Seems too early in the process to speculate on Obama's choice of advisers and the future polices they may be fostering. I still like the freshness and political "non-experience" of the man.

I suggest that by the time he might actually be nominated and elected, his thinking would evolve considerably around these issues.

Okay, maybe I'm really tired not reading this correctly and it will look different in the morning, but...

Shorter Hirsch: It isn't really staying the course if you make a 3-degree adjustment.

I'll read it all tomorrow, but, looking from the outside, it is not all right. The current system allowed a small cotery in 4 years to totally dismantle the hard work and always teetering trust built over 50 years. 50 years!

So, I agree it needs a steady hand on the tiller but it will take more than just words to rebalance the world to the US' advantage because the last thing the world needs -- just like any financial market -- is the fear of the unknown with each change of administration.

So, yes, strong diplomacy with real progress will be needed to show intent, plus unbreachable treaties (if you can have such things after the actions of the idiot son) so that continued momentum is maintained.

The resistance to that from big oil, military-industrial complex, AIPAC, and the repugnuts as well as some proportion of the populace will, I fear, be insurmountable without a strong majority, a bruised Republican Party, and a Democratic Party with genuine will to achieve altruistic -- although in the interests of the USA -- goals without self-polluting.

That's a lot of heavy lifting. But without it I hate to think what the world might be like.

Idunno Blue Girl,

It seems like less a 3 degree course correction as it does turning the map right-side up. It's not as though the problem with Bushes policy is liberal-institutional or Realist perspectives on foreign policy, but rather, his administration's inability to operate effectively within those frameworks - frameworks which have worked generally well, considering the potential for human extinction during the 20th century.

here we go again. We did this kind of things 6 years ago when Bush was running thenhe selected Darth Vader as his running mate and everyone was going nuts because we had a right team in place after Clinton. Nope. They fucked it up big time.

People are speculating on what Obama will do and are trying to imagine what he will do. You don't know, hell you don't fucking know what he will do. The guy has no experience so he most likely will have to rely on people like Lake and have we not witnessed disasters happening in the last 6 years if he listened to wrong people?

Let Obama speak for himself. Let him talk about his ideas then we can decide if he is on right track or wrong track.

Until then , people please STFU. I can't stand it anymore with speculations and guesses, not after 6 disastrous years.

Shorter Everblue: It's a darn good thing nobody like GWB came along any sooner otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So there probably is something flawed in the controls, currently.

I have to admit I still have enough Democrat DNA in me to sometimes wish for an Obama Presidency, even against the man I've supported for the last 9 or 10 years [McCain]. I was born in the JFK era and would like to see that kind of political feeling again in this country.
One quibble with Kevin's analysis; the premise that the UN is flawed but workable. How can anyone who has looked at the workings of that institution over the last few years say something like that? Supporting the UN as now constituted is like trying to put out international fires with gasoline. If Obama really wants to connect with the 3 or 4% of persuadable swing voters - people like myself, maybe Glenn Reynolds or Ann Althouse, for example - the best single piece of advice I could offer would be to have a blistering Sista Soulja speech on reforming that monstrosity. Point out that if Albright or Powell had been able to get Smart Sanctions through we would not have had this war, and say the first order of fundemental reform should be to force France's seat on the Security Counsel to be turned over to the EU.

We need more than a small correction, because the Iraq war didn't come out of nowhere. A lot of people on the Democratic side of the Establishment supported the thing.

We need to break the influence of AIPAC, which is not only not operating in America's interest, but not operating in Israel's interest either. They represent one faction in Israeli politics, the hard-line war hawks. They falsely pretend to represent American Jews; they do not (at their recent convention they booed every suggestion that we should withdraw from Iraq, for example). Israel will be better served if the US acts as an honest broker.

We need internationalism, but it can't be imposed by the US. We need to stop confusing Tom Friedman's agenda (restructure the world so his vast wealth can get the best return) with democracy.

We need to take social justice seriously, and stop trying to sell people in the Third World policies that aren't in their interests, or we'll see Chavez clones everywhere.

We need to stop elevating "free trade" above all considerations. Democratic and Republican administrations alike fought against anti-smoking efforts throughout the Third World, at the behest of Philip Morris, calling any restrictions on cigarette imports against the sacred "free trade" principle.

Oh, and minion, Glenn Reynolds isn't a persuadable swing voter. He's a hard-core Republican apologist who abandoned the libertarianism he used to argue for in favor of authoritarianism, defending every power grab Bush ever engaged in.

His claims otherwise are no more credible than Bill O'Reilly's claims to be an independent.

