American politicians are used to speaking empty words at home, and we Americans have become used to hearing nothing but such fluff. The "ownership" of policy making is so thoroughly in the hands of big-money-folks (call them "lobbies" if you will) that the politicians act like paid flaks, not as independent actors.

No-where is this more true than in speeches about Israel.

If Obama really wants to bring about Israeli-Palestinian peace, he must first educate America about the issues and recent history (our media will not do this presently) and then announce that he is no longer interested in re-election or in the promotion of legislation (leaving the latter to Congress). He will then be free of fund-raising and free of the lobbies. Being free, he can then go to the UNSC and ask for a stiff resolution "with teeth" demanding that Israel remove the 550,000 settlers, the settlements (buildings), the wall, and end the siege of Gaza. It is acts, and acts alone, to which Israel will respond. Words will not do.

Sad to say, this is his only path toward peacemaking. Perhaps he'd make this sacrifice if he thought of it.

the main issue for all leaders worldwide concerning Islam/Muslims is the perception which right wing media have done in sullying the majority,which has made people become fearful and confused since the war against SALMA BIN LADEN.the west have done themselves no favours regarding the obsessive quest for oil under the guise of forcing democracy.capitalism is an agenda focused only on a ideological policy of financial gain at all costs.something must and will break eventually it just depends when.as many conspiracy theorists talk about 2012 i sometimes wonder if thats the date of that very tipping point in history!!!

Is there a similar study on the Catholic world's estimation of Obama? Or the Hindu world? Sikh? Unitarian? Buddhist?

This article makes no sense, because it relies on the idea of "the Muslim world" as a single coherent bloc, and presupposes that this putative special interest group can be mollified, solicited, and so on, and that to do so is necessary/desirable.

The generalisation is a specious, culturally unmannered and rather dangerous one, not least because:

(1) it panders to the tawdry propigators of relious blackmail (you insult a billion muslims when you print that cartoon etc etc)

(2) it insults the belligerents and coagulators of the myriad differences of sect, tribe, creed and circumstance of muslims throughout the world, and

(3) ignores the great difficulty of muslim communities in many countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, Turkey to name but a few) presented by the conflict between moderate Islam independent of the state - or at least where the two are separate - and a kind of political perversion and the depredations it entails.

There are very many muslims who live, struggle and die by the important distinctions and differences within the "muslim world" the premise of this article - and many others at the NS - completely ignores.

Can I also add to the findings this: what of it? Aren't you begging a question too?

What about the deficit of trust the "muslim world" might owe "us"?