Editor’s Note: Now that I have returned to Salt Lake City, we’ll be getting back to normal posting. However, I am happy to feature another dispatch from Mark Alvarez who’s been in Mexico City with his wife, Lorena, since last summer. As voters go to the polls in New Hampshire’s primary today and as they will go in the next five weeks, we thought it might be intriguing to see what the Mexican press is saying about the presidential campaign.

The election of a president in the United States has so much impact on Mexico that a commentator here has suggested that the selection process be broadened to include the voices of Mexicans. The process clearly could improve through more even distribution of voting weight and timing across states. But so it goes in the U.S. presidential campaign.

The difficulty of reporting on the U.S. presidential politics is easily illustrated: though “caucus” does not appear in the Spanish dictionary of the Royal Academy, Mexican journalists use “caucus” in the translation for “Iowa caucus.” Then again, the difficulty may be unspeakable and indefinable: Can anyone explain the Iowa process?

Despite the challenges of coverage, Mexican media has devoted considerable space and time to the U.S. presidential race. Through late fall and early winter (quite hospitable in Mexico City), stories focused on Hillary Clinton and her quest to become the first woman elected president. The narratives generally weaved through the experience of Clinton and connections with the presidency of Michelle Bachelet of Chile and the recent election of Cristina Fernandez as president of Argentina.

Mexican journalists largely perceived Clinton as well prepared to become president of the U.S. They paid less attention to rivals. The conversation generally went that U.S. voters would elect a woman as president before they elected an African-American or a Latino.

Then came Iowa. Mexico paid attention. The Mexican daily El Universal explained that while Iowa had little electoral weight, it had great weight in the media and in the perception of candidates. The process of Iowa created an odd dynamic: “he who hits first, hits twice.”

Although the process of Iowa defied simple translation, the results from January 3 did not. Barack Obama surprised most Mexican journalists. A twist for some was the middle name “Hussein.” Barack Hussein Obama. The question has been posed: “Can an African-American who is the son of an immigrant be elected president of the U.S.?” The answer among Mexican journalists seems to be “perhaps” tending toward “sure, why not?”

Obama’s victory in Iowa resonated because he demonstrated the ability to gain support in a mostly white and conservative state with little ethnic diversity. Obama overcame a perceived lack of experience by building a coalition and mobilizing a new generation of voters. Maybe the electorate has tired of the same voices, the same names and the same money. In Iowa, Obama met a major challenge of his candidacy: Obama is electable.

The Bush era has been described as a quasi-despotism flowing from neoconservatism, intolerance, religious intervention in politics, a withering of the social safety net and big business. Logically, an opposition movement to Bush politics formed and surged. Carlos Puig of the Mexican daily Milenio observed that while Obama did not start the movement, he knew how to lead it. The movement is a welcome one for the U.S. and the world.

In words that translate in any language, Puig ended with caution and confidence: “The movement may not carry Obama to the White House. But something has changed. Question of time…”