The World Should Vote In US Elections?

Call me naive, but I do not believe that the US press or people would consider themselves qualified, much less entitled to weigh in to another countries' citizenry in an attempt to sway their election.

Unfortunately others in the 'world' believe they are more enlightened than we, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1328813,00.html

The Guardian's campaign to target undecided voters in a key swing state in the US presidential elections has attracted more than 10,000 responses, as well earning the ire of the conservative media.

By 6pm yesterday, 11,658 people had contacted the newspaper from around the world, after it encouraged readers in Britain to write with their thoughts on the election to voters in Clark county, Ohio. In the 2000 election, George Bush lost the county by 1% - equivalent to 324 votes.

The Guardian promised to give emailers the names and addresses of unaffiliated voters, from a list purchased from electoral officials. In its launch article on Thursday, it urged: "Remember that it's unusual to receive a lobbying letter from someone in another country."

The above is substantially different than reporting what is going on in the US, it is a declared attempt to target voters in the US. Now the BBC, which does have a slant, is substantially different in allowing comments, but not making any attempt to actually influence the elections,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3747040.stm

The international press believes that US Senator John Kerry has established himself as a serious contender in the presidential race, following what many see as his narrow victory in the last of three debates with incumbent George W Bush.

But commentators are less certain that Mr Kerry will triumph in the race itself...