Across The Pond | DW-WORLD

Time To Say Goodbye, Part II

Michael said it all better than I probably ever could in his "Time To Say Goodbye" explaining the shuttered doors here at Across the Pond, but let me add a few notes.

This blog brought me a lot of satisfaction for all the reasons Mr. Knigge mentioned -- it succeeded, if I may toot our own horn, beyond my wildest dreams, by getting picked up by the Los Angeles Timeses and Time magazines and the like, and by inspiring fevered debate amongst readers, and in countless other ways. It also had value to me beyond whether anyone saw it; the daily demand of blogging forced me to pay close attention to developing story lines and policy shifts and thereby enhanced my understanding of foreign policy, so I learned a good deal along the way.

Michael made me blush with his kind words, but another joy of the site was reading his work. Not only does the man truly understand U.S. politics and policy, but it was a constant delight getting his perspective on the practices of the U.S. government and candidates for office thereof. He had a special talent for catching our absurdities that only someone who didn't live here would notice, and for contrasting how we do things on this side of the pond to how they do things on his side, and it was always illuminating. Before, during and after Barack Obama's Germany trip, he made this blog THE go-to site for information and analysis, in my opinion. And he's a true pal.

If you're a regular reader, I encourage you to continue to check out all the "interesting links" along the right hand rail in lieu of us. If you value regular insights on foreign policy and politics, my friends at Foreign Policy, Porch Dog and elsewhere will leave you in good hands. DW-WORLD, too, is a great source of foreign policy information whether or not you're from Germany or focused on German news.

Thanks to Michael, thanks to Deutsche Welle and thanks to all the readers over the last year who dropped by, gave us a look, offered their quality insights and smacked us around. Farewell.

Time To Say Goodbye

For the first and last time here at Across the Pond I am writing not about international affairs but about our blog itself. I usually eschew writing about one's journalistic product and processes, because first, I believe the product should speak for itself and second, I don't think many readers are interested in journalists explaining how and why they do what they do.

But in this case, it's different since we will close Across the Pond at the end of March and this will be my last post. So why are we ending our transatlantic blogging venture on international affairs from a German and American perspective? Our original goal was to cover the U.S. election from a unique transatlantic perspective. But to be honest, when we launched Across the Pond a year ago we had no idea whether it would work. Would there be an audience for this kind of a blog? Could we get Across the Pond linked by relevant blogs and sites? Would we have the creativity and stamina to write entries on a daily basis?

In hindsight, I believe we can answer all those questions with a resounding yes. Our blog project with two journalists posting from across the pond did work. There definitely was an audience for a blog like ours as evidenced by the many comments and traffic we have received. It was rewarding to see how many important sites noticed our work and linked, often repeatedly, to Across the Pond (among them, Time Magazine, the Huffington Post, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, the Council on Foreign Relations to name just a few). And I believe that, for the most part, we possessed the ideas and endurance to keep the blog fresh and interesting.

So why are we quitting Across the Pond then? The answer is simple: This project from the beginning was only meant to cover the U.S. election. Across the Pond always was a true labor of love. It had nothing to do with our respective day jobs, so almost all of our writing was done in late evenings that often turned into late nights and on weekend afternoons. And it was a great challenge and even greater fun trying to come up with something worthwile to say every day.

After the election, we continued with the blog simply driven by the journalistic impetus to also cover the first months of an historic presidency. But while an election campaign has a clear focus, timeline and political players, covering the foreign policy of a historic presidency with its abundance of topics, venues and players is a whole different ballgame. And while I am confident that Tim and I would be able to report on the vast field that is American foreign policy under Obama as well, it won't be possible under the conditions and framework of Across the Pond.

But could there be a better moment to sign off as when President Obama embarks on his first official visit to Europe one year after we launched Across the Pond? I think not.

In closing, let me first thank all the readers and commentators who have followed Across the Pond over the past year. You are the reason why we started this blog. I hope you enjoyed reading the blog at least as half as much as I had writing it.

Second, a big thank you goes out to my blogging alter ego Tim in Washington. Without him, Across the Pond wouldn't have been possible. Tim is the only person I know who is equally well versed in writing about boxing and analyse the advantages of a southpaw as in writing about foreign policy and analyse domestic surveillance practices. He is not only an excellent reporter with flawless copy, but just has an amazing knack to find and explain the one aspect of the major story that every one else has overlooked. And last but not least, Tim is not just a great journalist, but also a good friend. Thanks again Tim.

Final thanks are also due to my wife, who for a year had to not only endure a husband hogging the family computer at night. She also had to deal with a frequently sleep-deprived partner. What's more, especially in the early months of Across the Pond, she was of invaluable help telling me what did or what didn't work. Thank you.

While we won't update Across the Pond any longer, it will remain online and can perhaps serve as an instant history file of the Obama election.

Thank you and so long!

The Afghanistan Intelligence Puzzle

With President Obama set to announce a new strategy for Afghanistan, it's worth examining the intelligence problem posed by that country. It is, by any measure, daunting.

Max Bergmann recently wrote that saying Afghanistan is "harder" than Iraq is "Monday morning quarterbacking." After all, the United States muddled through Iraq for years before things stabilized somewhat. He has a point. And although he says the question isn't very helpful, he makes an eloquent case for it being directly relevant to the whole question of the U.S. strategy: "If we are truly committed to Afghanistan and believe that it is harder than Iraq, shouldn’t we be committing more resources and manpower to Afghanistan than we did in Iraq?"

But is Bergmann right that Afghanistan isn't "harder?" At a media roundtable I attended as a reporter for CQ, U.S. spy chief Dennis Blair said this: "We know a heck of a lot more about Iraq on a granular level than we know about Afghanistan." He was answering a question from a reporter who relayed a tale -- from not so long ago -- where military forces in Afghanistan relied on maps featuring non-existent villages. Blair said the problem went beyond maps to basic understandings of local power structures.

The United States has been in Afghanistan longer than it has been in Iraq, so the number of years spent muddling is secondary. Afghanistan IS harder, or the considerable gap between American resources spent on Iraq and Afghanistan means the United States has come to figure out Iraq in a way that it hasn't Afghanistan. Or it's both. Whatever the case, as of now, Afghanistan is harder than Iraq.

Recent news reports about a Rand study on counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan focused primarily on Afghanistan. The intelligence failures there, according to the Guardian, "border on the absurd."

Blair said the intelligence community may have a fair assessment of the overall situation in Afghanistan, but when it comes to tactical intelligence used to support operations, the spy agencies have a long way to go. And since according to the new strategy, more troops will be sent, that almost assuredly means more operations. That makes the improvement of tactical intelligence in Afghanistan vital to success there. And that won't be easy.

Obama Reaches Out A Hand; Foreign Leaders Slap It Away

Early returns are that Obama's plan to reach out to nations hostile to America isn't going to be easy.

Venezuela's Chavez calls Obama "ignoramus"

Iran’s Supreme Leader Rebuffs Obama Message

The Bold Iran Paradigm Shift By President Obama That No One (Apparently) Saw

There's no doubt that President Barack Obama's video message to the Iranian government and leadership was a bold move. It's won both considerable praise and heated denouncements.

But my question is this: What impact can it have if nobody saw it?

The AP writes, via Think Progress: "It wasn’t clear how many Iranians were able to see the video, which was not aired on state television in Iran on Friday. It was likely shown on Farsi-language TV stations beamed in from outside of the country, but many Iranians don’t watch television in the first days of long Nowruz holiday that is normally filled with family gatherings or vacations away from home." And seeing it on YouTube isn't a really viable option, either, since the Iranian government blocks the website.

About the only place an Iranian citizen could go to watch it is the White House website.

Should Europe Do More To Stimulate The Economy?

Analysing the continuing rift between Europe and the U.S. how best to overcome the financial crisis, Robert Kuttner argues that both are right. President Barack Obama, writes Kuttner, is correct to demand that European countries, especially the continent's biggest economy Germany, do more to stimulate spending. But the Europeans are equally right to demand that international regulation of the financial system is given high priority.

While I generally agree with his analysis, he and many other critics of Europe's alleged meager stimulus policy, miss an important point. Compared to the U.S. many European countries have a much tighter social security and welfare net. In times of crises, this provides an important buffer against the most severe effects of the recession. In other words: The social and welfare act as a kind of automatic stimulus in many European countries. If those effects are factored in, the size of the German stimulus package for instance is basically on par with that of the U.S. An excellent analysis of this phenomenon can be found of all places in the Wall Street Journal.

Another Blow For Missile Defense

It's another sign that the Eastern European missile defense shield planned by President George W. Bush is unlikely to be implemented anytime soon. The Czech government withdrew a scheduled ratification vote on the treaty from the lower house of parliament. While Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek pointed out that the pull back didn't mean the end of the ratification process, he added that he would reconsider it after talks with U.S. President Barack Obama at the upcoming NATO summit in France and Germany. Given the Obama administration's sceptical stance toward missile defense it seems unlikely that Obama will press Topolanek hard on that issue.

Iran Options Sought, Iran Options Received

Two weeks ago, I asked what options the U.S. had for dealing with Iran.

Since, Michael has addressed one, and now my CQ colleague Adam Graham-Silverman has addressed some others.

The AGS piece is focused primarily on talks -- in contrast with the tea leaf reading from some that the U.S. was laying the groundwork for abandoning engagement -- but it delves into other options, too, paraphrasing an expert pertinent to all of this, Dennis Ross: "Tighten the noose of sanctions, engage without conditions, or pursue a hybrid option that combines negotiation and pressure." The rest of AGS' exploration is worth reading as well.

The Globalization Of The Central Banking System

In a fascinating article, Ryan Grim examines how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank in recent months has literally pumped billions of dollars into central banks around the world. As Grim points out - and I concur -, this aspect of the global financial crisis hasn't been reported by mainstream media previously.

In essence, writes Grim, the Fed has been acting as the world's central bank since last year in a move that is a clear step into territory usually occupied by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to the article, 314 billion dollars are currently loaned to international central banks by the Federal Reserve, down from almost 600 billion in December. The central banks use the money to rescue financial institutions in their own countries. The transactions, writes Grim, are conducted as swaps, whereby the Fed receives the equal amount of its loan in foreign currency.

As a consequence of this money injection program, the Fed and other global central banks are very tighly linked to each other. If everything goes well and the central banks can repay their loans, this is not a problem. Difficulties for both sides could arise, if central banks can't repay their loans and thus internationalize their problem.

European countries participating in this program, according to Grim are, Denmark, Britain, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. To read the article in the Huffington Post click here.

Two Links: Obama Doing Well On Foreign Policy

Two analyses on Sunday about the Obama foreign policy:

Fareed Zakaria praises Obama's foreign policy activity thus far, noting changes of direction on Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

The Guardian's Jonathan Freeland notes many of the same things, plus Obama activity on Cuba, Israel and others.

Both pieces leave out the missteps of the administration on foreign policy, like the failed appointment of Charles Freeman to the National Intelligence Council or the gaffe with Hillary Clinton and the Russia "reset button." But I think at least one part of their thrust is unquestionably true: It's been a busy early period on foreign policy for an administration that might be expected to focus almost all of its energy on the economy.

Spy Chief Says Economy Is "Primary Near-Term Security Concern" Of The U.S.; But Then What?

In this week's edition of CQ Weekly, I examined the recent statements of Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that the economic crisis was the "primary near-term security concern" of the United States.

He made the remarks weeks ago, and it got headlines. But no one, it seemed, had asked the next question: OK, what are the ramifications of that?

So I set about asking, and found that some people disagreed with the premise. Many saw a link between the economy and security -- after all, Al Qaeda has long made the connection, with Osama bin Laden pledging a "bleed-until-bankruptcy" strategy in 2004 -- but not to the degree Blair did. What's more, some questioned what good it would do for the intelligence community to involve itself in the question. Almost everyone I called -- some quoted in the piece, some not -- told me, "I'm so glad someone is asking these questions. I don't understand why no one has yet."

If you're not in the United States, the issue may still have ramifications for you, too. So, consider reading the piece, linked above, then if you're an early riser in the U.S., check me out on C-SPAN talking about all of it Monday at 8:30 a.m. EST. Failing that, C-SPAN's website rebroadcasts its programming on its website.

Obama And Geithner Have To Repeat Themselves Again

They did it again: U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner once more called on other countries to do more to stimulate their economies. The answer by most European countries is equally predictable: Ah, no.

Just a few days ago, the Eurozone nations rather resolutely rejected demands by the U.S. that European countries increase their own stimulus packages to combat the financial crisis. It wasn't the first time that European governments gave Washington the cold shoulder. In February, Germany's outspoken Finance Minister warned that the U.S. stimulus efforts could lead to a new global bubble.

The continuing transatlantic spat intensifies just weeks before the crucial G-20 meeting in London in April, and one day before Geithner travels to Britain for a finance minister meeting in preparation for the summit. The expectations and the stakes for the G-20 meeting are high. It is the first major global meeting with Obama and Geithner representing the U.S., and it comes at a time when the fallout of the financial crisis can be felt across the world.

At the important G-20 meeting in Washington late last year, Obama was not sworn in yet. At the second major international economic event of the last months, the Global Economic Forum in Davos in late January, Obama and his team had just taken office and were not present. At the G-20 meeting in London, Obama and Geithner need, and are expected, to produce something.

A Foreign Policy Based On The Godfather?

I usually don't plug things here, but if you are a movie buff and a foreign policy wonk, you should check out The Godfather Doctrine, a book by John Hulsman and Wess Mitchell. But be warned. If you expect a purely cinematic analysis of the classic Godfather movie, or scholarly ruminations about international affairs, you might be disappointed.

The Godfather Doctrine, based on the authors' piece in the National Interest last year, is a brief, concise, and, yes, entertaining political parable against the backdrop of the quintessential Mafia flick. I read it in a couple of hours. The authors apply the various philosophical approaches taken by the Corleone sons in reaction to the shooting of the family patriarch to the world of foreign policy. Which of the three principals representing different philosophical schools, Tom Hagen (liberal institutionalism), Sonny (neoconservatism) or Michael (realism) should the U.S. emulate in its foreign policy? The authors fun to read and convincing answer is, of course, realism. Even more interesting than their answer though is the hands-on style in which Hulsman and Mitchell arrive at their thesis.

Full disclosure: I have known John Hulsman for a few years through some political roundtables in the U.S. and Germany and a hearty breakfast in Berlin.

What Chas Freeman's Withdrawal Means

There are a lot of strong opinions out there about what Chas Freeman's withdrawal from the top National Intelligence Council position means.

It could mean the Israel lobby did him in.

It could mean the Saudi lobby isn't as powerful as sometimes thought.

It could mean the Obama administration once again failed to properly vet one of its would-be officials.

It could mean that Freeman was just plain controversial, and on more than Israel.

There's no way to do what I'm about to do without sounding wishy-washy; besides, as a reporter at CQ who covers intelligence, it would be inappropriate for me to go throwing my opinions around about any of this. My role here is more as an analyst.

But ponder the following: What if all of the above is true?

What if the Israel lobby did help do in Freeman, and the Saudi lobby didn't have the ability to offer a powerful counterpoint to complaints that Freeman worked for an organization funded in part by Saudi Arabia? What if it should be controversial when a would-be intelligence official calls the 2008 Tibetan uprisings against China "race riots," and why didn't anyone in the Obama administration take a look at Freeman's associations and statements, realize they were potentially very controversial, then think twice?

Obama's Taliban Response Draws Lukewarm Response From Allies, Criticism From Experts

The reactions President Barack received for his proposal to talk to "moderate Taliban" are different in style, but not very different in substance from the comments Germany's former head of the Social Democratic Party, Kurt Beck, got: Mostly negative.

Jason Burke argues in the Guardian that talking to the Taliban has been tried on the local level for some time - and it has failed. According to a Reuters story, many experts in Afghanistan and Pakistan are skeptical of Obama's talk offer to the Taliban, questioning whether there are any "moderate Taliban," and calling negotiations with them useless. And Peter Bergen, an al Qaeda expert with the New America Foundation, cautions against making deals with the Taliban.

America's allies have been equally cautious in their response to the President's proposal. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said possible negotiations with moderate elements of the Taliban are primarily a decision of the government in Kabul. He added that the Afghan government must make sure that Taliban involved in possible talks have to distance themselves from violence.

Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said pretty much the same thing: "If the Afghan government at the end of the day desires to go out there and have discussions with people who fundamentally will renounce any forms of violence, we're quite comfortable with that," Cannon told public broadcaster CBC.

The best analysis I could find of why talking to the Taliban makes sense comes from Robert Dreyfus in the Nation who argues that given the dire prospects for Afghanistan the U.S. will have to strike a deal with the Taliban sooner or later.

And the price for the most sardonic reply to Obama's proposal goes to David Rothkopf.

And finally: Not surprisingly the Taliban flat out rejected Obama's proposal calling it "illogical."

Obama's Father And Great Britain

What is with this whole thing where a president allegedly establishes his foreign policy based on what happened to his dad?

Déjà vu for Germans: Obama's Taliban Proposal

Barack Obama's proposal to talk to moderate Taliban is especially big news in Germany. Why? Two years ago, the then head of the SPD, Kurt Beck, had pretty much the same idea. Negotiate with moderate elements in the Taliban, he suggested. The feedback he received from political colleagues and the media was mostly negative. There's no way we can negotiate with the Taliban, so the general opinion went.

Now, a new American President comes up with the same idea and the reaction is quite different. Here's a couple of editorial reactions from Austria and Germany.

"Obama does not only openly admit to the catastrophic situation, he also openly admits his helplessness," reads the editorial in Austria's Kurier. When the U.S. President speaks about a "very complex situation" and "a lot bigger challenges" than in Iraq, than this is as close to an admission of helplessness as is possible for the most powerful man of the world." The idea to solve the problems in Afghanistan through sending more troops has become a side issue, writes the paper. More importantly, adds the Kurier, there is a search of new concepts taking place right now. "That this new phase begins with the admission of failure shows that one is really willing to cast aside all ideological blinders and self-deception of the Bush era. And this is already a good start."

Duesseldorf-based Rheinische Post comments: "From sarcasm to outrage went the range of reactions when the the former head of the German Social Democrats, Kurt Beck, on the occasion of a visit to Afghanistan, suggested two years ago to negotiate with "moderate Taliban." Now U.S. President Barack Obama has taken up exactly that proposal - and no one is laughing anymore," notes the paper. "The situation in the Hindukush is confused and appears more unstable than ever." According to the paper, everyone who looked objectively at Beck's supposed capitulation statement two years ago had to raise the question whether there even are any "moderate Taliban." But, adds the Rheinische Post, "President Obama is definitely right with one thing: The West simply can't bumble about anymore in Afghanistan."

Clinton's Concept Of European Democracy

Hillary Clinton's European visit has been going well. On Friday, however, according to Reuters, she caused a bit of befuddlement in Brussels. The U.S. Secretary of State claimed that American democracy "has been around at lot longer than European democracy" and misspoke the names of the EU's foreign policy heavyweights Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

Bad faux pas? Not really. The "democracy" item is probably just a misunderstanding. It seems likely that Clinton - speaking at the European Parliament - was referring to the EU parliament and not European democracy. The European Parliament as an institution, of course, is a lot younger than U.S. democracy.

That she misspoke the names of Solana and Ferrero-Waldner is slightly embarrassing, but not a major deal. It didn't cause any diplomatic problems and rather shows her human side.

Obama's First Major Presidential Trip Scheduled For Europe

It's official: The Obamas are visiting Europe at the end of this month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced America's first couple's travel schedule in Brussels where she attended a NATO meeting. President Obama and his wife will visit Britain, Germany, France and the Czech Republic. The Europe trip will be Obama's first extended international travel and comes after visits from Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Clinton to the continent. It goes to show that Europe, despite some claims to the contrary, remains still very much on Washington's international agenda.

Gordon And Barack Talk About Tennis, But Not A "Global New Deal"

Here's a quick update on my recent post about Gordon Brown's idea of launching a "global New Deal" with the U.S. during his visit to Washington. On a personal level, U.S. President Barack Obama and Britain's Prime Minister apparently hit it off at their first meeting at the White House: Calling each other by their first names and talking about playing tennis together. Too bad that President Obama didn't mention the Prime Minister's big project by name at the press conference and at their lunch in the White House. But maybe he reserved that for his first official trip to 10 Downing Street.

Obama's Continued Dance With Russia

The rationale of President Barack Obama's proposed deal with Russia is puzzling. The U.S. would scrap its planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe, if Russia gets tough on Iran's assumed nuclear development. If Moscow's new, hard stance succeeds, so goes the logic of the deal, then Tehran's assumed nuclear weapons program will be halted and there will be no need for a missile defense system anyway.

As I wrote before, you can't really use something as a bargaining chip that you have already publicly disavowed. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, even before coming into office, stated their skepticism about missile defense. Trying to use it now as bargaining chip is not convincing.

Having said that, it's also not in Russia's interest that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a move that would drastically alter the power equation in an important part of what Russia considers to be its sphere of influence. What's more, Iran, as the country with the second largest gas reserves after Russia, is also Moscow's only competitor as Europe's major gas supplier, which is another reason why Russia may not want to be supporting Iran too much.

If Russia, in light of recent developments, decided that it ultimately doesn't want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and the U.S. decided that it doesn't really want to set up a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, why are they delivering secret letters instead of simply getting together, aligning their interests and striking a deal? Perhaps Washington and Moscow are just continuing their diplomatic dance. Kremlinologists and Obamaists please feel free to elaborate.

Iran Options

Some senior U.S. official really is getting around, talking about what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is telling key Arab leaders about Iran. "It's doubtful that Iran would respond" to engagement, she said, according to that official.

It's all been interpreted as a sign that the U.S. is already moving away from President Obama's campaign idea to meet with Iran.

So what does that leave?

Well, for one, according to the L.A. Times, "it could help persuade U.S. allies to join it in increasing pressure on the Islamic regime," since Clinton said that Iran rebuffing overtures to Iran "would quell complaints that the United States has not exhausted diplomatic routes." Clinton said "that Iran's 'worst nightmare is an international community that is united and an American government willing to engage Iran,' according to the State official."

In particular, Russia and European allies getting on board with additional Iran sanctions they've resisted in the past would be a new step.

The L.A. Times mentioned a few more steps: efforts to solicit Iran to help stabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan, creating a little U.S.-Iran collaboration, as well as new commitments toward U.S. and international disarmament that would persuade Iran to follow that lead.

There does seem to be consensus -- unlike prior to Iraq, when the IAEA and others were skeptical -- that Iran is on the path to a nuclear weapon. Maybe that has created new pressure to move beyond engagement?

Will Gordon Brown's "Global New Deal" Ever Get Off The Ground?

Gordon Brown won the European race to the White House and will meet Barack Obama there on Tuesday. In a piece for the Sunday Times, he laid out his agenda for the talk with the President, calling for a global New Deal to be launched by the U.S. and Britain. The goal: To create an impact that "can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York – and giving security to the hard-working families in every country."

Sounds like a tall order for the meeting between Obama and Brown. And while I am really tired of incessantly hearing the catch-all phrase "New Deal," I guess a globalized world - to use another catch-all phrase - requires some kind of binding, transnational agreement to remedy the current, and prevent future, crises.

I am just skeptical that much will come of it. Why? German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other EU leaders over the weekend rejected to bail out Eastern Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy recently offered state aid to French automakers, as long as they don't close French factories. And you probably know all about the various versions of the Buy American part of the U.S. stimulus package (a policy that interestingly is supported by the Communist Party of the USA). Notice a trend?

When push comes to shove, most national leaders simply focus on their clearly defined national constituency instead of an amorphous global one. With most countries struggling to save their troubled financial and automotive industries, it seems unlikely they will be willing and able to contribute to bailing out other parts of the globe, at least for now.

Finally, there's the question whether Gordon Brown is the right person to fix the global financial system through a new deal. Not just conservative critics are blaming the former long-time Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least partly, for the current crisis.

What do you think?

Bill Frist As Sudan Envoy Has Some Things Going For It

I've spilled a lot of words in this space about the degree of overlap between Presidents Obama and Bush on national security and foreign policy, and others have started to notice the same thing. But there's a fine line between doing the same thing as one's predecessor and acting in a nonpartisan spirit.

The notion to appoint former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, as special envoy to Sudan would appear to be the latter. It's only a proposal so far, from Rep. Frank Wolf, an influential member of Congress on human rights. Wolf, though, says the administration likes the idea. Some Democrats may have leftover hard feelings about Frist, but on Darfur, Frist was ahead of the curve.

Any real skepticism about Frist's appointment has more to do with institutional questions: "An effective special envoy generally requires two important features: 1) diplomatic experience 2) access to the president. It strikes me that former Senator Frist possesses neither."

But it might be offset by the signal Frist's appointment would send: America is united on Darfur, left and right.

Kudos For Senator Lugar's Call To Re-Establish International American Centers

It doesn't happen often, but sometimes someone expresses an opinion one can entirely agree with. Even more rarely this someone happens to be politician. Well, this just happened to me after reading Senator Richard Lugar's article arguing why the U.S. should reverse its long process of closing its America Centers around the world.

I witnessed the closure of all U.S. government run America Centers in Germany over the years, with the last Amerika Haus operated by the U.S. government closing in Cologne in 2007. Sure, many of them have reopened through private initiative and do a great job in fostering transatlantic understanding. But I have always felt that for an issue that is as important for the U.S. as public diplomacy (as everyone has come to understood at least after 9/11) Washington should put its money where its mouth is.

To be clear, the internet and other modern information tools as well as private sponsors are and should be a big part of public diplomacy. But can and should they replace a live forum, a marketplace of ideas where people in cities across the world can meet, talk and debate with Americans, not in a virtual chat room, but in a real reading room? I think not.

Apropos reading room: Were the American Center in Frankfurt to reopen its library I would gladly donate the hundreds of classical Americana I schlepped away in dozens of bags after the library closed. Ok, maybe not gladly, but it would give them back.

Foreign Policy + Everything

During the campaign on this blog, I spent a lot of time talking about the way foreign policy linked to lots of other issues. The economy. Global warming. Etc.

As of Obama's State of the Union speech (I know, I know, he didn't call it that), it's clear that the president sees all those issues as interrelated, too.

As Heather Hurlburt noted over at Democracy Arsenal, the blog of the National Security Network: Her final thought, after "having sat through the whole thing, is to point out how we are moving toward a worlcd (sic) where there is no 'foreign policy section' because the issues are woven seamlessly through a framework of issues affecting America, energy security, global warming, and other issues."

Amid Increasing Tensions Between Kurds And Arabs, All U.S. Troops Supposed To Leave Iraq By 2011

According to media reports, President Barack Obama will soon announce his decision to complete the American combat troop withdrawal from Iraq by August 2010 and the pullout of all U.S. forces by December 2011. If implemented, the withdrawal will take a few months longer than Obama pledged during the campaign.

But I agree with Marc Lynch that this gap is insignificant. Obama's timetable for withdrawal shows that he is serious about keeping his commitments, while at the same time adjusting them to factors and events on the ground. By most accounts, violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically, a fact that has been underscored by peaceful recent regional elections in the country, which (perhaps for that reason) went largely unnoticed by international media.

However, it's also worth pointing out, as Michael Crowley does, that the real test might come if Iraq once again descends into chaos and Obama must decide whether to bring back the American military to stabilize the country or let the Iraqis deal with it themselves.

What's more, according to recent reports, escalating tensions between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs could complicate the planned American pullout. The Prime Minister of the Kurdish regional parliament demanded only a few days ago that the U.S. iron out problems between Kurds and the central government in Baghad before pulling out its troops.

German Carnival Featuring Obama, Clinton And Uncle Sam

With the German Carnival season coming to an official end on Wednesday, here are a few highlights of Monday's traditional parades in the German Carnival capitals Cologne, Düsseldorf and Mainz. As everyone who has ever been to one of those cities during Carnival season knows, celebrating it properly and extensively is taken very seriously. In Cologne alone more than one million revellers watched Germany's biggest Carnival parade consisting of more than 11,000 participants and more than 100 decorated floats. Keeping with the focus of Across the Pond, all pictures feature Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or the U.S. in general.

- Obama bites Clinton (Düsseldorf Carnival Parade)

- Uncle Sam's crumbling empire (Cologne Carnival Parade)

- Europe on the heels of America's Obama (Düsseldorf Carnival Parade)

- Obama trying to lift up the Statue of Liberty (Mainz Carnival Parade)

All Foreign Cars For Auto Industry Task Force, But Does It Mean Anything?

In a clever bit of populist/hometown reporting, the Detroit News found that most of the members of the president's task force on the auto industry owns foreign cars. Also cleverly, the paper just put the information out there -- no analysis, no experts quoted on whether this was a good or bad thing. Just information. Only the lede hints at a viewpoint, and even then it's carefully couched -- "The vehicles owned by the Obama administration's auto team could reflect one reason why Detroit's Big Three automakers are in trouble: The list includes few new American cars."

That's where everyone else comes in.

Automobile magazine suggests maybe there's something wrong with the team driving foreign cars: "As there seems to be little familiarity with the automotive world on this task force, we hope these guys and gals have some serious business and economic savvy."

Autoblog is less convinced: "Between the flow of bailout bucks and the economic turmoil threatening to topple the Detroit 3, you'd figure the investigative efforts of the Detroit News would be better spent digging through the viability plans of Chrysler and General Motors, delving into the minutia that could make or break the domestic automobile industry. Apparently not."

Obama: "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing" Regarding War, Anti-Terror, Hawkish Rhetoric

The New York Daily News' sharp James Gordon Meek has a piece up expanding on a theme I've returned to here numerous times: That is, whether President Obama is as dovish and different from President Bush on national security as anyone perceived.

Raising points I haven't in previous posts, Meek directs readers' attention to a few items. Hillary Clinton's warnings to North Korea. The hawkish argument for getting out of Iraq to focus more on Afghanistan. That rather than waiting for enemies to "test" him, Obama is putting those enemies on their heels.

It's a typically excellent piece from the NYDN man. Read it here.

On Burma, An Early Test Of Obama Policy, And An Overlooked, Difficult Problem

With President Obama's trip to Canada hogging most of the headlines about U.S. foreign relations, it was only natural that Hillary Clinton's announcement that the United States was looking at a shift on Burma policy didn't get much play in the news.

The country's repressive regime hasn't gotten the kind of attention here that other countries with human rights challenges have, like Sudan. The U.S. has been hitting Burma's junta with economic sanctions, recently strengthened, to no avail.

Now, Clinton won't won't rule out the easing of sanctions or direct diplomacy. It's a somewhat intractable problem, Burma, and it's complicated by the fact that Congress may not be all that interested in undoing its recent strengthening of those sanctions.

The Washington Post this morning editorialized on the subject: "PRESIDENT OBAMA'S inaugural address made the world's tyrants a proposition. 'We will extend a hand,' Mr. Obama said, 'if you are willing to unclench your fist.' It now appears that Burma could be one of the first test cases for this approach."

As the Post notes, there's been no fist unclenching it can detect.

Harmony Between U.S. And Canada On Trade, Or Signs Of Trouble Ahead?

It's very interesting to behold most of the headlines about President Obama's trip to Canada. "Obama reassures Canada on open trade," the way Reuters went, was typical. Usually, the stories include an emphasis up high on the pro-trade message Obama sent: "'Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism,' Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa. 'And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it's important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries,' he said. He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to 'grow trade not contract it.'"

By contrast, I liked the "but wait" approach taken by The Guardian. Its headline instead reads, "President Barack Obama raises Nafta renegotiation during first official visit to Canada." Obama, the paper wrote, "tried to square a campaign pledge to renegotiate the agreement while at the same time avoid sparking a trade war with Canada. Obama told reporters at the press conference in Ottawa he wanted to begin talks on adding provisions to the agreement relating to workers and to the environment. 'My hope is as our advisers and staffs and economic teams work this through that there's a way of doing this that is not disruptive to the extraordinarily important trade relationship that exists between the two countries,' he said."

This is going to be a very difficult balancing act. On the campaign trail, Obama threatened to pull out of the trade agreement within six months unless it was renegotiated, and he cited a variety of concerns, many of them coming from skepticism that NAFTA had benefited the United States. It's one thing to express opposition on Thursday to "protectionism," but unless Obama is prepared to ditch his campaign pledge, his stance on renegotiating NAFTA will one day soon send exactly the opposite "signals."

Like I Was Saying, Afghanistan Proves Obama And Bush Are Totally Different On Foreign Policy

Yes. So. Yesterday I was raising questions about whether President Bush and President Obama are very different on foreign policy -- or, more correctly, I was pointing you to points raised by others.

Today, a contrasting view must be offered. The 17,000 troops Obama plans to deploy to Afghanistan is a very, very different approach toward that country. Certainly, Bush shifted some troops there several months ago. But this is a far bigger deployment, signaling a big break on one major issue from Bush on foreign policy.

By itself, the move doesn't rebut the point of the points made by Stratfor that I linked to yesterday. There is still, in many categories, "continuity" between Bush and Obama. But as of today, there is one fewer.

Overlap Between Obama, Bush On Foreign Policy, National Security

I wrote a piece for CQPolitics.com about how there are many areas of intelligence policy where President Obama is either much the same as President Bush or has left open the option of doing much the same as his predecessor: rendition, interrogation, surveillance, etc. You can read it here.

But the trend apparently extends to the entire international arena. At least, that's the implication of a Strafor piece you can read here. It argues of Vice President Biden's speech in Munich: "Most conference attendees were looking forward to a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration. What was interesting about Biden’s speech was how little change there has been in the U.S. position and how much the attendees and the media were cheered by it."

Worldwide Threat -- The Testimony

I could write a dozen blog entries on the latest annual "Worldwide Threat" briefing -- there's something in there about a great many countries, and various pieces of it have been broken out about India, Latin America and everywhere else -- or I could just point you to it in case you haven't seen it yet.

It's here.

Rice Stiffed On Darfur By Libya

The new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, had to deal with a setback on her first significant issue at the UN. Libya defeated unanimous support for a U.S. draft proposal that would have condemned the increasing civilian deaths in Sudan's Darfur region and would have implicated the Sudanese government.

"We had hoped to have a presidential statement that would have spoken with one voice in condemning the ongoing violence," Rice told the AP calling the situation in Darfur "ongoing genocide."

The episode shows that even an administration with a multilaterialist bent, and a decidely more positive view of the United Nations than the Bush administration, doesn't necessarily guarantee progress on intractable issues.

More On Travel Plans: No Trip To A Muslim Capital In The First 100 Days

Just to follow up on Michael's post, it is not just the lack of travel to Europe by Hillary Clinton that is worth a little examination. It very much appears that President Obama will not, after all, give a policy speech in a Muslim capital in his first 100 days, an idea that the campaign had mulled at one point.

Of course, he did give his first interview to a Middle East news outlet, which perhaps had a similar effect: communicating that Obama would pay close attention to and open a dialogue of sorts with the Muslim world.

And you can't exactly call it a broken campaign pledge, because it was only ever a discussion by aides that was reported by the New York Times.

There's a secondary question of whether Obama will follow through on a proposal to hold a summit with Muslim leaders.

Is Hillary Clinton Dissing China And Slighting Europe?

Is Hillary Clinton dissing China because she will kick off her Asia tour in Japan and visit China last? Or is it a sign that she is bowing to Asia's increasing power and thereby dissing Europe?

It's fun to interpret travel plans, but I think both of the assertions above read too much into the Secretary of State's itinerary. If Clinton left out China on her trip that could truly be considered a slight of the country. She isn't. And there's also another way of looking at it. By visiting China last, her talks in Beijing will probably have the most lasting news impact of the entire trip.

Example: Barack Obama's trip last year to Europe and the Middle East. He travelled to the Middle East first and also to France and Britain, but what do you most remember about the trip? His speech in Berlin, even though he really didn't spend all that much time in the German capital. What does that mean? Ultimately, content not the sequence of countries visited or time spent in capitals matters.

That's also the reason why Clinton's trip to Asia is by no means a slight for Europe. Just a few days ago Vice President Joe Biden delivered a major speech about the Obama administration's foreign policy agenda at the Munich Security Forum. And in April, President Obama himself is expected in Germany and France for the NATO summit. Therefore, it makes sense that Hillary Clinton visits Asia first. If she hadn't, Asia rightly could have felt slighted.

Shelved Missile Shield Won't Sway Iran's "Behavior"

Unlike the previous administration, the Obama administration's support for a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe is luke warm at best. Even before the inauguration, the incoming administration said it would review the plans, a clear signal that a shift in direction on the issue was coming. Recently, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the policy shift in favor of a possible sweeping nuclear arms reduction deal and better relations with Russia. Fair enough.

But then why try to create a nexus - as Secretary Clinton did - between Iran's "behavior" and the setting up of the missile shield after having all but announced that the missile shield had been shelved? You can't signal the Russians and the Europeans that the missile shield is history, and at the same time want to use it as a stick vis-à-vis Tehran. That's simply not credible and therefore not exactly a stellar diplomatic moment.

More On The Military/State Division Of Labor

Because I've returned to the subject from time to time, this Walter Pincus piece on the question of shifting responsibilities back from the Pentagon to State is worth reading.

Noteworthy: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also thinks that foreign policy has become too "militarized."

But having folk in the military world on board so as to avoid turf wars is just step one in the transition. Even in ideal circumstances, and these are not ideal circumstances, it's going to be hard to scale back the Pentagon role in favor of State and other agencies. Funding is another part of the equation, and that won't be easy. Yet another, which I hadn't thought of until reading the piece, is the idea that Defense has a unique culture that makes it easier for it to perform overseas roles.

"Although the problem is recognized, [Adm. Michael] Mullen said, 'We're a good decade away before we've created . . . the capacity and the career paths [for] young people who will come into the Agriculture Department and say, 'Part of my life is, I expect to go to Afghanistan for a year out of every four or five.' . . .That is not what they thought their career path would include at this point.'"

Time For Europe To Help Out Obama, Says Naím

In an interview I did with Moisés Naím about Barack Obama's international agenda and Europe's stance toward it the Editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy called on Europe to start helping the U.S. instead of merely applauding the new president. You can read the interview here.

Cybersecurity Increasingly The Hot Intelligence Issue

On Monday, President Obama announced a 60-day review of federal cybersecurity programs. It was but the latest uptick in federal government concentration on protecting computer networks.

Given increasing reliance on those computer networks, it's already unsurprising that there would be an increasing focus on cybersecurity as an intelligence issue. The campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain were hacked at one point, and recently news surfaced of breaches in Congress' cyber defenses. Both nominees to Obama administration top administration posts told the Senate that cybersecurity was high on their list of issues, and the last director of National Intelligence said it was one area he wishes he was further along on before stepping down.

The future of what the United States will do on this front is ambiguous, but it's clear that the attention is only going to increase. In fiscal 2009, the top item in the intelligence budget was a cybersecurity initiative, according to the House Intelligence Committee. And Reuters reported: "Industry executives say the sector will be one of their fastest-growing markets in coming years, and analysts say it could generate over $10 billion in contracts by 2013."

Mixed Reactions To Biden Speech

Vice President Joe Biden's speech at the Munich Security Conference was generally well received. The AP thought Biden hit most of the right notes. Europeans liked what they heard. And the Russians were also warmed by Biden's remarks.

But that's not the whole story. An analyst for the BBC pointed out that Biden's speech was applauded around the globe, the proof whether it signalled a new world order was still outstanding. In a similar vain, Politico argued that Biden, despite his conciliatory tone, returned home with no concrete results.

Even more negatively were conservative commentators such as Nile Gardiner, who in his blog for the Daily Telegraph, called the speech weak-kneed and criticized the Obama administration for ceasing to use the phrase war on terror. In his blog for The Heritage Foundation, he wrote Biden gave "one of the weakest projections of U.S. leadership on foreign soil in recent memory." The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol called it vague and underwhelming.

While the wish to reap instant results after a speech that was intended to break with the rhetoric and policy of the Bush administration is understandable, it is unrealistic. Just because of Biden's speech, Russia will not immediately reverse its stance on Iran, Georgia or U.S. missile defense. And neither will Germany all of sudden commit to sending more troops to Afghanistan. But without such a speech, offering a new partnership, there wouldn't be even an impetus for any of those steps to take place. Now the ball has been passed back to America's partners and adversaries.

As for the criticism that Biden's speech was one of the weakest projections of U.S. Leadership, I am not sure that, at a time when America's economy and global image is lying in tatters and after eight years in which power projection appeared to many to be Washington's main political tool, the projection of U.S. leadership on foreign soil is what would be deemed very helpful right now.

Munich's Security Conference Kicks Off With High-Profile Line Up

For all foreign policy and international affairs buffs, the plans for this weekend are clear. Check out what's happening at Munich's Security Conference. The event is for the first time being headed by Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's former ambassador to Washington. There should not be any shortage of topics and there certainly is not shortage of high-ranking politicans.

Just have a look at the opening night line up here.

Obviously one of the highlights of the trip will be the outline of President Barack Obama's foreign policy plans by Vice President Joe Biden on his first trip abroad after taking office.

You can watch the live stream of the conference here.

Cheney Goes A Little Off Message On Terror War-Rights Debate

Ex-vice president Dick Cheney's interview this week has been discussed nearly to death, but there's a point I haven't seen raised about this quote:

"When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry."

Obviously, Miranda rights don't enter into this, so Cheney is talking generally here about rights vs. security. But Republicans always say that's a false choice, and that the controversial programs of the Bush administration both protected rights and ensured security. So is Cheney now saying that security trumps rights?

It's possible he's resorting to administration legal arguments that terrorists fundamentally don't have rights, and not saying you have to pick between security and the rights of citizens. But it's ambiguous enough that it made me wonder if, outside the message-massaging Bush White House, whether Cheney honestly has always thought you have to sacrifice one to get the other. (That's an argument anyone is welcome to have, but it's a different argument altogether.)

That's the way Obama administration CIA pick Leon Panetta took it, anyway, at the confirmation hearing I attended today: "I was disappointed by those comments, because the implication is that somehow this country is more vulnerable to attack because the president of the United States wants to abide by the law and the Constitution. I think we’re a stronger nation when we abide by the law and the Constitution."

Wikipedia's Wales On Knol, Obama And Jimmy Carter

In an interview I did with Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder talks about Google's Knol, why Wikipedia is so big in Germany and why he wouldn't want to trade with the founders of Facebook and Google.

And Wales also talks about his recent call from the Obama transition team and why he likes Jimmy Carter.

You can read the interview here.

Judd Gregg Gives The Obama Administration Its Biggest Advocate Of Free Trade

Judd Gregg's selection for Commerce secretary closes the loop on a subject I've written about in this space a couple times. The Obama administration has filled some key trade-related positions with people who are on all sides of the trade debate, and I'd wondered whether the president would replace the departed pro-"free trader" Bill Richardson with someone who's more in the "fair trade" camp.

Nope. Obama could hardly have picked a more pro-free trade Commerce secretary. In the past 15 years or so, Gregg has voted against only one major free trade deal. You can check out his entire record here.

Linkedin's founder impressed with Obama's start

I did an interview with Reid Hoffman, founder and CEO of Linkedin at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Here's what he had to say about President Barack Obama's first days in office:

"I think he has been very good at being focused. That's extraordinarily important. From what I can see and I don't have inside information, but I can see him focusing on two things.

One is stimulus package and fixing the economy. And he is soliciting ideas very broadly about how to do that well, which is very good, because it's open to a variety of new ideas. And the second one is the U.S. reputation internationally and communicating in the most tangible, possible way: We are a member of the world order, not ignoring it, not running roughshot over it.

So I think those are the exact right things to focus on. You have to get to a bunch of other ones later, but those are the right two things to start focusing on."

Obama-Iran Talks Already Happened (Maybe)

We link, you decide.

AFP: "US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria, organizers of the meetings told AFP."

Mere Rhetoric: "Any meetings that happened between November and the inauguration - that was merely Obama circumventing and potentially undermining a sitting Commander In Chief."

The Cable: "'All the reports that say ‘Obama talks secretly with Iran' are wrong,' Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, the secretary general of Pugwash and the key mover behind the dialogue told The Cable Monday. 'These were not official negotiations. First of all, the dates of all our meetings were in 2008,' when the Bush administration was still in power."

"Buy American" Debate Hits The Stimulus

A "Buy American" provision in the stimulus has provoked a heated debate inside and outside Congress, with even the Obama administration taking two seemingly different stances.

ABC News has the best take on the domestic dispute. The International Herald Tribune has the best take on the international backlash.

It's still early, but with fire coming from a few different directions over this bill, enough opposition to the provision could force its removal, lest it threaten to help sink the overall legislation. There is some divide over this issue domestically, and many past Buy American feuds have ended in a standstill -- although that was in a different economic environment.

Progressives Voice Complaints About Obama Foreign Policy Picks

Yes, it's a trend, at least of perception. No more question marks, like the one that accompanies a recent post. There is at least a significant segment of the left that views the Obama foreign policy team as hawkish, whether it is or not.

That, in fact, is the very premise of this AlterNet piece. The author, Stephen Zunes, views essentially every Obama pick on foreign policy as highly interested in military intervention, and explains why. One way of looking at it, which even Zunes acknowledges, is that Obama establishes his non-ideological approach to things by picking people who lean right (or lean more right than some of the left would like).

Why does this matter, beyond the mere labels of things? Because if enough progressives mount complaints like this, it could have an impact on the shaping of policy. It is at least arguable that pressure from progressives already derailed the prospective nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA.

And Zunes spells out the strategy: "Another reason that an Obama administration will not likely be as far to the right as these appointments may imply is that his electoral base – energized by popular opposition to the Iraq War – is perhaps the most progressive in history when it comes to foreign policy. It is also the most engaged and organized base the party has ever seen. Once the relief of Bush's departure and the glow of Obama's inauguration has worn off, he will have to face the millions of people responsible for his election who will expect him to keep his word regarding 'change you can believe in'... As a result, what may be most important will not be the people that Obama appoints, but the choices we give them."

Indians Step Up Their Lobbying (And Pakistanis, Too)

Recent weeks have brought an influx in reporting about the lobbying efforts of Indians, all of which is worth checking out.

The Cable kicked things off with its report on the appointment of Richard Holbrooke to a South Asia envoy post. "But the omission of India from his title, and from [Hillary] Clinton's official remarks introducing the new diplomatic push in the region was no accident -- not to mention a sharp departure from Obama's own previously stated approach of engaging India, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan, in a regional dialogue. Multiple sources told The Cable that India vigorously -- and successfully -- lobbied the Obama transition team to make sure that neither India nor Kashmir was included in Holbrooke's official brief." They followed up on that later here.

Time magazine took a step back and examined the issue as a whole here, and the idea is that India doesn't want the U.S. butting in to Kashmir, and views the limited Holbrooke portfolio as a success in Washington. But the Obama team is saying lobbying had nothing to do with it; they'd always intended to leave India out of his portfolio, but that doesn't mean the administration won't be active on Kashmir.

Meanwhile, Indian-American groups have been getting involved, too, according to my CQ colleague Caitlin Webber, with a coalition of groups hitting the Hill this week to "urge lawmakers to make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on cooperation with investigations of November’s terrorist attack in Mumbai." And a group of Pakistani-Americans have been lobbying against such an idea.

Why's this all happening all at once? Well, what happened in Mumbai has ramifications for the U.S. -- on its domestic counterterrorism policies, on its agenda hunting terrorists on the Afghanistan border, and so forth.

But on a larger level less driven by a single recent news event, one of the people affiliated with the Pakistani-American lobbying effort said: “I think we are all going through a moment of transition. The U.S. is going through its own moment of transition, trying to find its voice, its soul, its destiny, and so is Pakistan and so is India.”

"Climate Change Will Be Increasingly Central To Our Foreign Policy"

That's what new Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry said Wednesday at a hearing where his remarks did not go entirely unnoticed but were overshadowed by the testimony of Al Gore. But it may have deserved to be the headline (and obviously it's what I went with). I already wrote just yesterday that energy/climate change will be one of the top three foreign policy issues of the year, at least on the congressional agenda.

It was a matter of both words and deeds. Wrote Time: "The fact that Kerry chose to make global warming the subject of his first hearing as chairman of the committee signals that in President Barack Obama's Washington at least, Gore's views on the severity of climate change and the need for action are gaining clout — and not just for environmental reasons."

The reason is not immediately obvious to anyone who hasn't thought about it much. But Kerry himself explained: "We are here today for the same reason our top military leaders and intelligence officials have been sounding the alarms. They describe climate change as a threat multiplier and they are warning that the cost of ignoring this issue will be more famine, more drought, more widespread pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity and human displacement on a massive scale."

The Congressional Security And Foreign Policy Agenda

I gave a speech today, as a CQ reporter, on the security agenda for the new Congress. It was an interesting exercise, to step back and look at it as a whole, and to look forward.

