do you care about America's standing?

To a degree. It's important, first and foremost, that we be at least a Great Power, since that confers privileges and responsibilities that boost our strength.

Has the election of Barack Obama enhanced America's standing?

To an extent, but not that much. These things are highly institutional in most countries, since most countries aren't one-man autocracies.

Should we care?

This is a repeat of the first question, so read that answer.

I do not believe Americans will fundamentally change. Everyone wants to be liked, but when being liked means not doing what is right for you in order to hopefully imppress someone, it becomes less important.

I think Obama's international tone makes him seem popular, but we'll see when real foreign crises emerge how he really responds.

Thus far, he has wanted, rightfully, to focus domestically.

Of course, when you're mission is to become FDR reincarnated complete with a new New Deal, pesky distractions related to security aren't as important.

We'll see.

As for whether we should care. Yes and no. We should not try to be disliked, but neither should we court global public opinion like its any more important than it is. Our leaders are not responsible to "global" opinion, they are responsible to American opinion.

what was Rome's standing in Gaul? England, during the zenith of its empire, did the French like them? Who the hell gives a shit! All that matters for an empire is the successful wielding of power. If you can draw a correlation between that success and 'standing' in the world [and it may help to define with some precision what the hell 'standing' means] then ok, I might care about something like that, that might prove interesting - otherwise stop wasting peoples time. Is this what four years of Obama is gonna look like? The world economy is gushing down an epochal toilet and the guy's holding a pep rally on health care - it's frickin' unbelievable!

On my blog in February, I interviewed three Foreign Service Officer bloggers, and asked each of them what America's greatest foreign policy challenge was. All three of them basically said it was restoring America's standing in the world.
To answer your specific question, I think Obama has enhanced America's standing. The American dream is alive and well in Africa. I think we have to care, our unpopularity in Turkey has cost us billions in Iraq, just to name one example. We'll see.
PS, those iterviews are at:

• http://www.thehegemonist.com/2009/02/fs-interviews-steve.html
• http://www.thehegemonist.com/2009/02/fs-interviews-fso-globetrotter.html
• http://www.thehegemonist.com/2009/02/fs-interviews-digger.html

Has dramatically increased since Obama took over from Bush, especially in Africa. However, we cannot let the fact that people like us more affect our policies around the world. Sometimes we are going to have to make decisions the world isn't going to like. Being popular is fine, but being popular while abandoning your principals is a disaster.

America’s standing in the world compared to what? How does restoring its standing compare to other important objectives?

Survival, security against attack, must rank as high as any objective. But the vast preponderance of military power possessed by the United States is a fundamental fact of international politics today and for at least at decade to come. We are the world’s only superpower, the structure of relations between states is unipolar, we can deter any attack. It’s true, as September 11 proved, that a lucky hit can do us considerable damage. But as an eighth anniversary of the fall of the twin towers approaches, Madrid 2004 has proven the worst done to a western target--191 fatalities. As Kenneth Waltz observed in the year after the attacks in New York, “terrorists can be terribly bothersome, but they hardly pose threats to the fabric of society or the security of the state.” Even had half a dozen attacks like those in Bali, Madrid, and London been sustained in the United States, it would have fared no worse than did Britain under the assaults by IRA or Israel by Palestinians. (Possibly, ruled by leaders as muddleheaded and adolescent as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, this might not have proven so--but that is an accident of selection of incompetent and unprincipled leaders not likely to be reoccur any time soon.)

A second objective suggests itself--avoidance of embroilment in another war like that in Iraq, and a quick end to the war in Iraq itself. Since the US is committed to drawing down forces in Iraq to 50,000 or so, one assumes that even if Tom Ricks’ gloomy prognostications are borne out, still the resources committed to this theater will be substantially reduced. More to be feared are the consequences of an increase in the resources committed to the war against assorted fanatics and patriots in Afghanistan. I can think of nothing on the foreign policy horizon more likely to reduce our standing in the world, to do no good and considerable harm, than the employment of American forces in an effort to secure control of all of Afghanistan from Kabul along lines consonant with the values of the enlightenment.

Not a disaster yet, but Obama has clearly hurt our standing in the world; he's already signaled a willingness to betray Eastern Europe, fumbled a relatively simple exchange with the leader of the UK, upset China by promoting protectionism, been smacked down by India (where a government minister compared him to a dog!), had the Taliban win a major victory in Pakistan, and become a laughingstock in Russia (already a fairly racist place). And all this doesn't include his obvious missteps on the economy at a time when the world is desperately looking to us to provide leadership.

France and Africa liking us more doesn't quite measure up (and France will turn around very soon).

As to whether it matters, yes and no. The 'world's opinion' doesn't matter, but select countries matter.

I don't know how strongly inclined the Obama administration is for repairing america's standing in the world, but I think the public will swallow a lot. They swallowed precisely *how* much cost when someone told them they must bail out what they see as rich greedy pigs? when you start getting hit a lot, you stop responding so much. a mere million here, a ten-spot there--it will feel like nothing. and hell, just call it stimulus and you're golden.

At any rate, foreign policy's going to be a big priority--you can expect no less when you appoint hillary clinton to the post. CNN and MSM will make sure we keep talking about it. They love the drama.

I believe that US standing in the world is usually measured by the results of surveys of opinion in other countries--do they have a favorable attitude toward the US, do they approve of its policies in regard to Palestine, nuclear weapons, global warming, whatever.

The office in the State Department concerned with "US standing" is essentially a PR outfit, trying to put a pretty face on whatever the US does. So obviously it's not an important office--it can't put lipstick on a pig, and what's important is what the US does, not the cosmetics applied after the fact.

In regard to global warming, the US certainly isn't going to do the right (assuming the climate experts' predictions are correct) thing. It isn't going to impose a tax on carbon. Nor is it even likely to adopt a reasonably efficient and effective cap and trade scheme. So the PR folks are going to have their hands full.

But that's what the US might do on the plus side. More important is what it might do on the minus side. And number one on that list, ahead of getting bogged down in Afghanistan and offending Pakistan and all the rest, is going along with an Israeli air strike on Iran. I assume such a strike would require both US permission and facilitation. Were these to to be forthcoming, there would follow both a substantive debacle and a PR nightmare for the United States.

I would like to think that the demerits of striking Iran are so obvious that it's nothing to fear. But if the so-called neo-conservatives succeed in preventing the appointment of Freeman--succeed in shaping intelligence readings to suit their policy preferences--then my fears would revive.