The Wall Street Journal's European edition opines that the transatlantic bond remains "robust" despite President George W. Bush's supposed unilateralism. Harsh anti-Americanism, like France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, is out, and pragmatic pro-Americanism is in-see replacements Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.
With friendly presidents in every major capital save Madrid, Europe's moved past Iraq.
Hence a "third" Bush term with John McCain would not signal disruption but a continued warming that characterized the second Bush term.
Having spent last week in The Hague consulting with dozens of Dutch senior officials from several ministries, I'm inclined to counter that rosy perception.
I concur with the Journal's underlying logic: America presents the best alliance option for a European Union feeling nervous about Russia's bare-knuckle pipeline diplomacy, China's predatory capitalism, and India's indifference to Iran's nuclear program.
But being the best available option isn't the same as being the most desired option.
Certainly President Bush heard some gripes during his European tour last week. While the EU places more emphasis on human rights than any great power, including America, the Bush administration's promotion of democracy as central to a war on terrorism is viewed with real worry because of its potential to pit East against West, a dynamic Europe hoped had passed into history.
Polls indicate that Europeans overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama over John McCain, despite the latter's call for a stronger transatlantic relationship. Perhaps that has something to do with McCain's proposal for a "league of democracies" that would bypass the flaccid United Nations and decide on its own which dictators need challenging.
The idea came from well-known McCain adviser and longtime neoconservative scholar Robert Kagan, who promotes it as the central solution to America's alliance woes in his recent book, "The Return of History and the End of Dreams."
Kagan, you might remember, told us just a few years ago that Europeans were from Venus and Americans were from Mars, meaning we remain comfortable with war while Europe is no longer willing to defend itself.
Again, it's not that Europe has changed its mind so much as it simply sees a scarier world and thus continues to appreciate our strategic friendship.
But here's what I found during my week in The Hague: the Dutch aren't convinced that America plus Europe translates into a quorum that's sufficient to tackle all the challenges we collectively face.
In almost every issue you can name, Europe's coming to the conclusion that the West needs the East to figure out the South, as well as our shared future on this increasingly crowded and competitive planet.
The most obvious case is global climate change, since the greatest increases in CO2 emissions in coming years and decades will come overwhelmingly from emerging markets.
With the West already built up and saturated with vehicles, the opportunity to curb emissions will be found primarily in those emerging economies, where financial firm Morgan Stanley estimates 22 trillion dollars' worth of infrastructure will be constructed within the next decade - almost half in China alone.
Here's where both U.S. presidential candidates frighten Europe: Obama's tough talk on trade strikes them as economically immature, but McCain's promise to kick Russia out of the G-8, only to expand it dramatically while keeping China out, seems truly backward.
If anything, Europe admired Bush most for his cool handling of both Moscow and Beijing over his two terms.
That's where the rubber really meets the road for NATO: Obama promises that any drawdown of troops in Iraq will signal a far greater American military commitment in Afghanistan. Europe, especially the Dutch, fear NATO's global credibility is on the line right now in Afghanistan.
Don't expect Europe to step in line behind any new American president.
While Europeans see the same world, they still have different - maybe even better - priorities.