As he battles through the final days of a knife-edge election campaign, Mr Al Gore could be forgiven for wishing that the next US president was chosen not by the American electorate, but by European politicians.
If EU leaders could decide who is to govern the US for the next four years, the vice-president would win by a landslide.
Although few politicians or diplomats say so openly, the prospect of Mr George W. Bush moving from the governor's mansion in Texas to the White House in Washington is viewed within Europe's chancelleries with some trepidation.
Europe's preference for Mr Gore may, however, owe more to political tribalism and a simple antipathy to change than to a clear analysis of the implications for transatlantic relations.
Many EU leaders and senior officials have met Mr Gore during his eight years as vice-president and most respect him as a thoughtful politician with a keen interest in foreign affairs. Most EU governments are dominated by parties of the centre-left, for whom the Democrats are more natural political partners than the Republicans.
Mr Gore would probably inherit some of President Clinton's foreign policy advisers, ensuring greater continuity in Washington's relationship with its European allies. If the vice-president is seen as a safe and familiar pair of hands, Mr Bush has upset European leaders with his enthusiasm for a national missile defence system. European politicians regard the initiative as a dangerous provocation to Russia.
But it was a proposal by Mr Bush's top national security adviser, Ms Condoleezza Rice, to review US military commitments around the world which rang most alarm bells in Europe. Among the first actions the new president would take, Ms Rice declared, would be to pull US troops out of the Balkans, leaving the peacekeeping mission entirely in the hands of the Europeans.
"Carrying out civil administration and police functions is simply going to degrade the American capability to do the things America has to do. We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten," she said.
In fact, as EU officials are quick to point out, 80 per cent of the peacekeeping troops in the Balkans are Europeans - a detail that may have escaped Mr Bush and his advisers. The deeper anxiety was that it could create divisions between Washington and Europe similar to those that arose during Mr Clinton's first term.
At that time, Europe had soldiers on the ground in Bosnia when the US did not, encouraging Washington to favour an aerial bombing campaign which could have put European soldiers at risk. Mr Bush's proposal could, however, herald a fresh approach to the role of NATO in the post-Cold War era that will encourage the EU in its efforts to develop a security identity of its own.
The Clinton administration is ambivalent to Europe's new rapid reaction force, fearing that Washington will still have to pick up part of the bill for Europe's defence without being able to call all the shots. Some of Mr Bush's advisers have shown signs of being prepared to take a more radical approach to transatlantic security that could enhance Europe's independence from the US on security matters.
Most EU leaders acknowledge that on other issues, such as trade disputes, the shape of the US Congress matters more than the identity of the president.
The French Foreign Minister, Mr Hubert Vedrine, summed up the attitude of more sanguine Europeans when he suggested that the differences between the two candidates' policy towards Europe had more to do with style than substance.
"Can the presidential and congressional elections change US foreign policy fundamentally? I don't think so," he said.