Anyone who doesn't get enough pre-election polls in the United States can look at one that shows overwhelming support for Barack Obama in Europe.

The Harris Interactive/France 24/International Herald Tribune survey of 6,276 adults in France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain and Italy found that majorities — between 71 percent and 54 percent — of adults in Germany, France, Italy and Spain believe that electing an African-American president would have a positive effect on the United States. In Britain, the number agreeing was 46 percent.

Majorities in France, Spain and Germany also believe that an Obama presidency would lead to better relationships between the United States and Europe.

Those who support Obama in Europe point to his youth as a positive characteristic. Those who favor John McCain said his years of experience are more important.

President Bush did not fare well in the poll.

One disclaimer was offered by those reporting on the poll. It was conducted online, which tends to skew the results toward more tech-savvy users. Survey experts said they tried to weight the results to more fully represent those of different ages, gender, educational level, etc.

I wonder how interested the citizens of any of these nations would be about Americans' views of their politicians. Somehow, I doubt that the French and German people would be overjoyed with advice from this side of the Atlantic.

Jay Nixon holds a decisive lead
over Kenny Hulshof in recent polling.

Monday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch has details on a gubernatorial poll that favors Democrat Jay Nixon over Republican Kenny Hulshof by a 55-41 margin.

The poll of 800 likely voters was conducted Oct. 20-23 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

The significance of this poll is that only 4 percent of voters did not state a preference. Even if Hulshof got all of the undecideds — underdogs often get two-thirds of the undecideds in the final days of a campaign — he still ends up with only 45 percent of the vote.

Using the most hopeful formula for Hulshof, if the survey is off by the 3.5 percent difference and Hulshof gets all of the undecided votes he still ends up with 48.5 percent to Nixon's 51.5 percent.

Things can change quickly, but Hulshof's campaign is running out of time to find a magic bullet.

As I noted in Sunday's column, if Hulshof loses he may become the GOP favorite to run for U.S. Senate in 2010 if Sen. Kit Bond decides not to run. Bond might share that information with Hulshof, who would have the chance to launch a campaign two years ahead of the election.

Nixon essentially launched his campaign for governor in 2005. He had a big head start by the time Hulshof got a chance to announce in January after Gov. Matt Blunt announced he would not be seeking re-election.

Donald Snyder, a former director of the Illinois Department of Corrections and former Pike County sheriff, is likely to lose his state pension, according to a legal opinion from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

Snyder was sentenced in July to two years in prison, ordered to forfeit $50,000 and to perform 300 hours of community service at a rate of 20 hours a week. He was found guilty of felony mail fraud in a plea bargain that involved $50,000 in kickbacks from lobbyists and contractors.

Thursday’s opinion from Madigan was released at about 4 p.m., and state officials with control over pension programs were not immediately able to say how much pension Snyder had accumulated.

Pension forfeiture has been in the news since Gov. George Ryan was found guilty of racketeering and lost his pension.

Snyder was director of the Department of Corrections from 1999 until Feb. 2003. He served six years as Pike County sheriff after winning his first election there in 1978. Snyder was the youngest sheriff ever elected in the state at age 23. He became a deputy director of administrative services in the Department of Corrections in 1987.

For a moment during the final debate, John McCain seemed to say something that would turn one of Barack Obama’s strategies on its head.

"I’m not George Bush. If you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run four years ago," McCain said.

If it had been a boxing match, the comment would have been a solid combination to the opponent’s head. But with Obama’s next comment he said the reason he so often mistakes McCain’s policies for Bush’s is that they agree so often.

Continuing with the boxing analogy, Obama was stepping up with at least a single strong punch to the head, with no show that the exchange had weakened him.

McCain gave away any advantage when in his own closing statement he said the American people don’t want a repeat of the last eight years – thus reminding people of the comments that he and Bush are in lock-step. McCain then ended with comments about his lifetime of service to this country. The words of a hero, should have been the ones that launched that final appeal for a vote.

Obama also threw in his mention of the "failed policies of the last eight years" and his now familiar promise for "fundamental change."

McCain had chances to score points. His mention of plumber Joe Wurzelbacher was one such moment. The mention of a plumber who doesn’t like the idea of Obama’s tax increases was strong. McCain’s mention that Obama told Joe he wanted to "spread the wealth around" was a powerful point.

McCain failed in several other areas. On abortion, he didn’t mention Obama’s support for a law that would virtually strip out limits on abortion. He accidentally called Obama "Senator Government" but that appeared to be an unintended slip of the tongue, which is probably the best way to deliver such a comment.

Obama didn’t collapse badly in his showing. He comes across better in close-ups. His occasional chuckles at something McCain said would have been negatives if they had not been outnumbered by the moments when McCain’s blinking was a distraction to viewers.

Going back to the Kennedy-Nixon debate … those with audio only might have thought McCain did a better job. Many of those watching video probably felt Obama was more comfortable.

One of the great disappointments of the debate series is that the candidates’ stance on taxes was never truly addressed. Both men gave the best showing of their own plans and attacked the other’s plans. McCain never did clearly convey that Obama’s plan is mostly a tax increase. Instead it will still be thought of as a tax cut by many listeners.

