Duck and cover, man. This is harsher than I'd go -- my expectations are lower -- but in essence I agree.

By comparison to Bush, I think most foreign policy statements (even those on the GOP side) will seem comparatively sane. But this is not moving the ball forward.

Damn Stoller, its like you're over-thinking your way into the Kucinich-wing of the party. This isn't your finest hour around here.

Maybe Im just old-fashioned but I think the statement about the first job of the President is to protect the American people is just a simple, true statement.  HOW to do that is a bit more complicated.

To me, the biggest statement he made was that he would leave forces in Iraq to fight al queda.  This is similar to HRC's position.  I think it is just a horrible position to take.  We can never "defeat" al queda militarily there because our presence is drawing these people there.  So saying we will stay and fight them there is to say we will stay in that bloody mess forever.

The alternative being...?

I don't want Dennis Kucinich to get the nomination, because I'm not some pseudo-socialist. Joe Biden? Yeah, maybe we can bore the insurgents into submission. Hillary Clinton? UH NO.

I'm totally on board with the whole TrueMajority train, advocating less military spending. Anyone who has objectively seen our budget would. Nonetheless, the military is still the most respected and trusted institution in US government, so why wouldn't politicians want to be associated with them?

Where I really take issue with Obama is something beyond the confines of this speech, and that has to do with whether or not he'll cave to the Robert Rubin crowd.  A man with that much interest in Goldman Sachs shouldn't have influence in the Clinton and Obama camps.  And Obama has not yet convinced us that he will do his part to wean us from neoliberal trade policies--an area that harms working families and our security insofar as it's tied to our reputation and treatment of poorer countries.

That said, in strictly national defense-related terms, what was said, as you yourself stated, was a "good speech, by a brilliant neoliberal".  Could you explain your 180-degree turnaround today in terms better than the first set of boxed quotes where the phrase "Kissinger told me we could" is used.  

In terms of being willing to use cash to support rehabilitation of the military, recruitment of better language skills, etc., that's a great start, and there's a lot of simple red meat.  However, I think you and I do share, ultimately the same skepticism:

What the hell is this guy going to do with the military industrial complex, private contractors, and the often damaging/manipulating role they play in determining defense policy?  I don't so much think Barack's interest in protecting the US and framing everything as a security issue is pernicious as it is insufficient.  This position makes electoral sense, and it's one effective way of further taking away from the GOP reputation.  But it doesn't go far enough.

Some Clark supporters, like myself, are sometimes and understandably accused of hero worship.  However, when it comes to crucial issues like this, he's already explicitly mentioned handling this problem, and not just by making gov't less corrupt.  His departmental knowledge, military experience lend to a person who would be very effective in reforming this mess.  That and at least 5 or 6 more Democratic senators would give reformers more leverage.  

These are my morning, not yet coffee-infused thoughts.  I don't mean to be caustic, but I really am curious to see more specifically what's at issue with other aspects of his speech here.

who makes a DIFFERENT kind of strawman argument. [/snark]

Just ask his esteeemed campaign spokesman, Robert Gibbs -- the guy behind the "Osama bin Laden" ad in Iowa that said Howard Dean couldn't compete with Bush on foreign policy: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2 /22/134458/142 (Obviously, Gibbs signed on with Obama because of his foreign policy brilliance and experience.)

If that's the single most important job --- and I'm not saying I disagree --- then he should get out of the race because he's patently underqualified.  

I don't like people using national security as cover to lavishly spend on the military without sense, but I do like Clark's talking about global warming as a national security issue, helping to draw new people to the issue, and making Republican congressmen who vote against it look weak on security.

This was his big unveil?  What's that noise? thud

Soaring rhetoric?  Light on substance?  Not ready for prime-time?  YES!  YES!  YES!

He said that our military force isn't properly equipped to deal with international problems... what is so wrong with that?  Don't we want our troops to be well equipped and home?  What is the problem with leaving some small force, most likely special ops, in Iraq.  We are not going to be a police force, but we will specifically target large scale threats to try to prevent a complete collapse of the region.