Continuing with the references to the Kennedys, a cynical mind would say that if they think he will actually win, Obama will just be killed outright. Hilary is tolerable; she wants to fit in. Obama is an outsider who would threaten to change people's expectations.

Ethics won't play into it - tens of thousands have been maimed or killed already in America alone. Take a step back and look at the behavior patterns so far - the questionable ballot issues, the wars based on false evidence, the patriot act, torture policy, secret prisons. There would be a simple calculation of which outcome would do the least damage to their cause, his election or an assassination.

Obama just might be able to do it. It's just possible that we could elect him.

Those who wouldn't vote for him because of his race wouldn't vote for Edwards or Hillary either, because they both have cooties, and they'll find the same problem with any other Democrat.

Barack at least doesn't have to apologize for consenting to the invasion of Iraq, which gives him a moral and intellectual edge over his nearest contenders.

Kevin, I hope you put up a thread about the supposed "confession" of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) at Gitmo. Apparently, KSM confessed to the 9-11 attacks and something like 30 other terrorist attacks worldwide. I'm surprised he didn't confess to the JFK assassination, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and the influenza epidemic of 1918. I'm betting the man has been tortued past the point of insanity, like Jose Padilla, and is a mass of quivering goo at this point in time. Not that I want to see the dirtiest T-shirt in the world ever again, but I think Democrats should demand that KSM be shown live and have a fair and open trial. Even a monster like KSM deserves a fair trial - his torture and mock "confession" give lie to the fact that America is a beacon of truth and justice in a world of gathering darkness. We used to be - but not in Bushworld.

Partway through the article, what strikes me is the way Power and Lake both basically fell in love with Obama. And that's why, as an Edwards supporter, I figure this race is basically over: the more that people see and hear Obama talking, the more they will fall in love with him. For me, this race has a whole "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" quality to it. I figure it's gonna happen to me to, but I'm holding out as long as possible.

Obama has the rock star appeal. That is all it takes to be a Democrat presidential possiblity. We have the "great hair" Edwards or the "clean and articulate" Obama. The girls in the Democrat party just love their man candy.

All we are waiting for now is to have the MSM tell us how "smart" Obama and Edwards are. And then they will tell us how the fact that both of them are inexperienced really "does not matter" when evaluating their presidential abilities.

The dumbest war we have fought is back in the US; the war on poverty.

The last politician Glenn Reynolds plugged on Instapundit was Gov. Bredensen - a Dem.

Yeah, what would it say to rest of world if American throw out Bushism and voted for an African American like Obama, just that turn events would shout volumes:

Who knows, it make give the rest of world the audacity of hope.

Bushism certainly has been a pillaging event, plundering for oil with lies about WMD and democracy but Bush did it of course, with Clintons at his side. The rest of world now knows that Bush is as big a liar as it's takening Americans to come the realization of late. Bush and Cheney's criminal schemes have belittled the nation.

We have to find a way around big oil, and damn it, we need someone to lead us there but it sure as hell will never, ever be a Republican.

It too bad Gore's not running. Certainly his time is now.

The Conservative Deflator,

Yeah, good to know where James Earl Ray received his "walking around" money.

Orwell, looking forward to seeing you on Steve Sailer's special. Keep telling us more about water melon cravings.

I wouldn't cut my hand off rather than vote for Obama--but at this point I think the world would welcome ANY American president not stupid to the point of derangement. His legendary MBA only proves Bush to be one of that species who is smart about small things and dumb about all else--like the comptroller who loses the county's money on the Nigerian scam.
All the ugly noises aside, the world doesn't seem to mind the hegemony of a US when it isn't ruled by witches.

I'm waiting for Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and other Christian supremists to point out that Obama is the very description of the Antichrist. Must fulfill Revelation Bible prophecy don'cha know.

And he's the Anti-Christ too.

F*** "global leadership"- we no longer have any credibility with the rest of the globe, and need to just shut up about such nonsense. We need a HUGE change, not more of the same. We need to stop letting the Likud dictate US foreign policy. We need to stop being the world's policeman. We need to stop "spreading democracy". We need to start minding our own business and start being a good citizen of the UN and other multinational institutions. We need a lot MORE change than Obama, or anybody else in the Democratic part, is currently willing to contemplate- not less.

Obama is a rootless cosmopolite whose loyalty to America is tenuous at best.

Posted by: Al

"Cosmopolite" was the term that the Soviet Union used to defame Jews. I'm not sure what's more shocking: Al accusing Obama of being Jewish, or Al secretly being a communist.

