Condoleezza Rice visit to Georgia while glaringly ignoring Russia is not the kind of pragmatic diplomatic approach that is needed to make a difference in the conflict between Russia and its former territory.

In several quarters Sen. McCain is not just a 71 years old veteran and over 25 years of legislative membership as a senator of the United States of America, but as an experienced, reliable, and bi-partisan congressman with lots of wisdom, understanding and knowledge to lead the nation as the commander in chief. It is not therefore surprising that he has sorted to be the presidential flag bearer of the Republican Party as far back as the year 2000, in which he lost the nomination to the incumbent President George Bush.

Much of the commentary on Obama's Berlin speech (watch it) has focused on the "optics" (the MSM's fav word this week it seems) with little on the substance.  For those interested in what Obama's foreign policy would be like, however, I think this would be a mistake.  I believe Obama meant this to be a serious, landmark speech; one that laid out his vision for the role of Europe, America and the West after Bush, after 9/11, after the Cold War, after the world wars of the 20th century.  For a candidate who so emphasizes tomorrow rather than today or yesterday, I believe the speech is a roadmap to what Obamaism is going to be about (What Is Obama-ism?).

Remember all those silly foreign affairs positions held by Barack Obama?  You know, like meeting directly with our enemies, which showed that Obama was naive and inexperienced?  Like setting a timetable for Iraq which was not important but on the other hand could lead to chaos and genocide?  

Over the last couple of weeks, conservative Andrew Sullivan notes that the lines between Obama's positions and those of McCain and Bush are starting "to blur."  Only, that blur seems to be moving in a particular direction.  

Iran

Obama has famously argued that the US should deal directly with the mullahs, negotiate the nuclear question and have talks without the precondition that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. This was a clear and vital difference, we were told only a short time ago, between a reckless, appeasing Obama and the resolute, Churchillian Bushies.

And yet last week Bush authorised William Burns, a high-level State Department official, to attend talks with Tehran’s representatives on the Iranian nuclear question.

Iraq

Obama’s position has long been that troops should be withdrawn expeditiously but with care, and that the US military should shift its emphasis towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, lo and behold, last week we were also told that Bush was considering accelerating the exit of Iraq troops to beef up the Afghan mission.

For good measure, McCain also gave a speech backing what he calls a "surge" in Afghanistan, with more troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in the style of General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces.

And that's before McCain has made any response to Iraqi President Maliki's agreement with Obama's timeline.  Sullivan notes that the candidates are now sounding an awful lot alike, and that they're having trouble "putting blue sky" between their positions.

One thing he doesn't make clear: the lack of sky is because McCain and Bush have adopted more and more of Obama's "naive" positions rather than his bowing to their towering experience.

Blurry.  It's all so blurry.  Sure, Obama has a timeline, but now Bush has a "horizon," and by tomorrow McCain will probably have a purview, or a vision, or a vista.  It's all the same.  Right?

In thinking about the week that was, it strikes me that McCain has been unually nasty this week -- probably in part because of his new team taking charge, partly because of his tendency to open the mouth before the brain is engaged, but mostly, I think, because of Obama's week ahead.

I can’t find it.  That makes it difficult to decide how I feel about what he wants our role in the world to be.  On the other hand, Senator Obama’s policy choices are easy to find, and therefore fairly easy to judge.

I am a foreign affairs professional (started out as a Peace Corps Volunteer, now retired after nearly 30 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the State Department and overseas, working on African and European Affairs, democracy and human rights, followed by service with multilateral organizations including the OSCE and the United Nations).  I care deeply about America’s standing in the world, which has (how shall I put it?) suffered in recent years.  So I tend to judge candidates for President through that lens, at least in part (although as I advance in years I am paying greater attention to domestic issues like health care).

There have been a number of diaries and other comments in past weeks about the relative strengths of the candidates on foreign policy.  So I thought I would look for what the candidates themselves say they want to do.  It has not been easy, and that's instructive.

It is now being reported that sometime in mid July, Obama will be planning a major foreign trip.  

In a largely forgotten and entirely forgettable article in Foreign Affairs last November, John McCain pledged to simultaneously restore the US Information Agency and the Office of Strategic Services. His goals are twofold: Use USIA to get the US "message" out to the world. And for those bits of the world that don’t like our message, use the OSS to make them like it. This bold foreign policy strategy is certain to succeed.

**Reposting, as we only got 45 responses yesterday. We will add those to what we get here.

Dear Friends,

As President Bush stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq, it grows increasingly frustrating for those of us who have been loudly demanding a withdrawal.  I know you share my frustration. Every day, I receive letters and emails from patriotic Americans who want to - somehow – personally contribute to a solution.

Now it is your turn.

    Last night, I fell asleep around 10:30, tired from a stressful day.  For some reason, I woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't go back to sleep.  Although I don't usually turn on the TV in the middle of the night (too hard to fall asleep again afterwards) after tossing and turning for awhile, I turned on the TV and landed on CSpan, which was broadcasting a Senate committee hearing (Foreign Affairs? -- the one Biden chairs) and was transfixed by the testimony of the three retired generals and another expert on the current situation in Iraq.