When people talk about an isolationist wing of the party this is who they are talking about!  I'm hearing: we should not trade with other countries unless it involves them buying our goods at our prices and us blocking them from importing cheaper goods, we should have a smaller army - because the army is bad, we should leave Iraq now no matter what the consequences are for the world, and oh by the way it was a bad speech because I say so.

The way you paraphrase his speech is patently dishonest.  He doesn't say that we should solve all world problems through contractors as you've said.  Particularly where he talked about nuclear proliferation where he essentially said it was too important to be dealt with by non-state entities.

I'm sorry, but this post is utterly repulsive and the knee-jerk reaction which you have to Obama limits your ability to do any analysis.  I'm sorry but this post is just a hit piece.  It doesn't contain any reasonable analysis nor does it have any real basis in fact.  I'm going to get flamed and likely troll rated for posting this here, but an attempt at an even-keeled analysis would have been appreciated.

I vastly prefered Richardson's speech last month, and Richardson's by and large more centrist than Obama on just about everything (though not, apparently, on weapons of mass destruction).  It's an issue of new, fresh ideas versus tired, old, repackaged ideas.

Seriously, another few speeches like this and we'll start seeing DC insiders abandoning Hillary for Obama because he's the "safest" candidate in the race.  And then consummate DC insider Richardson will become the full-fledged darling of the liberal activist community, and we can all sing "The World Turned Upside Down."

Neat. That was my reaction too.

I disagree with a lot of the direction we have gone on national security, globalization, etc. but I also realize we are too far along to change much of that now. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson or any other nominee will continue in that direction as will any GOP nominee. Clinton, Obama, etc. will not start new wars and will get us out of Iraq but they will still protect international interests (i.e. oil) in a similar way as the GOP but hopefully will do so in a competent manner compared to Bush.

The major differences between the parties will be about things such as healthcare, environment, constitutional rights, etc. where there are sharp differences between Democrats and the GOP.  

FWIW, Obama has been talking with Colin Powell:

As he prepared for the Democrats' first presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama sought advice from a wide circle, including, I am told, Gen. Colin Powell, who now deeply regrets his role in making the case for war in Iraq...

I am told that Powell and Obama have talked more than once, urged to do so by mutual friends. Powell has had a history of offering his expertise to anyone who is interested, but especially fellow African-Americans, since there aren't many blacks in the top ranks of the foreign policy establishment (besides Powell, they include Secretary of State Condi Rice, of course, and former UN Ambassador Donald McHenry).

The President swears an oath to defend and protect that. Of course, the supporters of the national security state want to re-write that oath, because a free people are harder to persuade to back a national security state than a nation of children being watched over by Big Daddy.

Who'd have thought Obama would turn out to be a NeoCon?

The first candidate to actually answer the question of the most important job of the President to be "protect the Constitution" will get my support and my vote.  I'm so sick of this "I'm here to protect you from all the baddies out there" crap.

1. Obama barely talked about promoting human rights around the world. I mean, the phrase human rights does not appear. Herdoes say this:

"Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy - a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force."

Fair enough, but how do we promote these things? He doesn't say. What is the progressive alternative to the neocon liberation-through-invasion model? Are human rights important enough to warrant more than a passing mention?

2. Second, it's amazing how little the lessons of Iraq informed his speech:

"No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm."

So when should we use force? he doesn't say.

A bad speech, and I'm guardedly optimistic that Edwards will offer something better, especially on point number one.

Is it really so hard to put together a foreign policy that essentially expands on "Stick when necessary, Carrot when possible?"

He is soft and fluffy.  He lacks substance.  The more he is forced to focus on real issues he is going to get hurt.  2 years in the Senate is simply not enough time for even a bright guy like himself to get up to speed on things like foreign policy.

Three years ago his biggest concern was making sure the potholes in his district were getting fixed.

Obama and Edwards are two guys like might look back someday and decide they shot themselves in the foot by moving forward to fast.

I could support Obama, Ewards or Richardson with equal enthusiasm.  But I do not expect them to advocate any real change in the use of the American military.  Neither party has the ability to change that.