"Who could better reassure a jittery and suspicious world that America is ready to resume global leadership than a new young president who is the son of a black African father and a white Kansan mother, with a Muslim middle name who grew up in Asia?" - Drum

This is the most racist post I have ever read. You're essentially deeming him to be qualified to be the POTUS based on his skin color and ethnicity. An all time low for Kevin Drum.

If we're selecting candidates by skin color, how about JC Watts? Former quarterback, former Congressman and current business leader. More impressive credentials than Barack, no?

I don't even know enough about Barack to even consider him for that position. He has many talents, but I hope he soon abandons the platitudes and starts to put some actual substance into his speechs.

If we're selecting candidates by skin color, how about JC Watts? Former quarterback, former Congressman and current business leader. More impressive credentials than Barack, no?

Um, Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review, a community activist, a member of the Illinois State Senate, and a law professor at the University of Chicago. It's not like he's bereft of a noteworthy resume.

"...we no longer have any credibility with the rest of the globe,.." - Steve

Riiiight. It's so important to have credibility with such up-standing countries like the Sudan, Brazil, Iran, Syria, Russia, FRANCE!

What would we do if they don't like us anymore??? Oh the drama!!!

"We need to start minding our own business and start being a good citizen of the UN...." - Steve

Of course Stevie, it's important to let countries like Cuba and Ethiopia head up the Human Rights committee on the UN and follow their lead.

LMAO!!!!!

"Um, Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review, a community activist, a member of the Illinois State Senate, and a law professor at the University of Chicago. It's not like he's bereft of a noteworthy resume." - DJ

Um, how about Dr. Condi Rice? Let's see you compare Baracks resume with hers.

Right, the current paradigm, culminating in being "tough" in Iraq, has really enhanced our national security and well-being. I'd laugh my ass off, exepct it is very far from being funny.

Give it up, Jay. More and more people are catching on to this game. US foreign policy has been run AGAINST the real interests of this country for far too long, and you can't fool all the people all the time.

All the ugly noises aside, the world doesn't seem to mind the hegemony of a US when it isn't ruled by witches.

Was true. It's less true now. You can't undo the 'reign of witches.' You can't undo the fact that you Americans approved it (or at least came close enough to approving it to allow the results to be jebbed a few points)- twice!!! I'm willing to work with the US as a partner. But hold any hubris!

minion, you know I like a lot of your commentary (I mostly disagree but...) but your screed on the UN is again more American hubris. Just what makes you think you guys (especially given your own tawdry democracy - talk about lack of openess, you still can't even check the vote! - and fairly high levels of corruption - no Denmark or Singapore you! And not to mention all you've done to undermine the institution!)have some right to remake the UN? Nah, you guys crawl for a couple of decades and quietly do good deeds. Then and only then am I gonna have an ear to listen.

Obama though would be a good start. But Bruce the Canuck may well be right...

"Give it up, Jay. More and more people are catching on to this game." - Steve

Just another one of the sheep aren't you? A lot of people followed Jim Jones, Stalin, Hitler, etc.

"....being "tough" in Iraq, has really enhanced our national security and well-being." - Steve

Well let's see, Saddam and his biys are dead, Zarqawis dead, Sheikh Mohammed is in prison, Bin Ladens in a cave and no domestic violence since........I am OK with that.

Run along and get better talking points.

"...you guys crawl for a couple of decades and quietly do good deeds. Then and only then am I gonna have an ear to listen." - snicker

I couldn't give a fuck if you listen or not. The rest of the world combined is not worthy to even raise a complaint to the US with their own abysmal track record of human rights, and contribution to the world.

Maybe when you can demonstrate compassion and concrete action towards those who truly suffer in this world, maybe then I will not deem you a waste of flesh.

The "sheep", Jay, are the ones who continue to be taken in by the foreign policy establishment and conventional "wisdom" that brought us disasters in Veitnam and now Iraq. Look in the mirror.

Hey well that's well and good Jay, because I couldn't give a fuck about you either. So we're equivalent - well, except that I'm a fairly average person and you're a quarter-witted gruntling and a gas-baggy, know-nothing Yank. And though facts go nowhere with dumb-fuck nativists, I'll throw some out anyway - Europe gives about four times as much in aid as do you guys and it actually goes to people in need (your two biggest donees are Israel and Egypt). And most of us spend our time trying to put things together; I know it doesn't make the impression of blowing things up.

Now crawl, gruntling, crawl. You got a couple of decades at least.

"...that brought us disasters in Veitnam and now Iraq." - Steve

What a joke to compare Iraq and Vietnam. 58,000+ dead in Vietnam with ZERO accomplishments.