What I realized was that there's a lot more there than I expected for a Democratic Congress that will almost surely end up largely supporting a new Democratic president. I don't think there will be the kind of acquiescence to any and all executive branch proposals that marked the immediate post-9/11 environment, nor the kind of outright feuding on fundamental differences over the "how" of battling terrorism that has marked the last couple years. But I do expect there to be border skirmishes over the specifics.

Here's the list as I saw it, assembled with the assistance of some of my colleagues. Space will keep me from elaborating much, but these are topics I'll surely return to in this space repeatedly.

FOREIGN POLICY
--Nuclear proliferation (START treaty, test ban treaty, the UAE)
--Energy (climate change, energy demand)
--"Smart" power (reviving diplomacy, shifting roles from Pentagon to State)

DEFENSE
--Budget (debate over cuts at some point, likely for weapons makers, but supplementals until then)
--Iraq and Afghanistan (reviewing agreements with the Iraqi government, shifting the focus to Afghanistan)
--Veterans (increased care for Iraq ilnesses and lower-priority veterans, DOD/VA health care infrastructure)

INTELLIGENCE
--Interrogation (Guantanamo closure, whether to codify interrogation tactics, examination of past practices)
--Surveillance (court case outcomes, Patriot Act reauthorization)
--Authorization bill (cybersecurity, shape of the intelligence community)

HOMELAND SECURITY
--Chemical plant security (legislation/regulation expiring)
--FEMA as part of the Department of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano non-committal)
--Department oversight (Authorization bill, attention to border security, interoperatbility, surface transportation)

Guantanamo Bay: The Difference Between Bush And The World Vs. Obama And The World

The European Union tiptoe toward being willing to accept some Guantanamo detainees points to one major difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration: Bush evoked hostility from many traditional U.S. allies, while Obama has something of a clean slate, thanks to not having offended anyone yet and his generally more welcoming attitude toward international cooperation.

Now, some of the groundwork toward countries being willing to accept Gitmo detainees may have indeed been put in place by Bush's team. But even then, the sense was that buddying up to the new administration was the major goal, not doing favors for the outgoing team.

There is no huge cry for Gitmo detainees to be returned to the United States. The stray Democratic congressman says he'd be fine with them being in his district, but several lawmakers, albeit Republicans, have made a big fuss about the idea.

Karl Rove predicts that Gitmo will not be closed in a year. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of whether Obama can deliver on his plan. But if the international community gets on board, it will absolutely be significantly easier.

Closing Guantanamo Is Step In The Right Direction, Says Malcom Gladwell

I had the chance to interview Malcolm Gladwell about his new book "Outliers" today. But obviously I had to ask him about the effect President Barack Obama would have on America's standing abroad. "It can only go up," Gladwell who described himself as a centrist Democrat, answered, pointing out that while it is very early to make a call on that, the decision to close Guantanamo was an important step in the right direction.

After the full interview goes online at DW-WORLD.DE, I'll link to it from here.

Obama, Clinton Move To Take Some Diplomacy Responsibilities Back From The Pentagon

This AP analysis article has some interesting insights about the new Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but I was most taken by one section.

"[Clinton} intends to make more use of special diplomatic envoys, in part to move the U.S. away from its recent practice of increasing the power of military commanders to interact with foreign leaders. 'I believe that special envoys, particularly (as compared to) military commands, have a lot to recommend in order to make sure that we've got the civilian presence well represented,' she told senators."

It's not just that Obama and Clinton prefer diplomacy. The Pentagon under Bush increasingly took on roles that were once the exclusive province of the military. And in many ways, they still are doing those things. One wonders what Robert Gates thinks of Clinton's plans, not that conflict between Defense and State would be anything new.

Steinmeier's Agenda For The Day: Clinton And Guantanamo

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had a busy day today and was involved in at least two major international news stories. First, he talked to his new American counterpart Hillary Clinton to offer his congratulations. Clinton and Steinmeier agreed to meet soon.

And second, according to German tabloid bild.de, Steinmeier and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble agreed to meet in the next few days to iron out their publicly voiced dispute about whether Germany should consider taking inmates from Guantanamo. While Steinmeier said Germany should consider such a move, Interior Minister Schaeuble said he could not see why EU countries should grant sanctuary to people who are too dangerous for the U.S.

Left And Right See What They Want In The Foreign Policy Section Of Obama's Inaugural Speech

Sticking with reaction to Tuesday's inaugural speech, some interesting ideological types have dissected the foreign policy remarks of President Obama and their relative liberal or conservative qualities.

For the most part, both this Heritage piece and this U.S. News piece get it right. For instance, the Heritage author said that by referring to a "war" on a terror network, Obama seconded Bush (although Obama used "network" as opposed to "terrorism" itself, a slight but important distinction that nonetheless leaves the assessment basically accurate); by addressing foreign leaders to whom the United States will "extend a hand" to those who "unclench your fist," Obama was putting forward an opposite course.

At the same time, there was some hopefulness in the Heritage piece that Obama wouldn't turn too far away from Bush: "...how far world events will allow the Obama foreign policy to diverge from that of the Bush years remains to be seen."

The U.S. News author was correct to take issue with conservatives who somehow saw something new in Obama's desire to "defeat" terrorists, as though Democrats hadn't wanted to do so before: "The national Democrats who don't want to defeat our terrorist enemies only exist in the fevered mirror universe of GOP talking points."

Inauguration Day Foreign Policy Roundup

David Nather tackles President Obama's message to the world.

Caitlin Webber tackles how world leaders reacted to the inauguration.

BBC Monitoring tackles world media reaction.

Obama To Visit Berlin In April, Says German Magazine

Recently I wrote about the new president's travel plans and the race between European leaders to be the first to visit Barack Obama in the White House. While there is still no news on the latter, German magazine Focus reports that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Berlin in April. According to the report, Obama's staff is preparing a trip to the German capital after participating in a NATO summit on April 3-4 in Baden-Baden and Strasbourg. With his trip to Berlin, Barack Obama intends to thank Berliners for their support during his big speech there last year. No word whether President Obama will be allowed to do what candidate Obama was not: Give a speech at Brandenburg Gate.

Obama Clearly Will Hit Foreign Policy On Day One, But His Gaza Agenda Is Foggier

Multiple news reports make abundantly clear that as soon as President-elect Obama officially becomes president, he will hit foreign policy hard, tackling issues such as the Iraq War and Guantanamo.

Where the reports differ is on what Obama will do on the conflict in Gaza, short of naming a Middle East envoy, which has been reported most everywhere.

The Post: "Incoming officials were still debating yesterday how involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis should proceed during the first week. With a fragile Gaza cease-fire in place, the new administration plans to tread gingerly, working behind the scenes while allowing Egyptian and European initiatives to play out before taking a highly visible role."

The Hill: "After weeks of delivering speeches on the nation’s economic crisis, Obama is scheduled to meet with the Joints Chiefs of Staff and other high-ranking military officers on Wednesday and has promised to 'have plenty to say' about the conflict in Gaza after he is sworn in."

I suspect CNN's account reflects the differing sources some of the publications might have: "The Obama aides also revealed the Mideast crisis has shot to the top of the immediate agenda. The aides said Obama has been pushing behind the scenes for quick, decisive action, overriding the advice of some aides who believe getting active instantly may raise unrealistic expectations for Mideast peace."

Inauguration Party Time In Germany, Europe And Around The Globe

Finally, transition time will officially come to end on Tuesday with Barack Obama's inauguration. It's about time. Putting the -elect every time after President for almost three months is really long enough. I think many journalists share this feeling.

So before all the hard work begins for soon-to-be President Obama, it's time to party. If you are in Washington, DC on Inauguration Day, you probably cannot escape some sort of party or another. Still not sure where to go to though? Then just click here for a whole slew of party offerings in the U.S. capital.

In Germany, probably one of largest inauguration party's outside the U.S. will kick off at Club Goya in Berlin at 4 p.m. The event is hosted by Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad. Around 1500 guests are expected, including staff from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. While there are lots of other partys in most major German cities, Munich will be the first German city to stage an Inaugural Ball hosted jointly by Democrats and Republicans abroad. It happens at the Arabella Sheraton starting at 4 p.m. For tickets (75 Euro), send a mail to munichinauguralball2009@gmail.com.

Elsewhere in Europe, Austrians are celebrating Obama's inauguration at the Vienna Marriott, while Luxembourg's inauguration fest will take place at the hotel Sofitel. For parties in other cities in Europe and around the globe, check out the homepage of Democrats Abroad and select a country.

Have fun!

Trend?: Intervention-Oriented Picks For Obama Team

It's probably too early to call it a trend, but when one blogger on the left notices it and a magazine on the right notices it, it's at least interesting.

DanK at TPM notes a reported Obama hire on Russia who has an intervention-oriented mindset.

The American Conservative notes the same hire, plus another potential pick at the State Department, as being part of the same intervention-oriented strain.

Something to consider.

The Wisdom of Obama: Books By And About The President-Elect Are A Hit In China

Not only in the U.S. are President-elect Barack Obama's books bestsellers. As German daily Die Welt reports, Chinese readers apparently just can't get enough of Obama and his writings. A collection of Obama aphorisms is a huge success in Beijing's bookstore Sanlian, only to be topped by John Talbott's "Obamanomics". According to Die Welt, the President-elect's "The Audacity of Hope" sold more than 100,000 copies. There are more than 20 Obama biographies – most of them unauthorized – on the market as well. For a comparison: Five biographies deal with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, three with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Foreign Policy Promises Of Obama

A surprising fact: In a 2008 presidential campaign where foreign policy by all appearances took a backseat to the economy, President-elect Obama made more campaign promises on foreign policy than any other subject.

That's according to Politifact, which compiled all of his promises (510 in all) and segregated them by category (87 on foreign policy). The plan is to follow all of his promises and see which one he fulfills.

You can check out all the foreign policy pledges here, and go ahead and expect "no action" on some of them from now until 2012 or even 2016 -- Vice President-elect Biden said during the campaign that the economic crisis meant that some of the pledges to vastly increase foreign aid probably would go down the drain.

Global Poll Finds Decline of America's Image And High Hopes For Obama

A new global poll compiled by Austrian research company Triconsult right before the U.S. election (October/November 2008) provides some interesting data. It is essentially another confirmation of America's declined global image and the high hopes for President-elect Barack Obama. Here's a quick snapshot:

-Western Europeans (Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Finland) think that the U.S. will pay more attention to human rights under President Barack Obama and that America's image abroad will improve.

-Western Europeans believe Americans are more conservative and traditional than Europeans.

-In every country polled, a majority of people think poverty in the U.S. will tend to decline under Obama rather than increase. Americans also are of that opinion, but to a lesser extent than all the other countries.

-In every country but Russia people are convinced that environmental issues in the U.S. will improve under President Obama.

-Every country has higher hopes than the U.S. that the chances for world peace will improve under Obama. However, even in the U.S., more people agree rather than disagree with that view.

-A large majority (90 percent) of Western Europeans (75 percent of Americans) think that tensions between Muslims and Christians will remain the same or decrease.

-Three out of ten Americans think that the threat of terrorism will increase. Only one out of ten Western Europeans is of that opinion.

-Only in Turkey and Georgia do more people believe that America's influence in the world has increased. All other countries see the opposite.

You can get all the details and figures, as well as a lot more fascinating polling factoids here (in German).

If There Had Been Another Attack, Would Now-Controversial Interrogation Tactics Still Be Controversial?

There's a very deep pool of reporting right now that is looking back at the Bush administration's foreign policy and national security legacy, but I want to drill a little deeper on one specific issue: interrogation and detention policy.

Journalist and author Bob Woodward said the following in a recent roundtable: "If there had been other attacks, large attacks, many attacks, quite frankly -- and this doesn't speak well to the country -- probably these things wouldn't have been an issue, people would have accepted it and the dark side would have been okay."

Woodward's statements came on the same day he reported that a top Bush administration official said a terror case had to be thrown out because a suspect was tortured. And I think that just hints at why Woodward's prediction is somewhat false.

There are a great many reasons that "the dark side" may have ran afoul of the general populace even if there were additional terror attacks.

--It obviously can complicate terror prosecutions, making it harder to jail people who are guilty, and surely a segment of the electorate might have come to question it on those grounds.
--There is a considerable body of study questioning whether some of the tactics the Bush administration has acknowledged using produce good intelligence, since people enduring harsh treatment have been known to lie simply to escape said harsh treatment. Trained interrogators, psychologists and anyone with a pragmatic streak would have eventually spoken out about this no matter the number of attacks, I imagine.
--There would always have been a segment of the population that would have moral objections to the U.S. government embracing "the dark side."
--And, as a foreign policy "realist" argued Tuesday, waterboarding/torture has had, and would continually have had even had their been additional attacks, ramifications for the United States internationally; there is a plausible argument that the revelations of the United States' harsh treatment pushed more people toward becoming terrorists. If the tactics used to fight terrorists create new terrorists, surely at least a segment of the population would have wondered whether the tactics were effective. And that doesn't even factor in to the discussion any of the fallout all of this has led to for the United States' allies, whose help would still hypothetically be handy for fighting terrorists.

I'm not personally arguing for or against any specific interrogation/detention regime. I'm only arguing with the premise of Woodward's statement. I'm guessing that if there had been more terror attacks, it might have taken longer for the Bush administration's methods in the "war on terror" to have come under the kind of scrutiny they're under now. But they would have eventually.

Finland Open To Helping Obama Out On Guantanamo

In a good post over at the New Atlanticist, James Joyner outlines and analyses President-elect Barack Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo prison and the difficulties it presents. One of them is, as the AP reports, judging the mixed group of more than 200 inmates currently detained at Guantanamo. Another difficult step is to find countries willing to take the prisoners. Britain, who has been asked by the U.S. to take prisoners, said it was only inclined to do so if joined by other European nations. The UN has also called upon countries to accept prisoners. Not surprisingly, takers are not exactly lining up.

But in an interesting twist, Finland, which has no nationals detained in Guantanamo, has offered to take up to sixty inmates.

For a list (published in 2006) of prisoners at Guantanamo and their countries of origin click here.

Obama, Congress May Clash Over Merger Of Homeland Security Council With National Security Council

President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats have been a bit out of sync on intelligence issues. First he angered some congressional liberals who opposed a candidate for the CIA director's job, John Brennan, because they feared his views on interrogation and surveillance policies were too closely in line with the Bush administration's. Then, the candidate he did pick, Leon Panetta, drew some fire from a couple senior Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who were angry they hadn't been informed and had concerns about his thin intelligence resume. Those concerns now appear to have died down.

The next intelligence-related issue on which Congress and Obama may be out of sync is whether to merge the White House Homeland Security Council into the National Security Council. On the surface, it sounds like an easy decision -- why would you need a separate homeland security council when it's as much of a component of national security as anything else that falls under the NSC's purview? But the leaders of the House and Senate committees with oversight of homeland security are skeptical about the idea, because they fear it could lead to homeland security getting thrown onto the backburner. One's a Democrat and the other's an independent, and both say they're "open" to the merger, with some caveats. The top Republican on the Senate panel has similar concerns. Read more in my CQ story here (although you won't find the House chairman's point of view in that story, expressed to me but not published in the piece).

Which European Leader Will Win The Race To The First Meeting In The White House?

As Tim wrote, Barack Obama, in keeping with tradition, chose neighboring Canada as his first country to visit. On that note, it will be interesting to see who will be the first European leader to visit the new President in the White House, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown being the obvious favorites.

After Obama's big fanfare trip to Berlin last year didn't go down well with the French and the British, let's see which European country is picked to receive the first presidential visit. According to media reports, Poland is not faring too badly, having already secured a visit by President Obama in June. For an interesting perspective on how President George W. Bush prioritized his foreign trips click here.

Obama's First Foreign Trip: Canada

President-elect Barack Obama is going the opposite route of President Bush right away on one early foreign policy decision: A visit to Canada.

Bush, you see, went to Mexico as his first foreign policy trip, breaking a rather long tradition of new presidents visiting Canada first, one that Obama plans to restore, according to both the Obama team and Canadian officials.

As you might expect, they're happy about this in Canada, where it's something of a symbolic victory about the importance of their country. But that doesn't mean Obama won't have some contentious business to attend to once there.

Per the Vancouver Sun: "The meeting between [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper and Obama is certain to focus heavily on several key topics — the war in Afghanistan, climate change and the impact the global recession is having on the North American auto industry and Canada-U.S. bilateral trade."

Predictions For China-U.S. Relations Under Obama

How will China-U.S. relations fare under President Barack Obama is a topic many commentators have been tackling recently, going beyond the latest news that U.S. debt is becoming less appealing to China. Howard LaFranchi deems it likely that Obama may pursue a tougher stance on China than the Bush administration because of an increased focus on human rights and statements criticizing Beijing's monetary policy. That puts Chinese officials in a tight spot. While they felt comfortable with the outgoing Republican administration, the Chinese people are rather fond of Barack Obama.

China expert David Shambough, in an article in the International Herald Tribune, presents a brief history of Sino-American relations calling them a marriage of convenience. In his opinion, relations between both countries are currently the best since the Tiananmen crackdown of 1989.

Focusing on the most critical issue between the U.S. and China - Taiwan -, Bonnie Glaser offers eight policy objectives that she thinks are likely to be pursued by the Obama administration. Among the points mentioned are a possible change of rhetoric, not substance of Washington's "one China" policy and firm support for a larger Taiwanese role in international organizations.

In an editorial for Forbes, Gordon Chang presents his rather gloomy outlook on China for 2009. He argues that the ability of China's leadership to govern the country effectively is starting to erode, which leaves Chinese officials little margin of error. According to Chang, with three historic anniversaries coming up, 2009 will be a crucial year for China.

Obama Style: German Social Democrats Make Internet The Heart Of Their Election Campaign

Yesterday I wrote about how Rotterdam's new mayor has sparked comparisons with President-elect Barack Obama. Today, in another sign how the former Democratic Senator from Illinois and his campaign resonate with Europeans, the German Social Democrats (SPD), the country's oldest major party, officially launched their new and improved homepage in preparation for Germany's general election this fall. And who do you think inspired the SPD in their efforts? Yep, that's right, Barack Obama.

"The online campaign will become the heart of our general election campaign," Kajo Wasserhövel, in charge of the Social Democratic election campaign said. Taking a page out of Obama's hugely successful online campaign, the SPD has decluttered its old internet site, which looked like old newspaper articles that were cut and pasted online, as Germany's tageszeitung mocked.

No more. The new site comes with lots of large pictures, buttons for online donations and links to social networking sites. And it's not just the new internet site that smacks of Obamamania. Want to know how the party's Germanized stab at "Yes we can" sounds? "Anpacken. Für unser Land" (Let's tackle things. For our country).

According to campaign manager Wasserhövel, the Social Democratic homepage is only the start. The next relaunch is just a matter of time. German Foreign Minister and Social Democratic candidate for Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier's personal internet site is scheduled to get a makeover soon too.

To compare, check out the SPD's new homepage here and an old version from last January here. You can find Frank-Walter Steinmeier's personal internet site here.

And here's the original: You can find Barack Obama's internet site here and the Democratic Party's homepage here.

"One President At A Time" On Foreign Front, But Not On Economic Stimulus

On Gaza and other foreign matters, President-elect Barack Obama's team has repeatedly refused to weigh in on the principle that there is only "one president at a time." But on the economic front, Obama has stepped over that line.

It's hard to reconcile the two, just using one's brain. The closest Obama has come to explaining the difference is to say on Monday, per Politico, “I will continue to insist that, when it comes to foreign affairs, it is particularly important to emphasize that there is one president at a time... There are delicate negotiations taking place right now and we can't have two voices coming out of the United States when you have so much at stake.”

I suppose it's defensible, then, if President Bush isn't proposing his own economic plan, therefore meaning there isn't any interference in negotiations. Because is there really any reason there should be just one face representing the executive branch abroad as opposed to with Congress?

Much Ado About Nothing In Kashmir Over Obama's "First Big Foreign Policy Mistake"

Were you aware that Barack Obama had made his "first big foreign policy mistake?" And that it was a statement about Kashmir? The press in India and Pakistan is going bonkers about it, but it's not getting much ink in the United States.

Perhaps that's because the statement was made months ago, on the campaign trail -- which would make it difficult to qualify as Obama's "first big foreign policy mistake," since it was made before he was even elected, let alone inaugurated. Obviously, Obama's stance on Kashmir has its detractors, as you might have read back in November, when the remarks were first published. But if this warrants big headlines, now, in India and Pakistan, clearly there's a great hunger for any shred of U.S.-related news in that region of the world, because this one's a big reach.

Nonetheless, if you want to get caught up on this tempest in a teapot, you can read the Washington Times piece that started it all here. (And by the way, if the author of the piece was somehow alleging this was the "first big foreign policy mistake" Obama has ever made, in his whole life, or as a candidate for president, I'm sure Obama's critics and even his allies could find bigger so-called "mistake[s].")

Rotterdam Says Yes We Can Too

Amid all the major doom and gloom stories about the global economic crisis, the war in Gaza and Russia's power play with its gas exports, an important piece of good news was barely noticed by the international press. For the first time a major European city is being governed by a muslim immigrant. Ahmed Aboutaleb, Morrocan-born, was sworn in on Monday as mayor of the Netherland's second largest city Rotterdam.

Aboutaleb, who has been dubbed "Obama from the Maas" by Dutch media, is a Social Democrat who previously served as Secretary of State for Social Affairs in the Dutch government. The new mayor of Rotterdam was 14 years old when he immigrated to the Netherlands from Morroco. His job won't be easy: Rotterdam has the largest immigrant population among all Dutch cities and was the base of Pim Fortuyn, the right wing politician who was killed in 2002.

With Panetta To Head The CIA, Who Will Run The NSA?

With his decision to nominate Leon Panetta to head the CIA, President-elect Barack Obama has scored a huge surprise. While some politicians working on intelligence matters scratch their heads over the choice, other voices argue that intelligence experience may not necessarily be the most important credential for the job these days. And as former CIA director John Deutch told The Caucus, some of the most successful heads (George Bush senior being one of them) of the CIA possessed little or no intelligence experience.

By putting Leon Panetta in charge of the CIA, I think Barack Obama wants to achieve three things: He wants someone at the helm he can trust absolutely; he wants that person to put an end to interrogation/torture practices established unter the Bush administration; and he wants to symbolize a break from the past publicly. With Leon Panetta, there is a good chance he can fulfill all three tasks.

While the CIA, with its focus on human intelligence, is certainly the most widely known spy agency, the NSA with its focus on signals intelligence is arguably the more important one. Considering the recent warrantless surveillance scandal, it might be even more interesting to find out who Barack Obama picks to head the NSA.

A Foreign Policy Treasure Trove

From the Department of Stupidly Promoting Others comes this recommendation that you check out all the major, major new features over at Foreign Policy magazine's website, which has added like a gazillion foreign policy blogs, all of which show promise.

But if you're anything like me, you won't stop reading the (hopefully) good work we do here at Across the Pond, because this is an opportunity to supplement, not replace, with yet more good foreign policy analysis.

They hit foreign policy from every angle at each of the new blogs, and I won't link to every single one of them today; there are nine in all, and I recommend exploring. But I can tell you I'm personally looking forward to regularly visiting The Cable, written by the excellent foreign policy/national security writer Laura Rozen; The Best Defense, penned by Tom Ricks, the Washington Post defense writer who does great work; and Madam Secretary, which promises to "obsessive" about Hillary Clinton. There are some other heavyweights that just got hired -- go check it out.

And if this doesn't sound enough like a press release, here's the actual press release.

Richardson's Step Down Raises Questions About Replacement's View On Trade

On Sunday, Bill Richardson withdrew as President-elect Obama's choice to head up the Commerce Department, removing a voice from his cabinet who represents a more pro-free trade position.

Considering that Obama's pick for U.S. trade representative, Rep. Xavier Becerra, is seen as more skeptical of free trade (or, rather, more in favor of fair trade -- the dispute over wording here makes writing about this difficult), Richardson's departure leaves Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's pick for White House chief of staff, as the biggest counterbalance representing that stance. One wonders if Obama's team will replace Richardson with someone who reflects Richardson's point of view on trade.

Foreign Policy Predictions For 2009

Instead of looking back and writing a year-in-review kind of post as many others have done, I prefer to offer readers a few foreign policy-related predictions for 2009 from across the web.

Kathleen McFarland at The Fox Forum predicts:

- A resurgent Russia will lead Ukraine to cancel its plans for membership in the European Union and fall back under the Russian sphere of influence. Europe will do nothing about it.

- China will see social unrest by the end of the year. The Chinese government will quell the unrest and restore order.

Charlie Edwards at Global Dashboard predicts:

- Britain will increase its troops in Afghanistan by spring. Germany, France and Italy will do so as well in October after a deal with the Obama administration.

- The U.S. or France will fight a brief, but intense, war in Somalia.

- Benjamin Netanyahu will win elections in Israel in February.

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be voted out in elections in Iran in June.

- Prime Minister Recip Tayyin Erdogan will end Turkey's bid to join the EU and turn east instead.

- Mexico, the world's leading narco state, will descend into total chaos and destabilize the region.

Janet Daley at the Daily Telegraph predicts:

- No dramatic foreign policy shift vis-a-vis Russia, the Middle East and Islamist terrorism under President Barack Obama.

- No significant international agreement for global financial regulation will be reached.

Michael Goodwin at the New York Daily News predicts:

- Stories about friction between President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will surface within six months.

- Pakistan or Iran, not Gaza, will be involved in a serious international crisis.

Agree or disagree? What are your predictions for 2009?

Confirmation Hearing Watch

If you're interested in following the Senate's march of nominees for hearings and confirmations, two locations of note:

1. This New York Times piece that lays out the current schedule.
2. This CQPolitics.com blog that posts new hearing dates as they happen.

Few of the nominees of interest to this blog -- i.e., those with foreign relations roles -- or much of any of the nominees, in fact, are expected to encounter any real resistance from Democrats who control Congress.

But it's an opportunity to stop relying on speculation and get from the horse's mouth the incoming administration's views on Afghanistan and the like. Per the times: "The confirmation calendar, at this juncture, promises to be manna for policy wonks as everyone gets a glimpse of the incoming administration’s plans and its collective (or not so) thinking."

Obama Rings In New Year In Hawaii, Merkel, Sarkozy And Berlusconi Favor Switzerland

While Barack Obama will round out his last pre-presidential Hawaii vacation with the traditional New Year fireworks, several European leaders will ring in the New Year in Switzerland. According to Swiss media reports, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has booked a place in Crans-Montana. Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are expected to vacation either in Klosters near Davos or in St. Moritz, depending on which media source you trust. Wherever they stay, there is plenty of snow to go around, which is after all one of the reasons why people go there.

Wherever you are celebrating 2009, Happy New Year to you.

An Answer To The Guantanamo Bay Dilemma?

This doesn't appear to have gotten much attention in either the news or blogging world, coming as it did on Christmas day and making its way ashore over the weekend:

From The Australian -- "The US State Department confirmed that, over the past 12 months, it had cabled more than 100 countries seeking help to clear out Guantanamo Bay. The incoming administration of Barack Obama is expecting help with resettling more than 250 detainees still at Guantanamo Bay, some still considered dangerous but many regarded as not being a threat."

From Bloomberg -- "Australia may accept detainees from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, subject to legal criteria and their individual cases... Australia joined Germany and Portugal in voicing a willingness to take some Guantanamo detainees."

The Australian examined some of the pros and cons of it from Australia's point of view -- pro: curry favor with Washington at a crucial turning point; con: bringing even alleged terrorists to one's country can't be that popular -- but I've not seen much else. Are there downsides for the U.S., though? (h/t Think Progress)

Should Obama Say Or Do Something About Gaza?

With no sign of the violence in Gaza letting up, the pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to publicly take up the issue is growing. While Obama is in, what Tim aptly described, a holding pattern on Gaza, some critics from the left demand that he should become engaged now for Middle East Peace and speak out about the Gaza crisis. Meanwhile critics from the right argue that Obama is doing exactly what President George W. Bush has been doing and got hammered by the press – taking lengthy vacations.

I think both criticisms – from the left and from the right –are off the mark. Let's start with the easy one: There is one big difference between Obama's vacation in Hawaii and President Bush's: The latter one was in office when he was on his way to set a vacation record. Obama is not yet President. Let's see how long his vacations will last once he resides in the White House. And just for the record again: As a long vacationing European, I think even presidents deserve long vacations once in a while.

What about the demand then that "Obama and his aides should be openly counseling the Bush administration to use every diplomatic avenue to promote a ceasefire and, above all, to urge against an Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza"?

First, it may sound like a cop-out when Obama's team insist over and over again that there is only one president at a time. But it simply is true. Second, it is probably fair to assume that Obama and his foreign policy team are in constant contact with the Bush administration about Gaza. And third, what would such a public plea to the Bush administration or a clear condemnation of Israeli air strikes in Gaza achieve on the ground? Nothing much would be my guess. After all, at this point whatever Obama could say would be just words and no action. Would that make Israel halt its pounding of Gaza? Probably not. Would that stop Hamas shelling Israeli villages? Probably not.

What it would do though is already force Obama to reveal some kind of Middle East policy at a time when he and his team may not be ready to do so. As Jon Ward analysed in the Washington Times, Obama's silence gives him time to assess the situation and his reaction. I also agree with David Corn that Obama hopes that this crisis is over before he takes office and the Middle East will persist as a serious problem, but the immediacy of it will have passed.

Corn also makes a great point I haven't heard before. Asked about Obama's foreign policy priorities, he argues that because Obama is facing so many pressing global issues he doesn't have a vertical, but a horizontal to-do list.

Nobel Laureate Predicts Obama Will Change Economic Policy And Improve Regulation

Nobel-winning economist Robert Solow predicts that President Barack Obama will lead U.S economic and foreign policy in a different direction: "The Obama administration in the coming four, but probably eight, years will bring real change to economic policy and foreign policy," Solow told German business daily Handelsblatt in an interview (in German). "But I don't think that the nature of American capitalism will change dramatically. But at its fringes there will be changes and it will be better regulated."

Asked whether he would accept a position as advisor to Obama, Solow, who received the Nobel prize in 1987 for his work on economic growth, said that Obama doesn't need a 84 year-old advisor. Instead, Solow added: "Obama should look for younger advisors among my students – which he has already done."

Concerning the financial crisis, Solow doesn't think the current situation is comparable to the global crisis of 1929. "Nobody believes that unemployment in the U.S. will rise to 30 percent," he said. "We are talking today about an active fiscal policy that goes in the right direction, while taxes were increased in the 1930s. Today, no one in their wildest dreams would come up with something like that. We have learned from that crisis."

Oh, if you have been trying to figure out an explanation for the financial crisis and failed to come up with a cogent one, don't fret, even a nobel laureate in economics like Solow is flummoxed: "I don't think that normal economic thinking can help explain this crisis."

Obama In A Holding Pattern On Renewed Middle East Hostilities

Two Timeses, one in London and the other in New York, have taken looks at what the increased Middle East hostilities will mean for the incoming Obama administration, and they come up somewhat empty.

That's because Obama is insisting on maintaining his position about there only being one president at a time who should speak for the United States. And really, it's not as if either paper suggests he even has any alternative.

The best quote in either story comes from Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center: "What this does is present the incoming administration with the urgency of a crisis without the capacity to do much about it."

That leaves both papers searching, as the Times of London says is happening in the Middle East right now, trying "to decipher the candidates' often conflicting policy statements for clues as to how the new administration intends to proceed," referring to both Obama and his Secretary of State nominee, Hillary Clinton.

It was worth a try, but fairly fruitless. I've written before about the value of such exercises in the past; this time, little gets accomplished.

Merry Christmas, Barack Obama: Intel Officials Say Terrorists Plan WMD Attacks

In a rather unpleasant Christmas gift for the incoming president, yet another expert analysis has warned of the threat of weapons of mass destruction attacks, per the AP's Eileen Sullivan.

The report by the Department of Homeland Security details a variety of threats over the next five years, which roughly coincide with the first Obama administration. But the threat of WMD attacks stands out. They would do the most damage, and some have theorized that the reason the U.S. hasn't been attacked in the homeland since Sept. 11 is because they don't want to bother with anything that doesn't eclipse the 2001 assault.

Lest it seem like the kind of persistent warning that some view as hype, the report does note that WMD attacks would be very difficult to carry out. But between this report and that of the recent WMD commission, it's exceedingly clear that expert Washington opinion points to the need for the Obama administration to focus heavily on WMDs.

Christmas Celebration A La Obama, Merkel And Steinmeier

Even world leaders take some time off for the holidays. If you don't know by now where and how (turkey and ham in Hawaii) President-elect Barack Obama is spending his Christmas break, you have probably chosen to observe a self-imposed media blackout for the last days.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christmas vacation usually receives less press coverage than does Obama's - which she is probably not too unhappy about. Just like last year, she travelled to the mountains to do some cross-country skiing. As we are told, the Merkel family Christmas menu featured goose, prepared by the Chancellor herself.

Foreign Minister and Social Democratic candidate for chancellor, Frank Walter Steinmeier, spent Christmas with the family in Westphalia. For dinner on Christmas eve, the Steinmeier's had Kasselerbraten with Sauerkraut. The Steimeier Christmas also features singing under the christmas tree and going to church.

Whether you are on the beach, in the mountains, or simply staying at home: Happy holidays!

Hillary Clinton Plans To Strengthen State Department's Role In The Economy, But How Is Less Clear

The New York Times has a fairly meaty piece about Hillary Clinton's intention to beef up (no pun intended; OK, pun intended) the State Department.

Among the highlights: She wants to strengthen the State Department's portfolio on economic issues; she could name special envoys to places like Iran and India; and she has given one official the role of pushing for more money for diplomats.

The latter two are fairly straightforward. Although the piece said the push for an expanded State Department could bring Clinton into conflict with other administration officials, it simultaneously says that Pentagon chief Robert Gates and incoming national security adviser James Jones are on board with giving more resources to State. That fits with the incoming administration's greater emphasis on diplomacy.

What the piece leaves out is whether the administration's economic team backs Clinton's ideas. And it's not especially clear what the State Department would do that was different from what it does now, like whether State would steal some jurisdiction from Treasury or perform new roles altogether. Those kind of unanswered questions aren't uncommon for a piece delving into discussions about decisions that aren't final, but they will be worth watching to see how they get resolved.

Change The Constitution For Arnie?

Let's be honest, ever since election night we have been inunandated with everything we ever wanted to know about the President-elect Barack Obama and his upcoming administration: his foreign policy team of rivals, his economic team, the challenges he will face as of January 20th, whether or not his cabinet choices include too many Clinton holdovers, whether or not Liberals or Republicans have reasons to be happy about Obama's cabinet picks, and so on. Let's not even start to look at the more gossipy aspects of the President-elect.

So while we are all a little fatigued after six weeks of incessant news about 44, let's look beyond the next four years of the Obama presidency and enjoy some news relief straight out of the state of California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told 60 Minutes that he would like to be President of the United States. Problem is the Constitution would have to be changed since Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in Austria. But as he told 60 Minutes: "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high they are almost impossible to achieve."

What are the odds that an Austrian-born Governor of California could become president? A presidential betting site for 2012 has odds for lots of possible candidates including Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Ron Paul and Brian Schweitzer. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not (yet) on the list.

Wishes For President Obama

Well, it's that time of year again. Reuters asked German analysts and fund managers what they would wish from President-elect Barack Obama if they could ask him for one thing. I gather that the response from the finance community wasn't exactly overwhelming. Here are two people who actually had a wish for Obama:

Alexandra Hartmann, fund manager at Fidelity International, hopes Obama will see to it that the current printing of money ultimately doesn't lead to high inflation. Jens Wilhelm, board member at Union Investment, expressed his wish "that Obama won't wall off the U.S. and hurt global business activity through protectionist measures. The U.S. still serves as an important role model for the global economy. Therefore it is critical that Obama throws his weight behind the global business and finance system."

Not asking for all that much, are they?

To read their wishes in German click here.

Dennis Blair, Obama's Pick For Spy Chief, Also Comes With Questions

Seizing on a theme Michael explored here recently: The latest addition to President-elect Obama's national security team is said to be Dennis Blair for director of National Intelligence, and he, too, has endured a little criticism as the pick.

Bob Baer writes that the pick is "not quite inspired" in Time magazine: "The downsides to Blair's appointment are that there's little chance he'll lead the much-needed charge to streamline the intelligence community." And, Baer writes, his emphasis on tactical intelligence rather than strategic intelligence means that the spy agencies may be spending more time on soil samples than who has weapons of mass destruction.

Jeff Stein writes of some other problems for Blair; he made "controversial judgments" on North Korea's nuclear program, "dismissed the threat of Somali pirates to oil lanes" and came under scrutiny from the Pentagon's inspector general for alleged conflicts of interest.

And some human rights groups are upset at him because "during his term as Pacific commander, Blair was accused of going easy on Indonesian military officers accused of atrocities during a bloody conflict over East Timor, a former Portuguese colony seized by Indonesia in 1975 which became independent in 2002."

This list of gripes doesn't necessarily suggest Blair is a bad pick; some in Congress, such as Sens. Daniel Akaka and Jack Reed, have hailed him for his thoughtfulness, and NBC's Norah O'Donnell called him a "brainiac," per Stein. My sense is that he's a fairly well-respected figure in the national security community. But pointing out the knocks on him here serves as an addendum to the questions raised in Michael's piece about the other members of Obama's national security team.

Is Obama's Foreign Policy Team Really As Strong As It's Cracked Up To Be?

President-elect Barack Obama has received lots of kudos, i.e. here and here, for the selection of his foreign policy team. But sometimes in order to reach a broader perspective on a topic, it is helpful to get a contrarian view. In this case, it is provided by Melvin Goodman, a professor of international security studies at the National War College who argues that Obama has actually compiled a weak national security team. Here are a few snippets of Goodman's argument:

-In keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon, Obama has a "secretary of defense who does not support many of the foreign policy positions that the president-elect took during the campaign."

-In selecting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama made a choice based on "domestic political reasons."

- In choosing James Jones to become his national security adviser, Obama has picked a person who has "never been known as a big thinker on foreign policy issues; his appointment, moreover, places another key position in the hands of the military."

- With Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, Obama selected two key figures who voted for the war in Iraq" and with Robert Gates and James Jones key players who defended the war in Iraq.

"With these inadequacies in personnel, it will be difficult to reform the policy process and flip the switch on a series of Bush administration decisions that have harmed the interests of the United States," writes Goodman.

With the exception that Hillary Clinton was picked merely for domestic reason (one can certainly make the argument that she possesses foreign policy experience), Goodman's other points are factually correct.

The question is what would have been a better alternative? Should a president choose only people who have shown total agreement with his campaign platform? Should a president forego political experience as a factor in making cabinet decisions? Should a president ignore the political landscape and the fact that the country has been rife with partisan divide for eight years?

I think not. A president should not select positions and govern along strict partisan lines or single issue stances, but instead must at least try to practice big tent politics.

Merely By Winning An Election, Obama's Foreign Policy Views Prove More Popular

Here's an interesting result of Barack Obama's election win: For no apparent reason other than that he emerged victorious, the public has more deeply embraced his foreign policy views.

Two months before the election, John McCain was the significantly more trusted of the two candidates on Iraq. The war was unpopular, but there was less clamoring for the kind of pull out that Obama recommended -- and that was a pretty consistent poll result throughout the entire campaign. Generally, McCain polled better on foreign policy than did Obama.

Now? Fully 70% of those polled support Obama's plan. And with things about the same in Iraq as they were a couple months ago, it's hard to see why they would other than that the country is uniting behind its president-elect -- whether it's because America has always loved winners or because of the historic nature of Obama's campaign and his personal qualities. The shift may be related to growing optimism about the Iraq War, but that doesn't explain why other Obama foreign policy stances appear to have broad support they didn't before. It all adds up, per Talking Points Memo, to a "mandate." (At least, for now.)

Climate Cooperation Across The Pond

Another sign that under President Barack Obama Germany and the U.S. may become close partners in the area of renewable energy and climate change comes out of Washington this week. Germany's Ambassador to the U.S., Klaus Scharioth, introduced The Transatlantic Climate Bridge, a initiative to foster cooperation on energy and climate issues between the U.S. and Germany. Expressing hope that the new American administration will give great emphasis to the issue, Scharioth told the AP: "I think it is no coincidence that the first video message after his election given by the president-elect was on climate change and energy."

According to the Washington Times, Scharioth stressed that by working together Germany and the U.S. could become an engine for transatlantic and global climate cooperation. You can find out more information about the project here.

Is Kissinger The Key To Restoring U.S. Relations With Russia?

Henry Kissinger's visit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow last weekend went practically unnoticed by Western media. I only found a brief piece by AFP on the topic. Not so with Russian outlets. RIA Novosti and Russia Today reported on the talk between the former Secretary of State and the Russian President at Medvedev's residence outside the capital. Kissinger, according to those accounts, agreed with President Medvedev that U.S.-Russian relations could and should be improved. Coinciding with the talks, the Russian navy in a display of strength was on route to visit Cuba for the first time after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Kissinger, while pointing out that he wasn't speaking for President-elect Barack Obama, stated that he was maintaining contact with the new administration and was sure an attempt would be made to improve the relations. According to Russia Today, "Kissinger said the destinies of both countries are closely interlinked and both can contribute to peace and progress in the world."

Kissinger's visit was also the theme of a RIA Novosti editorial. In the piece, titled "Looking into Obama's eyes," Dmitry Kosyrev gives the foreign policy veteran an important role in the future of Russian-American relations. While the best and the brightest of America's foreign policy community are mulling about repairing the relations between the countries, the "Republican Kissinger is the number one magician there," writes Kosyrev and adds: "Mr. Kissinger is playing a key role in getting out of this deadlock."

Whether Henry Kissinger, who had endorsed John McCain, is in fact playing the pivotal role described in the RIA Novosti editorial is an interesting question that, unfortunately, I can't answer.

So I'll just end with the rather challenging conclusion offered by the RIA Novosti editorial: "Medvedev and Obama are not the only ones who should look into each other's eyes. Our two countries should do the same."

Reports, Reports And More Foreign Policy-Related Reports For Obama, This Time On Genocide And Health

The foreign policy and national security reports from special task forces, commissions and institutes continue to pile up on President-elect Barack Obama's desk, all with recommendations for his incoming administration. They include the work of the Project on National Security Reform and the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. Two others are of more recent vintage.

On Monday, the U.S. Institute of Medicine issued a report calling on Obama to double health aid to poor countries, among other recommendations. Last week, a somewhat little-noticed report from a special task force on genocide also recommended that Obama increase funding -- this time to handle crises, among other, more prominent suggestions. (I say "somewhat little-noticed" because it took until Monday for the New York Times to give it some editorial attention.)

The trouble with any recommendations involving foreign policy funding is that while no one in the Obama camp has said foreign aid funding will decrease as a result of the economic crisis, they have signaled that they will scale back their original foreign aid ambitions. Another risk is that the reports, which should be taken seriously because they come from esteemed foreign policy hands or well-regarded specialists, could get lost in the shuffle of a transition where everyone wants something from the incoming administration.

Washington's Cuba Policy Due For A Facelift

In a previous post, I wrote that under an Obama administration a change of U.S. policy towards Cuba would be in the cards. Over the last couple of days, there has been a slew of articles arguing the same case: President-elect Barack Obama has a historic opportunity to shift Washington's stance toward Cuba. In an editorial for McClatchy, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, argues that a "new, decisive policy toward Cuba, wrought by the new "change" president, will send a clear signal to the world that America is back." To that effect, writes Wilkerson, Obama should lift the American travel ban for Cuba, amend the Helms-Burton act and temporarily lift the trade embargo to allow humanitarian aid for Cuba.

A similiar line is taken by an editorial by Florida's Charlotte Sun newspaper. "Southwest Florida historically has enjoyed a fruitful relationship with Cuba. Now, we're merely a landing spot for refugees. It's time for a policy change," states the paper and calls for an end of the travel ban, reengagement of communication with Cuba, and the establishment of a comprehensive approach to the relationship with Cuba.

Articles in the Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor conclude as well that a change in Cuba policy under President Obama is symbolically important to his change agenda and at the same time doesn't force Obama to spend too much political capital.

Framing Free Trade For President-Elect Obama

My CQ colleague Joseph J. Schatz gives considerable attention here to the dynamic of the free trade debate as President-elect Obama prepares to take office. There are a lot of moving pieces: the recession, skepticism about the value of free trade, Obama's own complex views on trade. He also touches on the subject of Rep. Xavier Becerra's potential appointment as the U.S. trade representative, a subject I addressed here.

A passage that sums up the piece, which I recommend to anyone who cares about the next four to eight years of free trade policy in the United States:

"Proponents of unfettered trade find themselves walking a fine line, extolling the economic benefits of trade while also being careful to acknowledge its costs to workers. Free-trade skeptics are finding narrower distinctions, too, accepting the reality of globalization — and distinguishing free trade and fair trade, for example — while pursuing their cause of protecting U.S. jobs.

This is the environment that President-elect Barack Obama, a professed internationalist, will confront as he develops a trade policy that defines the role the United States will play in an increasingly global economy.

Obama sent conflicting signals on trade during the presidential campaign and his transition to the White House, and that conflict is reflected in his incoming Cabinet as well. The man he is expected to name as the U.S. trade representative, Xavier Becerra has said he regrets voting for NAFTA as a member of the House in 1993; Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was instrumental as President Bill Clinton’s chief lobbyist in getting it passed."

Will President Obama Wake Up Solar Power's "Sleeping Giant?"

At Across the Pond, we wrote earlier about Barack Obama's fondness for Germany's rapid development of solar energy. The President-elect may want to look into the German solar success story even in times of economic turmoil because, as Reuters reports, the sector is comparatively stable and has the potential to create lots of jobs. The question is whether the solar power's "sleeping giant," as Frank Asbeck, founder of the leading solar company SolarWorld, has called the U.S., will wake up under President Obama.

Did Secretary Of State Rice Vote For Obama ,And If So, Does It Matter?

After lauding the fact the the U.S. elected its first African-American president, Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice in an interview with CBS Radio was asked whether she voted for Barack Obama. Her answer left Washington Post columnist Al Kamen who spotted the segment in the interview asking "So that's a yes?"

Rice's statement lead Toby Harnden, Washington Editor for Britain's Daily Telegraph, to conclude that the she had indeed voted for Barack Obama instead of her party's candidate John McCain. I think Harnden is right. The statement by the Secretary of State does give the impression that she voted for Obama. Question is: Does it matter if she did? And if so, should she come out and make it public as did her predecessor Colin Powell?

What do you think?

Cool Tool V: Advice For President Barack Obama

There are numerous reports, analyses and policy papers by think tanks, experts and policy wonks out there explaining what the next President should or should not do. Sure, you might ask, but who has the time to track them all down and decide which ones are worth reading. The answer: The Carnegie Foundation. They have compiled all the worthwhile stuff giving policy advice to President-elect Barack Obama starting with A as in ACLU to Y as in Yale School of Forestry and Environment. It is organized in five categories Defense, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security and U.S. Economy.

It's a great tool for policy wonks, but also for everyone interested in just browsing through interesting analysis. You can find it under advicetothepresident.org.

Supreme Court Rejects Hearing Obama Citizenship Case

As expected, the Supreme Court decided not to review a suit claiming that Barack Obama was born a British national and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States.

Here's the link to the document (via Below the Beltway)

Even though there is at least one more case challenging Obama's eligibility undecided, it looks rather likely that it also will be rejected.

So probably everyone making travel plans for the inauguration on January 20 can go right ahead.

Should Becerra Accept Trade Representative Job, He Would Not Fit Into The Obama Pick Pattern

Overshadowed somewhat by President-elect Obama's picks for his national security team is the offer Obama reportedly made to Rep. Xavier Becerra to serve as U.S. Trade Representative.

On the global front, as some (including myself) have written, Obama has largely picked nominees who you could easily classify as "moderate." On the issue Becerra would be in charge of, he doesn't exactly fit into that mold. Although the Democratic party has shifted away from the ill-at-ease pro-free trade days of President Clinton, the more "moderate" position on free trade largely remains embracing free trade as much as possible.

Becerra reflects the majority of Democratic voters now rather than the political center on trade. He voted for NAFTA, but has since said he regrets it. He led the opposition against CAFTA three years ago. Of course, it is not accurate to say that Democrats who are saddled with the label of opposing free trade oppose it altogether; they oppose it without strict environmental and labor standards.

But Becerra is seen as a pick who would be more skeptical of free trade than past presidents. "Getting a U.S. Trade Representative who is on record against the NAFTA trade model and with votes against CAFTA and Oman is a huge change from both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration," wrote David Sirota. "The selection suggests Obama is serious about reforming our trade policies, and it should be applauded."