The US has become the world's police force to enforce America's conceptions of human rights, free trade and democracy.  This militarism problem is so thoroughly entrenched it will take more than a democratic politician to change things.  Perhaps a devastating military defeat (say loss of couple of aircraft carrier task forces) or financial collapse could stimulate change.

However, having said that our leaders are helpless in the face of military-industrial complex, I applaud Matt for continuing to bring up these criticisms.  We must continue this discussion for that day in the future when this country will be ready to reevaluate its role in the world.

(yes Kucinich says many of the right things but he is simply not a viable candidate for reasons of his personality and appearance).

Good post Matt.

I see this speach as trying to placate the powers that be in DC and as such there are no ideas just the same broad statements that most everyone repeats.  There's no getting to the heart of what Americans worry about.  No insight.

So of course he states Rubinomics.  He doesn't know better.  Like he doesn't know better on Iraq or Russia or everything else he talked about.

Nothin' new here folks.  Show's over... move along.

Arghh.

I disagree.  

This was a good and useful speech because it presents an alternative to the foreign policy of these past six years.  

What was striking is the contrast between this speech and how most foreign policy issues are discussed today.  There is no us vs them, no "war on terror".  Rather, Obama applies the value of "we're all in it together" to the world as a whole.  He also changes the role of the U.S.  He presents our role as not just pursuing our national interests while ignoring all other interests (as Bush would have it) but to be leaders in the interconnected world.  In short he answers "How does the U.S. act in this post-9-11 world?"  

The answer may not be surprising for those of us on Dem blogs and I'm not sure if this was a useful speech in a Democratic primary campaign.  That said, whether it came from Obama or any other of our Dem candidates, I'm very glad to hear an alternate foreign policy vision articulated.  I hope the speech is heard and discussed widely.

...to get down to brass tacks.

Obama's 5-Point `American Moment'

1.) The first way America will lead is by bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq and refocusing on the critical challenges in the broader region.

2.) The second way America will lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it.

3.) The third way America must lead again is by marshalling a global effort to meet a threat that rises above all others in urgency - securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

4.) That's why the fourth way America must lead is to rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats.

5.) The fifth way America will lead again is to invest in our common humanity - to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.

What exactly is the "populist" alternative to this?  

I'm not sure what you were waiting for -- Dawes Plan disarmament/foreign aid meets Smoot-Hawley tariffs meets international, unenforceable Wagner Act?

The collapse of the Berlin Wall precipitated a gigantic spike in the labor supply and corresponding collapse of labor's bargaining power relative to capital. Putting up our own tariff walls may play well with the hoi polloi, but that's not going to change the reality on the ground...

I am tired of all the manufacturing barons and unions who say, "No, we aren't against free trade, except in instances 1, 2, 3, ... 99999, which is why furriner competition is unfair, and why we should get tariffs/ quotas/ prohibitive regulations, for the safety of America, and coincidentally to save our jobs."

Obama continues to amaze me with his ability to talk and talk and talk, and to never actually say anything.

Obama's style is much like Kerry's. Lots of talk that sounds good on the surface.  Then, when you try to go back and see what he really said, you realize that all that was there was a bunch of talk that sounded good on the surface.

Wow, he's figured out WMD's are bad.  That's a bold and radical position!

And, even more worrying to someone who thinks the Pentagon gets way too much of our national treasure as it is, his call for a "21st Century military" sounds very dangerous .... assuming that its anything more than just a sound bite that scored good in the focus groups that obviously wrote this speach.

So, Obama thinks the answer is more high-tech weapons?  Even though we already hae a massive tech superiority over anyone we'd fight, and it obviously isn't doing us much good when we do get into a fight.  So, more Pentagon boon-doggles on expensive high-tech weapons .... when we live in a world where anyone we fight is likely to be a poor resistance movement somewhere.  Just Brilliant!

Add this to Obama's statements jumping on the "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" train  ... and he's moving quickly from someone who's highly annoying in his constant sounding like a focus group from hell ... to someone who looks like they'll continue the same dangerous course we've been on since 1991.