3000+ dead in Iraq with a deposed, tried and hung dictator, three successful elections culminating in a representative gov't working towards peace.

Try thinking outside the Nancy Pelosi spin box and try again

"Europe gives about four times as much in aid as do you guys..." - snicker

"Europeans frequently criticize the U.S. for not giving as much foreign aid as they do. The Oxford Analytica think tank, though, has gone beyond governmental giving and concluded that "if private donations are included in this analysis, the United States is among the most generous donor countries in the world." The U.S. governmentally gave 16.3 billion dollars in aid in 2003, but religious organizations contributed $7.5 billion, private foundations and corporations $6 billion, and universities $2.3 billion by providing scholarships that support students from developing countries. Individuals also made donations. Europeans give much less privately, often believing that social problems should be taken care of by governments." -

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/021122.html

The EU is quickly becoming irrelevant. So I expect you to bow at the alter of the great US of A.

"The EU is quickly becoming irrelevant. So I expect you to bow at the alter of the great US of A." Typical neocon idiocy and inability to see beyind the end of one's nose. As our irresponsible adventurism continues to drain both our "soft power" and our Treasury, you will eventually find yourself forced to bow at the altar of the "great" People's Republic of China. I don't want that future but apparently you do, since you enthusiastically support the policies that bring it closer to reality every day.

So I expect you to bow at the alter of the great US of A.

That's not what it looks like from here in Asia, Jay. I'll tell you what, Buckaroo, time will tell. In 1900, England was full of limeys yacking the same shit you are; by 1950, they'd mostly fallen silent. Japan in the 1980's was full of same; 15 years of middling performance took the shine away. I expect the Jays of the future will be in China and India, not the US of A. Millions and millions of dumb-fuck nativists just struggling to be born... It's an unfortunate fact of human nature that whatever tribe is ascendant seems to be full of jackasses who seek personal affirmation in the power of the tribe.

Um, how about Dr. Condi Rice? Let's see you compare Baracks resume with hers.
Posted by: Jay

An "expert" on the Soviet Union whose Russian is so atrocious that she humiliates herself every time she attempts to speak it in Moscow, and perhaps the worst National Security Advisor and Secretary of State of the last 50 years. Stop making arguments you can't win, Jay; you're only making a fool of yourself.

"...you will eventually find yourself forced to bow at the altar of the "great" People's Republic of China. I don't want that future but apparently you do, since you enthusiastically support the policies that bring it closer to reality every day." - Steve

Leave it to a liberal to not recognize actual threats. China (much like the former Soviet Union) recognizes the strength in cooperation with the US and values their life and culture (which they should).

Countries like Iran, Sudan, Ethiopia, Syria, Lebanon and even Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Mexico pose much larger threats with their deteriorating economies, human rights abuses, large scale genocides in some cases, penchant to kow tow to extremists and high level corruption.

I wouldn't expect you to get that though.

"....and perhaps the worst National Security Advisor and Secretary of State of the last 50 years." - DJ

You just demonstrated your idiocy.

I loved that picture of Albright with Kim Jung toasting each other. A picture is worth a thousand words. Madame Secretary indeed.

Ah, a new entry in the Neocon Dictionary: "cooperation with the US" has been redefined to mean "converting the US into an economic colony". You guys would be quite amusing- if any of this were actually funny. Now go play in traffic.

Hirsh is living in la-la land. After six years of Bushco, it will take radical transformation to restore functionality to our government and to regain respect aboard.

Two things have happened: Since the fall of the Soviet Union, circa 1990, the world has been changing, but the US has been paralyzed by self-centered, self-congratualory, post Vietnam, post Cold War, in-fighting. We've been living in the past. American institutions and systems went from Cold War to Global War on Terror without reflection.

The second thing is that Bushco has made the wrong choice in virtually everything they have done. They have made the American situation much, much worse than it need be.

Here is a domestic analogy: say, you are sent overseas to work for an extended period of time, and when you come back you find the people who rented your house have trashed everything. The first thing you have to do is get them evicted, and then you have to clean up the debris. But at the same time, this is an opportunity to make some necessary improvements as well. That wallpaper from the 1960s? The appliances that use so much extra energy? The shag carpeting?

Bushco has wasted the American house, but it still needed some upgrading to keep up with the neighborhood.

"I'll tell you what, Buckaroo, time will tell..." - snicker

Buckaroo????

One great nation does not comprise a healthy planet. We need more Chinas, more Japans, more Indias........

Countries that value other countries contributions and cultures, that truly value human rights across the planet, that value sovereignty and differences, and that value their own contribution to their people to provide for a safe and healthy society within.