Obama's Citizenship, A Topic For The Supreme Court?

It is unimaginable. What if the Supreme Court decides that President-elect Barack Obama can't become President of the United States after all because he doesn't fulfill the requirement of having been born in the U.S.? A suit, to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, claims that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore can't become president.

While it is an entertaining what-if game, experts find it very unlikely that the case ever will be brought before the Supreme Court.

The Blog House by the Star Tribune thinks if Obama's Haiwaiian birth certificate is forged, as alleged in the suit, then "a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of States office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies. Sounds like a Vince Flynn novel."

I concur. The authenticity of Obama's birth certificate had already been a topic in the campaign and has been refuted convincingly. Here are again the links to Factcheck.org and Politifact.com who covered the issue in great detail.

For a review of what other bloggers have to say about the issue check out the Daily Intel.

Update: Readers commenting that the current case doesn't claim that Obama was born on foreign soil are correct. The claim in the current case is that Obama was a British citizen at birth. Thanks.

Obama And Biden Have Returned A Lot Of Congratulatory Calls From World Leaders, Huh?

Once a week or so since the election, the transition team of President-elect Obama has sent out e-mails about which congratulatory calls from world leaders Obama or Vice president-elect Biden have returned. About one month since Obama-Biden won, here's whom they've chatted up according to those e-mails, in reverse chronological order. So far, there have been no reports of any of them hanging up on him:

Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen
Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende
Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Kuwaiti Amir Sheikh Al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah
Qatari Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Indonesian President Yudhoyono
Afghanistan President Karzai
European Commission President Barroso
Haitian President Preval
Colombian President Uribe
Nigerian President Yar’Adua
Senegalese President Wade
South African President Motlanthe
United Nations Secretary General Ban
President Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina
President Bachelet of Chile
Taoiseach Cowen of Ireland
President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
President Saakashvili of Georgia
President Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines
President Gul of Turkey
Colombian President Álvaro Uribe
European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili
Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero
King Abdullah of Jordan
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
Israeli Likud Leader Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu
Polish President Lech Kaczynski
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Afghan President Hamid Karzai
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India
His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan
President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya

--Maybe I just didn't get the news release, but this AP story by Nedra Pickler from Nov. 7 says that Obama spoke to a number of foreign leaders on the Thursday after the election. "Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the president-elect spoke to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown." So there's a chance he's spoken to more leaders than they have officially announced, at least via news release that I've seen.

--Where there's duplication, it's when both men called said foreign leader. Not included: The G-20 meetings of Obama representatives former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Republican Congressman Jim Leach.

Historic Window For Obama To Change U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Cuba

Even though Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is doing his utmost to antagonize the U.S., American policy toward his country and Latin America as a whole will not change drastically under President-elect Barack Obama, experts asked by the San Francisco Chronicle predict. Unless unforeseen events occur, the continent will remain on the foreign policy backburner for Washington compared to global hotspots such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Cuba, however, is one area where an Obama administration could alter its policy. With all the focus on Obama's foreign policy team, a major shift of opinion among Cuban-Americans went almost unnoticed. For the first time, a majority of Cuban-Americans support ending the economic embargo and restoring relations to the island. According to a new poll by Florida International University in Miami, 55 percent of those surveyed favor lifting the embargo and 65 percent favor normalizing diplomatic relations.

With the support of a majority of Cuban-Americans, Obama is in a great position to fulfill his campaign promise to lift travel restrictions to the island. His pledge to engage with leaders of unfriendly regimes, among them Cuba, also received further endorsement by the poll.

So while the big picture of U.S.-Latin American relations will probably remain unchanged, a reversal of American policy towards Cuba is definitely in the cards.

Tim Roemer, Dennis Blair Speak On The DNI Job; Two Reports Recommend Overhauls Of U.S. Foreign Policy/National Security

On Wednesday, two organizations -- the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism and the Project on National Security Reform -- rolled out major recommendations for the incoming president and Congress to overhaul a great deal about the way the United States does foreign policy and national security. You can read my coverage of them here and here, so I’ll spare you an enumeration of everything they said, but the two organizations recommend everything from increasing non-military aid to Pakistan to expanding the Foreign Service.

At separate press conferences to release the reports, in my capacity as a reporter for Congressional Quarterly, I spoke to two people who helped assemble them and also happen to be two prominently “mentioned” candidates for director of National Intelligence. Neither spilled the beans, in keeping with tradition in these circumstances, but I pass their answers along nonetheless:

Dennis C. Blair -- “It’s all in the rumor stage right now. Let’s just leave it there.”

Tim Roemer, when I asked him if he was being vetted for a job with President-elect Barack Obama -- “Could be. Could be. No comment at this point, but we’ll see.”

U.S. Ambassador To Germany: Obamas Team Of Transatlanticists Is Good News For Europe

William Timken, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, will leave his post after three years in Berlin on December 5. In an interview with the Hamburger Abendblatt Timken, a supporter of President George W. Bush, talked about German-American relations and his view of President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy team. Here are a few excerpts:

-Ambassador Timken on the state of German-American relations:

"As part of the transition process I have communicated President-elect Obamas team my information and my assessments. And I have said that the relations are as strong, mature, balanced and as versatile as never before."

-Ambassador Timken on what the world can expect from President-elect Obama:

"An outgoing administration should be cautious to judge about the next generation. But I will say that every change in the leadership of a country can lead to a new era. We believe that the extremly high platform of the relations between the U.S. and Germany that we have developed into a true global partnership is an excellent starting point for the new team. They won't find any problems that they have to solve."

-Ambassador Timken on the selection of veteran politicians like Hillary Clinton and James Jones to Obama's team:

"As I said, it is not up to me to judge that. But it is obvious to everyone that Senator Clinton possesses broad political experience and the future national security adviser Jones knows Europe and Germany very well. So the message is clear: Obama has nominated genuine transatlanticists to his team. That is good news for Europe."

You can read the entire interview with William Timken (in German) here.

Republicans Not Sure How To React To Obama National Security Team Picks

With Republicans soon to be completely out of power once Barack Obama becomes president, their views on the roll out of Obama's foreign policy team got fairly short shrift in media coverage today. There's another reason for that fairly short shrift: There was no consistent reaction from conservatives to distill into its essence. They seemed torn between a desire to give Obama the benefit of the doubt publicly; genuinely pleased by the number of moderates he picked; interested in the strategic aspects of the picks; focused on finding fault with the nominees; or more intrigued by different, but related, subjects.

Rush Limbaugh called the selection of Hillary Clinton a "brilliant stroke;" Rep. Lamar Smith went after Janet Napolitano for her "weak" record on immigration. These are not the Republicans who led in Washington for years in part because they united as one voice -- which may have led to their downfall when President Bush dropped in popularity, leaving them seemingly unsure of how to react to their new standing. Reporters with space constraints can't be blamed for not knowing which Republican remarks to pick; but this being a blog, click on the links throughout the entry for some of the conservative reaction.

Rice Nomination Says To UN: U.S. Is Open For Business Again

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama announced today that Susan Rice will become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. What the fact that her position will be elevated to cabinet rank means is best deducted from a sentence uttered by former UN ambassador John Bolton: "It overstates the role and importance the UN should have in U.S. foreign policy," he told the International Herald Tribune. From Bolton's neoconservative stance, that is defintely true. For others, for instance Tim Wirth, the head of the United Nations Foundation, Rice's selection, as well as the elevation of her post, are an important symbol to the world that the U.S. intends to reengage with the UN again.

From an international perspective, I think Wirth is right. Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. pretty much sidelined the UN from the beginning, calling for a radical overhaul of the institution. However, under Ambassador Bolton who once said the UN could lose 10 stories of the 38 at its headquarters building without anyone missing them, one could get the distinct feeling that even if the UN agreed to change, it wouldn't be good enough. With Susan Rice, the U.S. declares that is open for business at the UN again.

While Rice, who penned an interesting piece about Bolton's nomination for UN ambassador, will be less hostile to the UN, she certainly is no pacifist and is ready to have the U.S. act unilaterally, if necessary.

By the way, for an ununsual look at Susan Rice's background and family history click here.

"Likely To Be Tested Soon" Vs. Easy Start For Obama On The International Front

It's always fascinating to see the analysis coming to completely opposition conclusions on the same subject. At the San Francisco Chronicle, the headline is "Obama likely to face foreign policy tests soon." At the Atlantic, Robert Kaplan expects "success" early, with enemies that have little motive or means to test the new president.

As you might expect, there's a little from column A, a little from column B that's true. For instance, Kaplan is right that Obama is inheriting an Iraq where conditions have improved and look favorable. But the Chronicle piece, by Zachary Coile, notes that "calls for a speedy redeployment could be tested if violence flares next year around regional and national elections." Both are accurate. Whatever conclusion you find most convincing, both pieces are worth reading to get a sense of the best- and worst-case scenarios Obama could encounter... soon.

Latest Intel: Clinton, Gates, Jones To Be Selected For Obama International Affairs Team, Mixed Reports On Other Nominations

A day and a half removed from President-elect Obama's announcement on some key foreign policy advisers, news reports have consolidated on accounts that: A. Hillary Clinton will take Secretary of State; B. Robert Gates will take Secretary of Defense; and C. James Jones will take national security adviser. Secondarily, the best intel suggests that Obama will nominate Janet Napolitano to run the Department of Homeland Security; Eric Holder, attorney general; Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence; and Susan Rice, ambassador to the United Nations. And even further down the organization chart, James Steinberg and Tom Donilon would serve as Clinton's and Jones' deputies, respectively.

Among the top national security/foreign affairs posts for which Obama will not name anyone just yet, you'd have to put head of the CIA and head of the Department of Veterans Affairs at the top of the list.

(Perhaps the most interesting story about the Clinton nomination, via the New York Daily News' excellent Ken Bazinet, is that she apparently passed up the chance to be Appropriations chair, which is about as powerful as you get in the Senate.)

Obama Might Go Celebrity After All: Foreign Policy Advisers To The Stars Could Join His Team

As I've said before, we're afforded very little room for light-hearted moments at Across the Pond, so I take them when I can get them. The current opportunity is afforded by the fact that the foreign policy advisers to George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are contemplating joining the Obama administration.

The L.A. Times has the details here. Men like John Prendergast, who's enlisted Jolie and others to visit Darfur, are said to be interested in signing up with Obama, although there's no word on whether the feeling is mutual. But if it happens, there could be a little more synergy between Hollywood and D.C., sometimes called "Hollywood for ugly people." (In fact, it looks the quote is most often attributed to old Obama rival John McCain.)

If it happens, this might come across as a superficial move by Obama -- but the two men featured by the Times had serious international affairs bona fides before they enlisted with Clooney, Jolie and company.

Despite Obama, Continental Divide Between Europe And The U.S. Will Continue

Sometimes an article comes along that expresses exactly how one feels about a certain topic. Eric Frey's piece in the Forward about the continuing continential divide between Europe and the U.S. is such an article for me.

Never mind that Europeans in Barack Obama finally got the president they wished for argues Frey, managing editor of Austria's Standard. Americans still better not to expect very much support from Europe when it comes to stabilizing Afghanistan and closing Guantanamo. His conclusion: "The old division that America does the fighting and Europe pays the bill is likely to continue in the new era of trans-Atlantic friendship."

You can read Frey's excellent article here.

Obama And Clinton May Have Set Aside Their Foreign Policy Differences, But What Will Some Other Leaders Think Of Clinton?

Joshua Keating at Passport makes a very relevant point about another potential hitch with President-elect Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State: Not only do Obama and Clinton have their differences to work out, but Clinton would have some differences to work out with some foreign leaders.

Clinton once said Russia's Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a soul," and had suggested the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran. Those are two of the countries with which Obama will inherit the most difficult U.S. relations, and dealing with countries like that was central to Obama's foreign policy message.

Keating writes: "Obama and Clinton have shown they're willing to put the bitter Democratic primary behind them. Will the rest of the world?"

Is Gates A Republican Or Not?

Tim wrote a few days ago about Robert Gates being asked by Barack Obama to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Gates is certainly Republican-leaning and served under President George Bush senior, but as Tim pointed out, he is apparently not a card-carrying Republican.

That doesn't stop many American and international media outlets such as the AP, Time, The London Times, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Zuerich's Tages-Anzeiger from describing him as a Republican. That begs two questions: One, is there a reference guide or a data bank to check whether someone is in fact a registered Republican or Democrat? And two, is it fair to label politicians as members of a certain party because of their political past or inclination, even if they are not officially a member of that party?

Is The Obama Administration The Third Term Of The Clinton Presidency?

The trickle of daily and sometimes hourly news of the administration positions filled by Barack Obama's transition team is a topic for many global news outlets. Here's a selection of how editorial writers from Austria, Spain, Belgium and Germany think about the names that have become public so far:

President-elect Barack Obama's choices for top government posts are a sure sign that he has truly arrived in Washington and that he has to govern with the establishment and not against it, if he wants to accomplish something, comments Austria's Der Standard. "Obama's instinct switched the mode of operation to pragmatism, which is exemplified by his selection - Hillary Clinton, James Jones, Robert Gates, Timothy Geithner, Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano who are all veterans.

As a team, they stand more for roll-up-your-sleeves problem solving qualities than for partisan squabbles. The visionary element, for which Barack Obama's campaign was attacked by John McCain as "socialist" has no place anymore in this power game." But that, writes Der Standard, doesn't have to be a bad thing: "Someone who really wants "change" is better suited with pragmatism than with revolutions."

Spain's conservative daily ABC (via dpa) argues that Barack Obama distances himself more and more from the idea of change than was the essence of his campaign. "The team that he surrounds himself with consists almost completely of politicians who had important positions under Bill Clinton. So far Obama relies only on veterans of the old establishment. One gets the impression that the U.S. is headed for a third term of the Clinton era."

The Belgian paper "De Morgen" (via dpa) focuses on how Obama's cabinet selection is perceived by the liberal wing of his party. "The progressive Democrats expected a radical break with the past. Not just with eight years of Bush, but also with the preceeding Clinton years. Instead, they get Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, a chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel), an attorney general (Eric Holder) and an economics team (Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers) who all earned their credentials under President Bill Clinton. Defense (Robert Gates) and National Security (James Jones) fall almost certainly in the hands of Republicans, even though the biggest change could be made in those areas compared to recent years of war."

Obama displays "an audacity for risk," comments Germany's Financial Times Deutschland. "To keep Gates is a wise but bold step because in his two years at the Pentagon he did an excellent job." Whether the choice of Paul Volcker to head a new special economic advisory group is a smart one, is debatable, writes the paper. On the one hand, it makes sense to establish a new body that doesn't have to concern itself with daily crisis management and can focus on abstract and long-term big themes like the reform of financial markets and the rebuilding of the U.S. economy. On the other hand, it is open whether this won't become a competitive group vis-á-vis the Treasury Department and the actual economic advisory group in the White House - the National Economic Council (NEC)."

Brennan Out, Gates In

What I was trying to get at here was that what President-elect Obama was putting together on his foreign policy team was something LIKE his oft-spoken "team of rivals," but not exactly. What he is putting together is something more like a "team of moderates," and Tuesday there were indicators that he was moving more in that direction still.

John Brennan removed himself from consideration of an intelligence post in the Obama administration. Brennan would have been the most Republican person in Obama's foreign policy line-up; he's been identified in news accounts as a "a lifelong Republican" who converted to Obama. But what about Robert Gates, you say? Gates, like Brennan, has served in the Bush administration, and there was word that he was the pick to stay on at the Defense Department for a while. Where Gates and Brennan are different is that Gates apparently has never been a Republican. But he's assuredly a moderate, like some of the other choices.

Next week, the rest of the Obama foreign policy team is up.

Hillary Clinton As Obama's Top Diplomat: Good Choice, But For Whom?

Although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the U.S. and international media are convinced that Hillary Clinton will in fact become Barack Obama's Secretary of State. One has to be careful with political guesswork, but I also think that it is a done deal. Since it became public that President-elect Obama has pretty much offered the job to Clinton and details of the vetting process have been reported, it is hard to imagine how Senator Clinton could not get the top foreign policy position. It would be a servere blow for Hillary supporters, Democratic party unity and Senator Clinton herself, if she didn't get the job after all. The only imaginable scenario, in my opinion, is some kind of serious ethical issue that would compromise her ability to function as America's top diplomat.

With Senator Clinton's ascent to the State Department considered to be a shoo-in, many outlets are already commenting what a Secretary of State Clinton would mean for the Obama administration, the U.S., and the world. Never shy to make his case, Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate why a Clinton in charge of foreign policy is the last thing we need. In a nutshell: "In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own." As far as Hitchens is concerned, to pick Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is not magnanimous and wound-healing, but foolhardy and masochistic.

Not impressed as well with Hillary Clinton as Obama's choice for secretary of state is the Financial Times. Not so much for the reason Hitchens' mentions, but for what the paper interestingly calls her lack of foreign policy experience. According to the FT, there are far more qualified candidates, so the question is why President-elect Obama wants her for the job.

Why did Obama pick Clinton is also the question David Corn poses. Unfortunately, he doesn't come up with an answer. Steve Clemons, a couple of days ago, took a pretty useful stab at answering the question, arguing that Clinton could play the role of bad cop while Obama portrays the good cop. For Clemons, Clinton as secretary of state is a brilliant, but also a risky choice.

Meanwhile from a more global perspective, the Jerusalem Post asks what's to worry about a Secretary of State Clinton that is decidedly pro-Israel, which is exactly why, according to the Washington Post, some in the Arab world are not enthused about that possibility.

And finally, Germany's daily Die Welt in an editorial already predicts the return of Hillaryland. Secretary of State Clinton, according to the paper, will serve President Obama until a point of her own choosing. This time frame, writes Die Welt, could last until before the next presidential election in 2012. Then, offers the paper, the slogan in Hillaryland could be that one term for Obama is good enough.

What Can The Catholic Church Learn From President-elect Obama?

Barack Obama clearly won the Catholic vote. And while President-elect Obama received a congratulary message from Pope Benedict XVI right after his election victory, the welcome message by many American Catholic bishops wasn't that friendly. Last week Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, made news when he called Obama's policies "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic". Already earlier, America's Catholic Bishops vowed to confront President-elect Obama on abortion, stating that this is not an issue of compromise, but "a matter of absolutes."

Keeping the statements about Barack Obama by American bishops in mind, it is interesting to read what the head of the German Catholic Bishops Conference, Robert Zollitsch, said about the President-elect. Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung asked Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg: "Barack Obama has inspired people for his ideas. Can the church learn from Obama?"

And here is Archbishop Zollitsch's reply: "Obama has raised high hopes. It is the dream of America, that he alluded to. Through it, it becomes clear that man lives by hope, and that he needs goals, and also those kind of goals that reach beyond today. I see the danger here with us that we are turning into a society that is old from within. But we need the drive to inspire people to get involved. We as church proclaim a message that gives orientation and keeps people grounded. We have a hope that points not just into this world. I don't mean that as an empty promise, but as an incredible force for renewal that fascinates me until today about the Christian message."

The interesting aspect comparing Archbishop Zollitsch's answer to the statement made by Cardinal Stafford isn't abortion or any other issue. Archbishop Zollitsch surely opposes Obama's stance on abortion as much as his American counterparts. The interesting aspect is the tone and the receptiveness of Archbishop Zollitsch's statement. He didn't take the question as an opportunity to attack Obama, but instead analysed why he won and how the Catholic Church could learn from Obama's success. Again, that is not budging on issues important to the Catholic Church. Instead it shows a serious observation of and a willingness to apply the lessons learned by Obama's victory.

On Foreign Policy, Something Like A "Team Of Rivals" For Obama

Hillary Clinton and James Jones appear on track for key foreign policy/national security posts, Robert Gates might remain from the Bush administration and John Brennan may be next up on the nomination list. There's a trend here:

"..the emerging national security team appears to be centrist in orientation, with deep experience in many of the areas likely to be the focus of Obama's foreign policy -- including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and instability in Pakistan and the Middle East, where Obama advisers have been signaling a desire to make an early mark in the stalled peace process."

A Primer On The Global Aspects Of The Financial Crisis For Obama, Congress

The Congressional Research Service issues well-regarded reports to lawmakers that are never officially released to the public but that frequently leak more widely. Secrecy News is one of the organizations that specialized in scooping them up.

If President-elect Obama and Congress want a primer on all the options they have for handling the global aspects of the financial crisis, they could hardly do better than the CRS did in a report you can read here.

Al Qaeda Universally Thought To Have Made A Grave Misstep In Calling Obama "House Negro"

One of the arguments in favor of a President Obama -- not one that he predominately made -- was that, strictly by virtue of his skin color, he would immediately have an impact on the United States' reputation abroad. And he has proven very popular in many lands, particularly Africa, where people on the continent see a man who looks like them. But his skin color may now have tripped up Al Qaeda in a way that could be very damaging to the terrorist group.

In a new video, Al Qaeda #2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri referred to Obama as a "house Negro." The Counterterrorism Blog's Evan Kohlmann explains why Zawahiri did this: "Clearly, Al-Qaida is seeking to undermine the surge of popularity and enthusiasm for the Obama victory that has spread throughout the developing world, and particularly in Africa -- where Al-Qaida has strong vested interests in at least two ongoing military conflicts." But here's where the backfiring part comes in: "By playing the race card so quickly and so brazenly, al-Zawahiri may end up causing backlash against Al-Qaida in the very constituencies he is seeking to woo."

Over at Wired's Danger Room, Noah Schatchman notes the pettiness of it all: "Al Qaeda used to be the kings of propaganda, outmaneuvering the American media machine at every turn. Now, it's clear the terror group's information operators have stumbled, big time... That's right. The guys who used to kill people, just to get their death on tape, have been reduced to name-calling."

It is such a potentially monumental misstep that some folk -- starting with Spencer Ackerman -- are wondering why the State Department isn't making serious hay out of Zawahiri's remarks. "That sort of disruption is precisely what the U.S. needs to rapidly exploit," Ackerman wrote. "In both policy and public-diplomacy terms, the clay is still wet."

The Value Of Looking Ahead For Obama

The top-ranking intelligence analyst in the country gave a speech I attended today about the future of the Middle East. He identified a great number of factors that would contribute to that future, circa 2025: a “youth bulge;” the consequent need for more education; a slow shift away from oil as an energy source that would affect the region's economy; scarce resources; the possibility of Al Qaeda fading and other terror groups that may be more dangerous emerging in their place; whether autocratic governments can meet the needs of an increasingly demanding populace; and the prospects of a nuclear Iran.

The official, Thomas Fingar, said the Middle East is likely to be “at the center of an arc of instability.” But he also cautioned that the projections he made – which are from a forthcoming report – could be way, way off. Projections that far out, for decades upon decades, have been “universally wrong. They missed everything that was important.”

That said, I believe the below passage is the most important part of all this:

“The timing of these reports is deliberate, that we’d like to get it to members of a new administration for a last time around, a reelected, replenishing itself administration. New officials coming in with agendas, with expectations, to catch them in that window before they are consumed by the inbox and the press of day-to-day events. To think a little more about the world outside of their portfolio, the way in which events that are in a job jar of other officials might affect them, to link up their own aspirations and policies and concerns to those of others to begin to think about potential allies to be able to anticipate foreign reactions to it.”

Everyone in the intelligence world who thinks about the subject deeply makes this point all the time: One can’t get too caught up in the day-to-day crises and take an eye off the distant future. And if it sounds crazy to suggest a president who’s coming into an economic crisis and two wars ought to be thinking about 2025 at all, well, just consider that two presidential candidates spent the entire campaign saying that the United States should have been thinking about putting together a real energy plan years and years ago. And then consider how much different the world might be now if that had happened – on terrorism and gas prices, and how related those two things are to the United States’ Middle East policy, and on the dual wars the United States is waging for some combination of all that and then how those things are in and of themselves related to the current economic crisis.

The Complicated Parts Of Selecting Hillary Clinton For Secretary Of State

There’s much to be said for President-elect Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But I do think the positives have to be weighed against the potential negatives.

Newsday’s headline says “Clinton, Obama’s foreign policy views not so different.” Insofar as both are Democrats and have more in common with one another than they did McCain, that’s true. But during the primary, they were less alike on foreign policy than on any other issue. Obama’s main case against Clinton during the primary was that she voted for the Iraq War he opposed. Clinton’s main case against Obama during the primary was that he was too green to handle a foreign crisis, and that McCain would be a better president than him because of it. Obama got over the Iraq War vote issue when it came to selecting Joe Biden as his running mate, and Clinton saw fit to campaign for Obama, so that’s not insurmountable.

But that’s not their only policy difference. Obama and Clinton disagreed intensely over the terms of meeting with the foreign leaders of enemy countries. Assuredly, Obama watered down his “meet without preconditions” position as the campaign wore on, but if he wanted Clinton to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would she do it?

Additionally, there are structural issues here. With the Clintons, you never get just one. As the Washington Post wrote: “Bill Clinton's web of personal financial ties and public policy pronouncements about the world's challenges would instantly become a source of possible discord with a new Obama administration as his wife travels the same world circuit as America's official emissary.” And how would she and Biden divide foreign policy roles between themselves? Between the Clintons, Biden and Obama himself, we’re talking about more than one of what Henry Kissinger refers to as a “strong personality.”

It’s all very complicated.

CORRECTED: To accurately reflect Clinton's position on the Iraq War. Thanks to the reader who caught the mistake, purely of the mental variety.

Finally, Someone Explains How The Economic Situation Weighs On U.S.-International Relations

This is the connection between the economic crisis and U.S. foreign policy I kept waiting for someone to make explicit during the campaign.

From the Washington Post:

"Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.

U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said.

The crisis could also accelerate the shift to a more Asia-centric globe, as rising powers such as China gain more leverage over international financial institutions and greater influence in world capitals."

Read the rest here.

What Standard Would Govern The Obama Administration's Policies On Interrogations Of Detainees?

There's been some pressure building -- from Congress, from religious groups and others -- for President-elect Obama to implement executive orders that would eliminate all harsh interrogation tactics. On the surface, the fact that Obama said on the campaign trail that he opposes torture would seem to suggest he would. But things sometimes change on the path from the campaign trail to the White House, especially when those things aren't as simple as they might first appear.

I've compiled some statements over time from the Obama camp, including a top campaign adviser, John Brennan, whom some believe could end up in a prominent intelligence slot in the Obama administration. I also included a comment from an outside critic. The language on all of this is rather tricky. Different people hold different definitions about what kind of interrogation practices constitute "torture;" they range from the Geneva Conventions to one early Bush administration legal memo which stated that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" would constitute torture punishable by law. One proposal has been for all agencies to use an Army field manual currently governing Pentagon interrogators that would ban practices that include waterboarding, a kind of simulated drowning, in addition to other controversial tactics. You be the judge.

--Brennan before he joined up with the Obama campaign, CBS News transcript, Nov. 2, 2007:

“I think [waterboarding] is, certainly, subjecting an individual to severe pain and suffer, which is the classic definition of torture. And I believe, quite frankly, it's inconsistent with American values and it's something that should be prohibited."

“There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hardcore terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3,000 innocents.”

--NPR, July 7, 2008:

“Obama campaign spokesmen say he still thinks CIA interrogators should abide by the Army Field Manual, but he missed the last Senate vote on the issue.”

--Brennan on Obama, CQPolitics.com, Aug. 29, 2008:

“'He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case,’ Brennan said. ‘Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for.’”

--Brennan, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2008:
“All intelligence activities under an Obama administration would be ‘consistent with U.S. law,’ he added. CIA waterboarding or other questionable practices are ‘not going to be allowed under an Obama presidency,’ Mr. Brennan said.”

--Citing “one current government official familiar with the transition,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11, 2008:

“Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”

--Former intelligence analyst Melvin Goodman opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 14, 2008:

“Mr. Brennan, as chief of staff and deputy executive director under Mr. [George] Tenet, was involved in decisions to conduct torture and abuse of suspected terrorists and to render suspected individuals to foreign intelligence services that conducted their own torture and abuse.”

And then there's the whole question of whether Obama would establish a "torture commission."

Yemen And Algeria Are Two More Countries For Obama To Worry About

The apparently outgoing CIA director Michael Hayden on Thursday offered yet more countries to add to Barack Obama’s “worry” list.

In a speech on Al Qaeda, Hayden didn’t direct his remarks at Obama per se. But he was talking about emerging threats, and by definition that puts them on Obama’s watch. Aside from the immediate threats of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Hayden said there has been an unusual side effect to victories over Al Qaeda in Iraq and Saudi Arabia: The terrorist group is spilling into other countries.

His remarks on the subject, as prepared for delivery:

“…Remember, point number one was that al-Qa’ida is a determined, adaptive enemy. In face of setbacks, the senior leadership recalibrates. It constantly looks for ways to make up for losses, extend its reach, and take advantage of opportunities. We are seeing this clearly today in places like North Africa, Somalia, and Yemen.

The presence of extremist sympathizers, the availability of weapons and ungoverned space, and the lack of effective security make these areas attractive locations for al-Qa’ida recruitment and training, as well as attacks. In addition, North Africa provides an easy transit point for those destined to facilitate or carry out attacks in Europe.

The level of focus and activity we’re seeing in these areas is troubling. In fact, recent attacks and threats from [Algerian jihadist group] Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb are greater in scope and severity than any since the group merged with al-Qa’ida two years ago. The suicide attacks against an Algerian military barracks and nearby café in June, along with several recent attacks on French tourists and workers, underscore not only the group’s intent to strike Western targets, but its ability to plot and operate even under tightened security in Algeria.

In East Africa, al-Qa’ida is engaging Somali extremists to revitalize operations. While there has been no official merger, the leader of the al-Shabaab terrorist group is closely tied to al-Qa’ida. And the recent bombings in Somalia may have been meant, at least in part, to strengthen bona fides with al-Qa’ida’s senior leaders. A merger between al-Shabaab and al-Qa’ida could give Somali extremists much-needed funding, while al-Qa’ida could claim to be reestablishing its operations base in East Africa, a base that was severely disrupted two years ago when Ethiopia invaded Somalia.

Yemen is another country of concern — a place where al-Qa’ida is strengthening. We have seen an unprecedented number of attacks in 2008, including two on the American embassy. Plots are increasing not only in number, but in sophistication, and the range of targets is broadening. Al-Qa’ida cells are operating from remote tribal areas where the government has little authority, and they are being led or reinforced by veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mentioned earlier that the threat to Saudi Arabia was probably more external than internal. These developments in Yemen are a primary reason.

North and East Africa and Yemen serve as a kind of counterweight to the good news out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Make no mistake; these are not problems on the same scale as Iraq or Saudi Arabia, but al-Qa’ida’s strength in these areas demonstrates not only its adaptability and determination, but also its resilience."

Two Views: Republican Foreign Policy Felled The McCain Campaign, Or It Was Irrelevant To His Loss

In one corner, Fareed Zakaria writing for Newsweek: "The electorate has voted no on the current Republican ideology on foreign policy."

In the other, Joshua Keating writing for Foreign Policy magazine's blog: "If anything, voters saw Obama's foreign-policy vision as not objectionable enough to outweigh his perceived superiority on economic issues."

What does everyone else think about how much of a role Republican foreign policy played in the election of Barack Obama? Leave a comment to let us know.

(Me? I lean toward Keating's view, but disagree with some of the other points he raised.)

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: On Whether Obama Will Diverge From Bush On National Security/Foreign Policy

Democracy Arsenal takes reporters to task for, per Ilan Goldenberg’s words, “lazy” stories about “how absolutely nothing is going to change or everything will” on the foreign policy and national security front, now that Barack Obama is slated to become president. It’s a gross oversimplification of the articles he questions.

The Newsweek piece makes some valid points about the immediate, short-term hurdles Obama will face on his foreign policy agenda, such as the fact that getting to work on Middle East peace will have to wait until Israel’s elections in February and even, likely, after that. Goldenberg assumes that the readers of this piece will know that Obama won’t suddenly change the world, but I wouldn’t make the same assumption. Some Obama supporters I’ve spoken with have very high expectations. Some have toned them down. At any rate, I only see value in pointing out to readers the road map of bumps and hurdles that will make instituting Obama’s foreign policy vision difficult.

The two other pieces – the AP on Guantanamo and the Wall Street Journal on intelligence policy – are based on reporters’ sources telling them about specific plans underway. The Obama campaign has pushed back a little on the AP story written in part by the excellent Lara Jakes Jordan, who’s incredibly reliable in my experience; my employer, Congressional Quarterly, wrote a somewhat similar piece. At any rate, the article never states that the incoming administration intends to, as Goldenberg paraphrases it, “instantaneously” close Guantanamo. As for the Journal piece, my own reporting suggests there is some a question as to whether an Obama administration would want to be confined to the interrogation standards of a particular Army field manual. A top Obama campaign adviser told me in August: “He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case. Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for.” Surely many readers know that what campaigns promise and what presidents do once they get into governing mode sometimes end up being different things, as Goldenberg suggests. But if journalists didn’t point out areas where there was a gap between pledge and deed, what good would they be?

This objection, by the way, is no critique of the overall work they do at the Democracy Arsenal blog. It’s a good blog, one I link to often because it represents smart Democratic-leaning thinking on international/security affairs, and one I wanted Across the Pond to be linked to in return. I just object to this particular point.

Some Executive Orders With International Implications Under Review By Obama

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the incoming Barack Obama administration was considering taking action on a variety of executive orders, the unilateral actions presidents can take to make an immediate impact.

Obama would repeal some that President Bush put in place, as well as create new ones. I’ve compiled all the reported orders that have international implications, including those that touch on foreign aid, energy, the environment, immigration and intelligence.

The Obama team is considering getting read of Bush executive orders that:
--“…barred the use of U.S. funds by family planning groups overseas that provide abortion counseling.” (Bloomberg)
--“…linked assistance for combating AIDS in the developing world to requirements that health workers emphasize monogamy and abstinence from sex over condom use.” (Bloomberg)
--“…blocked California from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.” (Bloomberg)
--Allowed “drilling in fragile lands in Utah.” (Reuters)

The Obama team is considering new executive orders that would:
--“...create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.” (Post)
--“…chart a new course for immigration enforcement.” (Post)
--Require “that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act.” (Post)

But the Obama team is likely to keep an order that:
--Gave the executive branch “broad latitude for covert action in countries with which the United States is not at war.” (Associated Press)

That is surely an incomplete list. The Obama team has reportedly assembled a list of 200 orders that could be overturned, and it clearly has some new ones in mind that it wants to issue. One wonders if a couple other highly controversial Bush orders made the list, for starters: "...in October of 2001, President Bush issued an executive order establishing the tribunal system for enemy combatants. That was based on his authority as commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces. So was the NSA surveillance order, which set up the government’s ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps.”

Germany's Green Energy Companies To Profit From Obama Administration

German businesses stand a good chance of benefiting from the change brought by the President elect Barack Obama and his administration. "He will support renewable energy and that opens up great opportunities for German companies who are among the market leaders in that area," Klaus Zimmermann, president of the German Institute of Economic Research (DIW) told Focus magazine.

In fact, during the campaign Obama praised Germany's investment in renewable energy as a model.

Zimmermann is skeptical about the effects of a planned stimulus package by the new administration for the U.S. economy. The package with a planned volume of 60 billion dollars is rather modest, said Zimmermann and added: "I wouldn't expect too much from that stimulus package."

According to Zimmermann, due to the to massive budget deficit, the new administration will not be able to invest on a large scale. His advice to President elect Obama is to use the psychological effect that was created through his election to his favor and use it quickly. "In one year, this nimbus and all the glamor is gone."

Idea For A Compromise On Lieberman To Keep Him Out Of Democrats' Hair

Sen. Joe Lieberman has become a real quandary for Democratic leadership. He's an independent who functions as a Democrat, but endorsed John McCain and was extremely critical of Barack Obama. Some Democrats want him evicted from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where he could become a real thorn in the side of Senate Democrats and Obama, since Lieberman was most critical of Obama on his security credentials. Others fear taking away Lieberman's gavel would push him into the Republican fold, something he's indicated he might do.

The Washington Note has presented a tantalizing compromise: Strip Lieberman of the Homeland Security gavel, but give him something else -- anything that doesn't deal with security.

There is, however, one major problem with the idea. Lieberman, by committee seniority, is not very well poised to take over some of the panels The Note's Steve Clemons recommends giving him. He already has a couple subcommittee chairmanships, one of which would be stripped under this compromise because it's on the Armed Services Committee. Would the chairwoman of the Environment & Public Works Committee step aside to make room for Lieberman, or would the other senator more senior on the panel do so? It's hard to imagine they'd relish the idea of being robbed of authority that would result in anything nice happening to Lieberman. The one committee where Lieberman is best positioned to take over without any intramural fights is the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee -- not the most glamorous assignment, but maybe enough for Lieberman to save face and maintain some power in the Senate.

Iran, Afghanistan, Russia Top Foreign Policy Priorities For President Obama

Sure, the economic and financial crisis will be the unrivaled number one priority for President Barack Obama after taking office, and as some argue, even now.

But as exemplified by Russia's special way of congratulating the newly elected president, and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's lengthy message of congratulation, caution and advice to the President elect, Obama will simply not have the luxury to focus only on financial and economic turmoil at home.

So what are the most pressing foreign policy issues Obama and his team need to stay on top of?

For Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to a lesser degree Iraq, should be the near-term foreign policy challenges for President Obama. Haas also thinks the new President should not make an early trip to Europe, since there is no crisis that needs immediate attention by the American president.

Getting out of Iraq, cutting the military budget and telling the world that the U.S. is open for diplomacy are among the most important foreign policy issues, if you ask Slate's Fred Kaplan.

James Downey of the Irish Independent braces his fellow countrymen that "pleasing Ireland" will not be among Barack Obama's priorities - "his remote Irish roots notwithstanding." Consequentially, the rest of Downey's good analysis examines many other global topics that are more pressing than events on the Emerald Isle.

Obama's number one foreign policy priority should be to demilitarize U.S. foreign policy followed by removing foreign policy capabilities from the Pentagon and bringing it back to the State Department, opines Eric Margolis of the Edmonton Sun.

And finally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia make the list of Brian Wilson, a former Minister of State at the British Foreign Office. I stumbled over his piece in Scotland on Sunday due to its slightly trashy, yet classy headline (next to the picture that will come straight to your mind when you read it): "Can super Obama save the world?"

Who is right, who is wrong, and what global hotspot do you think they all missed?

Al Qaeda Unsure About How To View The Election Of Obama -- Unless The Experts Are Unsure About Al Qaeda

Which presidential candidate the terrorists wanted to win became a campaign issue, but now that Barack Obama is set to become president, they seem to be a little… confused. And making matters worse, experts are just as divided over Al Qaeda's attitudes toward elections.

During the campaign, a Hamas leader endorsed Obama; then, the Washington Post reported that Al Qaeda seemed to favor John McCain. Over at the New York Daily News, ace terrorism reporter James Gordon Meek has dug into what they think now. The answer? They are “flummoxed.” Some want to call a truce with Obama. Others argue that the United States is the enemy no matter who is president, according to Meek. But after the story published, one former counterterrorism operative told Meek he got the story wrong altogether -- contradicting what another expert told Meek. Either way, Meek pointed out, Al Qaeda still has not made any official remarks about the election results.

Is it possible that they don’t care? Meek found that much of the Internet chatter among Al Qaeda types was focused on Wall Street’s collapse, not the U.S. elections. And at the Counterterrorism Blog, Roderick Jones notes that Al Qaeda seemingly made no attempt to influence the election, and said that perhaps previous attempts to influence elections were misread.

Brzezinski: American Foreign Policy Will Change In Substance And Tone

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, told Deutsche Welle what kind of change he expects President Obama to bring to U.S. foreign policy: "There will be a change. There will certainly be a change in its philosophy, in its priorities, but there will not be a dramatic change in all of its manifestations. You have to think of foreign policy as, for example, a boat moving on the sea. A huge ocean liner doesn't change its course in the way that a fast motor boat does. Therefore it is not possible for the United States dramatically to change every one of its policies. But I think there will be a significant shift in substance and in tone."

To read our entire interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski click here.

Roundup: Hackers And Obama, Palin And Africa, The Exile Of McCain’s Foreign Policy Adviser And A “Sun Tan”

There are a flood of tiny items trickling out on the foreign policy front since the election, albeit with varying degrees of substance. Might as well hit a bunch at once.

--The most serious of these items is Newsweek’s report that foreign hackers broke into the computer systems of the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain. “Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps' policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration,” Newsweek reported. Obama’s team speculated the hackers might be Russian or Chinese, and it’s a good guess, based on the fact that counterintelligence officials say those are the two countries spying on us the most these days. President-elect Obama would be wise to devote some serious energy to shoring up the United States’ counterintelligence and cybersecurity efforts, subjects that are hugely important within the intel world these days but that received virtually no attention from the candidates.

--When Fox News reports something negative about conservatives, it must be paid attention to: The channel reported that, according to sources within the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin exhibited a knowledge of the world that I estimate wouldn’t have surpassed the understanding of a great many high school students or worse. Things like thinking Africa was a country and not knowing which countries are part of NAFTA. On one hand, it’s not as if Palin exhibited much understanding of foreign policy in public. On the other hand, feuding between McCain and Palin factions of the campaign broke out into the open late in the race, and this also sounds like a pretty transparent attempt at score-settling. Palin, for her part, says the story is false.

--Toward the end of the race, said a McCain campaign spokesman, foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann was exiled from the campaign, although the spokesman didn’t say why. An earlier report that said he’d been outright fired explained the decision by saying that Scheunemann had been infighting within the campaign on behalf of Palin. On one hand, given Scheunemann’s neocon credentials and Palin’s seeming inclination in that direction, it makes sense. On the other, that means he would have been siding with someone whose wardrobe was worth more to the campaign than him.

--In my rundown of foreign leader reactions to Obama’s election, I left out this one: Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi praised, as one of Obama’s attributes, that he was “sun tanned.” Berlusconi is notorious for his tendency toward controversial jokes, but this one was especially ill-timed.

Interviews With Blix, Kempe, Steenblock About Obama's Victory

We try not to do much self promotion at Across the Pond. But since we have done some pretty good interviews about the U.S. election at DW-WORLD.DE, allow me to pass on some links.

Here is our interview with Fred Kempe, President of the Atlantic Council of the United States and former editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.

Here is our interview with Hans Blix, former UN Chief Weapons Inspector and former Head of the IAEA (in German).

And here is our interview with Rainder Steenblock, OSCE election observer in Ohio and spokesman on European affairs for the Greens in the German Bundestag (in German).

I'll update the post, if I can provide English versions of the interviews.

The World Celebrates Obama -- But A Few Countries Already Have Demands

Around the world, leaders have mostly greeted the election of Barack Obama with enthusiasm, some of which is routine “congratulations to the new guy” you’d get with any U.S. election and some of which is no doubt informed by exhaustion with the President Bush years and a sincere appreciation of the unique accomplishment of Obama, as well as his more collaborative-sounding agenda on the international front. But not everyone is just offering friendly words; a few countries are lining up with demands.

ThinkProgress.org has the lengthiest rundown. Spain’s president expects “a more fluid and positive relationship” under Obama, no doubt a reference to some feuding with Bush over Iraq. Germany’s chancellor has had fairly close relations with Bush, but even she envisioned “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

But as I said, a few world leaders have already communicated their expectations. Afghanistan’s president said: “The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in our country, rather, our country is a victim of terrorism and we demand for civilian casualties to be eliminated.” Obama’s remarks about the need to cut down on those casualties and do more than military intervention were of course a subject of some controversy after Republicans made a political issue out of it. Russia’s president didn’t congratulate Obama at all, and aside from a vague expression of hope that Obama could improve relations between the two countries, Russia’s primary response was to announce its intention to station missiles near Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans for Europe – plans that Obama has been decidedly cool toward. Israeli and Palestinian leaders expressed a desire to see Obama bring peace in the Middle East.

Even the upbeat European Union was hinting at some potential conflict, as one of its officials said she would be in touch with Obama to “make sure we are working together on opening free trade,” arguably the area of Obama’s policies that makes Europe most nervous. A few countries were decidedly cool about the election of Obama. Other countries hinted more vaguely at hoping Obama would work with the world on the international financial crisis, energy, terrorism, food shortages, global warming and more than a few other subjects.

Already, Plenty On The Agenda Of President-Elect Obama

President-elect Barack Obama said tonight: "And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

Guess what, President-elect Obama? The European Union already has an agenda for you, because the eyes of the world ARE watching. In fact, they had the agenda before you won the race. You can read it here.

Since you've won, a few world leaders have had something to say, too.

(Oh, and if you didn't have enough messes to clean up back home: Wired's Danger Room would like to introduce you to the Pentagon.)

Vote, Watch And Party

Today is the day. If you live in the U.S. have fun voting. If you live outside the U.S. have fun watching how the election plays out.

In the mood for an election party? Go to The Washingtonian's After hours blog to find out where to hang out in DC. Go to Bild.de to find out where to party the election away in Berlin.

Looking Ahead On Somalia And Drug Violence In Mexico, The Shape Of The CIA And NSC And More

Following on the heels of the Director of National Intelligence’s forecast for the next president, some other outlets are getting in on the forward-looking game.

Foreign Policy magazine has a great list of issues that were neglected during the campaign, some of which overlap with the DNI’s take. The global food crisis and the rise of China made both lists, but Foreign Policy alone mentioned illegal immigration, drug violence in Mexico and instability in Somalia as topics either President Obama or President McCain would have to deal with that candidates Obama and McCain haven’t discussed much.

At the Counterterrorism Blog, Douglas Farah also laments the candidates’ lack of focus on Somalia, arguing that it is the foremost concern among non-state actors. “Whoever wins the presidency next week will face a series of international challenges from non-state actors that are being little discussed on the campaign trail and largely ignored by the media in the run up to the presidential vote,” he writes in a post that also mentions the spread of Hezbollah into sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. “It is too bad, as the next president will likely have to spend as much time on these issues as he does the economy.”

Newsweek, via Democracy Arsenal, paraphrases a McCain proposal to revive the old OSS intelligence agency but injects a little speculation that McCain wants to, in turn, dismantle the CIA. I think that’s coming from a spy community that’s worried McCain is too militaristic to defend the interests of a domestic intelligence agency, but my take was totally different – McCain has, in the past, criticized the Pentagon for wanting to hoard intelligence authority. It’s possible the neocon elements in his campaign dislike the CIA the same way all the neocon elements in the United States do and they’ve convinced McCain the CIA can’t be saved, but there’s no evidence of that theory. McCain hasn’t exactly said where the new OSS would fit into the greater spy community, so it’s easier to speculate on what he’d do to shoehorn it in there.

Bloomberg’s story on the presidential transition shares this tantalizing tidbit about discussions within the Obama camp about restructuring the National Security Council: “Among the array of questions being discussed is whether to restructure the National Security Council in light of post- Sept. 11 concerns about domestic security, says P.J. Crowley, who worked in Clinton's NSC and is leading those discussions. ‘I give the Bush administration credit,’ Crowley says. ‘They recognized they’d be turning over two active wars and a Department of Homeland Security that's still a work-in- progress.’” But how would it be restructured, exactly?

Wenders, Rosenquist And Jackson On The Next President

German daily Tagesspiegel asked a slew of prominent people what they would dream up for the next American president. Here's what director Wim Wenders, former NHL player and now coach of Berlin's hockey team Eisbären Berlin, Don Jackson, and pop artist James Rosenquist had to say:

Wim Wenders: "My hopes for the next American president are first that his name is Barack Obama and that he secondly brings this big, vast country out of its deep provinciality back to the world. Americans have been living far too long in an imaginary parallel world that is not taking into consideration the needs and hardships of our planet earth."

Don Jackson: "I am not saying that the current goverment was totally wrong, I liked some things about its philosophy. But the country needs a shift in direction. We had the "bad boy" Bush, now we need a more gentle face, because our image in the world has to improve."

James Rosenquist: "We will witness a slow, positive change in our economy should Obama win the election. I hope and believe that we will bring good statesmanship to our relations with the world because Obama is not afraid of negotiations. The new administration will not exhibit the same reactionary military conduct as the last one. I am an optimist because there are many good ideas out there that people could make use of. I look forward to better relations with Germany, Europe and the rest of the world."

For all the other voices collected by Tagesspiegel (in German), click here.

A Taxi Driver For Obama, And The Electorate In Microcosm

Nearing the end of the campaign, I want to return to where my excellent blogging cohort Michael began in his very first post: To a cab driver.

Since he’s in Germany and I’m in the United States, I’m obviously not talking about the same cab driver he was; I didn’t get the name of mine tonight, but I doubt it was Heinz-Gert.

