The George W Bush Farewell European Tour has been a quiet affair. Not for the first time, he doesn't have much to say to us, and we have precious little left to say to him. There's no point. By the year's end, a squalid episode in the American story will have drawn to a close. This time, even the protests have been subdued. Mr Bush is the tolerated guest painfully aware that everyone he meets is making small talk, looking over his shoulder for the next, more interesting, guy.

Even his own people can hardly wait to see the back of him. These days the President's approval ratings serve a single purpose: they prove that diehard, conviction Republicanism enlists barely one-quarter of the American electorate. The neo-con project has been laughed out of town. The great experiment of the "American Century" (hubris optional) by which freedom was to be exported via Guantanamo has foundered.

All that remains are the courtesy calls. A laugh with Berlusconi; a stroll with the Pope; brave words on the merits (this is true) of German asparagus; sweet nothings with Sarkozy; and tomorrow the breaking of bread with Gordon Brown.

Mr Bush could be confident that none of this crew would mention war crimes. In exchange, he has offered belated humility. Apparently, he now regrets the bellicose rhetoric that got all those Iraqis killed. Finally, the merits of diplomacy have become clear.

What this means, of course, is that even the military-industrial complex has no taste for taking on Iran and its nuclear ambitions, not while the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan drag on. The idea of American power, the notion that made all the neo-con fantasies of pre-eminence seductive, has been amended. It is a confession, of sorts, of failure. But the President's newly conciliatory tone can also be understood as a coded message to his successor.

The US economy is shot and the wars go badly. Americans, like the rest of us, are nervous. The new world order proposed by Mr Bush's father looks like the same old mess, only worse. Barack Obama and John McCain each talk of the United States engaging anew with the world, but their supporters, though they dislike being disliked abroad, want shelter from the storm. And they are pinning a great deal of hope, most of it unrealistic, on the two candidates.

In this, Europeans, too, are guilty of conspicuous naivety. It is assumed, reasonably enough, that no-one could be worse than Mr Bush. In the case of Mr Obama, it is then assumed that the behaviour of the US towards the world will be transformed. The candidate talks constantly of hope and change, after all, and Europeans take him at his word. But you do not have to doubt the candidate's sincerity to note the difference between what he would like to do and what he can and will do.

Get the troops out of Iraq? There's a virtuous sentiment. Unlike Mr McCain, who seems to have learned nothing from his own horrific experiences in Vietnam, Mr Obama does not propose to commit America to "seeing it through". On the other hand, anyone who imagines that troops will begin to fly home on the day after a Democrat inauguration next January is dreaming. Mr Obama aspires to withdraw forces. He is not naming a date.

He cannot say exactly when Americans will leave Iraq, for that would give comfort to insurgents. He cannot predict whether a rickety, lashed-together Baghdad government will survive. He cannot be confident that the country will hang together long enough for one of those "security handovers". True to his stump speech, he is basing everything on hope.

His hope does not depend on an end to US military adventures, in any case. It may come as news to Europeans, but Mr Obama, like the British government, wants to get troops out of Iraq merely to redouble efforts in Afghanistan. That hopeless conflict comes with the prospective President's seal of approval. Given the opportunity, he will do more, not less, than Mr Bush has done in this theatre of the never-ending war on terror. Somehow that aspect of the promised new era sounds very like the old era.

True, Mr Obama says he is ready to talk to the Iranian leadership face to face. But then he adds that he will do so only to demonstrate America's stern disapproval. That this might disrupt the united western diplomatic effort of which Mr Bush has grown suddenly fond is, as yet, undiscussed. Still, it's good to talk. It is better to know what you might be talking about. As with so much of his foreign policy, Mr Obama is no more clear than Mr McCain.

Nevertheless, Europe will have a new friend, right? Why might that be the case? American presidents act in America's interests: it is a consequence of the oath they take. Quite right, too. But when economic times are hard and the Democrats are in charge in the White House and in Congress, protectionism awaits.

Such has been the American tendency for centuries. The difference these days is that the country's vast debts are underwritten by Europe and Asia. Dollar holdings and US paper, a lot of paper, are alike at risk if Mr Obama lives up to his rhetoric.

A global battle over resources has already begun. Mr McCain and Mr Obama are improvements on Mr Bush only because they at least recognise the fact of climate change (and are both commendably queasy over torture). Still, if oil and food prices continue to rise, and if Americans go on clamouring for protection, will either candidate continue to seek those reassuring multilateral solutions? I wonder.

Presidents have strictly limited powers in economic matters, in any case. A Democrat Congress ought to be to Mr Obama's clear advantage, but a Congress determined to look after its own, and determined to extract pork from its man in the White House, will be just as deaf to European opinion as any Bushite. The world will not, I think, be turned upside down. Only the language will change.

Mr Obama has little experience of foreign policy and has said little of consequence about economic affairs. Mr McCain merely confesses that economics is not his strong suit. Confronted with the weeping sore that is Palestine, the Middle East's determining issue, both men recently swore loyalty to Israel. You may approve; I do not. But I defy anyone to discern the makings of a real solution to six decades of suffering in a disputed region.

Europe will no longer have George W Bush to kick around. That does not mean the Bush legacy will disappear overnight. Polling on this side of the Atlantic tells us, however, that this time Europeans have, in effect, chosen Obama. We will have no-one to blame if we are disappointed. Sometimes, lessons in American realities come hard.

Personally, I'll settle for Mr Obama avoiding fresh overseas entanglements and ending the obscenity that is the US healthcare "system". But there's another irony. Hillary Clinton, the candidate with the clearly superior health plan, is out of the race. We are left with hope, and the small satisfaction of seeing Mr Bush depart with no credit whatever.