I want to see you fight for that.

"American institutions and systems went from Cold War to Global War on Terror without reflection." - PTate

You're forgetting your Messiah. The US had eight glorious years under the Presidency of Bill Clinton to replace the "shag carpet" (LMAO).

What happened?

So scream louder Jay then maybe someone will listen to you. I particularly love the comparison to Condi Rice. My guess is your one of those gutless chickenhawks that have never faced an enemy in combat other than the ones you've made up as enemies of your dogma or video game bad guys.

Please. Just how serious neocons really are about their "values" can be seen from the fact that warmonger Rudy Giuliani's law firm is on Hugo Chavez's payroll. This would be another big laugh if the situation our country finds itself in were at all funny.

Again, people are waking up and asking "cui bono", at long last, to the colossal scam that's been run on us all these years.

Peter Fitzgerald was a much better senator (Illinois). Too bad he was white and the lib media didn't make a fuss over him. Would Obama have any following if libs weren't conditioned to drool at the sight of dark skin? Nah, probably just another Dennis Kucinich.

If we're selecting candidates by skin color, how about JC Watts? Former quarterback, former Congressman and current business leader. More impressive credentials than Barack, no?

QB, huh? What's that supposed to mean? He's smart because he played QB? Extra smart because he's a black man who played QB? You think because he was a QB he's smart? Don't think so.

Exhibit A: Joe Namath (Cross-dresser who, while drunk, tried to makeout with sideline report on national TV)
Exhibit B: Terry Bradshaw (Biggest dufus on planet)
Exhibit C: Vince Young (Wonderlick score in single digits)

Um, how about Dr. Condi Rice? Let's see you compare Baracks resume with hers.

Barack: has wife and family. Obviously brimming with family values

Rice: no husband, no children. Obviously a lesbian, which you know is an abomination before God.

3000+ dead in Iraq with a deposed, tried and hung dictator, three successful elections culminating in a representative gov't working towards peace.

A gov't that has renounced Israel's right to exist. A gov't that has sent Iraqi Christians fleeing to Jordan. A gov't that bases its law on Sharia. A gov't so corrupt that its police and border patrol can't be trusted - hence the need to hang Hussein quickly before he could be freed.

You do know that the Iraqi police just stood aside as insurgents freed foreign fighters and ex-Baathists from an Iraqi jail, right?

A gov't that can't stop Sunni/Shia violence.

Great example.

Leave it to a liberal to not recognize actual threats. China (much like the former Soviet Union) recognizes the strength in cooperation with the US and values their life and culture (which they should).

That's rich. A conservative no saying China poses no threat. What happened to Taiwan? What happened to Beijing threatening the U.S. with a nuclear strike if we defend Taiwan? What happened to the Chinese military's white papers stating that the United States is China's foremost strategic enemy?

What about the downed U.S. surveillance plane?

What about China blinding our spy satellites?

What about China knocking out satellites in orbit?

What about China's missile build-up against Taiwan?

Respects life and culture? WTF?? China jails freedom-loving dissidents (while executing many of them), forcibly removes organs from prisoners, outlaws Christian chuches (while jailing any Christians it can find), and forcibly suppresses the Tibetian and Uighur cultures.

Question - why do you hate freedom so much? Are you afraid China will stop sending all the cheap shit you buy at Walmart?

if private donations are included in this analysis, the United States is among the most generous donor countries in the world

Apples to oranges. Too bad they didn't measure private European donations. They just brush it off with:

Europeans give much less privately, often believing that social problems should be taken care of by governments

Really? Then cite the figures. Shouldn't be too hard. Oh yeah, they don't have them.

The President's business career, as [Paul] Krugman [in The Washington Post] has argued, reveals Bush himself as the prince of our economic disorders. His business dealings rise up out of his past to shadow his credibility: insider trading, corporate "loans" to directors sworn to uphold the interests of stockholders, crony capitalism, the use of public money to bankroll the dreams of private avarice, and the corrosive sense that the game is rigged for the connected. Bush's career of upward failure has deposited him in the one job from which he can only fail down.
Jack Beatty - The Atlantic

Kevin,
This is where I make the standard poor qualirty of trolls posting... consider it done.

But really guys, Jay represents not the stupidity evident in the arguments he makes, but an actual constituency of my countrymen; the constituency that has destroyed our military and squandered our treasure in order to decrease the tax bills of the top 1% (how DO you finance this sort of thing?) and install a Shia Theocracy in the most modern nation in the middle east.

the results of these actions don't matter a bit to these cretins, the only thing that matters is tribal ascendency; the ability to argue that they were actually right despite all appearances and balance sheets.