Questions about taking the "high road" and why they both went negative were a waste of precious time because neither candidate relented and nothing useful was learned. They’ve both played dirty politics. Better questions could have been asked.

The health care plans were expressed in terms so similar to previous debates as to be a wash for both candidates. That’s a shame because these two plans are not even similar.

Toward the end of the debate the biggest question occurred. It had to do with appointment of nominees for the Supreme Court.

That will certainly be one of the biggest legacies the next president will leave. It got tied up with abortion, while it is a more universal issue.

If anybody was expecting huge blocks of voters to be swayed by the debate, they will probably be disappointed.

Tuesday night’s town hall forum between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama probably won’t change the minds of many voters.

Neither candidate did anything particularly presidential. Their lengthy answers and their non-answer excuses for flitting off into other areas to attack each other was sure to frustrate people instead of gain new converts.

Based on the poll numbers, that plays into the hands of Obama.

The town hall meeting format was thought to be most advantageous to McCain. This event, however, devolved quickly into just another "he-said-he-said" squabble. Obama accused McCain of wanting to force health insurance changes that might cost millions of people their coverage. McCain accused Obama of planning $860 billion in new spending while boosting taxes that will kill jobs.

Both men have made these accusations before and through their surrogates.

Tom Brokaw didn’t help matters by asking followup questions on issues that have been discussed adequately in other places. One of the few follows that wasn’t new was wrong-headed when he asked two candidates to name who their Treasury Secretary would be. That particular question would not give anybody a glimpse of who the candidates are underneath their carefully scripted lines.

Both men tried to paint themselves as loud voices of reason who alerted people about the financial crisis. McCain did indeed sound the alarm two years ago. Obama did indeed call for re-regulation of parts of the financial markets. Reading their records shows neither was cognizant of the complete problem. Their different world and governmental views doomed them both to failure in Congress.

McCain said he would not telegraph his punches after saying that Obama had threatened to invade Pakistan. Obama then questioned McCain’s judgment in singing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," which McCain admitted was a poor joke with a fellow veteran.

Perhaps McCain’s greatest opportunity to turn a true debate reversal came when the two were asked what the McCain and Obama doctrines would be on sending troops to stop slaughters in other countries.

Obama said the decision is a moral issue. McCain missed the chance to note that Obama said during the forum at Saddleback Church that abortion was a moral issue … and somehow above the pay grade of a president. If the slaughter of innocents overseas is a concern, McCain could have asked about a similar slaughter in the United States.

Both men were inconsistent in their answers on government. They said that people don’t trust the government, but both pointed to government as the answer to several of the challenges facing America.

Obama spoke loudly not only to his base but also to many independents when he said in a few years from now that he wants to see people "buy fuel efficient cars that are manufactured right here in America."

McCain’s best counter on a question was when he reminded listeners that Obama promised "to forgo a tax increase if times were bad." He turned to Obama and told him the financial news is bad.

Nobody won the debate. Any undecided voters who were looking for something inspirational … lost the debate.

Sarah Palin didn’t fold. Joe Biden didn’t dominate.

Thursday night’s vice presidential debate – their term, not mine – may
help the Republicans slightly after a rough week. Palin was expected to be
outshone by Biden and she wasn’t.

Biden, clearly answered several of the tough policy questions more
adeptly, but he also worked from memory a few times and made some
assertions about Senate votes that were quickly debunked by the fact
checkers.

Palin lacked some of the institutional knowledge of the Senate, but made
up for that with a down-to-earth approach that will resonate with many
voters.

Her best moments in my opinion were:

• Her address directly at the camera that "Never again will we get taken
advantage of" in commenting on the financial market meltdown and the
attempts at a rescue.

• Her "There you go again Joe … talking about the past again."

• Her assertion that Barack Obama’s view of sitting down with dangerous
dictators without preconditions is "beyond naivete."

Biden’s best moments were:

• When he pointed out that Palin’s comments about "more authority for the
vice president" were taken from Vice President Dick Cheney’s play book and
constitute a "bizarre notion."

• His mention that the commander in Afghanistan "said today that an
Iraq-style surge would not work." Even after the exact words of the
commander are spun by both sides, Biden caught Palin off guard at that
moment. Her preparation team fell down on keeping her updated on
Thursday’s report.

One big question is how viewers will react to Biden’s emotional moment
with about a quarter hour left in the debate. He choked up when mentioning
his own experience of raising a family as a single parent — after the car
crash that claimed his wife. He looked down for long minutes after he
finished his comment and wiped away a tear as Palin gave her response.
Then as Biden got his chance at the next question he talked faster and
more aggressively. He may have been trying to compensate for his emotional moment by trying to be more forceful.

That emotion by Biden will probably tell the tale of the debate in
miniature. It will endear him to committed Obama-Biden supporters. It will
bring cries of concern from McCain-Palin supporters who will equate it
with the Hillary Clinton emotional moment in New Hampshire.

The bigger question is how independent voters — the undecideds — see that
moment and the night’s comments as a whole. They expected a professional
and polished Joe Biden and got that in most ways. They expected Sarah
Palin to be over-matched and they didn’t see that.

Palin exceeded expectations. Biden could not have exceeded his expectations.

Based on that admittedly limited criteria, team McCain-Palin
probably will see a bump in the opinion polls during the next few days.