He struck up the conversation, asking me about the election. I asked him if he’d voted yet, and he said he had not, but intended to on Tuesday. We talked about the long lines my sister-in-law perservered through back in Indiana last week, enduring a two-hour wait with my baby niece, and I told him to be prepared for it. As a Virginian, he’s in one of the two or three most important states to the outcome of the election.

Prying, I inquired about how he intended to vote. “I don’t mind,” he said. “I’m going to vote for Obama.” Why? “Because, in the debates, he was very steady,” he answered. “He is very cool.” Elaborating, he said that he thought Obama would be a level-headed, composed leader in a crisis, especially the current economic one. He’d felt the effects in his own line of business. Then he shifted to talking about people in his neighborhood and the people he drove around the Washington, D.C. area. “No one cares about the Iraq War this time,” he said. “Maybe a few.” And: “The Hispanics are really going to vote for Obama. They are so sick of the Republicans on immigration.” I shifted him back to his own opinions, asking him if Obama being “cool” was the main reason he was voting for him, or if it was a matter of his positions and party, as well. He told me he’d voted for Republicans before. “I like Obama,” he said. "But even if I didn’t like Obama, or if it was some other Democrat, I would vote Democrat. It’s just time to do something different, you know?”

It maybe isn’t the kind of ringing endorsement the Obama camp might have written, but it was clear that some of the messages the campaign wanted to get through had sunken in with my taxi cab man. John McCain may have the edge on foreign policy and experience, but Obama demonstrated to one Virginian that if there were a crisis, he’d be up to the job. Domestic issues, not foreign ones, are his preoccupation anyway, which is where Obama has placed the emphasis. The rest had nothing to do with McCain or Obama. For Hispanic voters who favor more forgiving immigration laws, you couldn’t ask for a Republican more inclined in that direction than McCain, but it doesn’t matter. McCain is a Republican in a year where apparently anything he said or stood for wouldn’t have changed the mind of the taxi driver or the Hispanic voters he knew of.

The driver doesn’t represent any scientific poll, and he surely doesn’t live in the regions of Virginia that would be most McCain-friendly. But I couldn’t have done much better than him, and he mirrors a great many of the scientific polls out there. As Michael said back in April: “What do journalists do when they want to know what the average Joe thinks about a certain topic? Right, they ask a taxi driver.”

Obama Paid 700,000 U.S. Dollars For Berlin Speech, So what?

Some conservative media outfits have been trying to make an issue out of the fact that Barack Obama's campaign paid approximately 700,000 U.S. dollars to German companies in connection with his Berlin speech this summer. I really don't see what the issue with those expenses is supposed to be. Obama's European trip this summer was meant to bolster his foreign policy credentials and therefore clearly campaign-related. His highly anticipated speech at the Victory Column was as much targeted to Americans back in the U.S. as it was to a German or global audience. So it is not particularly newsworthy, nor scandalous, that the Obama campaign pays for lighting, sounds and other services necessary for the Berlin speech.

Having said that, I also don't think the fact the McCain campaign paid for Sarah Palin's outfit is a major issue. Palin, before being nominated as John McCain's running mate, didn't have to be present on the national and international stage. If she had to upgrade her wardrobe as a result of it, those costs are also campaign-related. Politically, the price tag of Palin's clothes could be more of problem for the self-proclaimed spokeswoman of hockey mums. Admittedly the new wardrobe wasn't exactly a bargain. But seriously: It should be common sense that a vice presidential candidate meeting international leaders at the United Nations needs the proper attire for those events. I am sure hockey mums agree with that too.

Intel Chief: Next President Better Get Ready For Vast Potential Of International Conflict

As if the next president didn’t have enough to worry about, the nation’s intelligence chief has laid out a fairly daunting picture of the world over the next 25 years. The potential for international conflict, he said in a speech Friday, is huge.

In the short term, said Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, President McCain or President Obama still will encounter risks from Al Qaeda. The first months of the new presidency are a particular risk. But even if Al Qaeda fades, because of conditions in the Middle East, successor groups are likely to emerge. And no matter who wants to attack the United States, McConnell said, the risks of -- in particular -- biological attacks that could surpass 9/11 will rise, given the spread of technology. America should expect the threat of terrorism to stick around for the next 20 years or so.

But, McConnell said, the risk of international conflict elsewhere will rise between nations as China, India and Russia – in about that order – amass wealth and/or population, creating competition for resources as basic as food, water and energy. “In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power, now underway, as noted from West to East is without precedent in modern history,” he said. Brazil isn’t part of that West to East shift, but its rise factors into things. Russia’s growth depends on diversifying its economy, he said. An estimated 1.4 billion people across 36 countries will lack basic necessities like access to agriculture, prompting intense competition for resources. Technology will help countries get ahead, he said, but won’t replace the need for traditional resources. And climate change and “global economic upheaval,” per the Washington Post’s paraphrasing of McConnell, will exacerbate all of the problems.

McConnell has briefed both candidates on all this, in particular on the terror threat. All the bases of McConnell’s speech are covered between the Post’s take and AFP’s, here.

Dueling In Virginia Over Defense, A Local Industry

I’m reminded yet again by an ad war in Virginia that foreign policy and national security are sometimes highly-localized issues. I’ve written about this phenomenon before here.

In Virginia, the Pentagon is a prominent local employer. As such, the question of who would provide the most defense spending isn’t only about whether we’re safe from foreign enemies; it’s also about jobs.

To make their case, Republicans have leaned on retiring Sen. John Warner, who touts McCain. “I'm confident as our next president, he will continue to support and champion the historic role of the state of Virgina in our nation's defense,” Warner says in an advertisement highlighted by Politico’s Jonathan Martin. Warner is a highly-respected voice on defense issues as a recent former chairman of the Armed Services Committee; he’s immensely popular in his homestate of Virginia; and he has a reputation as someone who doesn’t make partisan attacks.* All three make the advertisement highly significant in a state where polls show McCain trailing.

In his own advertisement highlighted by Martin’s colleague Ben Smith, Obama counters a false attack the McCain campaign has been making that Obama intends to cut defense spending by leaning on one of McCain’s own advisers. “John McCain’s gotten so desperate, he'll say anything. His defense spending attack -- it's a lie.” The ad quotes McCain military adviser Robert Kagan: “Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines to fight terrorism.”

It's just the tip of the iceberg of the ad war underway there on this very issue. And in addition to the other examples I provided before, the Obama campaign has recently been running ads in Indiana, which has a heavily manufacturing-based economy, highlighting McCain's pro-free trade stance and claiming it would lead to jobs being shipped overseas. How strange would it be if, in a couple key swing states, foreign policy ended up being the deciding issue in an election ostensibly about the economy?

(*Notably, Warner himself refrains from making the false allegation about Obama’s plans for defense spending, instead paraphrasing recent remarks from a prominent House member, Barney Frank. “Barack Obama’s liberal colleagues in Congress announced they will cut defense spending by 25%,” Warner says, although from the remarks it seems Frank was only talking about what he wanted to do, not what he would do or what anyone else would want to do. “Fellow Virginians, cuts in the defense budget will weaken Virginia's economy, weaken national defense.” It’s an upgrade from the false attacks on Obama’s intentions. Why not let voters decide if they’re comfortable with Obama in office if some [or even just one] Democrats want to cut defense spending, instead of making stuff up entirely?)

World Media's Predictions For An Obama Administration

Yesterday I wrote that many commentators in the U.S. already focus on what a Barack Obama administration would look like. Well, it's not just American editorialists that read the polls, commentators across the globe do too. So here's a sample of the how the world media projects an Obama presidency and what it means for their particular regions.

"Unlike Palin, McCain, or that Action Man doll of contemporary Republican politics, Joe the Plumber, no one in Europe is ever likely to call president Obama a European Socialist," reads the last sentence of Clive Leviev-Sawyer's blog post titled "Could Obama really be a president for Europe" in Bulgaria's Sofia Echo.

Another Eastern European take on an Obama presidency stems from Ukraine's Kyiv Post: "There are many ways that Ukraine and the U.S. can improve relations. Unfortunately, we believe both nations are heading into a period in which other priorities will trump bilateral relations. But we also believe that progress can best be made, and needless conflict avoided, by Obama as president." You can read the entire editorial here.

"What's next if Obama wins," asks Canada's largest urban weekly, Vancouver's Straight.com, The final paragraph of the longish article trying to answer the question reads like this: "Hopefully, as he tells us, Obama will bring "the change we need" and usher in a new day for the economy, social issues, and international relations. Before that day comes, however, we should probably follow Bette Davis’s famous advice in All About Eve: "Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night." For the extended version click here.

Out of Africa comes a sobering prediction what a President Obama will mean for the continent. "Not terribly much. The combination of American interests lying geographically elsewhere for the most part, and a predatory political class that sees control of the state in Africa primarily as a mechanism for personal accumulation, will determine that. The fact that Barack Obama is a black man will not change that stark reality," writes Bill Hansen, who teaches at the American University of Nigeria. You can read his editorial here and find his blog here.

The African perspective offered by myjoyonline.com, a leading information portal out of Ghana, is not as bleak as Bill Hansen's: "Evidence from the presidential campaign in the United States has shown that Americans are not looking forward to a black president in the White Hose, only an American president. Similarly, Africans are not expecting an African president of United States to deliver them from the negative aspects of their predicament; they expect an American president who will relate to the people of the continent with dignity, respect, and on merit."

McCain Argues The National Security-Economy Connection, But Not As Adeptly As He Could

I’ve written repeatedly in this space – in my very first post back in April and plenty more since the economic crisis began to take root – about the links between the economy and foreign policy on the campaign trail. Per the Washington Post Thursday, John McCain is trying to make more of an argument out of it.

The argument, though, was a little muddled. "Raising taxes and unilaterally renegotiating trade agreements as they have promised would make a bad economy even worse, and undermine our national security, even as they slash defense spending," McCain said in a speech. "At least when European nations chose the path of higher taxes and cutting defense, they knew that their security would still be guaranteed by America. But if America takes the same path, who will guarantee our security?"

As the Post notes, Barack Obama has not proposed cutting the defense budget. He has proposed cutting specific programs, as has McCain but overall, he’s always made it clear that defense spending would increase somewhat under his administration. But McCain also failed to make an interesting point very explicitly with his remarks – that if the economy suffers, so does the United States’ security. A writer for the National Review did a better job of it recently. McCain has argued before that raising taxes – setting aside the question of whether Obama wants that – would hurt the economy, but just reading that quote, it’s hard to understand why McCain thinks that higher taxes would hurt national security in turn. Additionally, there is an argument McCain could make that Obama’s stance on trade agreements could hurt the country both economically and on the world stage – again, setting aside the question of whether McCain is right – but McCain doesn’t make that case very explicitly. And he doesn’t really elaborate on any of this in his speech.

The Post notes that Obama also has tried to link the economy on national security. “We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” he said. That’s a clearer message, more easily understood.

Generally, both candidates have been effective at times in making the link between international and economic issues. “Both candidates have also made it clear that economic issues loom large on the international agenda for the next four years,” the Post wrote. “Both pledge to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. And although neither has sketched out a detailed plan for dealing with the international economic crisis, one of the early challenges facing a new administration will be how to restructure international economic institutions.” McCain’s latest message is not an example of that, and it may be too little, too late, but I’ve always wondered why McCain didn’t try more often to link domestic issues to what is commonly thought of as his strength on foreign policy issues.

What Will A President Obama Do?

With all the major polls for some time now signaling a lead by Barack Obama over his opponent John McCain, many commentators focus on what an Obama presidency would mean for the U.S. and the world. William Drozdiak is one of them. In a guest editorial for Deutsche Welle, the President of the American Council on Germany sketches the most pressing issues facing an Obama administration, and how the Democrat can go down in the history books as a truly transformational leader.

After you read William Drozdiak's piece here, drop us a comment and let us know whether you agree or disagree.

United States and Russia Have Indeed Had “Like, Fishing Disputes,” Not That It Proves Anything About Palin

On Tuesday, GQ’s Robert Draper published a blog post that quoted a top official with John McCain’s campaign amplifying on the defense of Sarah Palin’s international experience -- which is that Alaska is close to Russia -- by saying that Alaska and Russia have had “like, fishing disputes.”

It is true that there have been fishing disputes in the region. It’s not a tiny sum at stake: Fishing for Alaskan pollock is a billion dollar industry, and the pollock catches constitute “the largest human-food fishery in the world,” according to the Los Angeles Times. As those fish began to migrate toward Russia, tensions have escalated; the U.S. is worried about Russian poaching of the fish and mafia influence in the fish trade, as well as Russian opposition to U.S. scientists studying the phenomenon.

On the other hand, it’s not exactly been World War III, or whichever World War number is in vogue these days. After the broader, non-fishing specific Palin-Russia argument became prominent, a reporter who worked in the region a couple years ago wrote of a trip aboard a Coast Guard vessel: “Every once in a while, a Russian fishing boat would appear on the boat's radar, and the Coasties would have to board and inspect it. At that point, he would be called upon to translate. But this didn't happen very often. I asked him what he did the rest of the time. ‘I lift weights,’ he replied. ‘And play a lot of poker'... I guess the Alaskan-Russian front was more exciting than I remember it being -- I mostly recall seeing a lot of whales.”

So even if it was an issue Palin had gotten involved in, it certainly doesn’t suggest Palin had acquired any major international experience in dealing with it. But as it happens, I searched far and wide for any evidence that Palin had gotten involved in the fishing dispute, to no avail. On the contrary, I only found evidence that she had not been. Slate’s Fred Kaplan wrote in September, when the Palin-Russia argument was first being trotted out at length: “There are no issues between the United States and Russia in this region, except for the occasional tussle over fishing rights (in which, even so, Gov. Palin has never involved herself).”

The McCain campaign, and conservatives generally, have tested a lot of different messages by way of explaining how Palin has the foreign policy experience necessary. In fact, a conservative strategist apparently unaffiliated with the McCain campaign trotted out the “fishing dispute” argument all the way back in September, but no one took it seriously, except a liberal blog or two that mocked it. They might have been better off just picking one story and sticking to it, because they come in for a fresh round of mockery every time they throw out a new explanation. The reason is because Palin has no substantial foreign policy experience, and it’s just not possible to explain her into having it. And the McCain campaign knows it. Draper also recently wrote that he was sympathetic to a pair of campaign aides who had remained loyal by not “leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me -- namely, that Palin simply knew nothing about national and international issues.”

Why Are Most Russians Neutral On The Presidential Candidates?

Russia's relations with the West, particularly the U.S., are strained for a whole host of reasons. Russia's military action in Georgia, the Bush administration's plans for missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Russia's use of its huge energy resources as a political power tool are just a few of the issues of disagreement between Washington and Moscow. So one would think that for all these reasons Russians have a keen interest in the American presidential elections and hope that President George W. Bush's successor may want to give Russian-American relations another go.

So what do Russians think about the election, and do they favor Barack Obama or John McCain? Surprisingly, at least from my research, there is not all that much information about that topic available. So it's helpful that Deutsche Welle's Moscow correspondent Alexandra van Nahmen wrote about it in her weekly column. "I hope Obama wins," is a sentence one here's a lot in Russia when the topic is the U.S. election, writes van Nahmen. According to her article, Russians, like the rest of the world, also want Obama to be the next president. A recent poll found that 22 percent of Russians would vote for Obama; only six percent would vote for McCain. But the most stunning number is this: The remaining huge majority of those polled said they could not answer the question.

Assuming the poll is correct, why do the majority of Russians not have a clear opinion whether they want Obama or McCain in the White House. Unfortunately, since I'm not Russia expert, I can't answer that question. But perhaps some of the knowledgeable Russia bloggers like Robert Amsterdam or Sean's Russia Blog want to take a stab at it.

McCain Calls For Stevens -- An Old Foe On Earmarks, Defense Spending And Contracts, Detainee Policy And ANWR -- To Step Down

A handful of outlets, since John McCain called for Sen. Ted Stevens to step down following his conviction at his corruption trial, have made mention of the fact that the two have fought over earmarks. That has been the biggest source of animosity between the two, but not the only one, a search of my full-time employer CQ’s records shows.

Indeed, a close second are two fights the pair have had over respective pet issues with a national security bent. One of Stevens’ biggest legislative goals has been to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in his home state of Alaska to oil exploration. When Stevens tried to add a provision to that effect to a Pentagon spending bill in 2005, McCain called the maneuver “disgusting.” Likewise, Stevens tried to stand in the way of a McCain provision to ban cruel and inhuman treatment of terror suspects during consideration of the same bill. Stevens wasn’t as vociferous in his language toward McCain’s pet item as McCain was toward his, perhaps because he knew momentum was against him. “I asked him if we could take it out, and he said no,” Stevens said in his role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. “It does seem to me that he has the votes.”

There have been other conflicts, too. The earmarks feud between the two has sometimes spilled into Pentagon spending. Again in 2005, McCain called earmarks in the Defense spending bill (that Stevens helped negotiate) for non-defense projects like parks and museums “obscene” and “disgraceful.” And after a furor erupted over the award of an Air Force tanker contract that benefited a European company (EADS) instead of U.S.-based Boeing, Democrats tried to pin the blame on McCain, who had fought attempts to steer the contract toward Boeing because, he said, taxpayers deserved an open competition to see who could do the job best with their dollars. Along the way, McCain and Stevens again crossed swords. Wrote CQ’s John Donnelly this year: “McCain led the way in 2004 to block a no-competition contract for 100 Boeing 767 passenger aircraft that were to be modified as military tankers. That proposal was championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who now is preparing legislation that would give Boeing an undefined piece of the new contract.”

There have been smaller skirmishes between the men on national security issues, such as how best to free radio spectrum up for the use of first responders like police and firefighters who would need it in the event of a terror attack. And much of their skirmishing died down once Democrats took control of Congress again in 2006; they even have lent support to each others’ reelection campaigns. But that doesn’t mean the relationship has been warm. When it appeared that McCain was on the verge of winning the GOP presidential nomination, CQ’s Kathleen Hunter wrote, Stevens was asked whether conservatives would rally to support McCain. “They’ll have nowhere else to go,” he answered coolly.

Are Europeans In For A November Surprise?

Based on the assumption that Barack Obama will win the presidential election, John Vinocur wrote an interesting piece in the International Tribune predicting that "Obama's fans in Europe are in for a big surprise." I had written about the same topic in June.

In a nutshell, Vinocur argues that Obama will disappoint his European followers by clearly putting American national interests first. A President Obama would not simply be one multilateral player among other world leaders that Europeans hope for, but instead decide what's in America's interest. Vincocur lists the economic crisis, but also foreign policy issues, such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia as examples where Obama would take a different tack than expected by Europeans.

What Obama would handle differently than his predecessor is style, writes Vinocur: "He would be following Bill Clinton, once described by Denis MacShane, then minister for Europe in Tony Blair's cabinet, as "a Social Democrat who put Europe on Valium, who could schmooze Europe, talk European."

So what is your take on that? Is a President Obama bound to disappoint Europeans, or will the honeymoon last?

Electronic Voting Machines Leave Room For Manipulations, Warns Europe's Biggest Hacker Group

Electronic voting machines used for the U.S. presidential election on November 4 are easy to manipulate and pose major security risks, warns Europe's largest hacker group. "The electronic voting machines by all manufacturers still have major security gaps," Constanze Kurz, spokeswoman for German-based Chaos Computer Club (CCC), told AFP.

According to Kurz, paperless voting machines, i.e., systems that don't record the results on paper as well, are especially problematic since neither voters, nor the election commissions have a reliable way of controlling the outcome. It is to be feared that the election result announced in the U.S. "hardly reflects the true intention of voters," Kurz said.

The security gaps affect both the hard- and software of voting machines, Kurz, who is writing her Ph.D. thesis on voting machines, told AFP. Memory cards, whose data is distorted when uploaded to the central election computer, are one example of the problems facing electronic voting machines, according to Kurz.

The spokeswoman for Chaos Computer Club criticized the manufacturers of voting machines who normally oppose the disclosure of their concepts and thus "give the trade secret a higher priority than the demand for transparent elections." She expressed the hope that electronic election machines could be phased out by the next presidential election in 2012, due to increasing public criticism and a looming lack of trust for politicians. Until then, however, manipulations are possible, said Kurz.

One of the goals of the Chaos Computer Club is to expose security risks to the public, not just in Europe, but internationally. Most recently, it has acquired and published the fingerprint of German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble to protest against the use of biometric data in German passports.

For Your Amusement: Sarah Palin's Stylist Vs. John McCain's Foreign Policy Adviser

Couple days late on this, but passing it along in case anyone missed it: Sarah Palin's stylist makes more than John McCain's foreign policy adviser.

There's not much to it; sure, one could raise questions about Republican hypocrisy for attacks on John Edwards' expensive haircuts, or questions about whether the McCain campaign values style of substance. It's an amusing diversion at best, any way you cut it.

I wouldn't even mention it in this space if it wasn't foreign policy-related. But amusing diversions on the foreign policy front have been few and far between this year.

Obama Running Mate Gives McCain His Foreign Policy Message For The Finale

And so, in the stretch run, foreign policy is thrust back onto center stage. One of the McCain campaign’s three major messages in the final days of the election will be to highlight the remarks of Joe Biden that Barack Obama will be tested on the international stage early on in his presidency. “We will focus like a laser on those messages in the closing days,” a McCain campaign aide told the Washington Post in a Friday story, with the other two chief messages being that Democratic control of Congress and the White House is dangerous and Obama’s remarks to “Joe the Plumber” about “spread[ing] the wealth.”

Biden was supposed to bolster Obama’s foreign policy credentials, but instead he has given John McCain some of his best ammunition to attack Obama on that front. Obama tried to wriggle out of it by saying that Biden was referring to the next president, no matter who it would be. It’s my own estimation that adversaries of the United States would want to test either Obama or McCain early, but it’s also pretty clear from Biden’s original remarks that he was referring explicitly to Obama. He said: “The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Now, it is true that Biden, despite saying that Obama would need “help,” also has strongly argued that Obama is equipped to pass the test. But it’s ironic that on the subject Biden was meant to strengthen the ticket, he has instead handed weaponry to the opposing campaign to aid their concluding attack.

Stop The Presses! Obama, McCain, Bush Administration Agree On Something (Negotiating With The Taliban)

I’ve written before about how Barack Obama, John McCain and President Bush have been playing a three-way game of tag on foreign policy subjects like Iraq and Iran. In each of those instances, though, at no time was the trio really ever on the same page, and certainly not without a bunch of feudin' and cussin' first. Now they are all magically as one, as of this month -- on the idea of meeting with moderate elements of the Taliban.

Says Obama, per Time magazine: “The Sunni awakening changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally. It could not have occurred unless there were some contacts and intermediaries to peel off those who are tribal leaders, regional leaders, Sunni nationalists, from a more radical, messianic brand of insurgency. Whether there are those same opportunities in Afghanistan I think should be explored.”

Says Gen. David Petreaus, per Reuters: “If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward.”

Says McCain, per a McCain campaign source who spoke to Wired’s Danger Room, via Noah Shachtman: “There are differences over timing, strategy, etc. But there is consensus that at some point there will need to be an effort to talk with some of these [Taliban] guys and peel off more moderate elements.”

"There are differences?" So maybe this time, they'll all start off on the same page, then end up going opposite directions.

Europe Favors Obama And Yes So Does Asia

Generally accepted wisdom holds that people across the world would vote for Barack Obama for president, if they could. Not true, says Dominique Moisi, founder of the French Institute for International Relations (Ifri) and professor at the College of Europe in Poland. Moisi argues that while it is correct that Europeans favor Obama, most Asians, especially the elites, prefer John McCain.

"The perception that Obama can transform the view that the U.S. and the West have of themselves is an important factor in the emotional gap that may exist between Asia and Europe on the eve of America's presidential election. On that count, Asia tends to be a status quo continent, while Europe is a revisionist one. For many Europeans, a reinvention of America is Europe's last hope." That, in a nutshell, is Moisi's thesis why Europeans favor Obama and Asians root for McCain. You can find an English version of his editorial here, and a German version here.

Moisi's thesis is intriguing, but unfortunately not backed up by any evidence. In making his case that Asians, especially Asian elites, lean towards McCain, Moisi mentions five countries: Indonesia, Japan, China, India and Singapore.

Indonesia, according to Moisi, is an Asian "anomaly" as it favors Obama, because he lived there briefly as a child. That leaves four other countries: Japanese elites, writes Moisi, "tend to favor continuity over change," prefer American hard power over soft power, and perceive the U.S. mainly as counter-balance to China.

"The Chinese, too, may very likely be favoring McCain, for the opposite reason," opines Moisi. "The decline of America's image and influence in the world does not annoy them. As Asia's leading power, China has seized the mantle of "hope" from the U.S. America could regain it under Obama, but not under McCain. Why favor change, when continuity works so well for you?"

Indians also favor McCain, argues Moisi, because they have a positive view of the Bush administration, since it helped establish India's international status. Finally, a "very conservative regime" in Singapore "naturally tends to prefer a Republican candidate over a Democrat."

Let's look at the individual countries (without Indonesia) that Moisi mentions to make his case:

According to a new Gallup poll, two-thirds of Japanese adults surveyed said they "personally rather see" Obama elected than McCain. 15 percent would prefer McCain over Obama, 18 percent had no opinion. Contrary to Moisi's thesis, Gallup finds that "Obama may be tapping into the Japanese public's broader desire for change at a time when the country's politics may be viewed as stagnant and corrupt." Perhaps Moisi is still correct and Japan's elite - whoever that may be - favors McCain, but that would point to a huge disconnect between Japanese citizens and the country's elite. The more likely scenario is that even among Japan's elite - whoever that may be - McCain is not the clear preference that Moisi makes him out to be.

Polls surveying exactly how the Chinese feel about Obama and McCain are hard to find. But according to China Daily, an online poll conducted on its website by the U.S. embassy, shows that "Obama enjoys the support of 75 percent among the Chinese." In the same article, the paper quotes a survey by Horizon Research that found that roughly 36 percent Chinese "pay close attention" to the U.S. presidential race. "Even among these people, Obama's supporters exceed McCain's by 17.8 percent." So according to China Daily, a government-controlled paper, the Chinese favor Obama and not, as Moisi argues, McCain.

As for India, according to a new Gallup poll, a huge majority (91 percent) of people said they "don't know when they were asked whom did they prefer as the next President of the U.S., or simply refused to give an answer." While this doesn't indicate Indians favor Obama, it certainly also doesn't show a preference for McCain. As far as the elites go of whom Moisi speaks, The Times of India, the country's largest English-language paper, recently published a leader article favoring Obama. And in Singapore, Obama bests McCain by a margin of two to one, finds a new Gallup poll.

Moisi is certainly correct that Asians are not as enthusiastic about Obama as Europeans. But to conclude from that that McCain is the favored candidate by Asians or Asian elites is not supported by any facts.

Al Qaeda May Or May Not Love McCain, But That Doesn’t Reflect On Him

Not so long ago, John McCain jumped all over Barack Obama after a Hamas leader said he would prefer to see Obama win the 2008 election. Now, with the tables turned after the Washington Post reported on Al Qaeda websites cheering for a McCain victory, the McCain camp finds itself in a very peculiar position.

The most important thing in all of this is that neither Hamas’ endorsement of Obama based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks Obama would do to aid its cause, nor Al Qaeda’s endorsement of McCain based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks McCain would do to aid the cause, reflects on the candidates themselves. Hamas thinks Palestinians would fare better under an Obama administration in negotiations with Israel. At least some in Al Qaeda think that McCain would continue the policies of President Bush, which would advance Al Qaeda’s aims of keeping the United States in a draw-out war that the U.S. would ultimately lose. But Hamas doesn’t speak for Obama, and Al Qaeda doesn’t speak for McCain. Only Obama and McCain and officials affiliated with their campaigns speak for Obama and McCain. Voters should feel free to consider whether Hamas or Al Qaeda are right about Obama and McCain, but when considering the policies of the two candidates, they’d be better off going straight to the source.

That said, the shoe being on the other foot has been an uncomfortable fit for the McCain campaign. Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser, responded in part Wednesday by rejecting the Post story and arguing that the terrorists actually support Obama, not McCain. That argument got no sympathy from the Tribune’s Washington bureau. “I'm not sure Scheunemann win many points from the fair-minded by doing to the Democratic presidential nominee the exact same thing he excoriated the Post for doing to McCain,” wrote The Swamp’s Frank James.

Biden's Remarks That Obama Is "Gonna Need Help" On Foreign Policy Raises A Few Discussion Points

Joe Biden gave Republicans an opening to attack Barack Obama on the foreign policy front recently with his remarks that the world is likely to “test the mettle of this guy” and “he’s gonna need help.” Biden was brought on to the campaign in large part to provide that help, but surely speaking about it in those terms is not what the Obama campaign had in mind.

The National Review examines the remarks from one perspective – the right – and Think Progress, from the left, digs up an example of a surrogate for John McCain who said much the same thing. Starting with Think Progress: the organization found a video of Joe Lieberman noting that “our enemies will test the new president early.” But Lieberman doesn’t think McCain would need any help, so the video, while countering some of the Republican arguments, doesn’t counter the fundamental one that McCain is ready if that test comes, and Obama is not. Aside from the question of who’s going to be ready, one thing that is noteworthy here is that there’s recent historical evidence that the next president will indeed be tested, with the last two presidents encountering challenges from Al Qaeda in their first years on the job.

And there are older examples of this, too. The National Review elaborates on Biden invoking John F. Kennedy, noting that after his first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, Kennedy admitted, “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.” That would be a terrible problem for Obama if other world leaders thought that, too, even if the Think Progress team notes, plausibly, that “showing strength,” excessively, got the United States into Iraq. One suspects that the United States’ enemies would go after any new leader of the country, and maybe Republicans can make a solid argument that with his experience and guts, McCain will be better prepared for it than Obama. The experience side, anyway, suggests an advantage for McCain. It is on the question of whose policies are best that the argument is grayer.

(As an aside, one of the most interesting things discussed in the pieces above comes at the beginning of the National Review piece, where the author makes a valid point about how the economic crisis and foreign policy are linked: “Our country’s national security is inextricably linked to our economic vitality — especially in an increasingly interconnected world. In order to project power, we must have the ability to build wealth at home.”)

McCain And Obama On Asia, Africa And The World As A Whole

What took so long?

The attitude of the presidential candidates toward two continents gets some overdue attention from news organizations, with Congressional Quarterly examining the Asia policies of Barack Obama and John McCain and the Voice of America examining their Africa policies.

My CQ colleague Josh Rogin finds that the approaches of the two candidates toward Asia breaks down very much along the lines of their overarching foreign policy views. McCain favors “preaching democracy to adversaries in the region while at the same time prioritizing alliances over engagement with competitors in the region,” while Obama “leans toward more pragmatic strategies stressing incremental progress on regional security issues.” The piece focuses on North Korea, China and Japan.

VOA concludes that “Washington's foreign policy, whether under a President John McCain or a President Barack Obama would be almost identical to that of President George W. Bush.” Where there is a difference, experts concluded, it is that Obama has shown a tendency to be a little tougher toward Africa over its own problems, such over Darfur. A political science professor from New York does another take here.

Meanwhile, McClatchy and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel take a very long look at the candidates’ overarching attitudes toward foreign policy, in particular focusing on the hottest topics in the campaign. McClatchy’s ace team of Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay also go in-depth on McCain and Obama running mate Joe Biden.

None of these stories reveal anything particularly surprising. But what they do is condense mountains of material for readers – in the case of the McClatchy and Journal-Sentinel pieces -- or go in-depth for them on subjects that haven’t previously been explored at length – in the case of the CQ and VOA pieces.

Global Media: Powell May Well Be Decisive Domino For Obama Victory

If one had to pick the member of the Bush administration that was the least disliked internationally, it would have to be Colin Powell. So obviously the fact that President George W. Bush's former secretary of state went public to endorse Barack Obama didn't go unnoticed across the pond. Here's a selection of how the international media reacted:

"Powell's endorsement could prove to be very valuable to Obama," says Dutch paper Trouw (via dradio.de) and elaborates: "It tells voters who wonder whether Obama is too inexperienced in foreign policy that they don't need to worry because even the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces apparently doesn't see that as a problem. This is a alarm signal for Republicans. McCain's fellow party members don't seem to believe he has a chance fof winning, and more and more of them are turning away from him."

Germany's stern.de offers this analysis: "Powell's late endorsement is ominous for McCain because, in the worst case, Powell could function as the decisive domino that sets Obama's victory in motion. But even if in the end only a few voters are convinced by Powells arguments, the entry of the former general costs important time for McCain. In the next few days, the U.S. media will concern themselves predominantely with Powell. McCain will probably be hard-pressed to get his message across to the voters. For McCain, this is a harsh blow, because the time for a comeback is slowly running out."

"Former secretary of state Powell has endorsed Obama – and his support is more far- reaching than many other statements of support for the Democratic candidate," argues Norway's Dagbladet (via dradio.de). "Powell's endorsement of Obama is not aimed at the Republican candidate McCain: Both are Vietnam veterans and have tremendous respect for one another. Powell also said himself that he doesn't seek political office," writes the paper and adds: "But as secretary of defense in Obama's cabinet, he would face a daunting task. Powell, in that position, would have the responsibilty for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and would thereby help Obama to honor his campaign promise."

"Powells support for Obama invalidates the Republican presidential candidate's central argument that Obama is a risky choice," comments Swiss daily Die Südostschweiz. "In any case, McCain's charge of terrorism, and lately also socialism, against Obama appear more and more desperate."

And finally, Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent for The Australian, in a blog post with the title "The Powell Bombshell" offers this prediction: "Endorsements often don’t shift many votes, but Powell is one of the most popular centrist figures in the U.S. (80 percent favorability rating), and it will likely help Obama win over some undecided moderates."

Foreign Policy Is Swaying At Least Two Voter Groups

The economy may be foremost on the electorate’s mind, but for two voter groups, foreign policy-related issues appear to be heavily influential, and they could be with a third group, too. In turn, those voters can be influential on the entirety of the presidential race.

Barack Obama is the favored candidate among Jewish voters by a 30 percent margin, but that margin climbs to 40 percent among Jewish voters who rank Israel “very high” among their priorities in evaluating presidential candidates. Given Obama’s periodic knack for remarks about Israel that have upset some supporters of the country, that is particularly surprising; the Jerusalem Post has the details on both that phenomenon and the poll itself here.

Obama has also fared well among Latino Protestants, a group President Bush won over in 2004, and according to a poll that measured that community, increasingly anti-immigration GOP rhetoric and policy stances are partly to blame. Again, this is something of a surprise, considering that McCain’s record on immigration is more moderate than that of the majority of his party’s elected leaders in Washington. Reuters breaks it all down here.

And Asian-American voters, some of whom pay close attention to U.S.-Asia relations, “could hold the White House key,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Catering to Asian-American voters’ interests in overseas affairs is complicated, as I wrote about here, but there’s anecdotal evidence that Asian-American voters do pay attention to foreign policy issues that affect the countries from which they trace their heritage. Which may explain why McCain was putting out statements last week on North Korea and Taiwan. “If either campaign is looking for a place to get an extra one or two percentage points, Asian Americans are not a bad place to get it.” Taeku Lee, an associate professor of political science at the University of California-Berkeley, told the Journal.

European-Style Socialism From Obama?

The U.S. presidential candidates haven’t spent much time lately talking about Europe, but the continent made a cameo on the campaign trail this weekend. John McCain this weekend compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders across the pond: "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the (Internal Revenue Service) into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," he said. "At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives."

But then, isn’t everyone a little less of a pure free marketer these days? Even if that's not the way they want it to be?

“John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare,’” answered Obama.

Joe Wurzelbacher Goes Global

I really didn't want to write about Joe the Plumber (JtP). Not that I have anything against Joe Wurzelbacher. Quite to the contrary, I have grown very fond of his very German-sounding name, which I had actually never come across in Germany. (According to this database, the name Wurzelbacher is listed only eight times in German phone books.) And I wish him all the best for his plumbing career and hope he makes a lot more than the 250,000 dollars that everyone is talking about now.

The reason why I didn't want to write about JtP is simply that I think that his life story and plumbing expertise is not really necessary to understand the larger political question at issue between Barack Obama and John McCain: Should the tax cuts that both Obama and McCain envisage include the rich or not, and at what dollar amount should one be considered to be rich?

That is a fair enough question for a campaign during a financial crisis, but how can JtP contribute to answering that question? It is understandable that both sides would try to turn Joe into a living example of what McCain or Obama's tax plans or political philosophy would mean for the middle class, the rich, or up-and-coming entrepreneurs. JtP as a pars pro toto for the whole American nation.

Again, I just don't think it is necessary. Everyone who is half-way paying attention to the economic aspects of the campaign – its number one topic – will know whether he or she would be hurt or benefit from Obama's tax plans. And everyone will also have a sense from his or her own experience and life experience at what dollar amount the definition of rich should start. People then will make up their minds and vote accordingly. To know what Joe the Plumber (with or without his plumbing license) would or wouldn't do is probably not all that enlightened.

So why, you may ask, have I broken my vow not to write about JtP and devoted an entire post to him? Because to my deep disappointment, it is not just Americans who are talking incessantly about Mr. Wurzelbacher. The entire world is: "Joe the Plumber, the star of the internet," writes France's L'Express, "Joe the Plumber bursts into the campain," reads the headline of Spain's daily El Pais and Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet asks "Who is Joe the Plumber?" But the best international story on JtP clearly comes from Germany's Tagesspiegel, which starts its nice tongue-in-cheek article with the English headline "The Wurzelbacher Conspiracy."

So there you have it. And since the whole world is fascinated by JtP, we here at Across the Pond simply had to bite the bullet and write about JtP as well. Which we have done now.

Murdoch-Owned London Times Endorses Obama

Today the Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama for president. While the Post's support for Obama isn't necessarily a surprise, the London Times' endorsement of the Democratic candidate is. The Times is owned by Rupert Mudoch's News Corporation and is considered to be a conservative-leaning paper.

For the Times, Obama has the potential needed to be president. McCain is an "authentic hero" and "a brave politician," but his time "has gone." The reason: "His campaign has failed to inspire and his eccentric choice of a running-mate was irresponsible," opines the paper.

It is still unclear exactly where Obama stands on many issues and how he will deal with them, argues the Times. "The biggest question, for a European, over an Obama presidency is whether he would prove able to face up to the security challenges. It is impossible to be certain. But his words, for instance on Pakistan and Iran, have been reassuring."

However, in one crisis situation, the economy, Obama "has been better advised, shown better judgement, and been better at keeping his cool." Therefore, the Times "hopes that the outcome will be an Obama victory."

Just a few weeks back, Rupert Murdoch, in an interview with Fox News, called Obama's economic policy "naïve" and stated that "he was very worried." Obama, said Murdoch, "is a very intelligent man. But his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to be — and card checks — are going to do two or three things. It's going to give us a lot of inflation. They're going to ruin our relationships with the rest of the world. And they are going to slow down the rest of the world, too. And they're going to make people frightened to add to employment."

Another Casualty Of The Financial Crisis: Foreign Aid Spending Under The Next President

While contemplating ways the financial crisis is affecting foreign policy in this presidential campaign – aside from the fact that the candidates are spending a lot less time on international affairs than they might otherwise – I thought back to something Joe Biden said during his debate with Sarah Palin.

Asked what spending programs a Barack Obama administration might set aside because of the financial crisis, Biden remarked: “The one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We'll probably have to slow that down.” Obama had pledged last year to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, “arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster the security of Americans at home,” according to McClatchy and USA Today.

In fact, foreign aid spending would not necessarily increase under John McCain, either. His proposal for an across-the-board spending freeze would exclude some programs – Defense dollars, for example – but McCain did not say foreign aid would be allowed to increase.

It’s already going to be hard for the next president to get on the rest of the world’s good side, and the financial crisis hasn’t exactly helped U.S.-world relations, either. But a reduced emphasis on foreign aid spending also means less of a chance to do what Sen. Dick Lugar said the next president needs to do more of, and what Obama’s foreign aid proposal was meant to accomplish: take steps to head off future problems by addressing them at their root now.

As it happens, the Council on Foreign Relations was thinking along the same lines, I discovered in researching this proposition. They make some additional points here.

Global Media: McCain Put On His Best Performance, But Obama Still Wins The Debate

John McCain was really good in the debate, conclude the global media after last night's final presidential debate. But he was bested by Barack Obama. The Democratic contender didn't even need a stellar performance to come out victorious, all he had to do was not make any major mistakes. According to international media, now it's Obama's election to lose.

"Want to bet that Obama wins the election," reads the headline of Jan-Kees Emmer's blog post about the debate for Dutch daily De Telegraaf. "One expert thinks that the chance that a meteorite will fall on your head is higher than McCain's chance of winning. Realistically, only a national catastrophe or a war can save McCain."

"McCain gained some ground, especially on economic issues," writes Jörg Lau, who blogged about the event for Germany's weekly Die Zeit. "He came across as more concerned, warmer and not so aloof as usual. But then he overdid it with Ayers and he just couldn't stop attacking Obama relentlessly," observes Lau. He points out that Obama scored on the issues of education and abortion, but that he wasn't brilliant. "What was important for him was to get people used to the fact that he could be president soon and that that doesn't seem too bizzare. He achieved that. McCain, on the other hand, at times seemed very tense, which is understandable. Winners don't look like that."

The Times of India offers this take on the debate: "In the end, it was body language that appeared to let McCain down more than his debating skills, although he seemed to lose steam as the 90 minute event progressed. As they battled for points, McCain was repeatedly caught on camera grimacing, looking agitated, even angry. He seemed to clench his teeth and at one time rolled his eyes contemptuously at Obama's answer.

In contrast, Obama looked cool, calm, and composed, and ignored McCain's interruptions several times." All the odds are now in Obama's favor, argues the paper: "With less than three weeks to go for the elections, Obama now appears to have an insurmountable lead, including in some historically Republican leaning states such as Virginia. Most pundits seem to think it will require a miracle for John McCain to pull off a victory, although no one is putting it past a war veteran who survived for five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam."

One can almost feel sorry for John McCain, opines Austria's daily Kurier. "He has one of his best campaign performances; he takes his gloves off to attack his opponent and finally during the final TV debate at times shows the quick-wittedness which his followers love about him. But it didn't help him. One could almost have the impression that the 72-year-old senator could have put on the most brilliant performance of his life – the audience would still see it differently. The winner of the evening was once more Obama, and his lead grows and grows."

A Sage Voice On Foreign Policy Speaks To Both Presidential Candidates

One of the most respected voices on foreign policy in the United States gave some advice to the next president Wednesday, not that much of anyone noticed. And while not everyone agrees with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar on all of his positions, few would dispute he knows of which he speaks.

His message, ultimately, was that many of the foreign crises of the last few years and the next few years might be averted by a more forward-looking foreign policy. What few news outlets that covered Lugar’s speech took assorted different messages from it. CQ saw Lugar siding with Barack Obama by “part[ing] ways with his party’s presidential nominee Wednesday by endorsing Democrat Barack Obama’s approach to diplomacy,” although Congressional Quarterly also noted that John McCain “is right to warn that ‘there are times when diplomatic approaches to rogue regimes have little efficacy.’” The Times of Northwest Indiana, Lugar’s home state, wrote that Lugar “called Tuesday for the next U.S. president to be ‘relentless’ in pursuing national energy security by developing wind power, cellulosic ethanol and other renewable energy sources.”

Both takes are fundamentally accurate. What I found most interesting about Lugar’s speech was the way he used specific examples of how the United States and a rival, Russia, have laid the groundwork for future success. Lugar singled out the India nuclear deal Congress recently approved as a way in which the United States has ensured continued friendship with an emerging world power that will be fundamental to future U.S. aims in the world. Likewise, he said, “history may record Russia’s unchecked movement toward an energy supply monopoly over our European allies, as one of the most damaging foreign policy developments of the post-Cold War era.”

Lugar has some specific remedies worth examining here.

Obama Sweeps McCain In Austrian Poll

In Austria's recent national election, voters gave a big boost to the country's far-right. So it is interesting to note that an online poll finds that the overwhelming majority of Austrians would vote for Barack Obama as president.

According to the survey, conducted by market research firm psychonomics and reported by Austrian news agency APA, 79 percent of Austrians favor the Democratic presidential candidate and only seven percent would like to see John McCain in the White House. Asked to rate who they think is better prepared to lead the world out of the financial crisis, 65 percent of Austrians answered Barack Obama, only seven percent said John McCain.

The poll finds that Obama doesn't only garner the support of voters of the Social Democratic and Green parties (89 percent) and of the conservative ÖVP party (80 percent), but surprisingly also voters of the far-right parties FPÖ (72 percent) and BZÖ (69 percent).

Obama's immense popularity in Europe and the world is well known. But to my knowledge, even Obama's best international ratings have never been anywhere near his performance in Austria's state Vorarlberg: 100 percent. Just for good measure: John McCain polled best in the Austrian state of Carinthia. His take: 19 percent.

How to explain the huge difference between the results of the national election and the results of the poll? According to pollster psychonomics, the results of the survey are only representative of Austrian internet users (i.e., 67 percent of all Austrians claim market researcher GFK Austria). And they, says psychonomics, tend to be young and highly educated. Aha, so now we know.

McCain And Obama On Oil Company Tax Cuts

At the final debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, this exchange is almost certain to happen again: Obama says McCain wants to give tax breaks to oil companies. McCain says Obama already did. Obama says he didn’t want to.

This USA Today piece is the best I’ve seen all year about tax policy toward oil companies. It gets into the nitty gritty about how oil companies are taxed now, what a windfall profits tax would do and how this all compares to taxation of other industries.

It details the records and proposals of both candidates, so you can come out of the debate knowing for a fact that McCain’s tax plan would give breaks to oil companies, albeit incidentally, and that Obama did indeed vote for tax cuts for oil companies already. The article leaves out that Obama's support of the tax cuts was just as incidental as McCain's, because he voted for the overall bill that contained them, despite his opposition to them.

Don't Expect Obama Or McCain To Reverse Washington's Stance Toward The International Criminal Court

A topic that hasn't been discussed at all during the presidential campaign is the candidates' stance toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court, based in The Hague, deals with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and was authorized through a treaty signed by 108 countries. The U.S. originally signed the treaty, later unsigned it and has not ratified it, therefore it is not bound by the treaty. The reason: The Bush administration is "concerned that its soldiers and government officials could be subjected to politicized prosecutions."

So what are the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on the ICC? Since both candidates haven't addressed the issue in the campaign, the AP asked McCain and Obama about it. While Obama and McCain are in favor of a standing tribunal to deal with war crimes, they share President Bush's anxiety about the potential of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials or soldiers, writes the AP. "They do not share, however, what has been at times Bush's outright hostility to the court."

Mark Lippert, a foreign affairs adviser for Obama, acknowledged that the ICC has a lower priority than nonproliferation, Iran and Afghanistan. "But it registers on (Obama's) radar," Lippert told the AP. He added that the Democratic candidate "has a wait-and-see, go-slow approach. The policy is unchanged from where he has been."

According to the AP, team McCain did not respond to its request to talk about the ICC, but the Republican candidate has given the following written response to questions from an international legal affairs organization about the matter: "I want us in the ICC, but I'm not satisfied that there are enough safeguards."

Judging from those statements, it looks like both Obama and McCain would continue - in substance, if not in style - the position held by the Bush administration. After all, this is an area of foreign policy where there hasn't been much daylight - in substance, if not in style - between the last Democratic president Bill Clinton and his Republican successor. (You can find a comparison of Clinton's and Bush's positions toward the ICC here.)

While American participation in the ICC may not be an important topic in the U.S., it is internationally. With the rejection of the Kyoto protocol and the Iraq war, the U.S. stance toward the International Criminal Court was routinely mentioned as a typical example of American unilateralism. So for all those interested whether a new administration would rethink its approach to the ICC, the bipartisan bottom line is this: Don't expect a sudden reversal of Washington's stance toward the ICC from either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Game Plan For The Next President: Playing Off Iran Against Russia?

How should the next president deal with Russia and Iran? We have written about the limited options the next administration has for tackling what are generally considered to be the biggest foreign policy challenges facing Barack Obama or John McCain. Now an editorial by Vali Nasr in the Wall Street Journal proposes a novel thesis that could be summed up like this: The U.S. should engage with Iran to confront Russia.

According to Nasr, "Washington cannot resist a Russian sphere of influence stretching from the Black Sea to Aral Mountains unless it plays the Iran card to its advantage." In order to do that the U.S. would have to change its position on these issues, writes Nasr:

- Drop objection to the flow of Iranian gas to Europe
- Engage Iran in talks on security and stability in the Caucasus region
- Accept building the planned new pipelines on the back of Iranian gas
- "Freeing Europe of Russia's clutches" is more important than "punishing Iran for its nuclear program"

Russia's military action in Georgia has altered the way Iranians view the country. As a consequence, says Nasr, Tehran is ready to talk to the U.S. about how to act jointly vis-à-vis a resurgent Russia. Thus, for Nasr, the decision is clear: "Talking to Iran is good Russia policy" because "only by engaging Iran will America draw a wedge between Moscow and Tehran and weaken Russia's hand."

