Getty Images

IF THE business of electing the most powerful man in the world were up to the world, rather than just those pesky Americans, Barack Obama would face no contest. A poll for the Guardian this week, on the eve of Mr Obama's whirlwind tour of Europe and the Middle East (half a dozen countries in a week, some for the first time in his life), shows that Britons would back him against John McCain by the astonishing margin of five to one. The Pew Research Centre reported last month that, in each of the main European countries, at least twice as many people have confidence in Mr Obama as in his rival. Elsewhere things are a bit more nuanced, but from Mexico to China, and from Russia to Australia, the foreigners are firmly in the Obama camp.

There are reasons for them to be more cautious. Marvellous orator and skilled electoral tactician though he may be, Mr Obama has not repealed the basic laws of politics. Most obviously, he may not win. Rasmussen, a pollster, rattled the Obama machine this week by showing the two candidates tied, and most other analysts agree that the bounce he enjoyed after seeing off Hillary Clinton has been small and short-lived. Mr Obama still definitely has the edge, but opinion at home diverges sharply from that in most of the rest of the world.

Second, President Obama would not be answerable to the world that so adores him. A president is elected by America's more ambivalent people, and is accountable only to them. And his powers are mightily constrained by Congress, which is even more immediately accountable to its electorate.

Finally, there are some disquieting signs of a tendency on Mr Obama's part to tailor his message to whichever audience he is talking to. All politicians do this of course. But Mr Obama's two-steps have become Astaire-like. For instance, in his primary battle with Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama laid out a timetable for a virtually complete withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, specifying a rate of one to two brigades a month. Since starting to campaign in the general election, he has fudged this clear line: he committed to withdrawal again this week (see article), but he has also been careful to give himself wriggle-room on its pace. Similarly, he once talked of negotiating with the Iranian leadership without preconditions: now he talks of the need for “preparations”.

Both these alterations make sense, but many Europeans won't like them. Other bits of pandering could be more costly. Mr Obama recently told the main pro-Israel group in Washington that Jerusalem must never be divided, a position that goes beyond those of the Clinton and Bush administrations (not to mention that of many Israelis). Then he backtracked.

Doffing the cap

On trade, Mr Obama used to demand the renegotiation of NAFTA; now he stresses his dedication to the cause of free trade. A welcome adjustment, but he is almost certain, if elected, to have a heavily Democratic Congress which is liable to send him protectionist legislation he may find it hard to veto. On climate change he, like Mr McCain, favours a cap-and-trade system. But the Democrat-controlled Congress recently failed to agree even on a watered-down version of such a plan, without any need for a veto from George Bush.

On all these fronts, in fact, there are doubts: doubts as to just what Mr Obama's positions as president would actually be, and doubts over what he could get through Congress. Those doubts will not stop the crowds turning out for him, even if he fails to commandeer the Brandenburg Gate as his backdrop. But the fans should bear in mind that what they see is not precisely what they will get.