LONDON -- I’ve spent the last week or so traveling in England and keeping an eye to the British press about their takes on issues important in U.S election. People here are certainly aware of who is running. John McCain was even in London last Thursday, visiting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The most striking coverage of American events has been surrounding the five-year anniversary of the war in Iraq. While there was plenty of coverage – news, editorials, breakdown of costs – there was little on the streets of London to commemorate five years of war. (On Saturday, March 15, sources tell me a massive protest of 40 – 50,000 people marched down Whitehall to Parliament to protest the U.K.’s involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish I’d seen it, but it pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands who marched in protest as the war convened.)

Iraq has played heavily in the headlines here, and prominently on the streets around the Houses of Parliament.

The Mirror had a breakdown of some costs associated with the war, and they are staggering, especially considering one prominent economist’s prediction that the war will cost the United States $3 trillion. By contrast, the U.K.’s involvement has been much smaller: fewer than 200 killed and a cost of £6 billion. The U.S. recently lost its 4,000th soldier and is looking at a price tag $2 billion per week.

The Independent’s Patrick Cockburn assailed the war as based on lies and propaganda. It’s a claim that the protestors outside Parliament feverishly agree with (more on them next week). Suffice it to say that these protestors have kept a constant vigil outside Parliament since June 2001; it took an act of law to diminish the anti-war group’s display to several tents and signs from hundreds.

The campaign is news, too.

Also making headlines here in England was Barack Obama’s heralded speech on race. Though John McCain met with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street last week, McCain and Hillary Clinton took a back seat to Obama, who seems to be a curious wonder to the media in Britain, which note his ascension from a candidate who happens to be black to a black candidate.

The papers covered Obama’s speech on race in great detail, and with laudatory commentary, and The Times, arguably the country’s leading paper, published its Sunday magazine with Obama on the cover.

The debates, the town hall visits, the daily campaign grind that is analyzed in agonizing detail on cable news in the U.S. is of no concern to Britons. Some might argue that it is of little concern to the average American. But here in England, our presidential candidates rarely warrant front-page news.

English media seems to be enamored with Obama, or at least the idea that America is considering a black man to be its president.

The biggest chirp this week, besides Obama’s speech and McCain’s visit, was briefings on the candidates’ passport information being compromised. And Clinton has hardly measured on the radar screen here, which could be an indication of her falling star at home.

As much as I’ve missed some of the familiarity of the U.S., the lack of constant, recycled analysis of the campaign has been a nice reprieve. It’s refreshing to know that, at least in England, the missteps of campaign advisers do not linger in the news.

The world is paying attention. Are you?

The attention being paid to our elections in Britain is striking if only for the fact that these people are taking time to consider the government of another country. It is almost unthinkable in our country that much attention would be paid to the prime ministerial elections of another country.

Yes, there is media coverage of it. Gordon Brown’s ascension to the PM position in England is notable because of our special relationship with his country. There was a plethora of news surrounding the recent Pakistani elections.

But what kind of discussion surrounded it? Americans, when compared to their counterparts around the world, are notoriously unworldly and uncurious.

Maybe it’s because of our country’s physical location, essentially an island. But we are bordered by Canada and Mexico, and I would bet that most Americans could not name the leaders of those countries.

It is essential in England and countries in the European Union to have an understanding of events in other countries. Many of these countries now share a common currency, the Euro, and many Europeans speak more than one language. It is second nature, then, for them to be somewhat curious about countries around them. And with the implicit power of the U.S., lots of people all over the world are waiting to see what happens in our elections.

From Israelis and Palestinians to Kenyans who share the last name Obama, people want to know how the next president of the U.S. will affect their lives.

Think about that. Think about the notorious apathy in this country towards elections. Consider how many people around the world are having discussions about the next American president, and then think about your involvement in this election. Does it make you want to vote – or at least to learn more?

Americans owe it to themselves to be engaged in the electoral process. An added bonus is considering the effect of the next president on the rest of the world.