I may have missed something, but I didn't see that your pollsters controlled for the effects of the elections of Sarkozy and Merkel, both of whom have been portrayed in many places as more "pro-American" than their predecessors. Given this spin, why would anyone be surprised by an increase in polled American responses to questions meant to gauge positive feelings toward either France or Germany?

Now, since these polls are being presented in the context of an upcoming election with the implication that they may have something relevant to say, then the nature of the sample population needs to be made clear. The Gallup poll identifies the sample as "adults nationwide". If this is truly describes the sample then while interesting, it's probably of little use to campaigns: Witness the nearly approximately double digit swing in, I believe it was, Gallup's recent tracking polls dependent on whether or not registered voters were sampled or those judged likely to vote among registered voters.

Lastly, Mr. Cohen shouldn't get his hopes of a backlash up too high. I've yet to witness a candidate for any national office, in my many decades of watching such things, damaged but suggesting that his or her opponent was bit too "comfortable" with the views expressed by foreign governments or their citizens. The obverse is that neither has any won with a campaign focusing on this. Everyone understands this: McCain and Obama particularly.

When raised, it has always been part of a larger strategy to raise questions about a candidates character and judgment. Note that critical coverage of Obama's visit seemed to focus on this. The McCain campaign has made much more noise about Obama's decision not to visit hospitalized troops in Germany and even greater noise about Obama's positions on energy policy and Iraq policy than about his grand tour of Europe or his appeal to the European public.

True Nanne, Kerry's comment hurt some. But note that a negative reaction to the "global test" would not qualify as evidence of a specific reaction to Europe but rather to a long standing allergy to infringement on sovereignty generally. The oath of office for the President is rather simple and direct and when someone for that office - foolishly, in my opinion - begins speaking of "global tests" that person begs scrutiny and skepticism; which, relative to that comment, is exactly what Kerry got. It was something he did to himself not something that the opposing campaign crafted, but it did fit with a general theme that was crafted and used against him that he was "out of touch" with "ordinary" Americans: unfortunately for him, Kerry seemed all too cooperative with the effort.

That's very interesting, Don. I did not look at these results. Perhaps, questions meant to gauge the warm and fuzziness of feelings toward specific countries generates different results from questions meant to gauge the likelihood that you'll find these same "next to you in a foxhole". :)

@David: I don't think Don was making the case for "animosity toward Europe", but rather citing a seeming anomaly in the polling responses. In fact, the results he cites are based upon a question that asks for an assessment of the general state of relations between the US and various countries.

@Nanne: The results for South Korea don't seem that surprising to me. Over the last several years there have been a number of episodes and incidents, well enough publicized, that I can easily imagine have annoyed many Americans. European marches and demonstrations that Don cites have had their counterparts in South Korea. Moreover, the South Koreans have at times in recent years been prickly partners in various regional negotiations. Add to this that far more so than at any time in Europe during the Cold War, American forces - particularly along the DMZ - appear to many to be a sacrificial tripwire and you have a recipe for some resentment.

Don: It comes down to the matter of interests, doesn't it? No alliance functions smoothly when interests are not well aligned as seems to have been the case for NATO since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps the US has expected more of its NATO partners in recent years than is reasonable given the original focus of the alliance and European political realities: How many Europeans - West or East - would have imagined that signing on to the alliance would involve fighting in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan in some future year? The Fulda Gap, yes, of course: but, Afghanistan? There's been a 50 year interval during which Americans have dealt with a continuum of military involvements all over the planet and Europeans - not so much. Iraq and Afghanistan may be a stretch even for Americans but not so big a one as for Europeans since 1945, generally, I think. Like Henry Higgins, in "My Fair Lady", we'll likely always wonder, "Why can't they be more like us?" ;)

It is, as you suggest, certainly reasonable now for the EU and European countries to the take on the lead, and the expense, in Continental defense issues. However, I do think that history suggests that the US has an interest in this as well and that NATO might serve as an appropriate vehicle for conveying this interest. Moreover, Canada, Denmark and Norway, might just find US interests in the Arctic useful vis-a-vis those of Russia and vice-versa.