Let's assume Nasr's ultra-realist strategy, which sounds like a new version of the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," works out and helps contain Russia. That still doesn't answer the question about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

What's more, Nasr's dichotomy "Freeing Europe from the clutches of Russia" versus "Punishing Iran for its nuclear program" in itself is debatable. First, so far the common goal of the U.S. and the EU wasn't to punish Iran for its nuclear program, but to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which is an important distinction. Second, whether Europe is really in the clutches of Russia is still a point of discussion. And third, whether containing a resurgent Russia has a higher priority than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is equally questionable.

So what do you think? Is it a sound strategy for the next president to play off Iran versus Russia?

Palin Contradicts McCain On North Korea

If you thought Sarah Palin’s steady debate performance would put an end to her foreign policy missteps for good, you were mistaken. After John McCain came out against removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, Palin said: “Condoleezza Rice, of course, having worked on this strategy for quite some time—I have faith in her that they're making this wise decision and North Korea, of course, better live up to its end of the bargain there.”

The McCain campaign tried to explain away the gulf thusly: “Governor Palin's position is identical to Senator McCain's: the verification steps are not sufficient to date to warrant North Korea's removal for the state sponsors of terror list. ... She believes Secretary Rice and the Bush administration are wise to pursue diplomacy and that is what she meant.”

Except McCain’s rejection of Rice’s decision is the very opposite of having faith in Rice’s wise decision. At no point was it apparent from her remarks that Palin was talking generally about diplomacy. This is not her first contradiction of McCain, with that honor going to her repeated contradiction of the presidential candidate on whether to cross over into Pakistan to hunt Al Qaeda. If it's a disagreement on the issues -- such as her stance on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- why not just chalk it up to the "team of mavericks," as she did there? No, this appears to just be a lack of familiarity with her campaign's stance on North Korea.

Former German Foreign Minister Likes What Barack Obama Says About Transatlantic Relations

In an interview with suddeutsche.de, Germany's former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher gave his perspective on the current financial crisis, the future global role of countries like China, India and Brasil, as well as NATO and the West's relations with a resurgent Russia, the conflict in Afghanistan, and why he favors Barack Obama as the next U.S. president.

Genscher, a member of the Free Democrats (FDP), who was once called "A Man with a Dream" by the New York Times, was Germany's longest serving Foreign Minister (1974-1992). In the interview, he strongly criticized the Bush administration and expressed his hope that a new administration will mend the ties between the U.S. and Europe. Here are just a few highlights of the interview focusing on the presidential campaign and transatlantic relations. You can read the entire interview (in German) here.

When asked whether a new president would bring a new political style to the White House, Genscher said: "One can only hope that the new president understands that no country in the world is and can be so strong as to dominate the rest of the world. That, by the way, is one of the secrets of success of European unity. The success of Europe became possible because there were three big and three small founding countries. They had to learn how to get along and the bigger countries each had to check in their demand to be the biggest at the cloak room. In my opinion, that is Europe's message to the world: We have shown how to do it – not the law of the strongest country is imperative, but the power of the law is imperative."

Does Genscher feel that both candidates are equally committed to lead the U.S. away from the old unipolar way of thinking, asked sueddeusche.de. "Both candidates have been very careful in their statements. Barack Obama, in my estimation, is more open for an equal partnership than John McCain. I like what Obama has said about transatlantic cooperation, namely that it should take place on the same eye level. As U.S. president, he could do a lot and bring back the trust that was lost."

Genscher added: "Think about what John F. Kennedy said decades ago: The transatlantic partnershift rests on two columns – Europeans and Americans. With the current American administration, one feels that there is one column and and many little columns, i.e., 'old Europe' and 'new Europe.' This is an alarming antagonism to the thinking of the administration of Bush senior and (James) Baker."

On the criticism that Obama is inexperienced, especially on foreign policy, Genscher told sueddeutsche.de: "There is a misconceived opinion that the other candidate has been president before. Neither of them has experience as president. When I became foreign minister I also had no experience as foreign minister. There is a first time for everything."

Next President Will Have To Deal With World Anger At U.S. Over Financial Fallout

Add another item to the list of world grievances with the United States the next president will have to deal with: Blame for the expanding global economic crisis. Whether it’s Barack Obama or John McCain, the new president already is going to have to grapple with a severely diminished U.S. reputation abroad. The Bush years, I learn anew every time I travel to another country and talk to people there, have made the rest of the world hostile toward America.

Now, the financial crisis has led to yet more resentment. “German Peer Steinbrück, points a sharp finger of blame at the United States, telling parliament recently that it is ‘the source’ and ‘the focus’ of the crisis,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor. “British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quick to point the finger last week. ‘This problem started in America. They have got to sort it out,’ he said then,” reported ABC News.

In many cases, that criticism of the U.S. has turned inward as countries deal with their own unique situations, and there are differing opinions on the degree of blame the United States should shoulder. And yet the fact remains: The next president is inheriting a world standing that has declined in recent weeks from the low, low point it was at, and that’s almost assuredly going to make it harder for the United States to call in favors even from its allies, be it on Afghanistan or any other foreign policy front.

McCain Stays In Asia, Where Obama Still Hasn't Visited

For the second time this week, the presidential campaign of John McCain has released a statement to reporters about a news development in Asia that the presidential campaign of Barack Obama has not.

This time, the country in question is North Korea, as opposed to Taiwan. Responding to reports that the Bush administration is moving forward with the process to take the country off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, McCain said that not only does North Korea deserve that distinction, but the administration did not properly include other Asian countries in its decision.

It’s unclear what McCain’s camp hopes to achieve by speaking out on a news story that hasn’t gained major play, and what Obama’s camp hopes to achieve by remaining silent.
Is McCain interested in steering the conversation back to an area of strength, foreign policy? Is he trying to work his way into news stories where he can? Is he trying to gain traction with segments of the elusive Asian American voter community? By taking a position that is in one way to the right of the Bush administration (opposing the removal) and in another to the left (favoring additional diplomacy), what message is he sending to whom? Does the McCain campaign merely think this is something he has an obligation to comment upon, as a potential future leader of this country? And why hasn’t Obama weighed in on either of these Asian subjects? Does his camp see little value in distracting attention away from the economic crisis that has driven a rise in his poll standings?

UPDATE: Obama weighed in one day after McCain, when the news was announced rather than before it.

Time For Obama And A New "New Deal," Demands Luxembourg's Leading Daily

One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to provide you with information and perspectives you probably won't get anywhere else. In that effort, we have shared with you not only our German and American takes on international aspects of the presidential election, but also how the campaign is perceived around the world from Switzerland to Brasil, from Hungary to Ireland.

One country whose position on the U.S. election we have so far ignored is Luxembourg's. You may ask why would I care how people in the small Grand Duchy feel about Barack Obama and John McCain? And sure, Luxembourg is not an important player on the international political stage. But it is an important actor on the world's financial stage, i.e. the country is the second largest center for investment funds after the U.S. Therefore, it is interesting what the take on the campaign is in Luxembourg, especially in light of the current global financial crisis.

And as luck would have it, this is exactly the focus of the main editorial in the country's leading daily, Luxemburger Wort. According to the paper, McCain as an "unconditional supporter of an ultraliberal market economy definitely personifies an economic and social order that has failed and that no one really wants to see continued. In the U.S., the time for a new "New Deal" has come," opines the paper. "Barack Obama - even before the financial crisis - hit a nerve with his interpretation of the "American Dream," which is based on social balance."

For the Luxemburger Wort, McCain symbolizes an America that is backwards-looking. McCain would be the oldest president in the history of the country to take office, which the paper calls not really a sign of renewal. A president McCain would also pose a security risk, because his vice president would be Sarah Palin, whose lack of qualification Americans noticed rather quickly, comments the paper.

More Explanation On Asian American Voters And The Issues They Care About

This Slate article is more than a week old, but it touches on two recent posts of mine, first about Indian American voters and more recently about the candidates' positions on Taiwan.

The point of the Slate piece is that Asian American voters are often neglected by national campaigns. There are logistical reasons for this, such as the diversity of languages spoken and the fractured partisan allegiances among an ethnicity that includes Filipinos, Indians and Chinese. There is the fact that Asians of all kinds are concentrated in non-swing states, a point I raised about the component Indian community. But this is the key portion from the standpoint of substance, similar to the one I raised about what issues matter to Indian voters:

"There are also hyperspecific concerns that are not ideal campaign talking points: Chinese care a lot about U.S.-China relations. Taiwanese care about China-Taiwan. Vietnamese favor anti-Communist policies. And Filipinos often vote based on whoever supports benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II. Plus, segments of the Asian-American community often disagree—as Taiwanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans do on Taiwan, for example, or Pakistanis and Indians on Kashmir," writes the author, Christopher Beam.

The piece goes on to discuss different ways Asian American voters can enhance their influence -- all, of course, with drawbacks. But it's fascinating to see there's a nascent effort there. If it pays off, maybe in 2012 or 2016 the two presidential candidates will spend more time on their policies on Taiwan.

Obama Victory Won't End Racial Problems In The U.S., Says Jesse Jackson

A win by Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election would be a break with the past, but it wouldn't be the end of racial problems in American society, the Reverend Jesse Jackson told Swiss news agency sda while at the World Policy Conference in Evian, France. Jackson said, Obama - contrary to his opponent John McCain - had run a "disciplined campaign." He added that an Obama victory should be used to open other important doors for African-Americans such as positions as governors or senators. Jackson told sda that African-Americans have been hardest hit by the sub-prime crisis and still have the shortest life expectancy in the U.S. About the situation in Iraq, Jackson said, regardless of the next president's skin color, he should end the war in Iraq.

International Media: McCain Commits Two-Worded Gaffe, Obama Wins Debate

Barack Obama is the winner of Tuesday's second presidential debate, reads the pretty much unanimous verdict of international media outlets, a day after the encounter between Obama and John McCain.

The Republican candidate missed his chance, opines German business daily Financial Times Deutschland (FTD). "In his ideal setting, the town hall format, this should have been a great night for John McCain. His chance to stop his sliding poll numbers. But his problem last night was that there was another guy in the room selling himself to voters as someone who understands their problems." And in the end, writes the FTD, according to a CNN poll, people declared Obama the winner. "If the world looked the same as two weeks ago, the audience might even have called the debate a tie. But the downward spiral of collapsing financial markets has increased the desire for change in the White House. A Democrat, who doesn't make a mistake, is automatically the winner on an evening like this."

"McCain doesn't seem to care much for fair play," thinks Switzerlands Tages-Anzeiger. He committed a big foul in last night's debate." By refering to Obama as "that one" he violated the rules of etiquette in front of an audience of millions. "While Obama didn't seem rattled by the incident, McCain after the remark appeared to be a little beside himself. The entire evening McCain didn't mention his biggest trump so far, Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, with one word. And at the end of the event, he even refused to shake Obama's hand. Usually only sore losers behave like that," comments the paper.

"Obama wins as McCain shows shades of McNasty" reads the headline of Alex Spillius' blog post at Britain's Daily Telegraph. Calling it a "boring day" in the campaign, "Tuesday night's debate was what we expect from politicians: half-answered questions, predictable answers and few specifics. Barack Obama won because he didn't lose. John McCain, trailing in the polls, needed to make a breakthrough, but was unable to take the opportunity in what is his preferred format for campaigning: the town hall meeting."

"Obama won the second television debate with McCain on Tuesday," writes Dutch paper De Volkskrant. Independent voters felt that Obama came across as more trustworthy and had better answers on economic issues than his opponent. This despite the fact that "McCain was in his element in the more spontaneous town hall format in Nashville. Walking around with a microphone and answering questions by voters is his speciality, which was clearly visible." But, adds the paper, McCain made the mistake of refering to Obama as 'that one.'"

Despite Similar Positions, McCain And Obama Weigh In On Taiwan Arms Deal In Different Ways

Taiwan hasn’t exactly been a priority for the presidential campaigns, and Taiwanese publications see no major difference between the two candidates – or President Bush – on the country. But where there is a difference, it can be illustrated thusly: John McCain’s campaign sent reporters a statement today calling on President Bush to add additional items to its sale of military goods to Taiwan, and Barack Obama’s campaign sent out no such statement. That jives with the general sentiment that McCain, for whatever reason, is more attentive to Taiwan than is Obama. Not that the Taiwanese population seems to notice, since they resoundingly back Obama, according to a Reader's Digest poll that also found, contrary to most polls here, that the United States favored McCain.

Now, that wasn’t the end of the story from the Obama campaign. It apparently responded to a Washington Post request for comment by simply saying that he supported the military agreement, but did not echo McCain’s call to include submarines and aircraft. And then they sent out to reporters that very Washington Post story, which, as it happens, focuses on the fact that a top McCain adviser until a few months ago lobbied on behalf of Taiwan.

Neither McCain’s statement on Taiwan or the Obama campaign’s emphasis of his possible motive is liable to have any impact on the campaign whatsoever. But it all falls under our bailiwick here, and it’s not been examined much of anywhere else. More importantly, the candidates’ positions could have ramifications for whichever candidate wins, since the military deal angered China so much that it canceled planned visits from its military officials to the United States.

Can McCain Make An Issue Out Of Foreign Donations For Obama?

With the campaign heating up during the last month before the election, John McCain and the Republican National Committee (RNC) charge that Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from foreign donors, which is illegal under U.S. law. After an article by Michael Isikoff about questionable donations, the RNC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Obama of "knowingly accepting excessive contributions and donations from foreign nationals" and calling it "a wide-scale problem."

While Isikoff's piece focused on two questionable donations amounting to less than $30,000, the New York Times checked out the RNC charge that the Obama camp has a wide-scale problem with foreign donations. According to the Times, Obama received $3.3 million in contributions in which the donor listed an abbreviation other than that of the 50 U.S. states and territories. That amounts to one percent of the $270 million raised by Obama. John McCain, writes the Times, took in $517,000 from such donors.

Just because donations originate outside the U.S. doesn't make them illegal. As the Times points out, as long as the donor is an American or green card holder, donations are legal even if the person resides outside the U.S.

So what is the effect of this on the campaign? And is it, as Marc Ambinder suggests, a "directed, political tactic designed to raise questions about Obama's foreign-ness and otherness."

As the British Independent points out "accepting money from foreigners is definitely a no-no" and "it is raising a red flag over whether the Obama camp has been doing enough to police where the cash is coming from." But the amount in question is roughly only one percent of Obama's total donations and, as noted by the New York Times and First Read, there probably won't be any action by the FEC until after the election. One more reason why the RNC's complaint probably won't have a big impact on the rest of the campaign is that John McCain has his own issues with questionable donations and has been queried by the FEC.

As for Ambinder's suggestion, of course the RNC's complaint is a "tactic" to damage Obama. But that is not really unusual for an election campaign. Whether it was as "directed" and politically motivated as Ambinder seems to insinuate is debatable, as the charge is basically fallout from various news reports rather than a long planned campaign tactic.

And to think the RNC launched the charge with the specific and well thought out goal to question Obama's "foreign-ness and otherness" may be giving more credit than is due. The answer may be far simpler: With McCain down in the polls, a festering financial crisis that won't help their candidate, and less than a month to go before the election, the McCain campaign might just take whatever issue it can get, toss it at Obama, and see whether it sticks.

For The Next President: Al Qaeda, Foreign Lending And Plenty More

‘Tis the season for looking ahead to the challenges the next president will confront, and how John McCain and Barack Obama would approach those challenges. Michael directed you to the National Journal’s series, but everyone’s doing it, including Popular Mechanics, which has taken a look at the candidates’ positions on science and technology issues that includes their views of the Law of the Sea. (And here, they offered some fascinating technology/foreign policy questions for the candidates’ first debate that I missed. Popular Mechanics!)

I’m going to shill once more for my daytime employer on this front, because when Congressional Quarterly puts together a package like it did for its magazine this week, people need to see it. The package starts with CQ Weekly’s “11 Issues for the Next President.” The international angle on many of them is obvious: “War,” “U.S. Image,” “Military,” “Energy,” “Immigration” and “Intelligence,” the last of which I wrote and I’ll discuss more in a moment. But the “Infrastructure” piece, for instance, delves into investments in transportation in Europe; the “Deficit” piece explores foreign lending; and the “Economy” piece dips into international trade.

The package also has a fun feature at CQPolitics.com: “Cabinet Maker.” CQ reporters culled the best information they could to project possible Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other Cabinet picks for McCain and Obama. The interactive tool makes it enjoyable, but there’s also a helpful explanation of some of the Cabinet candidates’ work experience and past positions.

In my piece on intelligence, I explore the status of al Qaeda, the ongoing restructuring of the national security apparatus, what kinds of attacks experts say the United States needs to better defend against and more. I found that national security agencies were undergoing “reform fatigue,” and that while many experts believe the next president should focus less on the proper structure and more on achievable results, those two things are necessarily intertwined. But I recommend reading the entire series under “related content” here, and using the Cabinet Maker feature.

Russia And Iran: Crucial Countries, Limited Options For Obama And McCain

In a series on the presidential election, the National Journal's James Kitfield takes an interesting look at foreign policy issues and how they might affect the next presidency.

What to do about Iraq and Afghanistan is not the big foreign policy question for November 4, argues Kitfield. Instead, the key question is how to handle the multitude of potential confrontations that are yet to come. "Put simply, the next commander-in-chief will have to decide whether these confrontations become wars and what exactly is worth fighting for."

Russia and Iran, according to Kitfield, fall under the category described above and pose the biggest challenges to the U.S. in the future. Both exemplify the foreign policy shift that has occurred during the campaign. Russia is classified as a long-term challenge by the National Journal, while Iran is termed a short-term threat.

Barack Obama and John McCain may have different approachs on dealing with Russia, but no matter which of them becomes president, the next president will have limited options, Stratfor's George Friedman told the magazine. The result is, says Friedman, that "neither Obama nor McCain wants to talk about the issue of Russia in depth because the answers are unpleasant -- either we withdraw some of the security guarantees we've been granting around its borders, or we spend a lot more on defense."

If the differences between Obama and McCain on how to treat Russia are clear, they are stark on Iran. "The Republican has hewed closely to the neoconservative policy adopted in the first Bush term and advocated by hardliners such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, writes Kitfield and adds "McCain rejects high-level negotiations outright, for example, and has stated unequivocally that the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to acquire the nuclear bomb."

Obama also finds Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons "unacceptable," but argues for direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions. "Even if such talks fail, he says, the attempt at diplomacy would make it easier to assemble a tougher international sanctions regime to contain Iran", writes Kitfield. "In so arguing, the Democrat puts himself squarely in the centrist camp of foreign policy experts who say that even a nuclear-armed Iran can be contained."

Unfortunately, Kitfield's article doesn't really ask the key question with regard to Iran. Despite the campaign rhetoric, especially from McCain, are the realistic options the next president and the EU have on how to deal with Iran not even more limited than the options vis-à-vis Russia?

Palin, Around With Terrorists

Much of the focus on Sarah Palin’s remarks about Barack Obama “palling around with terrorists” has been on whether negative attacks work or not. The answer to that is: Sometimes. They do not appear to be helping Sen. Norm Coleman right now. On the other hand, it’s hard to deny that John McCain’s attacks on Obama, about him being a celebrity and that kind of thing, were having an effect on the polls. Ben Smith says the purpose of the new McCain/Palin attacks on Obama’s associations has more to do with raising broader questions about him than trying to tie him to a controversial figure, and that may be, too.

I think a whole ‘nother question, though, is whether the specific “terrorist” attack can work anymore. And that is one element of the Palin remarks. Accusing Democrats of being soft on terror – and it’s harder to be soft on terror than by “palling around” with a practitioner – worked well in 2002 and 2004. But in 2006, Republicans fell short when they accused Democrats of opposing surveillance on terrorists. And that has something to do with the changing nature of voters’ interests.

Another Twist In The Barack Obama-Great Britain Soap Opera Relationship

So much for the love affair between Barack Obama and Gordon Brown’s government in Great Britain, now that the a memo by U.K.’s ambassador to the United States criticizing the Democratic presidential candidate has been leaked to the Telegraph’s Toby Harnden. That’s probably an overstatement of the original condition; it’s been more an up-and-down thing, as detailed by British newspapers. But this won’t help relations, should Obama win.

Much of the coverage of the leaked document has focused on criticisms of Obama’s leadership style, personality and experience, where the ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, also offered some praise of Obama. But there were some substantial passages in the Obama memo detailing how Obama’s policies compare to Brown’s, too.

Among them:

--Conflict over Iran. "If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."

--Agreement over Iraq. "Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach. Obama's ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking."

--Common ground on climate change and larger security issues. The memo praised Obama’s “progressive position on climate change" as well as his “pragmatic realism" and "balanced approach to the big security issues."

--A lack of shared vision on trade and Middle East peace. “Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is ‘unlikely to be a top priority for Obama’ and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has ‘repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade.’”

But in the end, Sir Nigel concluded that Obama is still evolving, and his record offers little to suggest where he might end up. “Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to."

Fact-Checks On The International Affairs Side Of The Vice Presidential Debate

The day after the vice-presidential debate, let’s review where the fact-checkers came down on what the candidates had to say on foreign policy. It wasn’t pretty out there.

--At Politifact, Sarah Palin gets a “barely true” for claiming Joe Biden had “supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race.” Biden gets a “half-true” for saying “John McCain voted against funding the troops because of . . . a timeline in it to draw down American troops.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on that natural gas pipeline and Biden’s statements about whether Barack Obama was ready to be commander in chief.
--At Washington Post’s Fact-Checker, Palin gets downgraded for claiming she was at the forefront of a movement in Alaska to divest in Sudan, when in fact her administration originally opposed legislation to do so; Biden gets downgraded for claimed that the United States and France had “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on Iraq, and Biden’s claims on Hamas.
--At Factcheck.org, Palin gets knocked for claiming that violence in Iraq had fallen to “pre-surge” levels, and Biden gets knocked for mis-characterizing McCain’s views about meeting with Spain’s president. Also addressed: Palin and Biden remarks on Afghanistan, Biden’s remarks on clean coal and Palin’s remarks on overseas sources of energy.

For more, here’s fact-checking at USA Today, The L.A. Times,
and the Associated Press.

International Media: Palin Better Than Could Be Expected In The Debate

Considering her inexperience, compared to her opponent and political veteran Joe Biden, Sarah Palin held her own in the vice presidential debate. That's – in a nutshell – the snap verdict of the international media a day after the debate in St. Louis.

Here's a sampling of opinion from Germany, Italy, Denmark, Mexico and Austria:

"Contrary to the hopes of the Democrats, Sarah Palin during the debate with Joe Biden didn't faint, call for the bombing of Iran, or demand the taring and feathering of the heads of Wall Street, argues Germany's Die Welt. "She didn't embarrass herself, she held her own." The paper adds: "In the second foreign policy part of the debate, Biden grew increasingly stronger while Palin often appeared to recite what she had previously learned by heart."

"The expectations for Sarah Palin were so low that it has to viewed as a victory that she didn't do any further damage to presidential candidate John McCain", opines Danish Berlingske Tidende (via dradio.de). "After the American voters have had some time to think about this first impression they will wonder whether Palin's performance really qualifies her for the post of vice president."

Both, Biden and Palin, like to hear themselves talk, says Italy's Corriere della Sera (via dradio.de). "Palin, because she tries to bury under a moutain of words that she is not familiar with relevant issues. Biden, on the other hand, talks a lot because he knows too much and because he is a tad egocentric. He is certainly better qualified than Palin."

"The Republican candidate for vice president didn't let her Democratic opponent Joe Biden intimidate her, even though he has far more media experience", argues Mexico's La Cronica de Hoy (via dradio.de). "The political crash course she has received the evening before the debate at John McCain's ranch bore fruit."

"After a lackluster start Palin became more secure with every strike she landed against Biden", opines Austria's Wiener Zeitung. "Overall – almost all media concur – Palin did surprisingly good. For this reason John McCain's running mate functioned exactly at the right time, because his popularity - after a brief high - had recently started to diminish again. The good performance by his partner may counteract this trend", writes the paper.

Quick Reaction To Palin's Performance On Foreign Policy

It'll be dissected here and elsewhere in the coming days, but here's my quick, unpolluted, pre-talking head take on Sarah Palin's performance on foreign policy, which we've discussed so much here this week:

She sidestepped many questions. In doing so, she delivered several memorable lines -- "white flag of surrender" -- that were better than making a mistake but not as good as answering competently. She also effectively exploited differences between Joe Biden and Barack Obama, on topics like funding for the troops. On that subject, whether Biden was wrong then and right now (my reading of the pertinent facts) is secondary; it undermines the credibility of Biden's current argument for him to have held the opposite position not so long ago. She made some errors, but nothing too shocking.

All in all? She did not fail terribly on foreign policy by any standard, let alone the low, low standard of the expectations she had set with some clumsy interviews. That was the least she had to do, and in my estimation, she accomplished that.

More Bad New For Palin On Foreign Policy Heading Into The Debate

The Associated Press just did the most comprehensive digging on Sarah Palin’s record of meeting with foreign officials yet, and came up with… not much.

Palin had said in an interview that she had been involved in “trade missions” with Russia, but the AP came up empty on that count. As it turns out, a gubernatorial spokeswoman had previously refused to even answer questions about the Russian “trade missions.” But the AP got a Russian Federation official to speak up, then another official who works for the governor.

In fact, the AP only found that she had ever had any substantial negotiations of any kind with one foreign country, that being Alaska’s other neighbor, Canada. Contrast that with Biden’s list, and it’s apparent what a daunting hole Palin will be fighting out of when Thursday night’s debate rolls around. Things beside experience – like judgment – matter when it comes to foreign policy. And yet, it’s hard to deny that Biden gets some kind of advantage from having met and talked with these foreign leaders in a way that Palin never has.

The good news here for Palin is that, in the expectations game candidates usually play, it would be hard for her to come in any lower. Maybe she demonstrates previously unrevealed savvy and ends up profiting from looking better than both opponents and advocates fear she might. Maybe, as well, Biden slips up in some way that makes whatever slip-ups she experiences pale in comparison. But, again, she is starting from a stunningly unequal footing with Biden on foreign policy.

Scary Song: Children's Musical Praise For Obama

Because of Barack Obama's rapid political rise, his immense popularity with various groups of people, and his ability to draw thousands of fans to his public speeches in the U.S. and abroad, some conservative commentators have labeled Obama followers a cult and Obama the "messiah." I have always considered these accusations nothing more than a sign of partisan envy. Just because McCain doesn't energize the Republican base and is not able to attract the masses to his speeches, doesn't make a cult out of Obama supporters.

But after watching this video featuring children singing about Obama, which has been circulating on the internet and has received media attention since it was linked to via the Drudge Report, I am starting to wonder whether the phenomenon we all have matter-of-factly called Obamamania deserves a closer look.

To me it is scary seeing young children praising a political leader in a seemingly professionally choreographed setting. At first, I thought, perhaps as a German I am overly sensitive to things like this. After all, what's wrong with some kids singing about a politician they like? So I am glad that I am not the only one who has a problem with this video. Ben Smith and Mo Rocca have interesting takes on the issue.

But beyond its creepiness factor, what are we to deduct from this video? Assuming Obama becomes president, a lot of his supporters with expectations like those expressed in the video are bound to be bitterly disappointed, because those expectations are impossible to be fulfilled by a president.

Realists And Neoconservatives Fight Over Sarah Palin

We recently wrote here about the battle for influence within the McCain campaign between neoconservatives and realists. How deep the rift and how intense the struggle between the two Republican camps is exemplified by an open letter to Sarah Palin by the editors of The American Conservative magazine.

The letter, dripping with disdain for John McCain and well-known neoconservative figures, in a sarcastic tone, lists the main foreign policy grievances realists have with George W. Bush and his neoconservative agenda. Here are a few of them:

Russia:
- Realists don't think the U.S. and Russia are headed for a repeat of the Cold War. They feel that Russia's behavior doesn't constitute a major threat to the U.S.
- "Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It's a traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage."
- "Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have been."

Middle East:
-"Israel's problem isn't external threat so much as internal security and demographics."
-"The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians already in their midst — to suppress terrorism without suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to more bloodshed."
-"The most helpful role the United States can play is that of impartial mediator in the conflict."

Iran:
-"Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them."
-"Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America."

Towards the end of the letter, the writers directly appeal to Sarah Palin to eschew the neoconservative agenda: "You prize localism, their vision is grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of ideology. But they'll tell you this alien vision — imported from the Left — is coherent and conservative."

Sure, The American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, is not the official mouthpiece of realism. And some of the specific points made in the letter, i.e. the stance toward Israel, will be considered too extreme and won't be shared by other outlets with a realist bent. Nevertheless the main thrust of the letter provides an interesting insight into the fierce struggle that is waging within the Republican party. The outcome of this fight for the soul of the GOP will definitely have consequences for the future of the Republican party and possibly the world.

Bad Omen: Palin’s Foreign Policy Inexperience Not Making Many Fans, And It Gets Harder Thursday

Generally, Sarah Palin’s lack of national office experience has been catching her heat ever since she took the vice president slot for the GOP, but specifically, it is her lack of foreign policy experience that has drawn the most criticism. Her recent answers on that subject in interviews has really brought about an incredible amount of blowback from unexpected sources – and unless there are some miracle workers in the McCain camp, it’s just going to get worse after Thursday’s debate against foreign policy specialist Joe Biden.

The new criticism from the right is fairly well-documented. But some less partisan analysts have recently loosed their tongues upon Palin, too. Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria called her comments about Russia vis-à-vis Alaska “gibberish,” said they were marked by “absurdity” and said John McCain’s pick of her betrayed that he did not, in this instance, put “country first.” My CQ colleague Jeff Stein offered: “It’s clear now, as if we needed more proof, that Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue about the world beyond the Bering Straight. Or if she does, she can’t express it.” The Associated Press revisited her Russia remarks, and came up with this: “A stumbling interview with CBS's Katie Couric last week in which Palin equated her state's proximity to Russia with foreign policy experience may have been her defining moment so far.”

Ouch. But that’s just dealing with Couric, who did a good job in the interview but was rather non-confrontational. What’s going to happen when she’s being asked even tougher questions, requiring even greater foreign policy knowledge, and for comparison’s sake, answers to the same questions come from the gaffe-prone, but encyclopedic, brain of Biden?

Maybe it's just that the focus on her mistakes is sharper because she's done so few interviews, as McCain surrogate Mitt Romney theorized. But if she falls short at the debate, it could get very rough from here on out. Here's how serious it is -- George Stephanopoulos of ABC goes so far as to say this: "A major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy."

And The Winner Of The Financial Crisis Is…Europe?

The global financial turmoil produces many losers, but also some winners. With the American banking sector currently melting down, it is hardly surprising that some commentators view the U.S. as the biggest loser in this crisis. Frank Herold is one of them. In a guest editorial for Russia's RIA Novosti (in German), Herold, an editor with Berliner Zeitung, argues that as a result of the turmoil, there will be a realignment of the global power structure.

To be sure, Herold feels that it is premature to sing the swan song for the U.S., but he thinks the time of American global hegemony, at least for the foreseeable future, is over. Possible beneficiaries of the crumbling old world order, according to Herold, are China, but also Iran, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the U.S. preoccupied with itself, who is supposed to keep Iran, Chavez and the Taliban in check, asks Herold.

But the most interesting aspect of Herold's analysis is that he proclaims Europe one of the major winners in the international power reshuffle: It doesn't matter who wins the election and becomes president, McCain or Obama. Whoever it is will have to seek common ground with Europe – and not with a particular European country - a position that George W. Bush felt was good enough - but with Europe as a supranational power, writes Herold.

Hence, Herold argues, after the failure of the Bush model, it is now the up to the Europeans, who rightfully have complained for a long time about American unilateralism and hubris, to confidently present their solutions for the global challenges the West is facing.

According to Herold, the financial crisis has brought the EU closer together and is in itself a convincing argument that the kind of integration the EU provides is necessary. Europe is back, writes Herold and warns that everyone who doesn't recognize that fact misjudges the signals of the current crisis. That goes for the U.S., but also Russia, who's foreign policy instincts, states Herold, were no less "American," than those of the U.S.

While Herold's analysis that the U.S. is weakened by the financial crisis sounds plausible, his deduction that therefore Europe is one of its biggest beneficiaries isn't. Politics isn't a zero-sum game. Just because, the U.S. loses some of its global stature doesn't necessarily translate into European gains. (Yesterday's historic election results of the CSU and the SPD in Bavaria proved that point.) If the EU's economic and foreign policy, as well as its structural fundamentals haven't changed - and they haven't - then why should Europe be in a better position now then a few weeks ago? What's more, the assumption that Europe, through this crisis, has become more cohesive, for the time being is just that – an assumption that hasn't been put to the test.

As far as the next U.S. president is concerned though, Herold is right. Whether it is Obama or McCain, he will have to seek common ground with Europe. Not necessarily because Europe is so much stronger than before, but because compared to all the other global players, Europe is simply the best option.

Flip-Flop Allegation: Obama On Missile Defense

The right is calling Barack Obama a flip-flopper after his statement during Friday night’s debate that “I actually believe we need missile defense.” The truth is a little more subtle than any charge of a flagrant flip-flop that took life that evening, but either way, Obama’s position has apparently shifted over time, and his current stance raises some questions.

At one point, anyway, it appeared that Obama opposed missile defense entirely. Back in 2001, he said, according to a quote from a television station that the John McCain campaign rustled up: “I, for example, don't agree with a missile defense system.” That’s the only quote from the interview I’ve been able to find – what he said before or after that, and in what context, is not readily available.

But for as far back as I can discern other than that remark, Obama has primarily taken a skeptical view of missile defense, not a “no way, no how” view of missile defense. Almost all of his statements have indicated he does not oppose missile defense in theory. But he has favored cutting spending on missile defense – “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” he said in February – and has opposed deployment of missile defense infrastructure in Europe until certain conditions are met. “The Bush administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles,” he said in July of last year when the Polish president visited. “If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.”

Between those two statements lies the following question: Given the billions that have been spent on missile defense so far and that fact that the United States still has no working shield, how will cutting missile defense spending increase the chances of producing a system that works?

Kissinger, McCain, Obama And Iran

There were plenty of things to fact check from Friday evening’s presidential debate on foreign policy, but one where the fact-checkers seemed to come down in a couple different directions was Barack Obama’s claim about Henry Kissinger’s views on meeting with Iran.

My reading is that this Marc Ambinder breakdown has it right.

International Media On The Debate: McCain Seemed Like An Old Sheriff, Obama Like A Handsome Professor

So who won the debate, John McCain or Barack Obama? Neither of them is the answer, if you ask how the international media reacted to the first presidential debate, even though some political analysts give Obama a slight edge.

"A clear tie" headlines Germany's business magazine Wirtschaftswoche, and comments that both McCain and Obama came across surprisingly bland during the TV debate. One of the reasons for their rather dreary performance was that both wanted to avoid mistakes. The question which of them will be the next president remains open - although Obama is likely to benefit more from the financial crisis than his opponent, writes Wirtschaftswoche.

Poland's Rzeczpospolita (via dradio.de) argues along the same lines. Obama presented himself slightly better on economic issues, even though McCain gave a better answer to the question which concrete steps should be taken to solve the financial crisis: To freeze government spending with the exception of some key areas. But generally McCain and Obama talked as though the many dramatic events of the past few days simply hadn't happened. "McCain seemed like an old, experienced sheriff, Obama like a handsome university professor who is open for alternative views," says Rzeczpospolita.

"The debate only confirmed that both candidates can contribute nothing substantial to the discussion about the financial crisis," argues Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Both stuck to their old rhetoric, despite the fact that the crisis has thwarted their budget plans. Where foreign policy was concerned, McCain – as expected - managed to put his opponent on the defense. Repeatedly Obama was accused of being naive and inexperienced without being able to effectly counter the charges. But the Democratic nominee stuck it out and appeared presidential. Since there were no gaffes or big mishaps, the effect of the debate on the race will probably be negligable. This helps Obama who leads in the polls and has taken another hurdle on his path to the White House, writes the Swiss paper.

"McCain needed to win, but he couldn't pull it off," German communications expert Frank Brettschneider told DPA. Obama was well prepared and on foreign policy topics came across better than he had until now. McCain merely relied on characterizing Obama as inexperienced. "That is simply not good enough," said Brettschneider, who teaches at Hohenheim university near Stuttgart. All in all, Brettschneider saw the debate ending with a slight advantage for Obama.

Dutch communications specialist Eliane Schoonman agrees that Obama did better in the debate: Obama explained in great detail how the financial crisis has been created by the Republicans, how it affects the ordinary Americans and how he, Barack Obama, is going to solve the problem. McCain did better discussing the war in Iraq, casting himself as a war hero intent on winning, she told Dutch broadcaster RNW. So who won? As the debate mostly dealt with security, McCain's key issue, he should have won. Everything, though, points to a victory for Obama, who thus extends his lead over McCain, Schoonman was quoted by RNW.

So The Debate Is On, But Does It Matter?

After two days of uncertainty about the first presidential debate, John McCain finally said "Yes I can." So the event is on and we can all watch McCain and Barack Obama square off against each other on foreign policy, but probably even more on the financial crisis. Tim already laid out a way to do justice to both topics.

But the big question is: Do the debates even matter? Tom Holbrooke, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, argues in his blog (via scienceblogs.de) that debates usually don't have much influence in the outcome of the presidential election. His prediction for the current debate: "I don't expect to see large swings in candidate support following the individual debates, barring something really spectacular happening. However, even relatively small shifts in the same direction over the three debates could make this relatively tight race even tighter (if the shifts favor McCain), or could blow it open (if the shifts favor Obama)." Ross Barker, a political scientist at Rutgers, agrees that "debates aren't do or die".

Others disagree. Alan Schroeder, author of "Presidential Debates: 40 Years of High-Risk TV", told Bloomberg that the McCain-Obama debates are very different than previous debates and therefore may have a greater impact on the race. And Dan Balz in the Washington Post makes the case using historical examples, that debates are in fact "enormously important."

Who's right? We can all be the judge. Let's just wait, watch the debates, and see if there are major shifts in the polls afterwards.

Yet More International Affairs Debate Questions With An Economic Twist

It’s still up in the air, this foreign policy debate scheduled for Friday evening between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, owing to McCain’s campaign-suspending maneuver in light of the economic crisis. Yesterday, I shared some questions from Council on Foreign Relations experts on foreign policy that could keep the candidates focused on the topic of the economy, if that’s the primary concern these days. Today, here are some more, from Foreign Policy:

--Should the United States continue its embargo against Cuba?
--Would you be willing to cut farm subsidies to allow the Doha Round of trade negotiations to proceed?
--Do you support the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, which would allow the United States to provide civil nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country that hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
--How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States’ growing economic interdependence with that country?

Also today, a liberal interest group distributed to my mailbox and others this interview with economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that the war in Iraq “broke the camel’s back” in making our economy worse – higher gas prices, a chain reaction by the Fed, the budget deficit the war exacerbated, etc. There are questions available to both candidates about how much they think the war affected the economy and what they’d do about it.

That I know the answer to some of the above questions (on India, both would answer “yes;” on Cuba, McCain would answer “no” and Obama would answer “just here and there,” a reversal of his previous position of "yes") is beside the point. The point is that there are plenty of joint foreign policy-economy-style questions available, and really, over the last two days, what I've passed along is just the tip of the iceberg.

Are Obama's German Roots Actually Swiss Roots?

Just before Barack Obama's visit to Berlin this summer, the German weekly Die Zeit reported via a press release and a follow-up article that the Democratic presidential candidate has German ancestors. According to the paper, Christian Gutknecht, Obama's grandfather six generations back emigrated with his wife from the Alsatian village of Bischweiler to the U.S. There, he changed his name to Goodknight and died in Germantown, Pennsylvania in 1795.

This is not Obama's only ancestral relation to Germany, reported Die Zeit. Another line dates back to 1616 and the German city of Heilbronn. According to the paper, after Kenian (50 percent) and English (37,7 percent) roots, Obama's German (4,68 percent) roots take third place in his ancestorial make-up.

But then yesterday, Swiss largest paper Blick said not so fast, and headlined an article on Obama's ancestry with the following: "Swiss blood runs through Obama's veins." The paper, refering to an interview by AFP with the archivist of Bischweiler, now Bischwilller, writes that Obama's ancestor Christian Gutknecht was probably a Swiss immigrant who had moved to Eschweiler. According to the archivist, Gutknecht had lived in a street in the Alsatian village that was built especially for Swiss immigrants. Many other Swiss outlets carried the story as well.

So is Obama more Swiss than German? And if so, does it matter? And what would that mean for his foreign policy positions via Germany and Switzerland? As soon as someone tackles these difficult issues, you can read about right here.

Economy Got You Down? Don't Worry, The Foreign Policy Debate Has It Covered

As of this writing, it’s completely unclear whether there will be a foreign policy-oriented presidential debate Friday night, as previously planned. But if economic woes are the predominant concern, there are plenty of questions for the candidates on the foreign policy front that have an economic angle.

At a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington this week, a group of foreign policy experts offered up the following debate questions along those lines, per ABCNews.com:

--With the United States' power around the world largely built on its economic influence, how does the current U.S. financial market crisis affect U.S. power in the world?
--With the bailouts of Wall Street giants likely to increase the massive U.S. deficit and foreign entities buying up a large chuck of that debt, what do you see as some of the foreign policy consequences of foreign entities buying U.S. debt?
--What's the sustainability of foreign entities investing in the U.S. at a time when the U.S. markets seem to be in so much trouble?
--Do you think that climate change and energy issues should be treated as separate issues? If not, how are they related?

Of the 13 questions ABCNews.com conveyed, four had an economic angle, and they didn’t even get into international trade. And even if these specific questions aren’t asked, it’s hard to imagine that the economic angle on foreign policy won’t be explored. That is, if the debate happens at all.

Global Media Outlets Focus On Presidential Debates

The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain with its focus on foreign policy and national security is garnering huge international attention. For campaign aficionados anywhere in the world who don't mind getting up early, or staying up late, that is good news because you'll almost certainly can watch the debate live.

Here's a sampling of international media outlets that will carry the proceedings from the campus of the University of Mississippi:
-CNN International
-CNN Espanol
-BBC
-Telemundo
-France 24
-ARD
-ZDF

In addition, the Campaign on Presidential Debates (CPD) and Myspace.com have teamed up to create a special online platform, where users can watch a live stream of the debates, and also interact with each other. You can check it out here.

The First Debate Being On Foreign Policy Helps McCain… Correction, Obama

The two candidates began prepping Tuesday for their first debate later this week, on the topic of foreign policy. So clearly that favors John McCain, war veteran, long-time senator, Armed Services Committee guru, right? Except there’s a case to be made that it benefits Barack Obama, too.

The case for McCain is offered by the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, here. It goes: “The debate this Friday at Ole Miss presents McCain an opportunity to go on offense. While the nation is focused on its financial future, the two candidates will square off on foreign policy. If McCain has a comfort zone, this is it. The bombing at the U.S. embassy in Yemen on Sept. 17 and the massive hotel bombing in Pakistan on Sept. 20 -- both during the worst week in recent U.S. economic history -- are stark reminders of the dangerous world America inhabits. McCain could still retake control of the conversation.”

The case for Obama is offered by presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, at ABCNews.com. It goes: “As we saw last week Obama has a clear advantage on the economy issues, so if he can diffuse the national security issue, which has been Sen. McCain’s strong suit, then I think going into the home stretch he probably establishes a clear if small advantage overall.” In other words, better to get McCain’s strength out of the way sooner, so Obama can focus on his own strengths when it matters most – just before voters hit the polls.

Smith, it must be noted, offered the case for both Obama and McCain. Which goes to show how easy it is to see both interpretations as plausible.

Palin's Political Speed Dating Versus Obama's Whirlwind Tour

Barack Obama did Europe and the Middle East in a week to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Sarah Palin, in a political speed dating effort, will meet with nine international leaders in less than 30 hours without even leaving the U.S. Both Obama's whirlwind jet-setting tour and Palin's meet-and-greet with foreign leaders, show how serious a qualification international experience is for both campaigns.

Sure, Obama received some great media coverage and photo opportunties from his trip. Sarah Palin will also come out of those meetings with foreign leaders with at least some good shake-hands pictures.

But really, how much better equipped to deal with foreign policy are Obama and Palin after their respected ventures into global affairs? How much more do they know than they did before? Probably not that much. This is not to say that Obama's trip and Palin's New York meetings were in vain.

Let's just take them for what they are - highly choreographed efforts to showcase to voters and the media that the candidate is suited for the world stage. Neither Obama nor Palin are now all of a sudden foreign policy experts.

The Politicization And Depoliticization Of The Iran Rally

Both sides are casting blame on the other for the flap over whether Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and/or a representative of Barack Obama’s campaign would attend an anti-Iran rally in New York Monday. That’s fine, because there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Clinton was the original guest, but when organizers learned that Palin would be in New York around the date of the rally, they invited her, too. It is around here that the maneuvering began – liberal critics of inviting Palin saw political motives among organizers in boosting the John McCain-Palin ticket with Jewish voters (not to mention family ties between the two camps), and when Clinton abruptly pulled out of the event following Palin’s invitation, conservative critics savaged her for putting politics ahead of an important protest. The Obama campaign arranged to have a surrogate, Rep. Robert Wexler, attend. But by the time that happened, several liberal-leaning Jewish groups had begun a protest of Palin’s appearance, figuring she would outshine anyone from Obama's campaign other than her vice-presidential equivalent, Joe Biden, and Palin was out.

The fallout was swift. Some of the liberal-leaning groups were pleased when Palin was disinvited, a move the organizers said they were forced to make if they wanted the event to be devoid of politics. A local New York station reported that some unnamed Democrats threatened the organizers' tax exempt status if Palin spoke, infuriating the right. Said one of the groups involved about the whole mess: “Sen. Clinton’s appearance at a rally with Gov. Palin would have sent a strong message to Ahmadinejad and his cronies – that Americans understand the threat and stand together against it. Instead we have divided ourselves in front of it." Clearly the rally organizers did not consider all the ramifications of inviting a former Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican vice presidential candidate to their event in the stretch run of a heated campaign. But given how much Democrats have made this year about their confidence on foreign policy in this election, it is strange that Clinton didn't stay put or that the liberal-leaning groups didn't relent in their pressure to disinvite Palin once the Obama camp was prepared to send Wexler.

There really wasn’t any good way for this to end; once Palin was invited and Clinton pulled out, the rally was doomed to get wrapped up in the 2008 campaign, no matter what organizers did after that. Still, the rally drew thousands, according to news reports, even without Palin, Clinton or anyone else. It’s hard to believe the rally wouldn’t have been bigger had Palin and/or Clinton attended, but the publicity over the feud surely won it more attention than an anti-Iran rally might have gotten otherwise.

And if you get curious about what Palin and Clinton might have said, my old paper, The New York Sun, obtained the remarks they might have delivered. You can read them here and here.

Wall Street Shock Could Help Obama, If He Seizes His Chance, Say International Media

It doesn't look like the financial turmoil emanating from the U.S. is going away anytime soon. Instead the malaise that was triggered by the housing bubble in the U.S. has spread around the world. Obviously the meltdown on Wall Street will also have an impact on the presidential race. The blame game is already in full swing between Barack Obama and John McCain. Who's fault is the crisis anyway and who is better equipped to lead the world out of it, McCain or Obama, Democrats or Republicans?

And of course it is not just the U.S. media that play referee in the blame game. Global media outlets also have their take on whether McCain or Obama will be hurt by or benefit from the crisis. For an overview of international English-language opinion on the issue, check out the Nieman Watchdog.

There are however some interesting takes on the blame game that are not published in English, so here we go: "Monday, September 14, the day the American markets crashed, should mark a turning point in the election campaign", writes the French daily Liberation (via AFP). McCain in the end supported the plan to save AIG after having rejected it the previous day. McCain basically wants to continue the course of his predecessor, opines Liberation and adds: Government is not a dirty word for Obama. But so far the Democratic candidate couldn't convince voters that he is better suited to fulfill the expectations Americans have, writes the French paper and argues that the financial crisis is the best example for the price that must be paid for Republican laisser-faire policies.

According to Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Obama benefits from the turmoil on Wall Street even though he is no financial expert and his remarks on the situation were rather simplifying. But for a long time Obama has called for stronger oversight over financial markets, a demand that is hard to counter after recent events, writes the paper. Another advantage for Obama is the fact that the economy is now the dominant topic and that - righly or wrongly - voters feel that the Democrats are better equipped to deal with this issue.

