Normally, the U.S. Republican presidents are better for Brazil, as defending the free trade. Regardless of their conservative domestic policies and the support to schemes unreliable the oil-producing countries, Brazil has always won economic advantages in relations with the Americans when the Republicans were in power.

On the other hand, the Democrats, most protectionist of the internal market, in one way or another always tryied to create problems for the entry of Brazilian products in their country, as in the case of commodities. A recent case was a victory for Brazil in the WTO in the case of cotton subsidies by the Americans, hampering the selling of the Brazilian product.

Another example, while ethanol is not yet a commoditie, the bench Democrat in Congress insists in impede the entry of the Brazilian product, which, as well as cheaper, is more efficient.

The search for new fuels to replace oil is something good, regarding that there is no doubt. However, Obama, despite being in favour of this alternative, it still has that protectionist mentality typical of West Half of the United States. In a question to him was made by the BBC, he replied “to replace the oil that our country should by Brazilian ethanol does not meet our national and economic interests.”

He seems to be a candidate better than John McCain, as promises to reduce aggressiveness of his country around the world. But is the defending agricultural subsidies, would not be feeding the current problem of shortage of food in the world?