I'm convinced we need a serious change of direction in this country.  And, like almost the rest of the Democratic Party, Obama is massively failing the test.  I'm sure this will boost his contributions from defense contractors who want to build that boondoggle of a "21st century military", but to me Obama is rapidly becoming yet another Democrat whom I simply will not EVER vote for.

Matt -- I understand that you object to some of Obama's specific policy positions, but did you really think this speech was terrible?  In your initial post you said there was "a lot to like" as well as a lot to be critical of.  Now it seems like you've dropped the first part of your analysis.  

In light of the fact that I also thought the first post sparked useful conversation, I'm curious as to why you now seem to be coming down so firmly in denouncing the speech.  Also, I question whether it's useful in framing the disagreements you have with the speech as "progressive" vs. "centrist."  I consider myself part of the progressive movement, but I don't think it's good to look at foreign policy decisions from an ideological perspective at all.  I think that gets people into trouble whether the ideology in question comes from the right, center, or left.  

Finally, what's with knocking Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton's  respective approaches to foreign policy?  I actually think both did a pretty good job on that front, especially in comparison to GWB.  Sure, neither fundamentally changed the military establishment but that's a pretty daunting goal to accomplish that involves reigning in not only powerful special interst groups but also navigating the electoral interests of our own caucus.  Pretty high bar to set, no?    

I'm having a hard time actually taking his speech seriously, because it was just so awful.

Matt, I respect your opinion, but it's pretty hard to take a statement like that as anything other than hyperbolic nonsense.  Awful?  Really?  It was, at worst, a safe speech.  But it was decent-crafted and well-delivered.  And it's received praise from many corners, not just the Andrew Sullivans of the world.  

We all tend to overanalyze foreign policy and demand that politicians pay lip service to the exact policy position we endorse. But in reality, there are only two types of politicians when it comes to foreign policy--sensible internationalists and ideologues.  Obama is clearly the former, and frankly, I find it hard to believe that there would be any really difference between the foreign policy of an Obama administration, an Edwards Administration, or a Clinton administration. What we need is someone who is sensible, who will surround him or herself with other sensible, open-minded people, and be able to articulate his/her sensible policies to the American people and the world.  

Obama's speech, while not bold, was eloquent and sensible.  Before anything can change, we need to get someone sensible into office, and Obama's speech, while not crafted to check off every box on the MYDD policy checklist, was crafted to appeal to a wide subset of the population, from liberals to sensible conservatives and independents.  Obama will need all those people's support to win, as well as the support of at least some of the liberal/centrist media.  

I think you've set the bar far to high for any actual contender to reach.  I also think you vastly overstate the importance of the relatively minor gripes you seem to have with Obama's actual policies. After six years of Bush, I'd think you'd be a little more judicious in your use of teh word "awful" to describe a foreign policy speech.    

It's like this:

Hillary can give the same speech.  I don't like her either but I do respect her political abilities.  Obama has shown no real political acumen.  So, given the choice between the two why not vote for the better politician?

The one thing that Obama is talking about and nobody else is it seems is foreign aid.  For him to do that is pretty risky, considering how bad foreign aid usually polls.  But I think Obama gets that if we are truly going to combat terrorism, we need to combat its roots.  I think everyone in the blogosphere has been saying that for years in regards to the struggle against terrorism and I think Obama should get some respect for that.  

Name one political battle Hillary has ever lost!

The fact that Andrew Sullivan liked Obama's speech is no surprise.  Even the most casual observer of Sullivan's know that he, by his own admission, is in the "anybody but Hillary" crowd.

If Clinton had given the same speech (and she has, btw) Sullivan would be the first to denounce it as "same-old-politics-of-the-past" all the while bouncing about his chair screaming, yet again, about his "cooties"...

I admit, I'm not crazy about this whole " the most sacred job of the POTUS is to protect..." business either, BUT

on the whole, I thought the speech was a tasty and nutritous elixir to the Bush World View. I thought it was sincere, poetic, and keenly intelligent.

