GROGGILY the world opened its eyes on Wednesday, still half-drunk from the heady, intoxicating punch that is the US presidential elections.

And as it shook its weary head, the realisation slowly dawned: it was not the bright new dawn promised by Democratic challenger John Kerry; instead, George W Bush - a man loathed globally and mocked as a dunderhead - had won the Republicans four more years in the White House.

One could almost hear the collective groan of despair in the UK. Political analysts, newspaper columnists and disgruntled voters produced long lists explaining why a second-term for Bush was a disaster for democracy.

The President had waged war in Iraq on false grounds, was struggling to contain an insurgency which is costing the lives of thousands of US troops and had - incredibly - managed to introduce American tortures to jails once run by Saddam Hussein, they argued.

Furthermore, they said, Bush was likely to continue to neglect the climate change issue so Americans could carry on driving gas-guzzling cars, fail to resolve conflict between Israel and Palestine, ignore human rights at Guantanamo Bay and take military action against any country he considers "evil" - Iran, take note - as part of the "war on terror".

These points were neatly encapsulated in some of the more hysterical headlines on the front of anti-war national newspapers this week. The Independent told us a day before the poll: "The Fate Of The World Is Decided Today". After the result The Mirror's front page asked: "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?" and offered the readers six pages on the "US Election Disaster".

The Guardian left its comments to a despairing "Oh, God."

Although the latter could be self-pity. Because in some circles the Guardian is being blamed for helping Bush scoop a second term with its ill-fated Operation Clark County.

Under the well-meaning project, people in the UK were encouraged to write to supposedly less politically-savvy residents of tiny Clark County in Ohio - one of the states which was a key battleground - explaining why the US elections were important for the rest of the world and why it was vital to vote Democrat.

But the plan backfired spectacularly. Most Americans found it a condescending, unwanted attempt to influence a foreign election.

E-mails back to the Guardian largely evoked one sentiment: "Mind your own business, Limeys!" There were also myriad mocking references to the appalling state of British people's teeth and our habit of drinking tea.

And the results in Clark County? In 2000, Al Gore won the ballot by one per cent. This time, John Kerry lost the 2,000-voter county by two per cent.

Across the crunch state of Ohio, Bush won by a meagre 2.5 per cent.

While the Guardian campaign might have fired up voters, the Republicans ran a fervent campaign to mobilise supporters in rural Ohio. They reckoned on getting an extra 150,000 people to the ballot box - and won the state by just over 146,000 votes.

More significantly, voters may have been swayed by the video of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden which appeared - coincidentally, surely - the day before the election.

President Bush rode to victory because he was considered a stronger, tougher leader than the indecisive Kerry - persuading enough Americans he can stabilise Iraq and keep them safe from a repeat of the murderous September 11 attacks. He also appealed to the US's small-town morals.

One man who is sure to be relieved at President Bush's triumph, though, is Tony Blair. While he is correct to say part of his job description is to maintain a "special relationship with Washington - no matter who is leader", the result of the election guarantees continuity in Iraq - the defining issue of Blair's second term in Downing Street.

Updated: 09:57 Friday, November 05, 2004