"Did you know he's, like, really green all over?"
Thanks to Liz Burbank for this document, titled, Middle East Elections 2009: Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, authored by Casey L. Addis and Kenneth Katzman (dated May 18, 2009).
Two paragraphs (from page 7 of this report prepared for the members and committees of U.S. Congress) should suffice to make clear who the American establishment would like to win in the Iranian presidential elections (not that the American establishment was ambiguous about their dislike for Ahmadinejad!):
"Virtually all observers believe that the Administration perceives that Ahmadinejad’s defeat would benefit U.S. interests by enhancing the potential for Iran to meet international demands to curb its nuclear program. In [a] Financial Times interview ... Musavi ruled out suspending the enrichment of uranium, but it is widely believed that he might be more amenable to accepting international community incentives to curb that program—or to avoiding further penalties by continuing enrichment at current levels—than is Ahmadinejad.
"There also is a view in the Administration that a Musavi presidency would proceed more cautiously on support for Shiite Islamist and other Islamist movements, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi Shiite militias, and dissident movements in the Gulf states. This increases the prospects for a lessening of tensions between Iran and its neighbors and other countries in the region. On the other hand, some argue that Iran’s foreign policy is a product of consensus in Iran’s leadership and that Iran’s policy under a Musavi presidency would differ little from that observed under Ahmadinejad. "