I urge you to take the cynical analysis (as well as my favorable take) with a HUGE grain of salt and read the thing for yourself.

Matt, you're missing a biggie.  Obama has called for a doubling in foreign aid - an increase of $25 billion.  By comparison, Edwards, AFAIK, has only proposed a $5 billion increase.  I haven't heard anything from Richardson or Clinton about the matter.

This is a strong progressive proposal that doesn't have a lot of poltical support.  I'm astonished that he isn't being given more credit for it among the blogosphere.

Yes, he does talk about national security a lot.  Because that's the narrative through sells the agenda to an electorate among which giving away tens of billions to foreigners out of the goodness of our hearts isn't all that popular an idea.

He also has very solid ideas about stopping nuclear proliferation. Such as the international fuel bank and stopping construction of new nukes.

Clinton and Obama Follow Edwards on Trade

ABC News has learned that the former North Carolina senator's top two rivals -- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.-- also have grave concerns about the most economically significant free-trade pact since the North American Free Trade Agreement.

snip

"A trade agreement with South Korea needs to start with their willingness to open markets to American automobiles and other U.S. products and agree to trade fairly," Edwards said Saturday. "It must also include strong labor and environmental standards and lift up workers in both parties."

ABC News

Just like they do about on everything else..but the MSM is just beginning to figure this out.

If we don't do an FTA with South Korea because of car exports, that will only be shooting ourselves in the foot.  We shouldn't be giving any more handouts to the Big 3 automakers who can't meet their commitments.  If we're going to raise fuel economy in the U.S., we need more imports in the short-term.

It's OK to be a Democrat of one or another type, conservative to lefty, and it's OK-Plus to identify yourself and your candidate clearly. [Or to make up your own Dem label or change it later]. It's not OK to label some other Demtype as an accusation. When there are only 2 popular parties, how are we supposed to fit in to just one kind of one? I'd like to see commentors drop the purist meme. That Senator Obama is closer to the Clintons than to Stephanie Tubbs Jones shouldn't be an accusation - or a surprise.

More advice to keep our waters cool here: Debate, stand up for your man, defend his positions and your own take on governance. I want to end up being able to tell my kids why I decided against their guy, but admire that they flung themselves into this exciting political defense of democracy, as I have.

I'm a progressive populist. I used to call myself a commutarian but no one knew what that meant. I admire and read Thom Hartmann, Jim Hightower, Maxine Waters (CA-D), John and Elizabeth Edwards, Al Gore, Molly Ivins, John Lewis (GA-D), Andy Stern, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-D), Jay Inslee (WA-D), Jim McDermott (WA-D), Bernie Sanders (VT-I), Joe Margulies (Guantanamo defense lawyer) and Joe Wilson. OK and Matt Stoller is very cool too.

Mat, while there have been sometimes you have pissed me off with your opinions, and I'm sure there will be more, I will say that that you are straight and say exactly what you mean.  I really appreciate that.

On this one I agree.  I support John Edwards, but even I expected better.  I thought this was going to a big deal. It turned out to be a big "so what."

Obama is a centrist at heart, a tad left of center.  The disconnect we see is people wanting to project the liberal hero on him.  He is who he is and his beliefs are like this speech.  He seems to want to be the Democratic Arnold Shwarznegger (Gov - Cal.) (I may have misspelled).  I do not believe it is an act or anything.  These are his instincts.

People should take him as he is and credit what he says as sincere.  If one's views are a smidge left of center, he will fit.  If one is a progressive, he will not fit.    

This disconnect between what some believe Obama is/believes/stands for and what is real, is, in my view, why the debates here can be so viscious.  Some folks can end up defending a phantom or put tremendous energy into denying what Obama is saying.  

I have come to believe that the differences between Clinton and Obama are less than the differences between the two of them and John Edwards.  

Edwards is to the left of both.  

selling a mainstream Democratic agenda with his enormous charisma.

I am getting a bit nervous about the bashing of mainstream Democratic positions going on here. Are we watching a flight towards the Green Party? Let us remember that this is United States, one of the most right wing nations in the western world.