The German weekly Die Zeit agrees: "Traditionally Democrats are considered to be the party that is better on economic policy." Until now, however, Obama has not been able to profit from this sentiment. He has not proven that he can emphasize with the worries of the man on the street as Bill Clinton did in his time. One of Obama's problems on the campaign trail has been that he appears intellectual and aloof. While the crisis on Wall Street is eating up the savings of working class, Obama should should lay out his remedy. But exactly on that point he has fallen short so far, opines Die Zeit and sums up: "The political environment favors Obama - but he must seize the opportunity."

Have Neocons Taken Over The McCain Campaign?

A few months ago, there were some news reports about the internal struggle within John McCain's campaign between realists/pragmatists and neoconservatives/idealists. Recent events, though, have led some commentators to conclude that the struggle’s over, and the neocons have won.

Three of these events happened in the past week. First, Henry Kissinger urged the next president to meet with the leader of Iran without preconditions, as Barack Obama had said he would do. This is the same Henry Kissinger who had been seen as one of the top realist advisers to McCain. Second, McCain apparently reversed a previous stance when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain, and one plausible explanation is that this was a deliberate slight because of his Iraq troop withdrawal. Third, neocon advisers have reportedly taken the lead in the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin.

It’s not just been this week, of course. As Michael wrote, one recent analysis is that hawks within McCain’s camp pushed him to take a harsher line against Russia. In fact, it’s hard to find many headlines McCain has made these days for any foreign policy position that might be categorized as realist.

ThinkProgress’s M. Duss wrote: “Hopefully, Kissinger’s statement will put to rest the idea that McCain’s foreign policy brain trust is divided between realists and neocons, which I’ve long argued is nonsense. McCain is a committed neoconservative, and has been for years.” Democracy Arsenal’s Adam Blickstein wrote: “McCain is not only an outlier, if he were part of the Bush administration, he would have already been marginalized and rendered irrelevant like the rest of the anachronistic and dangerous neocon cult.”

Granted, those two commentaries come from the left, which has an incentive to push the line that McCain is a neocon – not the most popular designation these days. But it’s worth wondering whether their basic argument right.

Obama Or McCain: Who Is Better For Germany, Canada And Europe?

One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to show how people outside the U.S. think about the presidential election and the candidates. Regular readers of this blog know of course that judging by opinion polls, the whole world clearly wants Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. So, case closed?

Not really. Polls, as every politician and every pollster will attest to, never tell the entire story. They are also not necessarily a good indicator of what is in the interest of the people participating in these surveys, as poll takers and voters don't always act rationally and choose the option that is in their or their country's best interest.

So when a leading German business magazine, a Canadian broadcaster and a Finnish EU parlamentarian asked whether John McCain or Barack Obama is better for Germany, Canada and the EU, we'll tell you about it right here.

Let's start with the German business magazine Capital, which headlines a lengthy piece (in German) on Obama and McCain, "Who is better for Germany?" According to Capital, it is not only Herr Müller or Frau Schmidt who prefer Obama over McCain, but also Germany's business leaders: Two-thirds of them, says a Capital survey, want Obama as the next president because they think the Democratic candidate would be better for Germany.

But they are wrong, conclude the authors of the Capital article. With one possible exception – climate change – a president McCain would be better for Germany on every business-related issue, i.e., free trade, subsidies, currency policy. And even on climate change, Obama is not the clear favorite since his plan for the 'greening' of U.S. automakers will be achieved through subsides for American companies like General Motors and Ford. This, says Capital, will hurt German automakers.

When it comes to free trade, Obama wants to renegotiate current trade agreements. What's more, writes Capital, the Democrats are not particularly fond of foreign companies. "There are repeated efforts to increase our taxes," Capital quotes an unnamed U.S. head of a major German company. "Almost always they are brought on by Democrats."

On foreign policy, Obama is pretty much a blank slate, while McCain knows Europe and is also well known there, argues Capital. McCain is a regular at Munich's Security Conference and his advisor for transatlantic relations, Richard Burt, was ambassador to Germany from 1985 to 1989. However, there is some anxiety in German business circles about McCain's hard-line approach toward Russia. While McCain wants Russia thrown out of the G8, the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce warn against isolating Russia.

In sum, writes Capital, an Obama victory in November would lead to dissappointment, and not only where matters of international business are concerned. Many Germans have not gotten the message that - like McCain - Obama will push for a greater international role for Germany, e.g., more German troops and money for Afghanistan. "Under Obama, there will be more complications in transatlantic relations than many people expect," the magazine quotes Eberhard Sandschneider, Director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Interestingly, an article by Canada's CTV, asks "Who would be the best for Canada: McCain or Obama?" and comes to similar conclusions: "On pocketbook issues, the sensible thing to do would be to hope for a McCain presidency," CTV quotes Greg Anderson, a U.S. foreign policy expert at the University of Alberta. On national security, however, it's a different picture. A dove is better than a hawk, Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto specializing in Canada-U.S. relations told CTV. But in the end, pragmatism reigns. Canadian experts quoted by CTV agree: "You work with whoever's there."

Pragmatic is also a word that comes to mind when reading Anneli Jäätteenmäki's analysis in the Helsinki Times, which also questions which of the two presidential candidates is better for Europe.

Jäätteenmäki, a Finnish Member of the European Parliament for the Centre Party, puts it this way: "What we all must realize is that both candidates recognize that American foreign policy must change. They both want to move away from the unilateralism of the Bush administration towards a more multilateral approach. I believe that this change will be good for both the United States and Europe." In a nutshell: "Either way, Europe is better off."

McCain Maims Spain In Name Game

It’s hard to get at what John McCain was thinking this week, precisely, when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain if elected. That’s because none of the explanations – three of which are speculative and one of which is official – entirely make sense.

Explanation #1: McCain didn’t know whom the interviewer was talking about. This is the most embarrassing possible outcome, because it puts it in the gaffe territory, and it’s not very flattering to McCain’s argument that he’s the one with all the foreign policy experience. McCain answered the question with references to “Mexico,” the “hemisphere,” “Latin America” and “the region,” and when the interviewer specified that the question was about “Europe,” McCain answered, “What about me, what?” as though he was confused, then went back to speaking very generally about his policy. On the other hand, McCain has spoken about Jose Luis Zapatero before, so why would he suddenly not know who he was? Which brings us to…

Explanation #2: McCain didn’t understand what the interviewer was saying, through no fault of his own. Of all the explanations, this seems to be the one that even liberal types have been offering most generously. The interviewer, they say, spoke with a very think accent. (Alternately, McCain was having a “senior moment” – not that such a moment is a good thing.) The problem with this one is that McCain’s foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has explicitly stated that McCain did understand the interviewer. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but if it’s not, it does mean that the McCain camp would be lying instead of taking the answer that would cause the least controversy. But maybe they have a reason for wanting it to be known that he understood. Which brings us to…

Explanation #3: McCain intended to slight Zapatero. Relations between President Bush and Spain have been cold ever since Zapatero pulled troops out of Iraq shortly after winning election in 2004. McCain could be in the same camp. The problem with that is, back in April, McCain didn’t seem to be. He spoke in a very conciliatory manner in a spring interview: “I would like for [President Zapatero] to visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain but in obtaining good and productive relations with the goal of addressing many issues and challenges that we have to confront together.” Nothing major has happened in U.S.-Spain relations since April that has been made public, so that means that any change would have had to come as a result of a mysterious internal shift within the McCain camp. So what does the McCain camp say?…

Explanation #4: McCain was just keeping his options open, as a matter of policy. The official explanation, from Scheunemann: “If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping your options open…” Few problems there. First, the interviewer didn’t ask for those specifics. Second, in the same interview, McCain implied he welcomed the idea of meeting with Mexico’s president. “I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion. And by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very tough fight against the drug cartels,” he said. Finally, it also doesn’t square with McCain’s April implication that he would like to meet with Zapatero, unless McCain just wanted to have Zapatero come to America and not meet with him, for some reason.

Where Do Obama And McCain Stand On Russia?

We have parsed and analyzed John McCain's and Barack Obama's reactions and stance vis-à-vis Russia and Georgia here at Across the Pond, while the military conflict between both states was taking place. But more often than not, after the dust settles and other topics make their way onto the agenda, journalists often neglect to follow up with a sober after-the-fact analysis of events. Even we are not blameless in this regard.

But sometimes when the media fail, academia comes to the rescue. In our case, it comes in the form of the Hungarian think tank Budapest Analyses, which has just released (via GMF) its take on the presidential candidates' stances on Russia. Here are a few nuggets from the BA's brief on McCain and Obama:

-John McCain reiterated his tough stance toward Russia, which is even more hard-line than President George W. Bush's.
-John McCain, as president, would carry on with President Bush's 'Democracy Project' where Russia and its neighbors are concerned.
-John McCain is "instinctively prone to shoot from the hip; second, he harbors deep personal enmities against Vladimir Putin; and third, his foreign policy advisers are a mix of Realpolitik practitioners and neo-conservatives."
-John McCain's neo-conservative advisers are pushing him toward a more hawkish stance toward Russia.
-John McCain is a staunch supporter of the planned anti-missile batteries in Poland (and the radar systems in the Czech Republic) and feels that they might be serving as a hedge against potential threats from Russia and China.

-"Barack Obama remained relatively aloof during the conflict and did not go beyond calling for vigorous diplomatic actions to reach a political solution."
-Barack Obama's Hawaiian vacation during the conflict doesn't explain his lackluster response on the issue.
-Barack Obama's only issued "one mildly directly critical comment about Moscow's behavior in the conflict," namely that genuine peacekeeping forces should be deployed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
-Barack Obama's brief statement during the conflict "implied that he did not consider the conflict as so serious a step by Russia that would necessitate a strong American response."
-Barack Obama and his team, in classical Realpolitik fashion, think the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on a host of issues.
-Barack Obama and "his foreign policy team - among others Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Gregory Craig - are skeptical about the wisdom of deploying the anti-missile batteries in Poland; that is, "provoking" the Russians unnecessarily."
-Barack Obama, however, has to convey that he is not "soft" on national security and has tried to position himself in the tradition of FDR and JFK as someone who can "blend foreign policy with moral considerations".
-Barack Obama himself has talked about a new type of leadership so much that "a conventional Realpolitik would be a big disappointment for a lot of his supporters."

To read the detailed analysis click here.

The India Nuclear Deal And The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election (Part II)

(As Congress considers voting on a civilian nuclear deal with India in the very near future, now is as good a time as any to evaluate where the two presidential candidates have stood on the issue, and how it could play politically. This is the second of two parts, which focuses on the latter; the first part, which focuses on the former, can be read here.)

Both candidates bring up their support for the India nuclear deal when addressing Indian American -- sometimes called Asian Indian -- voters. Extensive data on the actual voting patterns of Indian Americans proved more difficult to find than I expected; they tend to get grouped in with other Asians, and considering that views on the Indian nuclear deal would surely vary between Chinese Americans, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans, Asian American figures are useless here.

Estimates vary because their population is exploding, but according to the 2007 U.S. Census, there are 2.5 million Indian Americans in the U.S. Over the past couple elections, they have appeared to vote strongly Democratic; one estimate had them registered at 60 percent, while a poll from before the 2004 election had them strongly favoring John Kerry. Per this study, they don’t tend to vote as often as the general populace, although there is some evidence that they have increased those numbers of late. There does seem to be an anecdotal surge of young Indian Americans who are inclined toward Barack Obama. The reasons for the trend toward Democrats, according to a journalist who frequently reports on them: “If I had to theorize… I'd say it relates directly to a.) the geographical location of the community in more blue stats [sic] (like NJ, NY, and California) b.) how a President handles foreign policy in South Asia, c.) how religious/Christian the Republican rhetoric is at the time, and d.) the fact that most Indian Americans don't arrive wealthy - it's a slow climb to the top.” Because, as the U.S. India Political Action Committee notes, many Indian Americans are wealthy, they exert influence in campaign donations. They raised $5 million for Democrats in 2004 and $1.5 million for Republicans, according to a piece in the L.A. Times.

However, Republicans have been making a play for this group of voters. One evaluation of the voting group in 2006 estimated that pro-India policies championed by George Bush had helped pull some Indian Americans into the GOP column. Many Indian Americans favor conservative family values. Some of the wealthier among them might be inclined toward tax policies that do not target the rich, and resentful of negativity from some Democratic candidates toward outsourcing that has benefited India. And Indian American Bobby Jindal won election as Republican governor of Louisiana with nearly 90 percent of the vote from the group.

There is contrasting information on whether the nuclear deal is a big deal to Indian American voters. The LA Times story I linked above shows that Indian Americans mobilized to support the deal in 2006 and help push it through, despite other political barriers to doing so. An official with USINPAC said that for Indian Americans who voted in 2006, “the Indian nuclear energy deal was right up there with green cards and visas” as top issues. On the other hand, a focus group convened by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future found that, among its sample, there was greater interest in this election in issues of concern to all voters, from the economy to Iraq.

While there are a decent number of Indian Americans in swing states Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, because American businesses might benefit from increased trade, there’s a broader economic argument to the India deal, too. It’s not something either candidate spends much time on the trail talking about, but if the deal comes before Congress next week, it wouldn’t be surprising to see either of them touting –- a little bit, anyway –- the economic benefits of the deal and jostling for position about who supported it most.

Palin Invites Media and Voters To Grill Her On Foreign Policy Details

In her first town hall meeting with John McCain, Sarah Palin was asked to address her perceived lack of foreign policy experience by giving specifics how she is prepared to deal with global affairs. Instead of providing specifics, Palin offered generalities, as Scott Conroy points out in From the Road. Palin, as any other candidate, is free to answer or not answer any questions. And it is also Palin's prerogative to let McCain speak about her foreign policy credentials in the town hall meeting, and let her spokesman provide details relating to her foreign policy experience at a later date.

That approach, however, won't work long term because it won't satisfy questions voters and the media have about her record. But, as has been reported here and elsewhere, the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin is still ongoing, and perhaps as the Alaska Governor said herself, the goal is not to be ready today, but to be ready come January 20, 2009.

Considering Palin's reluctance to address foreign policy issues at this point, the Republican vice presidential candidate went out on a limb, which she may live to regret, writes Mosheh Oinounou at Fox News Embeds. At the town hall meeting in Michigan, Palin issued the following challenge: "I have that readiness, and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead you can ask me to play stump the candidate if you want to."

What will Palin's dare mean for the campaign? "While Palin's offer of stump the candidate was partially meant in jest, media already eager to trip up the Alaska Governor on her perceived weakness now have even more incentive to — if ever accorded the opportunity to ask questions," writes Oinounou, adding that the last candidate to issue such a dare was Gary Hart. He ultimately lost that challenge.

But even more intriguing is the question why Palin even made such a challenge? It is a challenge that is her's to lose. One must only ask a fairly specific foreign question and pretty much every politician - whether veteran foreign policy official or novice candidate - will fail. What's more, to prove that one can memorize foreign ministers and capitals doesn't necessarily convey foreign policy experience, but rather good memory skills.

In a nutshell: By issuing such a challenge, Palin or any other politician, is in a no-win situation. If she answers a question correctly, it doesnt improve her foreign policy standing. If she makes a gaffe, it confirms her critics' perception that she is clueless on foreign policy. So why did she do it? What do you think?

As Americans Discover Palinmania, Brazilians Give New Meaning To Obamamania

After reporting numerous times about Barack Obama's popularity in Germany, Europe and the world, we here at Across the Pond thought we had Obamamania covered inside out and had pretty much considered that part of the election saga closed. We were wrong. We still managed to ignore reports coming out of Canada that it had been struck by a severe case of Obamamania.

But what is being reported now out of Brazil by the Guardian (via the Drudge Report) redefines the entire concept of admiration and adoration for Barack Obama the world has seen heretofore.

According to the Guardian, at least six Brazilian politicians have renamed themselves after the Democratic candidate hoping to be more attractive for voters. But it doesn't end with the name change. Change is also what one of the Brazilian Obamas, a man formerly know as Claudio Henrique dos Anjos, wants to bring Belford Rexo, a city on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro: "I say the same things. I talk about political renewal, change, about transforming the city."

While people were renaming themselves after Obama in Brazil, a totally different phenomenon is sweeping the U.S., as media outlets as diverse as Marie Claire and ABC News are reporting: Palinmania. For better or worse, so far no name changes to Palin have surfaced by admirers of John McCain's running mate. And so far, as the Daily Telegraph notes, Palinmania has been slow to cross the Atlantic. We'll keep you posted should that change.

The India Nuclear Deal And The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election (Part I)

Revisiting Palin's ABC Interview And Her Take On World Issues

I thought I’d missed my chance at commenting on Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson last week, but since others are still dissecting it, there’s no reason not to analyze what she said on our little slice of the blogosphere, foreign policy in the 2008 presidential race. Let’s try to do a little refereeing.

--Vice presidents. Palin was just plain wrong when she answered the question about whether she’d met with foreign leaders thusly: “I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.” CBS found that you’d have to go back to Spiro Agnew to find even a vice president who likely had not met with a foreign leader prior to taking on the job of running mate.
--Bush doctrine. This piece in The Australian Monday may have been overly generous in giving Palin credit for “perfect nuance” on foreign policy, but it’s right about one thing: Different people mean different things by “Bush doctrine,” so Palin probably wouldn’t have been alone in wanting to clarify. That said, her answer betrayed a lack of familiarity with any single version of the “Bush doctrine.”
--Global warming. When she said that she believed mankind “can be contributing” to climate change, it was not a flip-flop. She has said in the past: “I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.” Each of those statements sounds at odds, and maybe they are meant to lead the listener down one direction or the other toward what she wants people to think she believes. Her position can be summarized thusly: “I’m not saying it’s man-made, but it might be.” It’s roughly equivalent to the view of an agnostic: “I’m not saying there’s a God, but there might be.” I think the more relevant question than whether she flip-flopped is whether there’s enough science to suggest more than mere “potential” for man-made global warming.
--Russia. It is true that if NATO accepted Georgia into its ranks and Russia attacked it, the U.S. “perhaps” could find itself in war with Russia, as Palin said. It’s actually the whole idea – if one NATO ally is attacked, the concept goes, the whole of NATO is attacked and must respond as such. But you won’t find many candidates who would have answered the hypothetical that way, for fear of being provocative. And was the Russia attack on Georgia “unprovoked,” as Palin said? Russia had made it pretty clear that they were agitated by Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia but Georgia continued along the path it did. “Provoked” and “justifiable” aren’t necessarily the same thing. Some would argue that Russia was indeed provoked, whether it was right to attack Georgia or not.
--Pakistan. Palin effectively endorsed Barack Obama’s position on going after terrorists in Pakistan without that country’s permission, a position John McCain has rejected, when she said, “I believe America has to exercise all options.”

Is Bush Following Obama On Foreign Policy, Or Is Obama Following McCain?

In this space of late, I've emphasized the ways in which President Bush's foreign policy has come to resemble Barack Obama's: On Iraq, on meeting with controversial foreign leaders, and most recently, on conducting operations inside Pakistan without its permission to go after al Qaeda.

The Weekly Standard offers up a different case: That Obama is actually following John McCain's lead. And on most of the examples the conservative magazine offers, there is truth in them. On the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Russia's invasion of Georgia and other topics, Obama over time shifted toward McCain.

Both cases, stated at their lowest common denominator, are true. Bush has shifted toward Obama, in some situations. Obama has shifted toward McCain, in some situations.

There's a kind of three-way game of chase going on here, where each of two candidates and the one president alternately distances himself from and moves closer to one or both of the others.

Palin's Iraq Trip Clarifications: Intent or Rookie Mistake?

Sarah Palin visited Iraq, but stayed really close to the border for a really brief time. That sums up the most current version given by Palin's team of the Alaska Governor's trip to Iraq.

As Jazz Shaw points out correctly in The Moderate Voice, "it should be noted, once again, that there technically isn’t a lie in here per say. She apparently was inside of both of those countries and I suppose you could consider every square inch of Iraq a 'battle zone' if you parse the language closely enough."

Still, adds Shaw, "Palin is looking like far less of a rube or Washington Outsider than the original billing and much more adept at twisting political tales to the advantage of the campaign without allowing herself to get caught in an actual 'pants on fire' situation."

That assumes that Palin and her team deliberately released misleading information, which is not necessarily the case. It could simply be a rookie mistake by a team that has not operated in this kind of media and political environment before. If that was the case, then they better adapt fast, because after this incident the media will even play closer attention to all the information provided by Palin and her staff.

First On Iraq, Then On Meeting With Enemies -- Now, Bush Moves Toward Obama On Pakistan Strikes

It's remarkable, really. On several of the top, most divisive national security issues of the 2008 election... from Iraq to meeting with controversial foreign leaders... and now, to whether to conduct military operations in Pakistan against al Qaeda targets even if Pakistan doesn't allow it... President Bush has moved significantly toward Barack Obama in the last few months.

If this New York Times story is true, Bush has taken up Obama's proposal -- much-mocked by John McCain -- to take action across the Pakistan border without the blessings of that country's leadership. It is the key position in which Obama is more hawkish than McCain. McCain has said he will follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" as president, but he has drawn the line at crossing the border into Pakistan, reasoning (as many do) that alienating Pakistan with an attack on their soil isn't worth the trouble it would cause. (Interestingly enough, at a hearing I attended the day before the Times story broke, Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- possibly alluding to the divide over this issue on the presidential trail -- made the argument that Pakistan was too important to alienate.)

Indeed, the move has has proven troublesome, based on Pakistan's reaction. But that's not the point. The point is that, once again, Bush has done something that is more like the Democratic presidential candidate than the Republican one. And it hasn't much been noticed yet that in this case -- Reason picked up on it, and MSNBC briefly mentioned it, but I don't see much else on a cursory search, perhaps because it would require reporters to confirm the Times' account of a classified order and they simply haven't done it yet.

McCain Goes After Obama's Opposition To "Future Combat Systems"... Which McCain Opposed, Too

Another nice catch from the National Security Network: John McCain this week criticized Barack Obama for wanting to cut the Pentagon's "Future Combat Systems" program, when McCain himself actually proposed eliminating the very program just last month.

McCain has disliked the program for quite some time, per Wired's Noah Schactman.

Unless, of course, McCain was just talking about lower-case "future combat systems," as opposed to the expensive upper-case version that has critics just about everywhere, in which case the burden is on his campaign to produce evidence of that.

Taking Biden's Challenge On Differences Between Bush And McCain On Foreign Policy

"Tell me one single thing they're going to do on the economy, foreign policy, taxes, that is going to be change," Joe Biden said this weekend on NBC.

I answer the challenge thusly:

Part one -- there are ways in which John McCain and Sarah Palin would do things differently than George Bush has on foreign policy. There are some distinctions between McCain and Bush on nuclear non-proliferation, although they are slight and closing. McCain's rhetoric on Russia and Darfur has been more brisk, and McCain has taken a harder stance on negotiations with enemy countries than Bush has of late. Bush favors drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and McCain opposes it (at least for now). The full list is actually longer than that; those are just a few that come to mind.

Part two -- the fact is that McCain would do things more like Bush than Barack Obama would. On Iraq, free trade and a number of other foreign policy-related issues, there is very little difference between Bush and McCain. On Iraq, free trade and a number of other foreign policy-related issues, there IS a good deal of difference between Bush and Obama.

It's a framing question, more than anything. Biden was trying to use some shorthand. It just seemed that, since he asked, someone ought to answer.

While Americans Still Mull The Candidates, 22 Countries Have Made Up Their Mind For Obama

Some things never change: Even as the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama in the U.S. is tightening, people across the world stick with their preferred candidate. According to a just released poll, people in 22 countries want Obama to become president, while McCain is not favored in a single country. The poll conducted by Globescan for the BBC included more than 23,000 participants in countries such as Australia, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Kenya, Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey and was carried out in July and August.

"The margin in favor of Senator Obama ranged from 9 percent in India to 82 percent in Kenya, while an average of 49 percent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 percent preferring Senator McCain," ABC News Australia reported.

According to ABC, the countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations were America's NATO allies -- Canada (69 percent), France (62 percent), Germany (61 percent), Britain (54 percent), Italy (64 percent), as well as Australia (62 percent), Kenya (87 percent) and Nigeria (71 percent).

For regular readers of Across the Pond, the world's staunch and consistent support of the Democratic candidate doesn't come as a suprise. We have written about various polls with the same outcome here repeatedly.

What is interesting though is that now that the campaign is really heating up and people in the U.S. and the world are learning more about both candidates - but especially about the relative newcomer Obama - how differently Americans and the rest of the world react to what they see. While Americans, according to most recent polls, haven't really made up their minds on Obama, people across the globe, like what they see and hear from Obama and really want him and not McCain in the White House.

Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy Education Is Ongoing, But Rice Doesn't Sound Impressed

The race seems to be all about Sarah Palin right now, even though she isn't around. She's not around in part because she's been getting a briefing on foreign policy.

I missed this last week, but the Washington Post added some detail to the Newsweek account of how Palin is getting up to speed, which I discussed here. The highlights include details of her trip to AIPAC, chaperoned by Joe Lieberman -- prompting yet more tea leaf-reading about her views on Israel. Another highlight is the list released by John McCain's campaign of the foreign trade representatives she had met with from foreign countries, which strikes me as among the more credible foreign policy-related credentials she has in a record that still remains very thin. The Public Diplomacy blog takes note of some other points from the piece here.

Condi Rice isn't impressed, either way. The Secretary of State declined to praise Palin's nomination in a recent interview, as she did for Barack Obama's pick of Joe Biden. I continue to be surprised by the lack of outrage from the right at Rice's friendship with Obama and some of her comments about the campaign; they've only indirectly attacked the State Department for undermining McCain on the campaign trail.

For The First Time, Obama Himself Goes After Palin On International Affairs Experience

Even though his staff has been more critical of Sarah Palin, Barack Obama has been mostly hands-off about directly going after her. That changed Sunday in the area where she is least experienced: foreign policy.

"I actually knew that Alaska was right next to Russia as well," Obama said with a laugh, responding to Republican claims that Palin is more experienced than he is on foreign policy. "I saw it on a map." And he threw a slightly more indirect jab by bringing up the experience of his own vice presidential nominee. "As somebody who's served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and passed legislation on issues like nuclear proliferation -- and somebody who selected Joe Biden as vice president, who is chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- I'm going to be happy to have a substantive debate with [John] McCain about foreign policy," Obama said. Both his remarks came on ABC News.

There's a delicate risk/reward ratio to Democrats getting too aggressive in their attacks on Palin, which will be tested more than Obama tested it Sunday when Biden debates Palin. Every delegate I talked to at the Republican National Convention said they salivate at the idea of the two male candidates attacking Palin, reasoning that women voters will rally to support her. My CQ colleague Jonathan Allen asks here whether Republicans have set a trap.

The McCain camp, for its part, continues to push the line that Palin is more experienced on foreign policy than Obama, based on her role as head of the Alaska National Guard, although that argument has been exposed as faulty in numerous outlets, since the president controls the National Guard in national security-related scenarios. Perhaps a safer argument for the McCain team is more like the one made by the Democrats: Being right on the issues matters more than experience. "We will stack Palin’s foreign policy credentials against Obama’s any day," McCain spokesman Ben Porritt said. "She understands the surge in Iraq is working."

This ends up being rather circular, no matter how you cut it.

Cool Tool IV: Foreign Policy Election Guide

Want to see how John McCain and Barack Obama stack up on major foreign policy issues? Want to participate in a poll on important topics such as NAFTA, Iran, Darfur and energy independence, and then see which of the two candidates shares your views? Want to compare campaign statements by Obama and McCain on international relations? Or find out which blogs to follow to get the scoop on foreign policy? If you do, then check out the just released election guide 2008 by the Foreign Policy Association. As you have probably guessed by now, I think it is really, really good.

After Obama, McCain and Palin: Now It's Joe Biden's Turn For A Pastor Problem

Ever since Sarah Palin joined Barack Obama and John McCain in the quest for the biggest pastor problem, I have been wondering: Is there some written or unwritten rule that every candidate on a presidential ticket must now bring his or her own pastor issue with them? I can't recall that in previous presidential elections, pastor problems were a campaign staple, but I may be wrong. Are pastor problems part of the vetting process now? And if so, when is Joe Biden's turn? Please enlighten me.

National Security Vs. The Economy, Energy Vs. Foreign Policy, Giuliani Vs. Islamic Terrorism

SAINT PAUL, Minn. – It’s been a busy week here, to say the least. Let’s hit some links.

--Here, for CQ, I run down the reason this convention has focused so much on national security when voters care more about the economy. It’s a subject I’ve written about here before, but the piece elaborates on it, and features some interviews with pollsters and campaign aides.
--I had the same thought as Foreign Policy’s Passport here: Sarah Palin was looking to piggyback foreign policy with energy during her speech, which was a way of using one of her strengths to cover one of her weaknesses. Interestingly, as I’ve written before, John McCain has been using foreign policy to buttress himself on other topics.
--Rudy Giuliani’s statement that Democrats were afraid to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” at their convention warranted a “barely true” rating from Politifact. There’s an interesting side debate about what labels should be used to describe this particular national security phenomenon. It erupted in Congress after the Bush administration itself issued guidelines about the best language to avoid inciting unnecessary hostilities with Muslims. Giuliani obviously sides with some conservatives who say “Islamic terrorism” is the best description of the phenomenon and should not be censored. Democrats obviously side with the administration guidelines that “terrorism” does the trick just fine without additional possible risks.
--I was wondering about this, and wouldn’t you know, Michael Isikoff is on it. That is, how is Palin getting up to speed on foreign policy? She handled it without incident in her convention speech, but it won’t be too long until she’s debating Joe Biden, and things could get interesting if he challenges her on foreign policy details and she’s not prepared.
--McCain is certainly a hawk, so it’s interesting to see that a top surrogate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, says McCain plans to bolster the doves who usually inhabit the State Department if he becomes president.

Palin's Problems With Her Pastors And Her Own Remarks

After Barack Obama and John McCain, it's now Sarah Palin's turn to have a pastor problem. And the way it looks right now, for the attention and the flak she's catching for her association with her former pastor Ed Kalnins, she is definitely competing with the trouble Obama faced with his problem pastor Jeremiah Wright earlier this year.

According to the Huffington Post, who reviewed sermons by the pastor, Kalnins "preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

What's more, Palin's current pastor Larry Kroon also doesn't shy away from controversy. He "gave the pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus", reports Ben Smith. Brickner, according to Smith, "described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."

But to make things even worse, it's not just statement's by Palin's former and current pastor that are controversial, remarks by the Alaska Governor herself have also caused a media stir. As the Wall Street Journal and many other outlets report, Governor Palin at the invitation of her former pastor Kalnins "appeared on stage in June before a youth group at Wassila Assembly of God, where she reminisced fondly about getting baptized there, before asking the young people to pray for a proposed natural gas pipeline in Alaska and for American soldiers."

Here's what Palin said: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

A lot of people, especially outside of the U.S., are uncomfortable with the important role that faith plays in American life and how openly and directly many Americans speak about their faith. I am not. As a European, I have always been fascinated by the sheer multitude of beliefs Americans hold and the very deep and personal faith many Americans profess. And I also don't take issue with the fact that many American politicians have strong religious beliefs that guide their lives.

But what I do think is problematic is when religion is invoked to justify or support narrow political interests. And that is exactly what Sarah Palin has done. But what do you think? Is it okay for a Governor to assert that the Iraq war is a task from God and to ask people to pray for a natural-gas pipeline?

Clooney Rakes In $900,000 For Obama In Switzerland

Last night's fundraiser for Barack Obama in Geneva, Switzerland featuring Hollywood star George Clooney was a big success. Despite the steep price of 1,000 dollars for the reception and 10,000 dollars for a seat at Clooney's table, all places were filled, Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger reported. Most of the 170 guests hailed from places like Los Angeles, Prague, London and Zurich, the paper quoted organizer Charles Adams. According to 20 Minuten Online, the 900,000 dollars that Clooney brought in with the event is the highest amount raised for Obama outside the United States. Still no word on the dinner menu.

Obama And McCain On Voting Against War Funding

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- Foreign policy quickly got into the Republican National Convention mix Tuesday. But it did it, in its most prominent instance, in a head-scratching way.

Republicans hadn’t much been using the "Barack Obama voted against funding troops on the ground" argument of late, but it surfaced in Tuesday’s speech by Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat turned independent, when he said: "When Barack Obama was voting to cut off off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide." President Bush made a similar point.
What Lieberman says Obama did, John McCain did also, but in different bills. The Democratic group Democracy Arsenal has two fact checks that are on point. Obama would say his vote was a vote in opposition to the war; McCain would say his vote was a vote in opposition of ending the war. But the claim of not supporting the troops either applies to both of them or neither of them.

Fred Thompson, who delivered the more fiery and well-received speech, largely steered clear of foreign policy, and usually spoke generally when he did, so no fact check is really necessary there – although he implied Obama believes he has to apologize for the United States of America, and to my knowledge, Obama has never expressed that desire.

Clooney Raises Money For Obama In Geneva

Are you an American living in Europe with 10,000 dollars to spare and no dinner plans for tonight? Actually, it helps if you are a fan of George Clooney and support Barack Obama for president. If so, then you should head to Geneva, Switzerland immediately where Clooney will headline a fundraiser for the Democratic presidential candidate tonight.

The event organized by Charles Adams, an American lawyer living in Switzerland, will kick off in Geneva's old town with a reception and continue at Adams' residence with a dinner, Swiss daily Blick reports. For the price tag of 10,000 dollars guests secure a seat at Clooney's table. For a mere 1,000 dollars guests may only listen to Clooney's remarks at the reception. The fundraiser in Geneva is the biggest of its kind outside the United States, Basler Zeitung quoted Adams who said that guests may also get treated with a personal video message by Barack Obama.

So what's for dinner you ask? Something exclusive like foie gras, Adams told Blick, adding that he doesn't really know himself since it is delivered by a catering company. So how can you find out if that coveted seat next to George Clooney is still available? Ask Charles Adams.

Poll Confirms: It's The (Global) Economy, Stupid

A new survey focusing on America's role in the world by the United Nations Foundation UNF (via U.S. Diplomacy Blog) doesn't offer too many new insights into what Americans want their next president to focus on, but rather confirms the dramatic evolvement of issues since the start of the campaign.

Iraq, once the number one issue, now is on par with health care when it comes to ranking the most important topics. Instead, the economy and energy prices now top the list. When asked specifically about the dominant foreign policy issue, unsurprisingly, America's dependence on foreign oil is the clear winner, followed by terrorism and global trade. The survey also finds that an overwhelming majority of participants feel that the U.S. is less respected around the world and that this presents a big problem.

According to the UNF, there is now a new consensus among core Republican voters, core Democratic voters, and swing voters that America's dependence on foreign oil is the key international issue. Other important issues shared by all three constituents are terrorism and global trade. However, when asked whether the U.S. should be more or less active in the world, there are different trendlines. While Democrats and Independents clearly want the U.S. to be less active globally compared to an earlier poll, Republican sentiment on the question remains unchanged.

So how atttuned are Barack Obama and John McCain to voter concerns about the economy and energy prices/dependence? Not much if one takes their recent choices for vice presidential candidates as an indicator. Neither Joe Biden (in contrast to Mark Warner), nor Sarah Palin (in contrast to Mitt Romney) are particularly strong on economic and trade issues. Couple that with the fact that neither Obama nor McCain are well-versed in that area either, voters won't find much economic experience on both tickets.

John Bolton And Cindy McCain Get Aboard The "Palin Has Foreign Policy Experience Because She's Next To Russia" Train

SAINT PAUL, Minn. – It looks like this is turning into some kind a talking point: On Sunday, in remarks to ABC, Cindy McCain said Sarah Palin had foreign policy experience because the state she governs, Alaska, is near Russia; then, to a fellow CQ reporter, former Bush administration official John Bolton offered the same defense of her, adding proximity to Canada as a qualification.

It really is a bemusing strategy. Of all the arguments one could make for John McCain picking Palin, it offers the least. Via Political Animal: "Has Palin ever been to Russia? No. Has she ever demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia? No. Does she have any background in international relations at any level? No. But for Republicans, the fact that she's lived near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office. The mind reels."

The strategy is not original, though. Democrats, it must be noted, have offered Barack Obama’s youthful stay in Indonesia as evidence of his own foreign policy experience, which is slightly – slightly – more credible than the Palin argument because at least in his case he actually had been the foreign country in question. A common defense of then-Gov. Bush in 2000, when faced with criticism of his own lack of foreign policy experience, was that he had lived near Mexico, but that was a slightly – slightly – stronger argument because at least there was interaction in that case.

For now, it doesn’t look like the Palin camp is fully embracing the talking point, so one can guess they haven't issued it. A Palin spokeswoman offered this to the Wall Street Journal: "Alaska’s geographic location certainly contributes to Governor Palin’s experience since she has dealt with trade and economic issues as a result, but it is only one part of her overall experience."

Will McCain Change His Position On ANWR, Now That Palin Is His Running Mate?

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- On one hand,
it looks like John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate very well could push him to change his mind and favor drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. "I continue to examine it," he said, and asked whether he ought to have a chat with Palin about the subject, he answered, "I probably should" and "I will."

On the other hand, the Republican platform-writing committee just had a bit of a scuffle over whether to include drilling in ANWR in its platform. And it was left out, officials said, specifically so that McCain wouldn't be undercut. Maybe they were just leaving him some flexibility?

CQ examines points in between.

McCain's Pick Palin Gets Mixed Review From International Media

It's fair to say that most Americans were not familiar with the name Sarah Palin prior to John McCain's decision to pick her as his vice presidential candidate. So it's pretty clear that people around the globe – even politically interested ones who follow the campaign closely – had never heard the name Sarah Palin before Saturday's announcement.

So it's no surprise that many global media outlets (as did many U.S. outlets) headlined their reports about John McCain's running mate similar to how Berlin's Tagesspiegel did, simply asking "Who is Sarah Palin?" And also not surprisingly many news organizations then spent most of their time answering that question for themselves and their audiences by drawing up a basic biographical sketch of the Alaska Governor.

Analysis of what Palin means for McCain, Obama and the world followed only as a third step. Germany's Die Welt argues in an article titled "McCain and his women" that with the selection of Palin, McCain essentially scratched his main argument against Obama - experience. Instead, writes the paper, McCain's goal is to lure Hillary Clinton's 17 million supporters over to the Republican side with the help of Sarah Palin, his wife Cindy and his high profile advisers Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman.

Italy's La Republica (via Handelsblatt) agrees that by putting Palin on the ticket, McCain hopes to steal votes from the Democrats especially from Hillary supporters. "This is McCain's attempt to trump Obama", comments the paper. Dutch daily De Volkskrant (via Handelsblatt) takes a similiar stance and writes that with the surprising choice of Palin, McCain underscored that he is a more dangerous opponent than Democrats may have thought.

Finally, The Australian doesn't mince words: "Palin? For the US, she might be a great vice-president - her reformist agenda is admirable and she has star quality and a fascinating life story. But that's for Americans to debate...Australia, rightly, has no say in the electoral process in the US. We are observers. But this is a poor decision," editorializes the paper and concludes that "as an ally who has fought alongside the US forces in every conflict America has been involved in for the past 100 years, there is reason to be worried. As an ally, we deserved better than this from McCain."

The Thinnest Of Wisps Of Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy Views Emerge

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- There’s more out there about Sarah Palin and her foreign policy experience/views Saturday than Friday. Let’s review it, vague though it may be:

--On Iraq, she made some remarks about not knowing “what the plan is to ever end the war,” but it’s hard to read too much into that. Thinkprogress.org, though, does have some thoughts on the subject. What’s more, Andrew Sullivan turned up an interview where she expressly said she wasn’t doing much thinking about the war, and said “I want to know that we have an exit plan in place.”
--It’s true she hasn’t visited Iraq, a subject over which McCain and surrogates were rather critical of Barack Obama. But she has visited nearby Kuwait. Other than that, her travel of the world is very limited – a stop in Ireland and Germany. She didn’t have a passport until 2007, according to the New York Times.
--There’s some speculation about whether, as a Pat Buchanan backer, Palin was somehow endorsing Buchanan’s critical point of view toward Israel. So far, though, even the amount of Palin’s backing of Buchanan is in question. And as governor of Alaska, she had signed a basic resolution affirming Alaska’s support of Israel.
--She has in the past indicated that she does not think global warming is a manmade phenomenon.

At this rate of revelation, it seems fair to guess that we’re not going to get much else on Palin’s foreign policy experience or statements. Her paper trail is very short. Whether that matters or not is inevitably going to vary from voter to voter.

P.S. Laura Rozen, an excellent reporter, is publishing her own work on the intelligence records of the two presidential nominees yesterday as well. She took a different approach than I did, zeroing in on one of the more fascinating elements of McCain’s views on spying, and next week will tackle Obama’s record. The first of the two stories is here.

Sarah Palin's Non-Existent Foreign Policy Record; Plus The Republican Platform On The World

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- With John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, both presidential candidates have selected vice presidential nominees whose records reflect their exact criticism of their opponents. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War like McCain, despite Obama’s attacks on McCain for that very vote; McCain selected Palin despite his focus of Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience.

What has Palin said about foreign policy? Virtually nothing. Foreign Policy’s survey turned up positions only on energy issues, where Palin supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge even though McCain currently does not. At ontheissues.org, she comes up “no issue stance yet recorded” on not only “foreign policy,” but also “war and peace," "immigration" and "free trade." And arguments from some conservatives that she has foreign policy credentials by virtue of Alaska’s proximity to Russia are a bit of a stretch, since it’s hard to find anything she’s ever said about the country.

--The Republican platform is now online. It gives surprisingly little attention to foreign policy, with just 13 of its 55 pages devoted to the topic, although it does give it chapter I treatment, unlike the Democratic platform, and it packs a lot into relatively little space, including positions on several continents and major countries from Ireland to India.

The Republican document asserts that it is the president’s role to decide on matters of war, leaving no role for Congress to influence matters – which is as much a foreign policy issue as it is a question of the proper role for the branches of government. It classifies immigration as a national security issue, which has ramifications for how legislation might come to fruition. And it gives some attention to intelligence, even suggesting reforms to Congress’ oversight structure, which is in keeping with McCain’s stance – but it’s still interesting to see the party taking a position on the topic. I recently wrote a comparison of McCain and Obama’s intelligence views for Congressional Quarterly here.

*I will be in Saint Paul all week covering the Republican National Convention for Congressional Quarterly and filing blog entries for Across the Pond as well.

Obama's Acceptance Speech Without An International Flavor

Unlike Bill Clinton's convention address, Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Denver was never intended to focus on foreign policy. And it didn't, as the word count of the speech proves.

While I can understand criticism that Obama's speech didn't really address the topic, I don't think it is justified. Michael Cognato at Real Clear World has got it right: "Senator Obama's speech did not include anything that indicated his approach to me - it was mostly just politics, which is appropriate for a convention speech anyway. I doubt Senator McCain will say much substantive or interesting in his convention speech either."

Addendum: Since many readers are interested in the full transcript of Obama's acceptance speech and other speeches as well, here are some links where to locate them:

For a transcript of Obama's acceptance speech, click here.

For transcripts of all other speeches at the Democratic convention, click here.

For other historical speeches, check out this site.

Bill Clinton Delivers A Big Foreign Policy Speech, Kind Of

Bill Clinton's convention address was billed (pun intended) as a foreign policy speech. Well, it wasn't. If one counts generously, then only 336 words of his of 1626 word speech dealt with foreign policy. The former president first presented a laundry list with the perceived failures of the Bush administration in the foreign policy arena, from unilaterialism to energy dependence and global warming to non-proliferation.

Later in the strongest part of his speech, Clinton contrasted Bush's perceived failures with a prediction of Barack Obama's handling of the same issues: "He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries... He will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort."

The foreign policy part of Clinton's speech climaxed in the sentence: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." But even that sentence, didn't really refer to foreign policy but rather to domestic policy differences between Democrats and Republicans such as health care and the economy. In this sentence, foreign policy is only a deduction of America's domestic policy, not a realm of its own.

So what was Bill Clinton's speech all about then? It was about one thing only: Party unity. After Clinton not long ago had basically insinuated that Obama was not ready to be president, he used his Denver speech to publicly show that he had come around.

One important element of rhetoric is repetition. The former president made heavy use of this element declaring numerous times his newfound conviction that Barack Obama is not only ready to lead, but ready to be president. And since one of the tasks Clinton wrote on Obama's presidential to-do list is to "restore American leadership in the world," the former president's speech in a way was a foreign policy speech after all. Or am I being too generous now?

An Irish Kerfuffle Over An Obama Statement

Via Ben Smith, a statement Barack Obama issued about whether the U.S. still needs a special envoy to Northern Ireland caused a bit of a dust-up recently -- first in the Irish press, then when John McCain came out in favor of the envoy.

There are a sizable number of Americans who trace their roots back to Ireland -- about 34 million -- but it's unclear to me how many of them pay attention political issues related to their country of heritage the same way some other immigrant groups do.

Fortunately for Obama, the Irish Echo offered a warmer view of his running mate, Joe Biden.

Obama Rules The German Internet

Who creates the most buzz on the internet? Barack Obama or John McCain?

The answer to this question depends on which side of the pond you are looking from. In the German-speaking internet, Obama dominates the buzz (user statements in blogs, newssites, etc.) by an overwhelming margin, as German business daily Financial Times Deutschland (FTD) reports. With 78.5 percent of the buzz focusing on the Democratic candidate, his Republican rival McCain garnered only 21.5 percent. According to the FTD, the survey was conducted between June 15 and July 26 by market research firm Ethority.

In the English-speaking internet, Obama also lead the buzz, albeit by a much smaller margin. He attracted 54.4 percent of user commentary, while McCain didn't lag too far behind with 45.6 percent of user opinions.

The most discussed topic in both the English and German internet was foreign policy, followed by the economy and the political experience of the candidates.

And finally an interesting info nugget, as reported by the FTD: The tonality, i.e. the overall rating of both candidates on certain issues such as foreign policy, the economy, etc., was negative for McCain and Obama in the German internet. By contrast, the tonality in the English internet was overwhelmingly positive for both candidates. One explanation for this phenomenon offered in the article is the maturity, relevance and size of the English-speaking blogosphere, and the lack thereof in the German-speaking internet. However, one could also explain the different behavior as a reflection of how Germans and Americans perceive politicians and politics in general.

What Clinton Supporters Would Get On Foreign Policy From Obama

Hillary Clinton gave the convention speech Tuesday night that tried to answer the question that, no matter how many interviews I read with her supporters, I've never seen anyone really address. That is: If you backed Clinton, but oppose Barack Obama, are you thinking clearly about what would happen if John McCain became president? So many of the answers from Clinton supporters about their distaste for Obama have been of the "Obama never considered Clinton for vice president" variety.

Clinton, in arguing that supporting Obama would be supporting the goals she and her supporters believed in, didn't touch much on foreign policy -- fitting, for a convention that looks like it's going to spend almost all of its time on domestic issues. She did say that McCain would mean "more war and less diplomacy" while "we know President Obama will bring the troops home responsibly [from Iraq]... and repair our alliances around the world." A McCain presidency would translate, she said, into "more jobs being shipped overseas," contrasted with what Democrats would do.

Perhaps some Democrats bought into the other argument Clinton made against Obama, that she and McCain had the experience to make the right calls in a foreign crisis and Obama was a question mark. But policy-wise, backers of Clinton's views of international affairs have more in common with Obama than they do McCain. Maybe Bill Clinton, whose convention speech is expected to focus on national security (to his rumored dismay), will draw those contrasts more starkly.

Russia Challenge For Obama And McCain: What Would You Do About The Recognition Of Georgian Rebel Regions?

In a defiant move, Russia has recognized the independence of Georgia's two rebel regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia. After President Dimitri Medvedev signed decrees to that effect, Russia now considers both regions as independent countries.

The decision is a slap in the face for Western leaders who had called on Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and warned Moscow not to take that step. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel just yesterday urged Russia not to recognize the rebel regions. French President and current EU president Nicolas Sarkozy convened a special EU summit to deal with the situation in the Caucasus for September 1.

But it seems that aside from symbolic gestures the West doesn't have a concept or the leverage to seriously influence Russia. Sure, in a show of solidarity and support for Georgia, the U.S. will dispatch Vice President Dick Cheney to the former Soviet republics Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan and has increased its navy presence in the region. And yes, President Bush, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others have stepped up their rhetoric against Russia.

But the EU wouldn't be the EU if it didn't send out mixed messages: On the same day that Russia said it would recognize Georgia's breakaway provinces, the EU Commission stated its support for Russian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). While it is true that Russia won't be phased much (since its main exports oil and gas are in high demand with or without a WTO membership) if its bid to join the WTO were put on hold, it signals that the West is pretty much at a loss at how to deal with Russia.

