Title to be determined

This isn't really about Obama. It's certainly not intended to be against him, and I plan to vote for him, but this is, ultimately, about world public opinion, the moral obligation of its holders, and reaction to the war on terror. I suppose I should place parts of "war on terror," if not the full phrase as I did there, in quotes, but that's tiring to do, so assume what biases you will.

Obama, being both a Democrat and liberal, two associations favored by Europe, et al, has his advantages over McCain, that I understand, but what I don't understand, and not in terms of a comparison to McCain, who is irrelevant here, is why an Obama Presidency should be expected to bring the benefit of greater cooperation that is not really hindered in the first place.
As far as I know, we are already being helped by some of the world's nations and peoples, some of them are even helping us militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I believe in more cases they are helping us in so-called "police actions."

Overall, most nations don't want to, for whatever reasons (and I attack none of these reasons at present), cooperate to the extent the Bush administration desires. What this means is that the primary benefit to us would be, it may be assumed, further cooperation in these so-called police actions.

Bush's behavior notwithstanding, what exactly would prevent the world's nations from furthering their cooperation anyway, as each is able, in international policing efforts, as things stand now?

If they are doing as much as can be reasonably expected, perhaps more, than they obviously aren't failing to assist us in our global security efforts, and by virtue of cooperation even in these policing actions, there is tacit acknowledgement, at least some would admit, that there is a legitimate danger to the world, however it is labeled, and wherever fault for it is placed. Therefor, if the world already concedes the need to collobarate on part of this battle, but refuses to go significantly beyond that, our burden is largely met, is it not? We aren't going to be helped militarily much further than we have been, besides which, I'm not even requesting that we be, and the rationale for more policing cooperation is that of the self interests of the world's nations and peoples, which is surely understood by most of them.

The world doesn't actually need Obama to be President to do more of what it is already willing to do in the first place, and it won't be willing to do much greater, no matter how preferrable it may claim him to be over Bush.

Much of the benefit of Obama is that he won't act bellicose toward the world (thank goodness), and some improvement in relations with the world is needed, so Obama is valuable in that regard, and probably others. But it remains nevertheless a decent possibility that some nation's unwillingness to cooperate further in policing efforts when they are able to, is at least partially a choice based in pettiness, and not solely the fault of American foreign policy and behavior.