The choice is between fascism and mainstream liberalism, not between mainstream liberalism and utopian socialism.

I have been running in progressive and left circles for a long time, worked for a lot of causes and candidates, but I don't ever remember feeling as despairing about the future of the Democratic party as I do after reading this thread. I feel like I have gone through the rabbit hole. I want to scream and throw my computer out the window.

ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?  IMHO, Obama is the best candidate the party has come up with in forty years, and you people want to form a circle, perform a ceremony, and sacrifice him on the alter of political correctness. The level of holier-than-thou, PC, bullsh*t is completely out of control.

Does it occur to any of you that the Dem nominee actually has to win an election?  That has not been real easy for Dems in the last forty years.  Carter won, barely, after Nixon and Vietnam.  Clinton managed to win during a recession against a pitiful incumbent, with the help of Ross Perot.  Dems have lost the other seven elections.  Perhaps this should suggest that some level of caution is advised.

I am not suggesting DLC centrism.  I am talking about progressive candidates who can frame progressive values and policies in ways that are accsessible and acceptable to the low information, non-ideological voters who actually decide general elections in this country.

Obama has the most progressive voting record of any of the Senatorial candidates (including Edwards).  His life choices suggest that he has a real understanding of poor peoples lives and a real commitment to helping them.  He would be the first President in the history of the country who actually has a parent who was from the third world, and the first President who actually lived in the third world.  He is the candidate best positioned to hold the Republicans accountable for the war because he was not complicit in authorizing it.

Of course he is being a bit cautious.  He needs to be. Let me repeat that, OBAMA NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL. Particularly because he is trying to break the racial barrier, he has to be cautious to not be labeled as outside the mainstream.

Regarding the speech, he proposed a $25 billion a year increase in foreign aid.  That doesn't even make Stoller's summary of the speech.  Are you kidding me?  The guy essentially proposes a new Marshall Plan for the third world and you people don't think he said anything. Bahhh!

The attitudes expressed in this thread are the kind of attitudes that were floating around in 1968, and have helped lead to the Dems being banished from power for most of a generation.  Take it from someone who has been there, not everyone in this country agrees with you.  You need to deal with the voters where they are, not where you are. Don't overreach and miss this historic opportunity.

Upper left- I don't necessarily share your anger, but I share some of your concerns.  I think Obama puts forth some very tough and smart proposals in his speech and I think that if Jim Webb gave this same speech, he'd be honored here.

Is it obvious now.

You have the man that told us before the war.  Iraq was a mistake.

And you have Edwards that was cheerleading the war.

So who does Stoller believe. Why the moron that cheerleaded for the war.

Here's some reality for you, Matt, you have no idea what is the best path for Iraq.  We do know what Edwards wanted is wrong.  Why are you too chicken to say it?

So You and Obama disagee.  Here is the difference.  You are paid to disagree with Obama.

Obama actually has to think.

So how much is Edwards paying you?

To the frustrated and fed up on this thread:

Hillary is a DLC "officer." She holds a position in that (despised here) organization. See thier website.

Edwards has never been a DLC member. He is a self-identified populist. (See TAP interview). He has more in common with Jim Hightower than the Clintons.

The debate here today has been struggling with where in the political spectrum is Barack Obama located. Is he more like our community or like the DLC? This debate is necessary for your brother and sister progressives here, so don't lose heart. The nominee will get everyone's support and there will be a Democrat in the WH in ' 09 - actually a whole bunch of them running the government, hopefully for the next 40 years. Maybe  some of you will be working for the WH.
 

P.S. The DLC isn't centrist or mainstream. They are Nixonian.

I watched this speech on Obama's website, and I'm not sure if that makes a different impression, but I really liked it.  Interesting point he made about the world's disappointment with USA being due to their high expectations- he could have probably made the same point about himself w/regard to progressive's disappointment with him.  

I like Obama, I politically am closer to Edwards' stated positions but don't trust that he can be so different now than what he was 5 years ago.