Since it is unlikely that the Russia question will go away anytime soon, this would be a good time for Barack Obama and John McCain to lay out a comprehensive plan on how the next president and the West should deal with that country. So far both candidates - with McCain taking a tougher stance from the beginning - have sided pretty much with President Bush's stance on the issue: support for the territorial integrity of Georgia and criticism of Russia's behavior.

Now that the West's main principle on the issue - territorial integrity of Georgia - has been violated by Russia, the big question for the foreign policy teams of both campaigns is: What can and should the U.S. and the EU do about it besides sending more surrogates like Cindy McCain to Georgia?

Democratic Platform Demonstrates Evolution On Security

If the Republican National Convention appears designed to highlight national security, the Democrats' platform appears designed to de-emphasize it. That's the conclusion reached by the Wall Street Journal here about the Democrats' document, and it's a fair one.

The 2004 party platform used 19 of its 39 pages to discuss national security and related foreign policy issues. The 2008 platform, approved Monday, nearly 17 of its 57 pages (not counting the index) are about national security and foreign policy.

Party platforms, of course, are usually more important to the party base than the broader public. "But it offers clues to shifting priorities or a rethinking of stances," the Journal writes, and those signs all point to a party emphasis that has changed from national security to domestic concerns.

WSJ's piece makes several key points, but leaves out a primary difference between the 2004 platform and this one: Iraq. The 2004 document noted that "people of good will" can disagree on whether the war should have been waged at all; the 2008 document calls it a "strategic blunder." The 2004 document makes no real mention of ending the war; the 2008 document repeats the call to end it "responsibly" several times over.

The platform's here, and it addresses foreign policy-related topics as diverse as Iran and immigration. You can compare it to the 2004 platform here.

Some Foreign Policy Differences Between Obama And Biden

You rarely see vice presidential candidates speak out against their running mates, but the policy differences between #1 and #2 on the ticket can matter for any number of reasons, most notably that the opposition will use the VP nominee's remarks against the rival presidential candidate. That's sort of what's been happening already with Republican ad campaigns featuring Joe Biden's sometimes-critical remarks of Barack Obama. The focus has been on Biden's comments about Obama's experience level, but soon enough, some of the other differences between the two may come back to haunt the Democratic slate. Here are four areas where Biden and Obama have diverged on foreign policy.

Iraq:

Biden voted in favor of authorizing military force in Iraq, which Obama opposed. As Michael says, this inconsistency weakens Obama's judgment-based argument against John McCain, but the effect policy-wise is negligible now that they both support removing U.S. troops. They have differed before on voting for continued war funding and Biden's proposal to divide Iraq into three states, although they are now essentially on the same page on the latter.

Trade:

Biden voted in favor of NAFTA, but since has come around to Obama's position that the deal should be renegotiated. Canada is worried. Biden appears to be trending toward more protectionist sentiments overall, having voted against two recent trade deals.

Cuba:

Biden has supported the economic embargo. Obama has supported removing some restrictions.

Darfur:

Biden has gone a little farther than Obama on Sudan; he supports sending U.S. troops, whereas Obama's chief foreign policy adviser has in the past expressed similar thoughts even if Obama himself apparently has not.

Biden Gets Thumbs Up From European Politicians, International Media Less Enthused

Barack Obama's decision to add Joe Biden to his ticket was received well by European politicians and got a mixed reaction from the international media. German politicos across the spectrum lauded the choice, as did the British politician whose speech the Democratic VP candidate plagiarized earlier.

Global media reactions however were more subdued. While the Times of India welcomed Biden's selection as vice presidential candidate, Germany's Welt am Sonntag (this and all other paper excerpts via dradio.de) argues that Biden could threaten the fragile peace that the Obama campaign made with team Clinton.

Swiss paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung opines that by choosing Biden, Obama has revealed his own weaknesses. According to Serbian daily Politika, Obama, with the selection of Biden, acknowledged the realities of the election campaign. The decision came not one minute to soon, adds the paper, since McCain just started to jump ahead of Obama in the polls.

Finally, Danish paper Berlingske Tidende writes that Obama's decision to nominate Biden - one of his most prominent critics - will not only be used against him by McCain. Obama's decision will also draw cricticism from other Democrats. After all, argues the paper, Biden represents anything but the change that Obama supporters crave for so much.

Biden Helps Obama On Foreign Policy, Hurts Him On Message Of Change

It's official: Barack Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate. The decision, which doesn't come as a huge surprise, was announced by the Obama campaign today.

Obama basically had two options: One, to play it safe and work on his weaknesses. Or two, to raise the ante and play to his strengths as a candidate of change and Washington outsider. Obama chose option one. So what does Biden as Obama's VP choice mean for the campaign?

The upside: With the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as his running mate, Obama shores up his major weakness – his inexperience in foreign relations. Biden is a well-known political quantity that can take on John McCain on any international topic that has already come up during the campaign (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia) or others that may still come up (China, Darfur, Simbabwe). Biden as a veteran senator is well respected in international foreign policy circles. Many global leaders will be relieved to hear that Obama picked Biden. While Obama is still pretty much a blank slate for them, Biden isn't.

The downside: Biden as a veteran senator and Washington insider doesn't represent the main theme of Obama's campaign: change. And while he is a foreign policy heavyweight he originally voted for the Iraq war as did Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama has been constantly hammering both Clinton and McCain for their lack of judgement on this issue. With Biden as his running mate, he won't be able to make that charge anymore. Biden also doesn't really improve Obama's chances of clinching a major state.

The Unknown: How will supporters of Hillary Clinton react to Biden's selection?

HuffPost's Failed Comparison Between Russia And Nazi Germany

Until today I had never heard of Tom D'Antoni. But since he writes for the Huffington Post, the biggest political blog out there, that surely is my fault. Anyway, D'Antoni, in his latest piece for HuffPost, tries to argue that Russia should be the biggest foreign policy issue in this campaign.

This is not a very novel insight after two weeks of hostilities between Georgia and Russia. And it is also debatable whether relations with Russia are more important than the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, how to deal with Iran's nuclear plans, or with the political shift that has taken place in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But to simply write, "a few religious nuts in the mountains of Pakistan don't even come close," as an explanation why Russia is supposed to be more important than all other foreign policy topics swirling around is just not good enough.

D'Antoni also seems to believe that conclusions based on his mindreading abilities and the use of the f-word make a foreign policy article so much more credible. I disagree.

But what irks me, as mentioned on a different occasion, are frivolous Nazi comparisons. D'Antoni, without using the words Nazis or Hitler, compares Russia's push into Georgia with Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland and Russia's recent statements toward Poland to those of the Nazis. That comparison is wrong and ahistorical. There are a plenty of good reasons to critizise Putin and Medvedev. But neither of them is a new Hitler. Comparing them and their actions to Hitler distracts from a serious discussion on how to deal with a resurgent Russia and mitigates the Nazi terror.

And what irks me even more than frivolous Nazi comparisons are frivolous Nazi comparisons where the author doesn't even know how to spell the name of the region he is alluding to. The region annexed by the Nazis was called the Sudetenland not Sudatenland as D'Antoni writes. When making baseless comparisons, it helps to adhere to at least one rule: You can call me whatever you like, but spell my name right.

Whether McCain Wants To Reinstate The Draft

Liberal bloggers have pounced on John McCain's agreement with a town hall participant on a long list of things she said, a list that included her belief the United States should reinstate the national military draft if it wants to catch Osama bin Laden. Marc Ambinder gives McCain the benefit of the doubt that he meant something else. Liberal bloggers say that's typical of the media's kid glove treatment of McCain. My two cents:

McCain has, indeed, frequently received the benefit of the doubt from the media. And if you piece together enough of McCain's disparate comments -- his argument that it would take a complete World War III to reinstate the draft, another remark he made about our current proximity to World War III, etc. -- I can kind of see why they would think McCain sincerely wants to restore the draft.

But McCain has been fairly consistent in his record of opposing the reinstatement of the military draft. That's where he said he was in 2000. It's where he's said he is in 2008.

His answer to the audience member looks more like a careless remark than an actual sincere statement of his policy. If thinkers and activists on the left wants to make a big deal out of what he said, they could try to relate it to McCain's history of gaffes, or his age. They could even argue that, with the degree that he has talked tough against any number of countries and forces, he would have to reinstate the draft to act on any of his threats. But they really have to stretch to make it look like McCain's de facto, unstated policy is that he supports reinstating the draft, and that his recent remarks accidentally revealed his true stance.

But the left still has a point that it demands some follow-up. McCain, after all, didn't disagree with his audience member, so a clarification wouldn't hurt. Said Think Progress: "Considering this record, journalists should be inquiring further about McCain’s views on the military draft rather than automatically assuming McCain didn’t mean what he actually said."

McCain And Obama Debates Focus On Foreign Policy And Economy

The campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain have agreed on three presidential debates. They will take place at the University of Mississippi on September 26, on October 7 at Belmont University and on October 15 at Hofstra University. Both campaigns proudly proclaimed that it is the earliest time an agreement between the Democratic and the Republican candidates was reached in recent history.

More interesting, however, is the change of focus of the debates. As the Memphis Commercial Appeal reports, Ole Miss officials were surprised to learn that the first and usually most watched debate to be held in Oxford would deal with foreign policy and national security. Previously they had been told that the focus of the debate would be domestic policy for which they had prepared accordingly.

The decision by the campaigns to have McCain and Obama debate foreign policy first is another sign of the ever-increasing significance of the issue as an election topic. The other major topic of this election – the economy – will be discussed in the third and final debate. The second debate won't have a predetermined focus.

Why the McCain team wants to debate foreign policy first is obvious, since this is an area where their candidate is perceived to be strong. Why the Obama camp agreed is more interesting. It does convey the message that Obama feels confident enough to go head-to-head with McCain even on his opponent's favorite topic. And that, in turn, could also be interpreted as another indicator that Obama knows that by then he will have shored up his lacking foreign policy experience with outside help: Joe Biden as his running mate.

Republican Convention Speakers, Themes Lineup Emphasizes Security

You can take a lot of messages from the Republicans' choices of speakers and themes for their national convention, but among them is surely an emphasis on security. I think it once again illustrates a campaign-long dilemma about whether John McCain is going to be focusing on his strengths -- his foreign policy experience -- over what voters say they want to hear about most -- the economy.

On Day 1, "Service" is the theme. The idea is to highlight McCain's service to the country, and that will inevitably mean a lot of talk about his record as a Vietnam War veteran and how that is one of his qualifications to be president, not to mention his lengthy Senate tenure, which has been heavily focused on security. Speaking is Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent whose primary ideological affinity for McCain is on topics like the Iraq War, and President Bush and Vice President Cheney, whose two terms have focused heavily on national security.

Day 2's theme is "Reform," but that day's biggest-name speaker, and the keynoter for the entire convention, is Rudy Giuliani. Besides Bush, no one is more closely linked in his political identity with the Sept. 11 terror attacks than the former New York City mayor. And Giuliani's speech in 2004 to the convention was very much about security.

Day 3 is about "Prosperity," and this should be the biggest day off for national security issues -- unless McCain's running mate, expected to speak that day and not yet named, turns out to be someone whose primary credentials are a background in foreign policy, the military, or something like that.

And Day 4's theme is "Peace," which very clearly is about national security. It's in the name. The speakers aren't people clearly affiliated with national security above all -- Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist, for instance -- except for, well, McCain himself.

McCain Camp Makes Syria Attack Of Little Substance Against Obama, But Substance May Not Have Been The Point

A few months ago, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers made an ill-advised trip -- strategically-speaking, and perhaps in other ways -- to meet with leaders of Hamas. Wednesday, John McCain's campaign tried to make an issue out of another Obama foreign policy adviser's visit with the president of Syria. The attack, issued via conference call with reporters, didn't have much to it.

Unlike with Hamas, Obama has always said he'd be willing to meet with the leader of Syria, so an adviser doing the same thing on his own in what Obama's spokespeople called a non-campaign trip isn't as strange. And the Obama campaign was quick to point out McCain's own visit to meet with Syria's then-president in 1984, among other similar gestures. Questions the McCain campaign raised about side issues -- whether the meeting should have been disclosed, whether Obama has too many foreign policy advisers, etc. -- were maybe more on target, but still, in the end, secondary to the thrust of Wednesday's attack.

The attack backfired in at least one other way. The conference call led reporters to question Rudy Giuliani's own business associations with unpopular foreign leaders and Randy Scheunemann's lobbying ties with foreign countries. One aggressive questioner got cut off, and the call ended up being rather short.

Whether the attack is substantial may be beside the point. Lynn Sweet makes the case that it was primarily designed to weaken Obama's support among Jewish voters in key states like Florida, and Jewish donors around the country.

Pollster: Biden Not As Appealing To Voters As One Might Think

If the media are correct in their predictions, than Barack Obama will select the candidate with the biggest foreign policy resume as his running mate: Joseph Biden.

With news outlets from the Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Times agreeing that Biden's stock has shot up in recent days, and foreign policy becoming an ever more important topic in the campaign, the British Guardian lays out the case for Biden. Newsweek's The Stumper matches speculation with reporting to conclude that Biden will become Obama's vice presidential candidate. Jonathan Cohn at The Plank, as well as Steve Clemons at The Washington Note, agree that all circumstancial evidence points to the Delaware Senator and also agree that Biden wouldn't be the worst choice Obama could make.

Just for good measure, let's throw a contrarian view into the mix. It comes via Jim Wooten at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "If there’s a politician in America who matches Obama for arrogance, it’s Joe Biden."

But the most useful take on Biden as a potential running mate is provided not by journalists but by a pollster. Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight, to my knowledge, is the only one who has actually tried to figure out how a VP candidate Biden would fare with voters.

According to Silver, the veteran senator's favorable/unfavorable ratings are almost even and his strong unfavorables exceed his strong favorables. On the upside, Biden scores with older people, a group of voters where Obama is weak, and could shore up Pennsylvania for the ticket. Silver's verdict: Biden is not "quite as appealing to the electorate as the conventional wisdom seems to hold."

Role Reversal With A Reason: Obama More Hawkish On Pakistan Than McCain

Match the politician and the sentence: "There can be no safehaven for terrorists who threaten the American people." No, it wasn't President George W. Bush. And it wasn't John McCain either. The sentence stems from Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

It highlights an interesting foreign policy role reversal. On Russia and its conflict with Georgia, McCain took a much more hardline approach than Obama. But when it comes to Pakistan and its role as an American ally in fighting Islamic terrorism, Barack Obama's rhetoric was considerably more hawkish than that of his Republican rival.

To be sure, both presidential candidates welcomed President Pervez Musharraf's decision to step down. And both, Obama and McCain - contrary to the White House - avoided any praise of Musharraf's role as an important ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism. But while McCain didn't say much beyond reiterating the importance of Pakistan, Obama used the opportunity to restate his conviction that instead of Iraq, the U.S. should have focused its fight against terrorism on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In a clear swipe at Musharraf and his inability or unwillingness to fully control Pakistan's security and intelligence, Obama said "U.S. policy must focus on assuring that all elements of Pakistan's government are resolute in shutting down the safe havens for al Qaeda and the Taliban." He added that he had urged earlier "that the U.S. move from a 'Musharraf policy' to a 'Pakistan policy.'"

How to explain Obama's hawkishness and McCain's blandness? As Jason Zengerle points out at The Plank, there is a pattern here. McCain until recently had been quite supportive of Pakistan's autocratic ruler, while Obama had taken a tough stance vis-à-vis Musharraf already earlier.

For the campaign, the resignation of Pakistan's President means three things: One, Obama can claim that on an important foreign policy topic, he, and not McCain, had the right judgement. Two, next to a resurgent Russia, the next president must also deal with a dramatically changed political landscape in Pakistan. Three, in a mere two weeks, foreign policy has reasserted itself as the major campaign issue next to the economy.

Nunn, Hagel Probably Out As Obama Vice President, Leaving Biden, Richardson As The "Foreign Policy" Picks

With Barack Obama as little as one day away from announcing his vice presidential choice, it's worth revisiting the field vis-a-vis the whole "Obama should pick someone who bolsters him on foreign policy" argument.

Two intriguing potential running mates, Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel, have in the past couple days done or said the kind of things that indicate they won't be the choice. Nunn, the former Senate Armed Services chairman whose name is synonymous with ridding the world of one of its greatest threats -- loose nuclear material -- said in an article published yesterday that his finances have not been vetted by the Obama campaign. Hagel, "a leading Republican voice on international affairs and an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq," per CNN, last week said the he would not endorse Obama or John McCain. In the case of Nunn, it's almost impossible for the Obama campaign to vet his finances as quickly as they would need to by this week. In the case of Hagel, it's hard to imagine the Obama camp selecting a VP nominee who wouldn't even endorse him.

Among top foreign policy hands on the list of speculative nominees, that leaves, primarily, Joe Biden (respected long-time Senate Foreign Relations' top Democrat) and Bill Richardson (he of the extensive diplomatic resume). Biden, of course, recently visited Georgia as something of a representative for Obama. And Richardson's home state of New Mexico was on Obama's schedule this week.

There are some other nominees who could make some kind of foreign policy experience-related claim, but none quite like Nunn, Hagel, Biden or Richardson. For instance, Evan Bayh, one of the top names being mentioned, has focused a good deal on national security during his Senate career, but that career has been rather short, comparatively. And, of course, there's a chance Obama has some seasoned foreign policy hand on his list no one even imagined he did.

Biden's Trip To Georgia Doesn't Effect His VP Chances

Mikhail Saakashvili is receiving lots of visitors these days. From the leaders of Eastern European countries and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to German Chancellor Angela Merkel – Georgia's President is trying to rally support wherever he can. But not only heads of state and foreign minister are travelling to Tbilisi, McCain and Obama have dispatched their men to Georgia too. For team Obama, Senator Joseph Biden spent the weekend there and is expected back in the U.S. today. McCain's emissaries, Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are scheduled to arrive in Georgia shortly.

No word yet what Biden discussed with President Saakashvili, who asked him come to Georgia, or how the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee views the situation on the ground there. Instead, as soon as his trip was announced it immediately became part of the vice presidential picking game equation. Does this increase or decrease his chances to become Obama's running mate?

Probably neither. If Obama wants his VP pick to be a foreign policy heavyweight than Biden is his man. If instead he wants his running mate to represent change, than Biden is out of the picture. Senator Biden's trip to Georgia doesn't serve as an indicator for whether he will be on the ticket with Obama or not. It only indicates what everyone knows: That he is a foreign policy heavyweight.

McCain And Obama Duel Over Missile Defense Post-Georgia/Russia

One of the lesser-noticed aspects of the Russia/Georgia conflict is how it highlights differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on missile defense. My CQ colleague Josh Rogin broke it down amid a piece he did on how the conflict would affect the congressional debate on the United States' attempts to place missile sites in Europe.

McCain appears to believe his more hawkish, pro-missile defense stance could benefit him, because he put out a statement recently praising the U.S.-Poland pact. Since that pact is very related to the Russia/Georgia struggle, it allows McCain to keep his position on the conflict -- which has generated positive coverage for him -- at the forefront. Per CQ, speaking of congressional advocates of the sites: "Leading those advocates is presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., who sees the sites as a badly needed component of the American strategic presence in the region. He is quick to link their necessity to Russia’s increasingly aggressive posture. 'Russia’s objections (to the sites) have never been based on anything more than trying to define a sphere of influence in Europe and on the territory of existing NATO members,' said McCain’s top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, 'Senator McCain believes that is unacceptable — especially in the aftermath of Russia’s brutal invasion of Georgia.'" (Interestingly, here's what McCain said in his Poland statement about Russia: "Threatening attacks against Poland, a NATO ally, is a wholly inappropriate response to an agreement that is not aimed at countering Russia.")

Obama's office has, in recent days, remained more skeptical, which is consistent of Obama's record. “Congress will not and should not fund a system until testing has proven that it works, and that testing will not be completed until 2010 at the earliest,” said Wendy Morigi, an Obama spokeswoman.

For more on the differences between the candidates on these and related issues, read on here.

How Will Clinton Supporters Cope If Obama Doesn't Pick Hillary As Running Mate?

Now that Barack Obama has returned from his trip to a "foreign" vacation destination, suspense is building over who he will choose as his running mate. With the announcement expected before the Democratic convention, speculation is running high. Judging from the media chatter, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tom Kaine appear to be the frontrunners in the vice presidential picking game.

One name seems to have been scratched from the Democratic VP list: Hillary Clinton. Obama's much debated decision to agree to a roll call vote for Clinton at the convention in Denver is one more indicator that she won't get the VP slot. The possibility that Clinton won't be on the presidential ticket has already caused uproar among Democrats – in Sweden. But joke aside, the reaction by the Swedish Democrats raises an important question: How will supporters of Hillary Clinton stomach that their candidate will not be on the presidential ballot in November? Will they and the Clintons be placated by the fact that not only will Clinton get a roll call vote at the convention, but she and Bill will also give speeches there? (Never mind that as Michael Barone contends, because Obama didn't sweep the primaries, he had no choice but to give Hillary ample time at the convention.)

It seems unlikely that some of Clinton's most ardent and influential fans like Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will switch over easily. According to a recent poll almost 20 percent of women who supported Clinton previously now plan to vote for John McCain. Obama can't afford to let those votes slip away, but if he doesn't do the one thing that would assure their votes – putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket – he can't do much more than make some symbolic gestures at the convention. That means it is up to Clinton to bring her supporters on board for Obama. The big question is: Will she do it?

John McCain vs Barack Obama On Foreign Policy

When it comes to analysis of the foreign policy positions of the presidential candidates, there are a number of excellent sites around (e.g., FP's Passport, the German Marshall Fund, CFR's The Candidates and the World ). We here at Across the Pond try to contribute our share as well.

But sometimes, instead of a detailed analysis, a synopsis of where the candidates stand is good enough. And that's exactly what the Arizona Republic did in publishing a great issue-by-issue comparison of McCain's and Obama's foreign policy stances. It's an updated and brief compilation ranging from Afghanistan to Darfur and Russia. Worth checking out.

Russia/Georgia Conflict Changes The Whole Outlook For McCain Or Obama

Liberals are mocking John McCain and other conservatives for talking up the threat of Russia after not so long ago talking up the threat of Muslim fundamentalists and Iran, but the fact remains that whether McCain or Barack Obama is the next U.S. president, the commander in chief will almost certainly be dealing with a significantly more contentious United States-Russia relationship.

And, what's more, that has other ramifications for America's relationship with other parts of the world, like Europe.

Different Question: Have McCain And Obama Affected The Situation In Georgia?

What happens in U.S. presidential races can, theoretically, have an impact on the world. Example: because of the speculative nature of energy prices, there were some who believed Hillary Clinton's remarks about how the United States could "obliterate" Iran had a chance of affecting the cost of gasoline. To my knowledge, that didn't happen. But an adviser to Barack Obama adviser has raised questions in recent days about whether John McCain's early "belligerent" statements about Georgia and Russia exacerbated the conflict.

McCain, asked about this at a Wednesday news conference, sidestepped the question by saying now is not the time for partisanship. Into the breach stepped National Review, answering that because a different Obama adviser had said Obama and McCain were basically on the same page after the early reaction, it must be the case that Obama was making the situation worse too, right?

Nonetheless, a third Obama adviser raised the possibility that soothing statements might have had more of an impact. Per The Washington Post: "Obama's more nuanced tone may reflect the debate going on among his advisers, who say they must bear in mind the messy geopolitical reality that America relies on Russia on a host of issues, from Iran to nuclear proliferation to energy and climate change. 'Part of the reason we don't have leverage is that we don't have a U.S.-Russian relationship. It has been adrift,' Michael McFaul said. Referring to McCain, he added, 'It's easy to say something belligerent about Russia. I'm no friend of Vladimir Putin, and cheap shots about tough talk are all well and fine. But what are you doing to actually make the situation better?'"

A whole different question, more speculative even than the question I'm asking here and that I'll leave to Porch Dog: Might conversations between McCain and members of his camp -- one of whom had very close ties to Georgia and top Bush administration neoconservatives -- and the president of Georgia actually contributed to the escalation?

In the end, said one expert, tough talk from neither Obama nor McCain matters. "This type of bluster is fairly counterproductive because it is a bluff, there's nothing we can do about this," Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution told the Washington Post.

My own observation: It's hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin cares much what was said by McCain, a possible future president, because so far, he's not given many indications that he cares what anyone thinks. And while McCain has been at the forefront of harsh rhetoric against Russia since the conflict began, pretty much the entire Western world has condemned what Russia's been doing, so what difference can one presidential candidate make by condemning it more?

Should Obama Vacation In A "Foreign" Destination Like Hawaii?

Barack Obama's decision to vacation in Hawaii during the campaign has earned him lots of criticism. Even though I don't agree with it, I can understand that the Republicans try to make an issue out of it. But why some journalists feel that Hawaii is too foreign a destination for Obama to travel to, I can't understand. What would have happened if he had decided to relax in Bora Bora or the Seychelles?

As a European with six weeks of vacation I am biased, but I don't think Obama or anyone else needs to justify taking a week off. For those who feel differently, Andrew Romano has done exactly that very convincingly. With one exception: How can Obama vacation during the Russia-Georgia conflict, ask some critics. My answer: Neither Obama nor McCain is commander-in-chief yet, George W. Bush still is. While it can be expected of both candidates to react to the crisis, at this point there is no reason or need for them to drop everything else and pretend they are president already.

Getting Out Of The Presidential Prognostication Business RE: Russia

For a few days, Michael and I have been trying to forecast how, or if, the Russia/Georgia conflict will have any impact on the presidential race. I think we both raise relevant and important points, but I'm giving up, for now.

First off, the situation's too fluid. One of the things I cited in my argument against the conflict making a difference domestically was Russia's stated acceptance of a ceasefire. Of course, that apparently didn't last very long, if Russia ever even ceased fire even for a minute. There are things neither Michael nor I have discussed in detail, such as a John McCain adviser lobbying ties with Georgia, which could lead voters to question his character, or the way McCain said the Christian nature of Georgia warrants U.S. interest, which could bolster his appeal with a very active voter group, the evangelicals, that has been skeptical of him. More things that pop up during the conflict could further affect the race in an unforeseen way.

Second off, it's straying too far from what I think political journalism ought to be about. There's nothing inherently wrong with examining polls, or trying to ascertain key moments in a race, or anything like that. But I've spent too much time on it of late, and that preoccupation is where political journalists don't help anyone. It's back to the policy shed for me, starting tomorrow.

McCain Helped, Obama Hurt By Reactions To Conflict Between Russia and Georgia

While I agree with Tim that the reactions to the Russia-Georgia conflict won't be a dealbreaker for either John McCain or Barack Obama, I think that as things stand now, it has the potential to help McCain and hurt Obama.

First, because on a rational level it re-emphasizes the argument that Obama lacks foreign policy experience through a live international crisis instead of a goofy Obama in Berlin ad. Second, on a more psychological level, in times of crisis people tend to favor experience over change. The McCain campaign will surely frame the Russia-Georgia as a 3 am call situation, asking voters the question who they want to have in the White House when push comes to shove, someone with a foreign policy record or someone without one.

Third, McCain can claim that he was right on the issue. After Obama's initially rather neutral reaction to the conflict, the Democratic candidate felt forced to follow McClean's lead and up his rhetoric against Russia in recent days. This has lead to questions even by Obama supporters whether he is tough enough. Fourth, while the situation in Georgia seems to have stabilized recently, it is by no means solved and will probably linger in the background until November, if it doesn't escalate again. Fifth, Russia's push deep into an American ally's territory put the question of how to deal with a resurgent Russia that may use oil and gas as a weapon on the campaign agenda where it wasn't until now.

Sixth, the Russia-Georgia conflict will raise again the relevance of foreign policy as an election topic and, in turn, help McCain and hurt Obama. Seventh, there are numerous other geopolitical hotspots just waiting to erupt in the former Soviet Union and in other parts of the world as well. Ukraine could be just one of them.

The Answer To Whether The 2008 Presidential Race Will Be Affected By The Georgia/Russia Conflict

Answering my own question, it now looks like the candidates' responses to the Georgia/Russia conflict probably won't have much impact on the race.

Why not? A few reasons.

--One of the best arguments for how the race could end up affecting people in the United States is that there was an oil pipeline in the region, and that gasoline prices could climb. Instead, they fell.

--While John McCain got some good press for his early, hawkish reaction toward Russia's aggression -- not to mention his historically hawkish stance toward Russia, which once was viewed by foreign policy experts as overly hostile but now looks prescient -- it really only reinforced his previous pluses. Much as Barack Obama needed, with his overseas trip, to bolster his foreign policy credentials to go along with strong polling on domestic issues, McCain needs to bolster his domestic policy credentials to complement his international affairs advantage.

--In the end, the two candidates' stances were mostly indistinguishable. McCain's rhetoric was harsher throughout, while Obama was more cautious to begin with, but their prescriptions for how the problem needed to be fixed were similar by Monday.

--With the conflict subsiding at least temporarily, the possibility of U.S. lives being lost diminishes, and therefore voters' interest are probably not likely to be aroused substantially unless that changes.

How Much Does McCain's Early Statement Against Russia Really Help Him?

I'm not disputing that the reaction of the presidential candidates to the Georgia/Russia war has been a positive news story for John McCain. I'm just thinking out loud here:

As much as the war has been in the news, are there any voters who really are going to be more inclined to favor one candidate over the other because of how he reacted to a distant conflict that involves, to this point, no American lives?

While Putin Is Still President For McCain, Obama Decides To Get Tough On Russia

In what has been described as a 3 am situation - the military conflict between Russia and Georgia - John McCain continues to maintain his hawkish stance toward Russia. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has switched from a more neutral position to a more hardline approach vis-à-vis Russia, since this foreign policy crisis began a few days ago.

McCain, who said he had talked to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili again on Saturday, called Russia's military actions "totally, absolutely unacceptable." The Republican presidential candidate advised President George W. Bush to "talk to the American people and talk to the world."

"I would be very direct with President Putin that these actions will have consequences long term, in terms of our relationship with Russia, and it is in violation of the norms of international conduct," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press in Las Vegas. In a follow-up-story, the AP confirmed that McCain did indeed mistakenly refer to Vladimir Putin as Russia's President. Since the election of his successor Dimitri Medvedev, Putin is the country's Prime Minister.

Barack Obama said he had also talked to Saakashvili and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire," Obama said in a statement, "Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

He also demanded a neutral mediator other than Russia start a negotiation process. Previously, Obama, similiar to the messages coming from the Bush administration, had called on both sides to end the conflict and avoided naming one party as the agressor.

Does the fact that Obama now feels he must join McCain's position in the conflict and step up his rhetoric lend credence to McCain's claim that Obama lacks the requisite experience with foreign policy to be president?

That depends on what really has been taking place in this conflict. But as it looks now, and Russia did indeed react in a disproportionate way, than it will boost McCain's stature as the strong foreign policy candidate. And one can bet that the McCain team will make an ad claiming that their candidate had the the right judgment in handling this 3 am phone call while Obama was vacationing in Hawaii.

But then again, the Obama camp can hit right back saying that whoever answers that 3 am call should be awake enough to know the correct title of the foreign leader who may be on the line.

Foreign Policy Not That Important To Voters, But Maybe It Is When It Comes To Their Backyards

There's an indirect foreign policy angle to plenty in this campaign. Gasoline prices may on the surface be a domestic/economic issue, but because it's so closely related to the United States' dependence on overseas oil, it's foreign policy-related whether voters want the candidates to emphasize foreign policy issues or not. (They don't.)

In two new ads, the Barack Obama campaign has gone after John McCain on two foreign policy-related issues that are in the backyards of Nevada and Ohio voters. The first attacks McCain in Ohio on an issue Michael blogged about recently, DHL, which involves a German company. The second attacks McCain in Nevada over his stance in favor of opening Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste, which is part of his proposal for reducing America's dependence on foreign oil.

I'm guessing most voters -- i.e., those mentioned in the afore-linked poll who say they want the candidates to focus on domestic issues -- aren't thinking about the ways in which domestic and foreign policy are so interrelated. Either way, Obama's brought it to their home states.

What Impact Will American Expats Have On The Election?

With the election date nearing, the McCain and Obama campaigns are stepping up their efforts to get Americans living abroad to vote. A few days ago, U.S. expat Gwyneth Paltrow participated in such an effort. Today the Economist offers a good analysis of the American expat community. It is roughly six million strong, diverse, from soldiers to bankers, and is willing to give: There are more donations by American expats than ever before, with Obama leading the pack.

But as the article details, in recent elections very few members of this large expat community actually cast a ballot. Only 5.5 percent of Americans living abroad participated in the 2006 Congressional election.

Unfortunately, the Economist doesn't have a go at the big question, so I'd be interested what you think: Will voter turnout by American expats be higher in 2008 than in past years? And if so, why? Could it even be a decisive factor in a close election?

Poll Shows Voters Prefer McCain On Iraq, Plus Other Fascinating Things

I'll just come straight out with it and issue a correction. Not so long ago, I argued that there was hardly any way that Iraq could be a problem for Barack Obama, since the wide consensus was that the war should never have begun and Obama had some built-in flexibility in his plan. But a new poll shows John McCain has the edge on the topic -- "One in four voters are 'very confident' McCain will make the right decisions on Iraq, while just 14 percent say the same of Obama." Obama gets more people who are "somewhat confident," but he also has higher "not confident" ratings. Why is this? Without any interviewing of the people polled, I would have to guess it's McCain's "commander in chief" credentials and the possibility that even if people don't like the war, they may not want to leave prematurely. Obama and McCain are far more alike in their Iraq positions than when the Obama-Hillary Clinton showdown ended, but McCain favors "conditions on the ground" first over "timetables," and it's the other way around for Obama.

The poll has some other fascinating foreign policy figures. Polls, of course, are not predictors, and with how frequently they're taken, they are little more than snapshots of a moment in time. But they can contain valuable information and shape how candidates behave. Among the foreign policy highlights of the full poll:

--Sticking with Iraq, only 17 percent of people think it is the most important issue to discuss, second-most behind voters who prefer the candidates discuss the economy, 36 percent. People are growing much more optimistic about how the war is going: 45 percent now, compared to 22 percent about a year ago. Voters' perceptions of the impact of the troop surge surely has helped -- 46 percent say it's making things better, compared to 17 percent about a year ago. Most of this is excellent news for McCain, who was a major backer of the surge.

--Domestic issues are blowing away foreign policy issues in the category of "what the candidates should focus on more." Only 8 percent picked foreign policy issues, compared to 77 percent for domestic. With the economy pinching people's wallets, that's only natural. But while most of the poll results on Iraq were good for McCain, the fact that people are so much less interested in Iraq and foreign policy issues in general favors Obama.

--That Obama overseas trip did not appear to do the trick, if one of the ideas was bolstering his own "commander in chief" credentials. His numbers actually went down there, compared to before the trip, but then, so did McCain's. Did McCain's negative ad campaign about the trip do damage to both Obama and himself?

--Economic growth in China and India isn't a rising tide that lifts all boats, according to those polled. Sixty-two percent said it was hurting the U.S. economy. Like I've written before, this plays to Obama's advantage because of his more skeptical view of free trade. China does better in the poll than I expected -- 64 percent of voters support President Bush going to the opening ceremony, something both McCain and Obama have said they would not have done as president. And 60 percent of voters say China is "friendly, but not an ally."

--No surprise that voters want more offshore drilling -- 64 percent of them. But the number of Democrats who support it is slightly surprising -- 49 percent. Obama and McCain have both shifted their positions to varying degrees in the last couple months toward more offshore drilling.

--A majority, 46 percent, believe U.S. support for Israel is about right, but that's down from a couple years ago, when it was 54 percent. Hard to say who that helps, if anyone.

McCain Hawkish On Russia, Obama In Sync With Bush

I had written a couple of times that Russia is strangely absent as a foreign policy topic in this presidential campaign. Well, now it looks like the question of how to deal with Russia might insert itself with a vengeance after Russian and Georgian military forces have clashed in a dispute over the breakaway republic of South Ossetia.

With Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Georgian President Michail Saakashvili both describing the conflict as a war, a quick resulution of the situation seems more unlikely than a further escalation of events.

Barack Obama and John McCain's reaction to the outbreak of hostilities between Russian and Georgian troops were very different. The Republican candidate squarely sided with Georgia on the issue: "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," John McCain said in a statement. He also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to put pressure on Russia.

His Democratic rival, meanwhile, took a more balanced approach: "Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis," Obama said in a statement.

With his statement, as Jonathan Martin points out accurately, McCain took a tougher stance on Russia than President George W. Bush. The White House's response was basically in line with Obama's demanding respect for Georgia's territorial integrity while urging restraint from all parties.

What's the reason for the different reactions by McCain and Obama? As Martin writes, the McCain camp sees a "commander-in chief opportunity" for their candidate. But, adds Martin, Obama's team also sees an opportunity: To show that McCain is beholden once again to lobbying interests. His foreign policy adviser Randy Scheuneman lobbied for Georgia from 2003 until recently.

Justin Login at the Cato blog has an interesting take on the issue as well. He alludes to Scheuneman's various hats and McCain's relationship with Russia, but thinks that Obama gets Russia totally wrong as well. And he is glad that Germany spoiled Georgia's membership in NATO, something both Obama and McCain favor.

But what do you think? Who has the better argument on the Russia-Georgia conflict McCain or Obama?

Ohio Senators Want McCain And German Government To Lobby For Wilmington

Germany may just become a permanent topic in the 2008 presidential campaign. Barack Obama already paid a visit to the country a few weeks back. And John McCain also has serious business to attend to in Germany, thinks Sherrod Brown. The Senator from Ohio urged the Republican candidate to send his campaign manager overseas to convince the parent company of DHL, Deutsche Post, to keep DHL's air freight hub in Wilmington, Ohio.

"Rick Davis earned hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for DHL," Brown, who supports Barack Obama, said. "Now it's time to see if he and John McCain will use their considerable clout to lobby for Ohio families." Brown was refering to the fact that Davis, now McCain's campaign manager and McCain himself had lobbied Deutsche Post and DHL's effort to buy Airborne Express and its hub in Wilmington in 2003, which was detailed first by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Ohio's Republican Senator George Voinovich called upon the German government for help: "We are going to need some involvement by the German government," he said, adding that the involvement of both McCain and Obama indicated it merited global attention. Voinovich didn't elaborate what the involvement by the German government could look like.

DHL announced in May that it plans to outsource some of its operations to competitor UPS, which would render the Wilmington hub unnecessary. The move threatens 8,000 jobs in the region.

Responding to Brown's criticism, the McCain campaign said DHL's current plans were not foreseeable in 2003 and added that Davis had not lobbied for Bonn-based Deutsche Post since 2005. McCain was scheduled to appear in Wilmington to talk about DHL's plans on Thursday.

Olympic Water Polo To Be Interrupted By McCain And Obama Ads

With the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics approaching fast, John McCain, in a surprising last minute ad buying coup, relegated Barack Obama to second place. The Republican candidate bought six million dollars worth of airtime during the 2008 Games, outspending his Democratic opponent by one million. It is the first time presidential candidates have purchased national network airtime in 12 years. Obama and McCain both had called on President George W. Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics as a reaction to continued Chinese human rights violations.

While the candidates eschew attending the Games, watching them (and the candidates' political ads) is perfectly fine. With his ad coup probably in the works, McCain said so recently: "As a private citizen, I think that the television coverage of it is going to be very excellent."

Also timed with the upcoming Olympics, a new study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (via CFR's The Candidates and the World) finds that Americans generally favor engagement over confrontation with China. However, China's rise as an economic competitor is viewed mostly negative. The study shows that Obama and McCain's positions on China are pretty much in line with the perception most Americans have of the country.

Energy Week In The 2008 Campaign, Part II: The McCain Edition

In the spirit of equal time, I thought I'd devote a blog entry to John McCain's energy speech Tuesday after spending Monday on Obama's. Unlike Obama, though, McCain offered very little news. So let's review some past thoughts on McCain's energy plan, and touch on what news there is.

If Obama's position on offshore drilling -- from "no" to "if it's part of a bigger package" -- is a shift, then McCain's is a shift of an even greater degree -- from "no" to "yes, yes, yes." Marc Ambinder calls Obama's position more of a "gesture," really, aimed at future negotiations. That's a fair enough description. McCain, though, has undertaken a complete reversal.

Then there's McCain's call for increased use of nuclear power. As I've written before, this would probably take a rather monumental public relations campaign in the United States, of the kind France conducted. However, it may not, if one recent example is a broader indicator. There has been relatively little protest of a proposed new reactor in Maryland, which some have taken as a sign that rising energy costs may be warming the U.S. public to the idea of nuclear power. Of course, that doesn't mean safety risks won't rear their head amid a serious national push. McCain toured a nuclear facility Tuesday that once had a partial meltdown. And while McCain has boasted of the Navy's record with nuclear-powered submarines, the AP points out that "recent events somewhat undercut that message. Last week, the Navy announced that one of its nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Houston, had leaked minimally radioactive water into harbors since March as the sub traveled around the Pacific."

And most believe that McCain's proposals to suspend the gas tax and offer $300 million as an incentive to build breakthrough cars are totally backwards and useless, respectively.

If there was any development in today's energy feuding, it was McCain's comeback to Obama that McCain voted against a 2005 energy bill that contained tax breaks for oil companies that Obama supported. And that Obama has decided to greet McCain's mockery with some mockery of his own, stating strongly in response to GOP attacks on his suggestion that people properly inflate their tires, "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

(P.S. Did anyone else find it amusing that McCain gave a speech on energy at that paeon to debaucherous energy consumption, the Sturgis motorcycle rally?)

Still Not Enough Foreign Policy in Presidential Campaign, Say Foreign Policy Analysts

The thrust of a Bloomberg story citing many experts about Barack Obama's foreign policy is that, despite his "overseas spectacle," the Democratic candidate's positions on many important global topics are still rather vague. While acknowledging that foreign policy issues play a major role in the current election season (a fact we had written about here at Across the Pond earlier), "questions remain" about the details of Obama's policy toward Afghanistan, Iraq, China and many other countries.

The observation is correct. Questions also remain about specifics of John McCain's policy toward many countries in the world. Questions also remain about specifics of President George W. Bush's policy toward many countries. And questions also remain about Germany's, France's or Britain's foreign policy agenda. Is there ever a point when there are no more questions about a constantly evolving topic such as relations with other countries in a globalized world? And if there were such a point, would it be a good thing if every detail about a policy toward another country was etched in stone?

That is not to deny that many important foreign policy issues don't get enough attention in the campaign. We wrote about the fact that Russia and also Zimbabwe haven't received much attention by the media or the candidates. In the case of Zimbabwe, one could argue that despite its importance as a human rights issue, the country's plight is neither a national security issue nor of direct relevance to American voters. Why a discussion about relations with Russia is largely absent from the campaign, despite a national security nexus and implications for American voters (energy prices), is more perplexing.

Sure, it is understandable that each expert pushes his area of interest. In the Bloomberg article, the Pakistan analyst wants Obama to focus on Pakistan while the East Asian expert presses for policy details for that region. And of course every one else demands to know what exactly Obama and McCain intend to do about the more prominent issues Iraq and Afghanistan. But the candidates have to walk a fine line here. They need to have a global policy plan that is specific enough to reveal a international relations blueprint. Yet it also needs to be broad or vague enough to be adapted to changing circumstances or new information without being branded a flip-flopper come January 20, 2009.

Still, for everyone interested in foreign policy this election campaign is a boon. Even if some questions remain open.

It's Energy Week In The 2008 Campaign, Even As Things Get Silly

Set aside, if you can, the frivolous allegations of Republicans "playing the race card" (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Daily Show) or the frivolous personality-based attacks against the Democratic candidate (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Colbert Report). There's some serious talk from the candidates happening on energy... although with a side helping of silliness, of course.

Barack Obama on Monday outlined his energy plan. John McCain will outline his Tuesday. Because much of Obama's energy plan had been unveiled before, his proposal to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve got the bulk of the attention. CNNMoney.com, which has done an excellent job covering the substance of this campaign's policy proposals, goes in-depth on whether that would help gas prices, coming up with an answer that I can summarize as "basically, yes." Obama's call amounts to a shift, of sorts, as was his statement recently that he could tolerate some offshore drilling as part of a larger package.

As for the silliness: McCain continues to mock Obama for his factual, expert-endorsed suggestion that properly inflated tires could help reduce the impact on motorists' wallets. Porch Dog takes on McCain's war with accurate information here. One hopes voters are smart enough to see through this. Obama may have exaggerated the impact of properly inflated tires, as ABC's fact check discerned, but it is simply undeniable that it would help, and it is false to assert that the tire-inflation suggestion is the sum total of Obama's energy policy. If Republicans had focused on one part of what Obama had said -- specifically, the degree to which properly inflated tires would help -- they would be on safer ground.

The race, it seems, has crossed the line it showed the early promise of never doing -- that is, the point where attacks on the other candidate are dominating the headlines. Obama released his first attack ad against McCain on the energy front, after dealing with the first direct attack ads from McCain. At least Obama's ad keeps a little of the focus on issues over personality, but it looks like it only gets worse from here on out.

Negligible News III: Gwyneth Paltrow Urges Expats To Vote For Obama

Finally, after Susan Sarandon, Bryan Adams and Ricky Martin, yet another international celebrity is campaigning for a presidential candidate. This time, it's Gwyneth Paltrow who lives in London with her British husband Chris Martin, singer of the band Coldplay. In a video, the American actress calls upon U.S. expats to vote for Barack Obama. The clip was produced by Democrats Abroad (DA), the official Democratic party organization for U.S. citizens residing abroad. According to DA, there are approximately seven million Americans living abroad.

If celebrity endorsements bring out more people to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain, more power to them. But I don't think so. Will anybody who didn't plan to do so anyway vote for Obama because Gwyneth Paltrow or Susan Saradon endorses him? Or will anybody who was previously undecided cast his or her ballot for John McCain because country star John Rich or Sylvester 'Rocky' Stallone tell them to?

I like what former tennis ace Pete Sampras said recently on the issue: "It's not my place to tell you whom to vote for, to take any political stand, to tell you what religion to believe in. I am an athlete. I can influence certain things, but when I see other athletes and celebrities telling you whom to vote for, I actually get a bit offended."

Bush Leaves Warm Relations With China For Obama Or McCain, Who Have Been Both Critical And Friendly

Bloomberg writes of the warm U.S.-China relationship that President Bush is leaving behind for his successor, be it John McCain or Barack Obama. It's a comprehensive piece, even if it fails to note that Bush has, at times, behaved contrarily to China's wishes, such as his meetings with the Dalai Lama or Chinese dissidents -- not the norm, certainly, but worth a "although Bush has occasionally..." kind of clause.

It's fair to say both Obama and McCain have been more critical of China, not that Bush wasn't early on himself. McCain's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama drew some anger from China, and Obama's supportive letter to the religious figure threw a little more fuel on the fire. Obama was quite critical of China on trade issues during the presidential primary, while McCain has advocated keeping China out of the G-8.

But both also have been friendly toward China at times. Even though McCain just made a confrontational gesture toward China himself by meeting with the Dalai Lama -- and even though McCain (and Obama) said he wouldn't have gone to the Olympics' opening ceremony in Beijing as president -- the GOP candidate recently urged Bush against being "confrontational" on his China trip. Last year, Obama, who has rejected McCain's viewpoint on China and the G-8, said: "In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region."

McCain And Obama Both Get Russia Totally Wrong, Experts Charge

A few months back, I wrote about the fact that Russia doesn't really play a role in the U.S. presidential election campaign. Nothing much has changed since then. Interestingly enough, despite soaring energy prices, the question of how to frame future relations with the world's largest gas and second largest oil exporter is pretty much absent from the presidential race.

Probably Paul J. Saunders and Brooke Leonard regret the omission of Russia as a campaign topic as much as anybody else. Why? Because in an article for The National Interest, a foreign policy publication with a realist bent, they argue that both Barack Obama and John McCain have an overly simplistic and unrealistic perception of Russia.

As an example of how Obama is wrong on Russia, Saunders points to the Democratic candidate's take on the tensions between Russia and Georgia. Saunders agrees with Obama that only a political settlement can end the conflicts in the region. But he calls the rest of the Obama campaign's statement on the issue "a confused combination of superficial and misleading analysis with unrealistic goals, framed by tired liberal sloganeering."

Saunders especially takes issue with Obama's characterization of Georgia. According to Saunders, Obama in his statement implies that Georgia is a "helpless victim of someone else's war plans. On the contrary, on several occasions it has been precisely Tbilisi that has threatened armed reintegration of the two territories (and likewise intimidated leaders of another renegade province, Adjara, in 2004)."

