He is on CSpan right now!

I'm not comfortable with his assertion that "when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself" especially when it is immediately followed by the statement that "Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel."

Under this definition, Israel will hardly ever not be under attack.  And while that is certainly an accurate description for the people who have to be afraid of those attacks, I'm not sure I support a blanket assertion that virtually any Israeli offensive is pre-justified and legitimate.

I'm also not too happy about his condemnation of the recent agreement with Hamas.  Yes, it's a very limited measure, but he makes it sound like it's a bad thing: "We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians."  It's an important step that Hamas is even willing to participate politically with the more moderate Palestinians, and is renouncing an absolute commitment to destroy agreements with Israel.

We certainly should ask for more, but I'm worried that he's furthering the meme that all of Israel's enemies are implacable and hardly worth our time unless they fully meet our demands.  

I don't believe that's truly his opinion, and I understand that this is a speech to a particular audience who wants to hear the "talk tough" line, but it still lacks some of the nuance I've grown to expect from Obama.  To use the parlance of our times, this speech reminds me more of "appeasement" of the hardline Israeli elements than it does of "engagement" with them.

All of that said, there is a lot to like here, and I would take this Middle East policy every day of the week and twice on Sundays over what we've currently got.

Obama just gave a great speech in Selma...where the hell is Edwards?!?

Well, it certainly could have been worse.  Lot's of 'heavy stones' to be shifted, I notice.  And a significant emphasis on diplomacy in both our houses.

shows how out of whack things are in DC that anyone can say that's not pandering.

Agree with others in that I was "encouraged" by his "tone" too in comparison to the hawkishness of Hillary and Edwards (at AIPAC). I'm also "not comfortable" and think "Well, it certainly could have been worse". If we were limited to the big three Dem candidates (which we are not), it would be Obama by default at this point, for me.

Simply fabulous. What he needed to do in the speech, he did. I enjoyed it.

here's an excellent review of the speech.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article 6619.shtml

first paragraph:

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel
Ali Abunimah

I first met Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama almost ten years ago when, as my representative in the Illinois state senate, he came to speak at the University of Chicago. He impressed me as progressive, intelligent and charismatic. I distinctly remember thinking 'if only a man of this calibre could become president one day.'

Matt please tell me how these comments,

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

are substantively any different than the ones John Edwards made in regards to Iran and for which you verbally burned him in effigy?

I think both candidates said the same (satisfactory thing) and yet Obama is "encouraging", while Edwards is threatening nuclear war? Please explain to me where I'm misreading your views.

He has been consistently bad in his analysis lately, especially when it comes to foreign policy.  

Full disclosure, I am an Edwards partisan.  I thought the message Edwards and Obama sent to AIPAC were similar and correct.  Kudos to both of them.  Yet, Stoller seems to have shifting standards.