolas Sarkozy, now the French president.

Allies or rivals?

This may turn out to be the high point of European infatuation with the leading Democratic candidates, at least if previous campaigns are any guide. Presidential candidates routinely pledge to reach out to allies and to improve America's image abroad. Before the 2000 election a French newspaper, Le Figaro, was impressed by the foreign-policy experts recruited by one George Bush. (A Bush presidency offers America's allies the promise of “partnership with an administration skilled in foreign affairs,” cooed Le Figaro.)

A former Irish prime minister, John Bruton, who now heads the European Commission's delegation in America, warns Europeans against imagining that any president will bow to calls to surrender American sovereignty, or make concessions on trade, in the global interest. “It's clear that any US president will pursue the interests of the electorate that has elected him or her,” he says. It is also worth noting, he adds, that Mr Bush's second term has seen smoother relations with the EU, amid “a general willingness to approach things multilaterally”.

Alas, Mr Bush's first term left many Europeans past caring. His re-election in 2004 was a shock that in part explains the snippiness of much European coverage now. To some Europeans, Mr Bush's election in 2000 seemed no more than an unhappy accident: in their telling, he ran (falsely) as a centrist and compassionate conservative and then stole the presidency in Florida. But his re-election could not be explained away so easily. Ultimately, it reflected the choice of American voters, which some Europeans still cannot forgive.

Nor is European enthusiasm for either candidate likely to survive the election of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama, or whoever else becomes president. The person who gets voters' nod will rule as an American, promoting American interests around the world—and no doubt disappointing many watchers from abroad. For Europeans to imagine anything else would be naive indeed.