Fuck them all. In 10 years they wsill all be Senator McCarthy, their patriotism poster boy whose function in our society was to demonstare the true depths of craven opportunism.

They say that every new American president is the antidote to the outgoing one. I'm not sure Barack Obama is the perfect antidote to George W. Bush, but he is several steps in the right direction. Al Gore would be the perfect antidote. Alas. However, I fear for Obama's life, since progressive Democrats seem to have a much higher rate of being snuffed out than conservative Republicans. Wonder why that is? Which political party views violence as a means of solving problems?? Hmmm.....

You just demonstrated your idiocy.

I loved that picture of Albright with Kim Jung toasting each other. A picture is worth a thousand words. Madame Secretary indeed.

Jay, you're the biggest idiot in this room. By your standards, Rumsfeld is an idiot for playing footsie with Saddam Hussein in the 90s.

I think Albright would have given a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." a lot more attention than Rice did.

I think Albright would have given a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." a lot more attention than Rice did.

First of all, the President receives the Presidential Daily Briefing, not the Secretary of State. And you're referring to Rice when she was the National Security Adviser, prior to becoming the Secretary of State.

This is old-hat liberal nonsense. And, as usual, the facts are conflated with misconceptions and lies. Clinton fired cruise missiles at Bin Laden; Bush sent the best and the brightest after Bin Laden and chased him out of his cave. NEITHER man got him, yet.

Just how serious neocons really are about their "values" can be seen from the fact that warmonger Rudy Giuliani's law firm is on Hugo Chavez's payroll.

How do you know that Hizzoner hasn't been infiltrating Chavez's regime, taking notes, and setting him up to be deposed? How do you know Hizzoner doesn't have a plan to take Chavez by the collar and throw him down a flight of stairs and work him over with a Louisville Slugger in order to get him to start playing ball?

Liberals! No clue as to how things are done!

First of all, the President receives the Presidential Daily Briefing, not the Secretary of State. And you're referring to Rice when she was the National Security Adviser, prior to becoming the Secretary of State.

Well phrased, O Master of the Obvious.

This is old-hat liberal nonsense. And, as usual, the facts are conflated with misconceptions and lies. Clinton fired cruise missiles at Bin Laden; Bush sent the best and the brightest after Bin Laden and chased him out of his cave. NEITHER man got him, yet.

And then you had to go and ruin it. When Clinton fired and missed, Bin Laden had not yet murdered all those innocent people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on the airplanes. When Bush had Bin Laden cornered in the caves, he did what he has done at every stage of his life (to quote Bill Maher): he lost interest and walked away.

How do you know Hizzoner doesn't have a plan to take Chavez by the collar and throw him down a flight of stairs and work him over with a Louisville Slugger in order to get him to start playing ball?

Because this isn't a movie and that's not how things are done? At least not anymore - although there was that incident in the Senate, when Senator Charles Sumner was beaten unconscious by Representative Preston Brooks.

Damn! First post of the day and I get an html ticket.

Here is the link to the Senate page on the incident, if anyone is interested.

Liberal internationalism as practiced by FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton is still workable, even (or maybe especially) in a post-9/11 world

These kinds of statements drive me nuts. It creates a problem by assuming there is a problem with no proof. It makes unproven assumptions justified with simply "in a post-9/11 world."

Midly flawed policies that have been proven to work pretty damned well should not be scrapped due an event that would've been more effectively dealt with as a criminal event (not trying to trivialize, it simply woud've been much more effective).

Still workable? There hasn't been any sign that it wouldn't work. All of the above President's still would've gone after the Taliban in Afghanistan. All would've pursused Al Qaeda and certainly more vigorously than Bush who simply used it as pre-text for getting into Iraq.

Well phrased, O Master of the Obvious.

The obvious is something you have no command of; hence your inability to refute the fact that I corrected you. When liberals make mistakes, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly they change the subject and run away.

When Clinton fired and missed, Bin Laden had not yet murdered all those innocent people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on the airplanes.

When Clinton fired and missed, it was well established and known that Bin Laden had killed hundreds in the African embassy bombings...

Not that any of you liberals care to recall the innocent.

Can't anyone play this game? Apparently not.

you're referring to Rice when she was the National Security Adviser, prior to becoming the Secretary of State.

Does it really matter what job title she had at what time?

She's still a mendacious, fear-mongering, shoe-shopping, fuck-up.

Can't anyone play this game? Apparently not.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Well, you sure can't. When twenty words are sufficient to prove to us you are an ignoramus, you give us fifty. You suffer from a diarrhea of words and a constipation of ideas.