   The panel included retired generals Odom, McCaffrey, and I think Casey??, as well as a woman "MIcehle" whose last name I forget.  All of these thoughtful, experienced, expert analysts drew an incredibly bleak picture of the current situation, as well as of the remaining options for leaving Iraq.  Senate Committee hearings are generally too much trite posturing and not much honesty and integrity, but I found myself riveted by the testimony of these four individuals.  And it made me really reflect on who is best prepared to be Commander in Chief during the next administration.

Recently some have whitewashed McCain's support for hundred years in Iraq.  The Columbia Journalism Review http://www.cjr.org/... ,
argued that he meant peaceful presence rather than military conflict.  Politico repeated that, http://www.politico.com/...  Of all people, Joe Klein, on April Fool's Day has correctly pushed back:  

The problem with John McCain's 100 years in Iraq formulation isn't that he's calling for 95 more years of combat--he isn't--but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam.

http://www.time-blog.com/...

But the ignorance revealed is far deeper than so-called gaffes.  It represents a world view that proves how UNqualified McCain is to be anything more than an ex-flyboy.   The lesson is to attack McCain's supposed strength.  

Sen. John McCain of Arizona continues to demonstrate how extensive Washington experience doesn't translate into sound judgments, even in his supposed area of expertise, foreign policy and defense.

Yesterday, McCain ridiculed an answer given by Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday's Democratic debate despite admitting he didn't watch the debate. McCain was upset (apparently) that Obama said he would send troops back into Iraq, after pulling them out, if the country started to descend into chaos. McCain said, "If we left, the wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country."

This statement show an incredible disconnect between reality and whatever goes on between the ears of Senator John McCain. This statement, the 100 years comment, his Pakistani amnesty policy, and other statements have convinced me John McCain is NOT qualified to be commander and chief. This diary will expose how these comments reveal McCain has no idea how to successfully wage the war on terror, nor fix the situation in Iraq.

Somebody’s dodging the issues...

There’s been a lot of talk on the net and in the MSM about some picture that Matt Drudge posted on his site today of Sen. Obama in traditional Somali clothing during a visit to northern Kenya two years ago.  Now I don’t know about you but I’m starting to notice a pattern over at Camp Obama on things like this.  

First he goes after Hillary over an unconfirmed report from Robert Novak about something Hillary’s campaign may or may not say about him, and now he’s having a hissy-fit over something dug up by Drudge.  

Unless BO’s got proof I think it’s safe to say these two facts are in evidence...

There's no proof that such an email even exists.
There’s no proof that such an email came from Hillary's camp.

If they want to keep whining about this then they’d better put up or shut up.  In other words...

Show me the email!

Make the jump – there’s more...

This past week it was revealed by the media that Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, wasn't interested in the Vice President spot.  Now whether she was telling the truth or playing the dead tree gang remains to be seen.  All she said was "You can all come and visit me in California."  

I recently read a great front page diary by smintheus titled "the Time Is Now"
http://www.dailykos.com/...
which made the very salient point that this is the time to get the ear of our candidates and push our progressive agenda. i agree wholeheartedly, and think one way to do this is to try to get the candidates to select a progressive running mate. Personally, i think the 2000 election was lost the day Al Gore chose his running mate, and i want to urge the nominees to do better this time, and hope all progressive will make their voices heard in this choice.

To help with this, personally i need ALOT more info, and I'm asking if Kossacks, front-pagers and others, could please help me & others. you can do this by writing detailed candidate diaries. i know a little bit about many of the people being mentioned, but i'm looking for expert guidance.

Diaries or responses that deal with many of the people being considered are helpful, too, but i'm hoping for detailed diaries on single candidates. if you have one you like, tell us, in detail, about them and why you think they'd make a good veep.

While campaigning in New Hampshire on January 8, Hillary Clinton riffed on Bush's now infamous remark in 2001 that he had looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and saw his soul.  Her words, as reported in Reuters:

"Bush really premised so much of our foreign policy on his personal relationships with leaders, and I just don't think that's the way a great country engages in diplomacy," Clinton said to voters in Hampton, New Hampshire.

"This is the president that looked in the soul of Putin, and I could have told him, he was a KGB agent," Clinton said. "By definition he doesn't have a soul."

Clinton's comments... drew laughs from the crowd...

There you have it: Clinton mocks Bush by acting... just like him.  Irresponsibly.

Originally posted on Citizen Orange.

I admire people that work to build unity where there is division.  Building unity leads humanity in the direction of ideals.  Building consensus is admirable, but compromising with hate is not.

In her Washington Post op-ed, "The Right Road to America?", Yale Law Professor Amy Chua compromises with hate.  In an attempt to forge a middle ground between tolerance and toughness, she makes deals with the devil.  The net result is an argument that rests on nativism. 

  It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration's policy aspirations are essentially without respect to the factual structure of the given situation. The announcement that sixteen of the nation's intelligence agencies, which is quite reasonable to say represents a cross-section of the domestic intelligence community, have released an intel product stating that it is their conclusions that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This discontinuation may have been in response to the US invasion of Iraq, which would actually make it a rare foreign policy success stemming from the unilateral invasion.