Hormonally=Challenged Citizen:

Does it really matter what job title she had at what time?

It does when a supposed 'master of the obvious' cannot differentiate between Rice as the NSAdvisor and the Sec of State at the time of the August 6th PDB.

Not that we're dealing with facts or substance anymore. Where is the spoofer who will tell me whose 'bitch boy' I am this fine afternoon? Here in the Northeast we are about to get hit with bad weather so, in case I have to switch to generator power and access the Internet through my GlobalStar satellite hookup, I plan to torment little liberal want-to-bes for the duration of my green tea high.

Anyone else having visions of Duck Dodgers! In the 24 1/2 Century! when Norman starts stormin?

And by the way, I just emailed my representatives in Washington demanding green tea be made a controlled substance.

You suffer from a diarrhea of words and a constipation of ideas.

My talent sure upsets you, doesn't it? Are you going to blow your stack and let off with a string of profanities?

I'm in no mood to be trifled with today, Uncle Norman. I will warn you now - I spent two posts yesterday tearing into my juvenile delinquent governor, and then he went and did something decent that very day. My mood is not generous right now, as I was honor-bound to point up the decent act, and now I am about to break out in hives.

Does it really matter what job title she had at what time?

It does when a supposed 'master of the obvious' cannot differentiate between Rice as the NSAdvisor and the Sec of State at the time of the August 6th PDB.

The green tea certainly isn't helping your reading comprehension. You, O Troll, are the "Master of the Obvious", who stated what we all know, that Ms. Rice was NSA on 8/6/01.

Unfortunately for the nation, her incompetence extended to both her tenure as NSA and as Secretary of State.

My talent sure upsets you, doesn't it? Are you going to blow your stack and let off with a string of profanities?

Posted by: Norman Rogers

Describing what you do as "talent" is a perversion of the word.

I hope that Barak will be a good leader, but we should recognize that It will take many years to rebuild trust, even with very good leadership.

The Hirsch article was on the whole impressively well argued.

The answer to ideological radicalism isn't equal and opposite ideological radicalism, but common sense, moderation, and deliberate, empirically based judgment.

It would be a grave mistake to lurch toward a radical "solution" to the problem represented by the Bush adminstration foreign policy. Like re-establishing good credit after bankruptcy, or restoring trust after an affair, only good behavior over time might possibly do the trick.

What I don't really get about this article, however, is the presumption that its argument has anything in particular to do with Obama. Virtually all of the points about foreign policy apply as well to any of the Democratic candidates. The obsession with Obama is incomprehensible to me.

Obama will bomb Iran for the same reasons Bush will: his benefactors will insist.

I spent two posts yesterday tearing into my juvenile delinquent governor

The governor of Hooterville is a juvenile delinquent? Where the deuce are you living? Did you get him to legalize hormone shots for women who want to go hang gliding in the buff? Are you hiding somewhere in a Mexican bandito town on the border? Mi casa, no su casa, el fugitivo! Ay yi yi!

Seeing Rogers attempt to post in Spanish only proves that he is bi-ignorant.

Back on topic: I really didn't think it possible for the dems to trot someone out there that makes their last two nominees look accomplished. But, it looks likt they will in Hill and Obabma. Empty suits deluxe?

There are problems with just "going back to the way things used to be." Because the world isn't the way it used to be. Here are some words from Wes Clark on the matter:

We won the Cold War but we lost our global strategy. The threats have changed, our situation has changed, technology has changed, our nation has changed, and yet we still haven't created a new strategy. In the old days, the strategy was deterrence and containment. Today, as the lone superpower in the world, we need a strategy of American leadership. Not the kind that bullies the rest of the world and tells other nations that if they're not with us, they're against us. We need the kind of leadership that moves nations and people with our ideals, with the kind of steady, patient, balanced, determined work that brings the world together to destroy terrorism, that works to build international structures to help promote development and to resolve disputes between nations, respond to disasters, and to help advance respect, dignity, security, and health for every human being in the world.
--Cornell University, May 28, 2005

For a terrific indepth speech on what's been going on with American foreign policy from Clark's peresonal perspective, here's a link to a transcript of a recent speech at the University of Alabama: http://securingamerica.com/printready/Univ_Alabama_061013.htm

To foreshorten Hirsh's argument considerably, he's afraid that Obama's choice of advisors (Samantha Power and Anthony Lake) suggests that he thinks U.S. foreign policy needs a "wholesale reimagining," when what's really needed is just a change of personnel:

It would really help to have someone advising Obama who is willing to think of wholesale reimagining of U.S. foreign policy. We for sure do not want the Eisenhower policy toward Saudi Arabia any more, nor the Clinton policies toward N. Korea, Iraq and Iran.

One other thing is for sure: Obama is a lot smarter than his niggling critics.

My governor is Matt (son of) Blunt - a smarmy little incarnation of evil who spews a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere every single day.

It's a shame there isn't a way for readers to block the posts of people like Jay, DJ, and Norman Rogers. It may be, as CK Dexter Haven said at 11:38 that such crazies represent a great many voters. But they make no contribution to discussion or thought, which is what the blog is all about.

Ahh, Norman Rogers.

Do you suppose he is bucking for a promotion to Eschaton too?

Bush's actions in invading Iraq may violated the international system, but they violated nationalist values even more. Unilateralist neoconservatism and world of law liberalism seem different, but they are merely two sides of the same coin. They are both based on the idea that, because every society wants to be "just like us", basing a foreign policy on ideology, whether it be an ideology of wars for democracy or an ideology of world government, will ultimately be best for both the U.S. and the world.

What America needs is not the replacement of liberal unilateralism with liberal world government and "humanitarianism", but rather realism that serves the national interest and that is restrained by republican (with a little 'r') values of abstinence from interventionist overreach.

What we need is to remember George Washington's warning that other nations could only be trusted to do what they believed to be in their interests. We need to stop defending other peoples' borders and fighting other peoples' wars. Instead, we should put America first.

The first thing this means is an end to "humanitarian intervention". Before Clinton's "humanitarian intervention" in Serbia, only about one-eighth the amount of civilians died as the amount that perished during Clinton's war. Bush's Iraq War is merely Kosovo on a larger scale. Both were failures in concept, as both demanded the U.S. intervene militarily when the national interest did not call for it. Why, then, are liberals clamoring for war in Darfur?

When it comes to foreign policy, the U.S. government should do what is in the interests of the American people, and nothing else. What are our interests? The independence and sovereignty of the U.S., freedom of the seas, and a maintenance of a global Balance of Power so no power or alliance of powers can threaten the first two interests.

Everything else, from the U.N. to the World Bank to waging wars for democracy to waging "humanitarian interventions", can and should be forgotten.

It's a shame there isn't a way for readers to block the posts of people like Jay, DJ, and Norman Rogers. It may be, as CK Dexter Haven said at 11:38 that such crazies represent a great many voters. But they make no contribution to discussion or thought, which is what the blog is all about.

You wound me, sir. Engaging in a battle of wits with unarmed combatants like Jay and Rogers is an unfortunate turn of events. That said, I find reading the posts of intelligent contributors to be interesting. Perhaps I can learn something.

New World Orderism (American Century, American Hegemony) is gone, and think All for that.

Our foreign policy should be built on the multi-polar hegemony principle in which large powers manage international affairs in their region.

Catherine:

"Today, as the lone superpower in the world, we need a strategy of American leadership."

What makes us the lone super power?

Brian at 3:28 has it just about right for me.

Sorry, folks, but there's just too much coming out on Obama that is, to say the least, unsavory.

Go ahead, if you want, and risk the future of the Democratic Party on this guy, but I'm out. Nope, I'm putting my two cents worth on someone who from past performance I know a lot about and in whom I have every confidence can and will lead the Party to victory in 2008, and by a big enough margin to carry the Congress as well.

The two words that I see emerging to describe Barack Obama are: CRASS OPPORTUNIST.

(I don't yet want to say "liar" but it's moving in that direction.)

We've had a crass opportunist and a liar in the White House for the past six years -- and look where it's gotten us.

Not for me, not in this go-around. No-way-in-hell!

"It's a shame there isn't a way for readers to block the posts of people like Jay, DJ, and Norman Rogers."

One of those things is not like the others.

Actually, come to think of it, all three are different from one another. Jay is, of course, an uninformed idiot, regurgitating his party's talking points regardless of whether they even remotely make sense. Norman, on the other hand, is a troll, pure and simple -- someone who is here for the attention and who cares not a whit about what he says. In both cases, the blog would be better served if everyone ignored them. Alas, to do so appears to go against human nature.

He seems to me to be a little off his game of late. Didn't do too well at the Firemens' Ball (Convention, I mean).

Maybe tired? Maybe bored?

But it's still early. He's still the Fresh Face. And when he's on, he's still a terrific orator.

I know other women who absolutely love Hilary, but I don't know. There's that Goldwater Girl in there, and that Blue Dog Democrat thing going on. And man did that Southern/Black accent thing creep me out.