Saunders also criticizes Obama for his repetition of "tired liberal calls for the 'international community” to become 'more active.'" He asks: "But what is the 'international community' and why should it be unduly concerned about events in Georgia?" Saunders answers his own question by saying that aside from Georgia's neighbors and possibly the EU, no other countries have a reason to get involved.

Finally Saunders calls Obama's reasoning that Russia can't be a mediator in the conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia because it is part of the problem naive. Saunders points to the Middle East where the U.S. is a mediator and also an ally of one of the parties namely Israel. And by eliminating Russia as a meditator, Saunders asks, "does he think that any settlement could work without Moscow? This weak analysis betrays the senator’s lack of international experience — and poor advice from his foreign-policy team."

Saunders advice for Obama: Temper your hope and your calls for change with a big dose of reality.

John McCain, the perceived foreign policy expert, doesn't fare any better in his knowledge and analysis of Russia according to Saunders's colleague Brooke Leonard. To prove this point, Leonard looks at some recent statements McCain made about Russia.

McCain's most famous remark on Russia is perhaps his threat to throw the country out of the G8. That, writes Leonard, is an idle threat that no other country supports and Russia doesn't take seriously.

Leonard also takes issue with the Republican candidate's statement that Russia is blocking action against Iran in the UN Security Council: "Russia’s record on Iran in the UN Security Council is far more complex than McCain suggests. Moscow has blocked some measures against its longtime partner, but has supported others. The Russians clearly do not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, and have taken a variety of steps to negotiate with the Iranians outside of the Security Council as well."

Finally, Leonard thinks McCain gets the leadership situation in Russia wrong by stating that he is confident that former president Vladimir Putin is still in charge. According to Leonard, most Russia experts agree that some sort of powersharing agreement exists between President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. McCain, however, sounds quite certain that he knows something that even the Russians themselves do not, quipps Leonard.

So what's Leonard's overall assessment of John McCain's expertise on Russia? "His overly simplistic answers seem to show, in the words of the Senator himself, 'a fundamental lack of understanding.'"

While the Saunders and Leonard bash Obama and McCain for what the authors think are unrealistic perceptions of Russia, unfortunately, they don't tell us, which of the two candidates they view as the lesser evil concerning Russia. I guess, they want to leave that up to the readers and voters.

Obama Finds Himself In A Pickle On Offshore Drilling

Barack Obama now says he can live with an increase in offshore drilling, if it's part of a broader energy legislation compromise. It's interesting that he says this is not "really a new position;" it certainly is, by my reading of the record. His other justification for it is far more defensible -- that is, a group of bipartisan senators have included offshore drilling as part of a bigger proposal, and it's better to have something than nothing: "If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

Here, Obama could have learned something from John McCain, who, asked recently about why he had once voted against making Martin Luther King Day a holiday, simply explained it by saying: "I was wrong." He won applause before a black audience for saying so, which is surely as risky a group to have tried out that approach with as he could have found. Voters probably can live with "flip-flops" if candidates just fess up to them.

Of course, Obama was bound to get criticism on this point no matter what. McCain's camp, on the receiving end of a lot of "it's nice to see McCain now views things Obama's way" responses on his conflicting Iraq remarks, now has an opening to say the exact thing back to Obama. Which they have. And it feeds into another line of attack McCain's camp has been pushing, which is that Obama's not as genuine as he makes himself out to be and will say anything to get elected. Politically, just from the standpoint of the polls, Obama's shift might have been a smart move; the GOP has really been pressing the offshore drilling line with voters, given its apparent popularity amid soaring gas prices. But he probably helped McCain walk him into the second line of attack with the way he handled accusations he'd changed his position.

Bush, Obama And Condi Rice

Here's a piece I'm surprised the neoconservatives aren't flipping out about yet. They've been angry about what they've seen as State Department meddling with some of their favorite policies, like completely isolating Iran, that they see as undermining John McCain's presidential campaign. Now, Time magazine quotes a "senior State Department official" who says Foggy Bottom is indeed trying to "push things as far as they can go" with what Time calls "Bush's diplomacy surge." And get this: Condi Rice has been chatting with (gasp) Barack Obama.

Ultimately, it's not that surprising that the State Department would be pushing diplomacy. It's really not even that strange for Rice and Obama to have some talks, although the piece makes it sound like the two are friendly.

There's plenty of other good, new material in the article, as well as a run-down of all the Obama-like shifts of late from Bush, so I commend you to read it in full. It concludes on this interesting note: "No one expects Rice's diplomatic surge to work in every case--or even to produce visible results before the year's end--but the last-minute moves are already changing the landscape the next President will inherit... It may prove bittersweet to watch as a new President gets credit for policies she and Bush have promoted, but that is the price of embracing diplomacy so late in the game. At least, says the Obama aide, she can expect the phone calls to continue."

And here you thought Obama was a one-Rice candidate (senior foreign policy adviser Susan).

Obama The Realist, McCain The Idealist

A few weeks ago, Fareed Zakaria argued in a Newsweek piece that according to traditional foreign policy classifications Democrat Barack Obama is a cool conservative while Republican John McCain is an exuberant idealist.

Bill Ahlstrom and Theodore Couloumbis take the subject up again in an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer and come to same conclusion: In this campaign, McCain is the idealist, Obama the realist. As models for these categorizations, the authors refer to George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger and George Kennan as typical realists. Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter are considered classical idealists.

What then makes McCain an idealist? Ahlstrom and Couloumbis point to his idealist rhetoric that becomes evident in his proposal for a League of Democracies. His stance on the Iraq war – to finish what was started – is also considered to fit the political mold of an idealist.

What then makes Obama a realist? According to the authors, the Democratic candidate's foreign policy toolbox - consisting of containment, deliberations and a return to multilateralism – is that of a quintesstial realist.

For Ahlstrom and Couloumbis, voters have a clear choice in this election: "We believe that the worldviews of the presumptive presidential candidates do reflect the fundamental idealist-realist split, and suggest the broader outlines of the policies either would follow if elected."

So is Obama a realist in the school of Bush Senior and McCain an idealist in the school of Jimmy Carter? What do you think?

Free Trade In The 2008 Election Rears Its Head, But With An Unconventional "How" And "Where"

Over at the Wall Street Journal, trade advisers to the two presidential candidates are having a moderately interesting debate on free trade. You can read it here (h/t CFR). It offers a little of what Barack Obama did not on his overseas tour.

A few points of summary:
--On the recently collapsed WTO talks, there is relatively little disagreement between the advisers. The adviser to John McCain, Philip Levy, used McCain's opposition to the farm bill as a way to argue he'd be better equipped on the world stage to lead productive talks, since the U.S. farm bill isn't popular with other countries. The adviser to Obama, Daniel Tarullo, used the apparent domestic unpopularity of free trade against McCain, who's more pro-trade than Obama. The two differed only on whether talks should resume soon. Levy leaned no, Tarullo appeared to lean yes. Then, strangely, on a follow-up question, Tarullo deferred comment.
--On whether there's a connection between income inequality and the rise of free trade, both advisers said "maybe, maybe not," with Tarullo leaning "at least a little" and Levy leaning "probably not much." Then they talked about other things, like tax and education policy, that they argued were related to income inequality.
--Things got a little snippier on the what to do with NAFTA. Levy argued that barriers to trade needed to be lowered further, while Tarullo made the case for increasing labor and environmental standards under the agreement. Levy got a second rebuttal, for some reason, and used it to argue that Obama's position could lead to increased natural gas prices because Canada may reduce exports in that category, should NAFTA be reopened.

Given how much trade was at the forefront of the Democratic primary, it's remarkable that some of the most substantial discussion in the general election on globalization has come via an online debate on a newspaper blog between two non-candidates. Sure, trade is probably a bigger concern for unions that tend to support Democrats than it is for general election voters, and the polls don't show much benefit for McCain in highlighting his position, but it's a big issue that's getting short shrift.

Did Obama Get A Bounce From His European Trip?

At least since Barack Obama appeared in front of an excited crowd of 200,000 in Berlin, there was the question lurking whether his trip would give him a boost in the polls. Two new surveys, one by CNN, the other by Gallup try to answer that question. Both polls show that the race is all but over, but the rest is - as usual - up for interpretation.

While Charlie Cook at the National Journal thinks Obama may have benefited from his trip and may be gaining momentum, Rachel Marsden at Human Events sees a virtual tie in the polls that the Democratic candidate's cheerleading squad just chooses to ignore.

For Andrew Malcolm the new polls even beg the question 'Where did Barack Obama's mojo go' which Todd Beeten tries to answer at Mydd.

Do we at Across the Pond think Obama benefited from his trip? Tim wrote about it long before the current polls were out and his summary is still worth reading.

McCain And The Republicans: Wir Sind Keine Berliner

It is understandable that John McCain isn't too happy about Barack Obama's European trip. It is also understandable that the Berlin leg of Obama's trip was especially hard to stomach for the Republican candidate. After all, his Democratic rival's speech was cheered by a crowd of 200.000 at the Victory Column in the German capital.

But instead of acknowledging a savy campaign ploy from the Obama team when they see one and moving on quickly to other issues the McCain camp seems to think they can get some political mileage out of Obama's Berlin appearance. First, McCain's spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama prefered to speak to "fawning Germans" instead of visiting a U.S. military hospital in Germany. Second, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released a video (via Eve Fairbanks) that was supposed to poke fun of Obama's Berlin trip. The spot shows various young people uttering each a sentence or two about Obama, references to marxism, Che Guevara and, yes, Oprah – all mixed with a techno beat and shots of David Hasselhof.

Tucker Bounds statement is not accurate. Never mind, whether the Germans listening to Obama's speech were actually fawning. (Bounds choice of words has caused quite a stir in the German press.) The fact is, that Obama in Berlin did not just speak to fawning Germans, but to fawning Americans and fawning people from all over the world. Also incorrect is Bounds statement that Obama chose to speak in Berlin instead of visiting the U.S military hospital in Landstuhl. There was no decision whether to visit either Berlin or Landstuhl.

As for the RNC's Berlin video, I guess it is supposed to invoke some sort of Eurotrash revulsion impulse among potential Republican voters. The question is whether a Eurotrash clip on Youtube is the best way to reach culturally conservative voters? By the way, I happen to like the RNC parody. But then I also like Boney M.

Friction From Within On McCain's Foreign Policy?

An interesting undercurrent here: Even as John McCain looks like he's improving in the polls, he's been getting friction on foreign policy from influential conservatives. It's unclear what it means yet or if it's anything more than a coincidence of news events, but it's interesting to see the dissent. And it's coming from both directions, both the neocons and the realists.

Tuesday, John Bolton, who's as neocon as neocons get, rejected McCain's idea to eject Russia from the G-8, and was skeptical about McCain's proposal to form a League of Democracies.

For its part, the Weekly Standard, an influential conservative magazine, noted that the Bush administration is undermining McCain, particularly on foreign policy. But the piece blames the more diplomacy-oriented types at the State Department.

McCain And Obama, Now Basically On The Same Page About Afghanistan, May Be On The Wrong One Altogether

Just when it looked like the presidential candidates were getting along so swimmingly on the United States' two ongoing wars -- Barack Obama emphasizing McCain-like "conditions" and John McCain being comfortable with Obama's 16-month timetable for troop withdrawal on Iraq, and McCain moving toward Obama's position on more troops in Afghanistan -- comes this analysis that suggests both Obama and McCain are wrong about the elder of the two conflicts.

Some Final Thoughts On The Obama Foreign Trip

--Barack Obama tried to shift perceptions about what would constitute a successful trip by saying he wouldn't be surprised if he dropped in the polls while he was overseas. His argument was that he was out of town and therefore wasn't focused on domestic issues like gas prices. Some early returns suggest he got an overall bump, while others were not as promising. That said, if voters don't give Obama a bump in the "who's best suited to be commander in chief" category, and/or in the "who's better on foreign policy" then it will have to be viewed as at least a partial failure. Wasn't that the whole point?
--Even while Obama was away, he was getting plenty of coverage in big battleground states for his foreign trip, making the front page of many of the top papers in crucial capitals across the country, which Obama's campaign made sure to share with reporters. Many of them showed the sprawling, 200,000-strong crowd Obama drew in Germany.
--Regardless of how it shakes out in the polls, even top Republican advisers now agree that Obama's has had an awfully good stretch, by contrast to John McCain. The way Obama handled himself on the trip, plus the fortunate news Obama got from Nouri al-Maliki, plus some McCain missteps and sourpuss comments toward the press, all add up to a very nice week or two for Obama.
--If there was one thing McCain did to draw some favorable coverage while Obama was away (because the supermarket/sausage restaurant didn't get him much more than mockery), it was meeting with the Dalai Lama. The meeting still took a backseat to Obama's trip, and never mind that Obama's had his own meetings with the Dalai Lama. It was hinged to another news event, the Olympics, and while President Bush has also met with and praised the Dalai Lama, it did give McCain a chance to try to show some more daylight between himself and the incumbent, given that Bush is going to the Olympics despite the turmoil over Tibet. (The other way he got major attention: two attacks, one an advertisement and one a remark, both related to foreign policy but ultimately aimed at Obama's character. Hard to say that the coverage of those developments has been very positive, although that has rarely stopped attacks from working before.)
--Although the Obama trip put a huge spotlight on foreign policy in this campaign, a remarkable number of experts are noticing how much more this election is focusing, overall, on international affairs. A historical amount, even. The San Diego Union-Tribune quotes a slew of them here.

Half Of Germans Think A President Obama Would Make World More Peaceful

Let's wrap up Barack Obama's Berlin visit with this: 62 percent of Germans liked the Democratic candidate's appearance at the Victory Column in the German capital and thought he gave a great speech. That's according to a poll conducted for Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag by Emnid. Only 19 percent of Germans didn't like Obama's speech.

The same poll found that 63 percent of Germans think a president Obama would be good for Germany. Only 20 percent think otherwise. And finally: 51 percent of Germans think a president Obama would make the world more peaceful, 40 percent don't think so.

The Obama Foreign Trip Topic That Dares Not Rear Its Head: Trade

Given that Barack Obama has been visiting foreign lands where the U.S. attitude toward free trade is a major concern among European leaders, and given that Obama is campaigning in a U.S. presidential race where the economy is of foremost interest, it is still not terribly surprising that Obama has had little to say during his trip on the topic of international commerce. Consequently, perhaps, the issue vis-a-vis Obama's trip has received little coverage in the U.S. press. Obama's skeptical view of free trade is surely his least popular position among top European officials, and Obama bringing it up would have highlighted differences that could distract from some of the glossy photos. And, since this is the trip designed to burnish Obama's commander-in-chief credentials, a good portion of the trip -- including the European leg -- has been heavily focused on security issues.

Here, so far as I can discern, is all he's said, which he uttered at the Column speech: "Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all." It didn't come up at all in his press conference with Nicolas Sarkozy -- well, unless you count the Afghanistan narcotics trade. An Obama team press summary of Obama's meetings in Germany made only a passing mention of discussions with Angela Merkel on "broader economic challenges," but the bulk of the summary indicated the meetings were about NATO and the like.

Polls show free trade is not so popular in the United States. Many Americans think that it has not helped the economy. But European leaders and thinkers believe a U.S. backslide on trade would be bad for their continent. This New York Times piece, one of the few to tackle the Obama/Europe trade divide, notes that "Europe’s trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, last month urged both Mr. Obama and his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, to reject 'the false comforts of populism' and abandon 'the protectionist and antitrade rhetoric' that dominated the primaries." Mandelson went on: “A crisis of American confidence in globalization could knock it off course.” The piece also notes European anger at U.S. farm subsidies and renewed bidding on a refueling tanker contract originally won by a European-led consortium. In the long run, Obama's position on free trade could affect an impasse in WTO talks.

So while John McCain's more welcoming attitude toward free trade might not do him favors in the U.S., and while George Bush's policies in general are wildly unpopular, this is one of the few areas where the GOP president and his party's 2008 candidate are more in tune with Europe than Obama. "When it comes to trade, Obama could actually be less helpful for Europeans than McCain because I am sure that a President Obama with a Democratic Congress would be pushed to be more protectionist, while McCain would be more keen on promoting open borders and the free market than Obama," said Francois Lafond, director of the Paris office of the German Marshall Fund, speaking about WTO talks. "This is a tricky thing for Europeans as they are backing Obama to a certain degree. But indeed it could become more difficult for the Europeans to get an agreement if the Democrats returned to the White House, because public opinion will be pushing towards more protectionism, meaning that Americans will be more selective on what products should be allowed access to their market."

One more day to go on a trip that largely has the looks of a resounding success. Let's see if the leaders or press in London force Obama to talk more about free trade.

Hard To Believe: Not All Germans Enthused By Obama’s Berlin Speech

As expected and widely reported Barack Obama's Berlin speech was a huge hit in Germany. Most politicians liked it, the media liked it, experts liked it as did most Germans. The chief editor of the German news magazine Der Spiegel's foreign desk was so warmed by Obama's speech that he declared the Democratic candidate already the next president of the U.S.

As I explained yesterday, I was disappointed by Obama's speech. Today, I am somewhat relieved that I am not alone. In an editorial in the German magazine Stern headlined "Barack Kant saves the world", Florian Güssgen writes: "The man is perfect, impeccable, slick. Almost too slick…Obama's speech was often vague, sometimes banal and more reminiscent of John Lennon's feel good song 'Imagine' than of a foreign policy agenda." Still, Güssgen adds, in the end Obama achieves his two goals: "to convince Americans that he will make the Europeans step up to the plate and to convince Europeans that he will end Bush's foreign policy and try to work with his European partners."

Obama's main goal was to avoid mistakes at all costs, writes Julia Bähr in Focus Online. To achive that end his speechwriters stayed clear of all possibly controversial points. This approach was exemplified by Obama's closing words, 'Let's remake the world again'. "Who could possibly be against that", asks Bähr. Some other, mostly smaller, German papers struck a similar tone warning of a possible dissapointment by a President Obama.

Could they and Clive Crook be right in the end? Crook predicts: "How long, one wonders, will Germany stay in love with Obama if he is elected? My guess is not long."

Obama Seeks Help On Afghanistan From Europe, But To What End?

What's wrong with Barack Obama asking Europe for more help on Afghanistan, on its face an act of political daring?

Maybe it will be more effective than President Bush's "swaggering unilateralism," but there may not be much more Europe can do, even if it wants to. Which it doesn't, really.

Obama Gives A Speech We All Can Agree With

Sometimes the promise of an event is bigger than the event itself. Barack Obama's speech at Berlin's Victory Column fits into that category. To be sure, the Democratic presidential candidate delivered exactly what he announced: Obama had warned, he wouldn't give a wonkish foreign policy speech. He really didn't. The speech he gave instead is best described by the headline the Drudge Report chose to write about it: love parade.

In his speech the Illinois Senator went through a whole laundry list of international hotspots. From Amman to Iran, from Belfast to Burma, from Darfur to Pakistan. No crisis left behind seemed to be the unspoken motto of the speech. And the solution offered to the various global problems was always the same. If we all work together, overcome our differences of the past we can succeed.

Some would say these are just platitudes. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with an appeal to renewed international cooperation, especially after the Bush presidency, but it is just a tad vague. And for anyone who has listened to any domestic speeches Obama has given the theme is very familiar: Yes, we can.

Again, Obama didn't need to spell out how exactly he would try to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or a detailed plan how he intends to solve the crisis in Darfur. But a little more than 'Let's all be friends' would have been nice.

One issue where Obama was trying to be somewhat specific was Afghanistan. He basically called on Germany - without mentioning it by name - to expand its mission in that country. But even on a topic as important to Obama as Afghanistan, his rhetoric was strangely vague, bordering on sloppy. Obama said: "The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now."

The German government and any other European government that already has troops there can wholeheartedly agree with that sentence and point out that that is exactly what they are doing. If Obama wants more from the European allies, he needs to say it. He needs to say it not just to international leaders, but even more so to international audiences.

But perhaps I am being unfair to Obama. Perhaps in such a highly symbolic location and with the media buzz that surrounded the Berlin event, Obama did the one thing that he could do as an American presidential candidate campaigning abroad: give a well crafted, highly symbolic speech that is largely devoid of any substance.

What Barack Obama Might Say In German To His Berlin Audience

Much has been written about what German sentence Barack Obama might utter during his foreign policy speech at the Victory Column in Berlin on Thursday. So far the clear favorite is "Ich kann zuhören" (I can listen).

Fair enough. Listening skills are important not just for a Democratic presidential candidate. But we here at Across the Pond have a few more suggestions how Obama might impress his German followers. To be taken with a grain of salt, please:

"Ich bin ein Popstar."

"Ich mag George W. Bush genauso wenig wie Ihr."
(I can't stand George W. Bush as much as you guys.)

"Ich wünschte Ihr könntet wählen."
(I wish you could vote.)

"Ich wünschte ich hätte für diese Veranstaltung Eintritt verlangt."
(I wish I would have charged admission for this event.)

Other suggestions what Obama should tell his German audience? Let us know.

The Obama World Tour Looks A Lot Less "Risky" Right Now

For all the warnings from the media about how "risky" Barack Obama's world tour would be -- and I was one of the people who issued such a warning very early on -- so far, it's hard to imagine how it could have gone better for him. There's more yet to go, and the ultimate effect of it probably will not be determined until polls afterwards. But let's take a look at what Obama's gotten out of it so far.

Separate from, but surely deliberately timed to, Obama's trip, is the now quite indisputable fact that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is more aligned with Obama on a U.S. troop pullout than his Republican opponent, John McCain. There can be no more denials or ambiguities on this, thanks to third party translations of Maliki's original remarks and subsequent comments by a spokesman that point to substantial agreement with Obama. He's gotten good news in other ways, too, such as Great Britain's own plans for Iraq. He's gotten tons of images of himself looking presidential, one of the areas where he's lagged behind McCain in the polls, by meeting with foreign leaders. He's getting more glowing press than ever, perhaps more than he will ever get, which is saying something. As Obama's jump shot with the troops has made evening news rundowns, McCain has been left, somewhat pitifully, complaining about the lack of news coverage, being greeted by crickets in Maine and despite his own history of receiving glowing press, just generally being left in the dust in this category. Meanwhile, McCain's gotten attention primarily for increasing press notice of his own, foreign policy-related gaffes.

That's not to say Obama's trip has gone perfectly. His uncertain response in a television interview about the apparently successful troop surge that he opposed but McCain backed shows that this particular issue continues to be an advantage for the Republican and a weak point for the Democrat. There are grumblings that maybe he's been a little too concerned with appearing presidential, prematurely, something that plays into the perception of some voters that Obama is arrogant (whether it's accurate or not, this perception could be damaging -- on my last visit to my hometown in Indiana, more than a few relatives who tend to vote Democratic but only follow politics casually and vote said they were having a hard time embracing him for this very reason). Obama's done as well as he can explaining away his apparent shifts on Israel, but they still count as stumbles.

Add it all up, though. When you combine the successes and failures of the trip to this point, can anyone say Obama has done more harm than good to his presidential bid with the trip? Coming soon is the Europe wing. There are plenty of subjects he can discuss there.

The Broadcasting Of Barack Obama

So it's not only the American networks that will make the extra effort to beam Barack Obama's Berlin speech its viewers across the pond. Most major German television networks will do the same for German audiences and adapt their planned programming to televise the Democratic candidate's appearance in Berlin, reports German news agency ddp.

German public broadcaster ARD will show the event live as will Phoenix, a public broadcaster focusing on live political events and documentations similar to C-SPAN in the U.S. Germany's second national public broadcaster, ZDF, has not yet decided whether it will broadcast the speech. News channel N24 will show the speech live in its entirety during a two-hour Obama special and SAT 1 will broadcast its nightly newscast from Brandenburg Gate instead of from its usual Berlin studios, reports ddp. Finally, RTL said it won't go live with the speech, but plans to report from the Victory Column during its evening news show.

How Obama Will Spent His One Day In Berlin

Now that the decision where Barack Obama will speak in Berlin has finally been made, more and more details about his visit have been made public. According to German media reports, the Democratic presidential candidate will stay in Berlin for one day before continuing his whirlwind tour through Europe.

Here's how Obama, according to German press reports, will spend his time in the German capital: He will arrive on Thursday morning at Tegel airport in his new Obama One plane, featuring his campaign logo and slogan. Obama then will meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Chancellory around noon. They will have a photo taken, but not give a joint press conference, since Obama is a candidate and not an official state guest. At 2 pm Obama will meet with Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. According to press reports, he might spend the rest of the afternoon taking what has been described as a private walk through Berlin, visiting places of significance to German-American relations such as Tempelhof Airport, Checkpoint Charlie, the historic Bernauer Straße or the Holocaust Memorial.

Obama's much debated speech at the Victory Column is scheduled for 7 pm and will last up to one hour. Obama will stay at the Berlin Intercontinental Hotel and will head to Paris at 9 pm Friday morning. Until now, no details how Obama will spend the rest of the evening after his speech have been published.

Since Obama's only public speech in Europe at Berlin's Victory Column is a public, free event without much prior notice, Berlin officials are not quite sure how many people to expect. Estimates range from 10,000 to one million. (If the weather is nice, my guess is the number would be closer to one million than to 10,000.) Officials are in a hurry to prepare the area around Großer Stern, which will be open to the public as of 4 pm. Obama was given the second highest security status by German officials, the highest being granted only to the heads of state of the United States, Israel, and Russia.

According to the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel, Obama's campaign team, unsurprisingly, has focused its media attention on the bulk of American journalists traveling with the candidate. Tagesspiegel reported that the Obama team originally showed little interest in working with German journalists wanting to cover the event. Now, the paper writes, a decision which German journalists will be accredited will be made shortly before the speech.

With Obama's evening plans for Berlin apparently still shaping up, maybe he needs some help. What do you think? How should Obama spend his one evening in Germany's capital city?

Maliki Wanted To "Squeeze" Bush, The Administration Wanted A "Clarification"

Ask and ye shall receive. Earlier Sunday, I questioned Nouri al-Maliki's motive in both praising Barack Obama's 16 month timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and in offering a quasi-retraction. Later Sunday, the Associated Press answered the first and The Washington Post answered the second.

According to the AP, Maliki's interest wasn't in influencing the U.S. election, but, rather, using the U.S. election to influence the Bush administration's commitment to removing troops. "Let's squeeze them," Maliki reportedly told advisers. The maneuver came with a side of electoral politics, the AP reported.

Why the semi-retraction? According to the Post, which quoted a White House press secretary, that move came after the Bush administration called Maliki's office "to express concern and seek clarification of the remarks."

It's still unclear if Maliki has any sense of how much impact his comments might have had on the U.S. election, or how much pressure the Bush administration put on Maliki's office. But since I raised the questions, I felt obligated to report back after they were essentially resolved, assuming the reporting is accurate.

German Politicians Criticize New Venue For Obama Speech in Berlin

Even after Barack Obama's change of venue for his speech in Berlin from Brandenburg Gate to the Victory Column, the controversy over his choice of location continues. German politicians from both the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) as well as from the opposition Free Democrats (FDP) critized the Obama campaign's decision to hold what was billed as a major foreign policy speech at the Victory Column.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU), after objecting against a speech at Brandenburg Gate earlier, accepted the Victory Column as the venue for the Democratic presidential candidate's speech. She told German public broadcaster ARD, "we now take the venue as it is."

But Andreas Schockenhoff, deputy head of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, told Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag: "The Berlin Victory Column is dedicated to the victory over neighbors, who today are our European friends and allies. To me that is an unfortunate imagery." Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the Free Democrats said in the same paper, that the column was moved to its current location by Adolf Hitler. Brüderle added: "For him (Hitler) it was a symbol of German superiority and victorious wars over Denmark, Austria and France. I ask myself whether Obama was well advised to choose the Victory Column as a venue for a speech about his vision for global cooperation."

Back in the U.S., Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was quoted by Berlin daily Tagesspiegel, saying that the Victory Column was a good choice for Obama's speech and that she sees no problems with campaigning abroad.

So after the Brandenburg Gate gaffe did the Obama team make another mistake in choosing the Victory Column or is the criticism overblown? To be sure, the Victory Column is connected to Prussian history and Adoph Hitler. But so are many other historic monuments suitable for a public event in a city like Berlin. And as I wrote earlier, today the Victory Column is primarly associated with mass events that draw thousands of young people from all over the world like the Love Parade or as the place where Berlin celebrates the annual Christopher Street Day as German online portal Spiegel.de noted. So, as far as I am concerned, the Victory Column is as good a choice one can make in Berlin to give a speech about international relations to a global audience.

But what do you think? How do you feel about Obama speaking at the Victory Column?

What's Maliki's Motive For His Series Of Comments On Obama's 16 Months?

Nouri al-Maliki's possibly game-changing comments to Der Spiegel endorsing Barack Obama's timeline for a pullout of U.S. troops, and his subsequent unclear "retraction," raise questions about what exactly he is trying to do.

An unnamed Republican adviser said Maliki must be playing domestic politics. But as Ben Smith points out, why would he do it in Der Spiegel? It looks more like Maliki was trying to influence the U.S. election. But the same question follows: Why would Maliki try to influence the U.S. election via Der Spiegel? Perhaps he knew that with Obama's trip to Iraq near, media scrutiny would be at a high and as such the actual outlet he made his comments to wouldn't matter much because they inevitably would be picked up far and wide?

This could still very well be about both, despite the choice of outlet. Most believe Maliki's recent announcement that he supports a timetable for troop withdrawal was tied to his effort to get reelected. And Maliki, were he to try to influence the election Obama's way, would end up with a U.S. president more likely to follow through on the actual troop withdrawal, so it would have a practical effect, too.

Besides Maliki's peculiar decision to make his remarks about Obama in Der Spiegel instead of another publication, there are other reasons to question what, exactly, Maliki was trying to do. Why, if Maliki was trying to make a splash with his comments, did he offer a semi-retraction? And through Centcom? Did he regret his foray into U.S. politics? Did he genuinely believe his marks were mistranslated, and if so, why didn't he make a more specific retraction? Was he pressured by the Bush administration into the retraction he offered, or was he trying to give lip service to the Bush team that he still has to deal with until January? Does he realize that some of the impact of his remarks will have already sunken in by now, regardless of what he's said since? (Several objective observers have concluded that Maliki's remarks are a huge help to Obama, even with the semi-retraction.)

As U.S. Agrees To Iraq "Time Horizons," Both McCain And Obama See Validation

At first glance, the agreement Friday between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government to set "time horizons" for a withdrawal of U.S. troops steers American policy toward that of Democrat Barack Obama. But the campaign of John McCain has done as much as it can to steer the development to the Republican's favor.

It was Obama, not Bush or McCain, who wanted a timetable for troop withdrawal, a notion also recently backed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The "time horizon" agreement is less firm, but certainly more like the Obama/al-Maliki position than the GOP had previously taken. In that regard, the agreement has strong elements of a win for Obama.

On the other hand, after an initially muddled response to al-Maliki's call for timetables, the McCain campaign has found a line of attack that at least is somewhat credible. That is: None of this would have been possible without the success of the troop surge that McCain backed and Obama opposed. It's a point of sensitivity for the Obama camp, as the removal from his website of previous, unflattering remarks about the surge indicate.

That al-Maliki never, to my knowledge, mentioned the surge's success as a reason he wanted a timetable -- press accounts show him mentioning a desire for full Iraqi sovereignty and resistance to administration demands on a status of force agreement, plus there is some speculated re-election pressure -- doesn't help the McCain camp's argument. But perhaps a different security situation would not have led al-Maliki to place less of an emphasis on full Iraqi sovereignty, etc. At any rate, it's better than what McCain's camp had been saying, or an advertisement that the Boston Globe somewhat debunked, or criticizing Obama's Iraq trip -- a trip that McCain pushed.

Barack Obama Will Speak At Victory Column, Not Brandenburg Gate

Barack Obama will give his much talked about Berlin speech at the city's monumental victory column, not at historic Brandenburg Gate. Berlin dailies Berliner Zeitung and Berliner Morgenpost both report that a stage will be set up at the victory column so that Brandenburg Gate will be visible in the background. According to the Morgenpost, Obama's public appearance at the victory column is scheduled for 7 pm on July 24. Both papers report that the Obama campaign will announce its Berlin plans today in Chicago.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had voiced objections against an Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate, will meet with the Democratic presidential candidate in the chancellory next Thursday morning.

Regardless how one feels about Obama's trip abroad, the victory column is a great choice for a public venue. Of course, there is the highly symbolic name celebrating Prussian victories over Denmark, Austria and France. However, the location of the monument is equally striking. It lies in the center of Berlin's great Tiergarten park surrounded by a circle of boulevards called Großer Stern. The elegance and beauty of this place was captured best in the movie Wings of Desire by German director Wim Wenders. But it also featured prominently in the world's biggest techno event, love parade, while it was still in Berlin. And finally, its German name, Siegessäule, is also the title of Berlin's gay magazine.

McCain And Obama Both Need The Rest Of The World To Help Accomplish Their Foreign Policy Goals

A couple nights ago on "The Daily Show," a British journalist called attention to the fact that the U.S. media had not spent much time talking about the candidates' views on the oppression of opposition by Zimbabwe's ruling government. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have, in fact, reacted to what has happened in Zimbabwe, but both of their positions are so dependent on the actions of other countries as to point to another issue all together: On some of the top foreign policy issues for the United States, or on foreign policy challenges where the United States could play a role, the actions of other countries are just as important and often more.

Take Zimbabwe. Both candidates have called for some form of international pressure. But last week, U.N. Security Council actions to implement an arms embargo, travel restrictions and so forth were vetoed by China and Russia. Or Darfur. There, China's veto on the Security Council has proven crucial to ending the humanitarian crisis.

Even many of the specific foreign policy plans of the two candidates are heavily reliant upon other countries. Obama, as Michael has written for this blog, may soon be calling on Europe for more assistance with situations like the war in Afghanistan. It even applies on the macro level. The New York Sun editorial linked here about McCain and Zimbabwe hails his "League of Democracies" as a solution to the problems with the U.N., but what if McCain forms a League of Democracies and no one joins?

Why Obama Gets More Media Coverage Than McCain

Barack Obama's trip to Europe and the Middle East will receive unparalleled media attention for a presidential candidate, as all three major U.S. networks will send their news anchors overseas to cover the presumptive Democratic nominee's trip. This, of course, is a déjà vu moment from Obama's fierce primary contest with Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama getting a free ride by the media?

Let's look at the numbers: Jim Rutenberg reports in the New York Times that since June news shows of the major U.S. television networks have spent 114 minutes covering Obama and 48 minutes covering John McCain. A check of the blog search engine Technorati Thursday night finds that the name Obama is mentioned in roughly 722,000 blog posts with some authority (636,000 in English language posts, 6,400 in German language posts), while the name McCain is mentioned approximately 340,000 times in all blog posts (356,000 in English language, 2,500 in Geman language posts). The gap in blog appearances between Obama and McCain holds when looking at political blogs only through election buzz tracker Wonkosphere. What's true for TV and the internet is also true for magazines, where Obama was on more front page covers than McCain.

So is Obama getting a free ride by a worshipping media as Hot Air and many other blogs claim? Will the networks mention possible negative aspects of his trip in their coverage, as Jim Geraghty asks over at the Campaign Spot?

Difficult and legitimate questions. I haven't done a count, but I would guess that we at Across the Pond have also written more about Obama than McCain. So how to explain that discrepancy? First, by saying that amount of coverage doesn't necessarily translate into positive coverage. (Having said that, I would guess that Obama also leads McCain in a count of positive press coverage.) Second, let's not overestimate the reach of media outlets, especially the networks, who struggle with shrinking audiences.

Still, that doesn't explain the huge discrepancy, which in my opinion is driven by the factors momentum, hard news, soft news and novelty, and yes bias. Through his long tedious battle with Hillary Clinton, Obama gained a momentum that is hard to overcome for John McCain who sat on the sidelines for a long time. Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani experienced the same in the primary. He chose to sit on the sidelines. When he finally decided to enter the stage, the spotlight was and remained on McCain. Giuliani ended up with mostly schadenfreude coverage.

Barack Obama probably dominates the hard news category as well because he is a newcomer, and because he made some newsmaking statements. As a relative political greenhorn, Obama's political statements often simply are more newsworthy because the public doesn't know where he stands on many issues. What's more, he also has voiced some positions that dominated the news cycle for days, e.g. negotiating with leaders of rogue states.

Soft News and Novelty: Obama, as a relatively young, politically inexperienced candidate who a few months ago was almost unknown to the general public, was bound to receive a lot of coverage due to those circumstances. Did I mention that he will be first black candidate of a major American party?

Finally, bias. Yes, some in the media have a bias toward Obama that goes beyond the factors that I outlined above. However, that is also true for some journalists who favor McCain as George W. Bush lamented years ago. Journalists should try to remain neutral, but as we are only human too (yes it's true), sometimes we simply fail.

McCain Has A Bad Week On National Security And Foreign Policy

The whole “horse race” element of politics is usually pretty shallow stuff, but it’s relevant here: It’s hard to imagine how John McCain could be having a worse week or so on national security, a week that comes just as Barack Obama has been stepping up a multi-faceted effort to prove his own competence on the issue. Since much of McCain’s presidential hopes are predicated on his national security strength, that is not a welcome development for him.

The latest news, on Wednesday, is that the Bush administration is authorizing what the International Herald Tribune called “the most significant U.S. diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.” Added the Herald Tribune: “the decision appeared to bend, if not exactly break, the administration’s insistence that it would not negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programs unless it first suspended uranium enrichment.” Barack Obama, who has encouraged such meetings, hailed the development as a plus for his policy. McCain, who had encouraged isolating Iran, was left reacting by saying it was a rejection of the “unilateral” meetings Obama supported. More than one journalist concluded that this was advantage: Obama.

On Tuesday, McCain made some ambiguous statements on his Afghanistan plan that opened him up to charges of flip-flopping in a way that ends up making him look like he has come to think of things the way Obama has on troops levels.

Also on Tuesday, McCain again made a reference to Czechoslovakia as if it still existed, at least the fourth occasion he has done so in this campaign. It’s a gaffe, so it is far less important than any of the other developments, but McCain’s had his share of foreign policy slip-ups, something that doesn’t exactly speak well of his expertise in that regard.

And early last week, of course, McCain was confronted with the news that the Iraqi prime minister was calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops – which Obama favors but McCain does not – which McCain first greeted with skepticism, then silence, then a continuation of his own policy.

Meanwhile, Obama conducted a CNN interview with foreign policy expert Fareed Zakaria Sunday and appeared at ease with the subject. He released advertisements that highlights his national security views in states where such a move could be valuable. He penned an op-ed in the New York Times Monday which further clarified his Iraq position, in case there was any lingering doubt on that. And on Tuesday he delivered a wide-ranging foreign policy speech that the AP deemed his “most ambitious… to date,” where he again gave no major cannon fodder to opponents. All of this comes in advance of his trip next week to Europe and the Middle East, where, Brandenburg Gate controversy aside, he will probably be well-received and stands to make up even more ground on foreign policy and national security.

Despite all this, there is good news for McCain. First off, it’s just one week so far – it doesn’t yet have the look of the kind of week from which he cannot recover. Part of the reason he can recover is that he still was viewed by voters before any of this as the one with the edge in foreign policy, and, despite hostility from voters on the Iraq War, his plan for the country was running neck-and-neck with Obama’s. There are still areas where McCain can attack Obama, such as on his opposition to the Iraq troop surge (although that attack will be met with an answer that McCain showed bad judgment himself by supporting the war at its onset) and Obama’s absence on foreign policy issues as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations panel.

And McCain’s remarks, shifts and other problems haven’t caught fire in the media. McCain’s warm relationship with the press has long annoyed his opponents, who see favoritism in the coverage. None other than George Bush himself was irritated when, in 2000, McCain got away with referring to Czechoslovakia: “I don’t think there is any plot; I hope there isn’t,” Bush said. “But it’s an amazing phenomenon, I’ll tell you that. It’s like the flap over the foreign-leader deal. A guy gets up and quizzes me — it’s my fault for trying to answer — but John McCain says something about the ‘ambassador to Czechoslovakia.’ Well, I know there is no Czechoslovakia (there’s a Czech Republic and a Slovakia), but yet it didn’t make the nightly national news. I’m not going to gripe about it, but the media question is starting to pop up.”

Did The White House Pressure Germany To Prevent Brandenburg Gate Speech By Obama?

Did the Bush administration pressure the German government to prevent a speech by Barack Obama at historic Brandenburg Gate? This rumor has been floating around for a while now, so here's my quick take on it.

While there has been a lot of speculation about the White House strong-arming the Chancellory, both the German government and the Bush administration have said there wasn't any pressure by the White House. I tend to believe them. First, because aside from a comment by Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt that was disputed later by his office, there is no evidence to prove it. Second, what kind of pressure could an outgoing and highly unpopular American administration put on the German government to not allow an Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate? Cut diplomatic ties to Berlin? Impose trade sanctions? I don't think so. And third, I think the White House has a few more pressing issues (i.e., the U.S. economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran) on the table than a possible Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate.

That is not to say that the Bush administration is necessarily happy about the coverage and treatment the Democratic presidential candidate gets in Germany. And perhaps some American official mentioned this to his German counterpart, which then the media picked up on and that's why we talk about it now.

Obama And Merkel Strike Conciliatory Tone As Speech At Brandenburg Gate Is All But Ruled Out

Barack Obama's Berlin visit was supposed to be a great opportunity for the Democratic presidential candidate to boost his foreign policy credentials, meet German chancellor Angela Merkel, and prove that not every American politician necessarily must be reviled abroad. Instead, the Obama campaign's purported wish to have their candidate give a major foreign speech at historic Brandenburg Gate has not only caused a tiff between German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit and politicians across the politicial spectrum. It has also distracted from Obama's intended goal of proving to the American public that he is interested in global affairs beyond Iraq and can maneuver in the international arena. On the contrary, the row over his possible Brandenburg Gate speech has led to criticism of Obama at home that he has a big ego.

Hopefully, for Barack Obama, the debate over his Berlin trip will end soon. According to German press reports, the German government wants to resolve the issue quickly. A government spokesmen on Monday reiterated again that the German government is working toward a mutually agreeable solution with the Obama campaign, whose representatives are expected in Berlin today. A solution concerning the venue could be finalized by Wednesday, the spokesman said. Refering to a speech at Brandenburg Gate, he added: "Theoretically it is still a possibility. But judging by what we are hearing now, this place possibly does not have the highest priority anymore."

Obama, who is expected in Berlin on July 24, had tried to play down the Brandenburg Gate row over the weekend by telling reporters that "I want to make sure that my message is heard as opposed to creating a controversy. Our goal is just for me to lay out how I think about the next administration's role in rebuilding our transatlantic alliance. And so I don't want the venue to be a distraction," he said. German Chancellor Merkel, who voiced objections against an Obama speech at Brandenburg Gate earlier, tried to strike a conciliatory tone as well by telling Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag that "I look very much look forward to the visit and our conversation...."

So what do we learn from this? Four things. One, Obama, will not give a speech at Brandenburg Gate. In the current political climate in Germany, where the fact that Obama had contributed nothing to German reunification was now being brought up by the head of the CSU, that would have been impossible. According to German media reports, other possible sites are Gendarmenmarkt, Rathaus Schoeneberg or Tempelhof Airport, all places with historic significance in terms of German-American relations. Two, the Obama team did underestimate the possible fallout his Brandenburg Gate plans could cause for a divisive German coalition government in election mode. Three, Germans will cheer Obama whether he speaks at Brandenburg Gate or some other venue. Four, if he delivers a convincing speech on the future of transatlantic relations in Berlin, the Brandenburg Gate mess up will soon be forgotten in the U.S. too. After all, a revitalization effort of the transatlantic alliance is what atlanticists on both sides of the pond have been waiting for quite some time now

On Immigration, The Candidates Are Similar, Their Charges Are Accurate And The Political Stakes Are High

Credit where credit is due: There's been some sharp political reporting over the past couple days on the similarity between the presidential candidates' immigration stances, where the candidates have been right and wrong in their claims about their mutual records and why they're fighting over all of it. Given the poor job so many outlets did of reporting on Barack Obama's alleged (and non-existent) flip-flop on Iraq, it's encouraging to see.

This Newsweek blog does all of the above, but this ABC blog and this LA Times piece pick up some of the major components. The first: Obama and John McCain have substantially similar positions on immigration -- securing the borders, pathway to citizenship, etc. The only difference is that McCain may or may not want to do this in two separate pieces -- border security first, the rest second. It may seem a tiny difference, but it is not an inconsequential one. Many believe that in order to get something that the entire Senate can support, the two must be joined. That leads into the points about both men's records.

The Obama charge against McCain is that he abandoned the "corageous stance" McCain himself speaks of by backing away from the comprehensive legislation he helped put together with liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Obama's charge is on target. It's actually possible to find three distinct and different shifts in McCain's immigration record over the past couple years, although some are only of emphasis, and that's not including some alleged flip-flops. And McCain on Tuesday appeared to fuzz up whether he wants to do two bills or one. McCain counter-charges that Obama voted for several amendments to that bill which could have upset the delicate balance of the legislation, amendments that would ruin its support. McCain's charge is on target, too. Obama said he was just trying to make the bill better, but the fact remains that he voted for amendments that also would have made the bill fail.

Lastly, that aforementioned Newsweek entry has a run-down on the political stakes. That is, immigration is a big issue for many Hispanic voters, and Hispanic voters could help decide the race in several states, thereby helping decide the race itself. McCain, per Newsweek's statistics, has a long way to go. He's worse off than Bush was in 2004 and Obama's better off already than John Kerry was in 2008. Making matters more of an uphill climb for McCain is that his support among diehard conservatives is less than that of Bush's, so if he wants to keep them happy, he can't stray too far from conservative orthodoxy on immigration.

Of note, however, is that McCain's Latin America trip was extremely well-received by the Hispanic audience who heard his speech Monday. That audience may or may not be representative of Hispanics as a whole, but it's definitely a good sign for McCain that every time he mentioned the trip, it was an applause line. I had asked before whether McCain's Latin America trip was a waste of time; based on today's results, it no longer looks like it was useless, anyway. If this opens me to charges of flip-flopping, I accept those charges. What can I say? The facts on the ground changed.

The International Affairs-Related Comedy Of The 2008 Campaign

Let's lighten the mood around here with some campaign trail foreign policy comedy...

--Wired's Danger Room, as well as Boing Boing, have been having a grand old time collecting others' photoshop takes on the recent Iran photoshopping job on its missile tests, an issue that prompted some exchanges between Barack Obama and John McCain. I'm partial to the Wile E. Coyote one. (H/t Foreign Policy's Passport blog)
--McCain has pushed the comedy envelope on foreign policy issues himself, in a way that actually may have an impact on U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Like the joking he does about killing people in Iran. More than once. Or like the quip that might tick off Belarus. (Hillary Clinton had a few moments herself in the awkward foreign policy comedy arena, before Obama bested her for the primary nod.)
--I delved a couple times into the whole inaccurate charge that Obama was born a Muslim and that would impact how he's received in the Middle East. My take wasn't funny. Things More Muslim Than Obama is.
--The Onion, a satirical newspaper, has a campaign section on its website, and aside from the stream of headlines ("McCain Vows To Withdraw All Troops From The U.S."), there are also candidate profiles that mock their respective foreign policy stances. Ex. on Obama: "Guarantees improved relations with Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, and Illinois."
--Regular sources of international affairs-related campaign comedy can be found at Wonkette and on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The Daily Show even has an Indecision 2008 blog where they collect the foreign policy stuff, and a clips link.

Sometimes, satire and other forms of comedy tell the story better than straight news.

Friday Night Foreign Policy Fact Check

We've been doing our own fact-checking here, and I've encouraged readers to use the links in our blogroll to double up, but here's the best of recent foreign policy-related fact checking elsewhere, focusing on the claims that were most faulty:

--I said Barack Obama didn't flip-flop on his Iraq stance; much of the mainstream media bought the flip-flopping charge hook, line and sinker. Politifact agreed with me.
--The Democratic National Committee alleges John McCain has been inconsistent on when to bring Iraq troops home. I said he's been about the same as Obama, consistency-wise, but with some problems here and there. Politifact found that the DNC was mostly wrong.
--McCain said Iran, "in the view of every objective observer," is pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Politifact says not so much.
--Politifact says Obama's being misleading when he claims McCain would "give more tax breaks to big oil." It just so happens that McCain's also been wrong about part of his own economic policy -- Factcheck.org says he's been using bad numbers about the benefits of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
--McCain's waaaaay off-base when he says a handful of things about Obama's energy policy, according to Politifact. Factcheck.org also rules the Republican National Committee's attacks on Obama's energy proposals are out there.

Candidates sometimes don't tell the truth! Gasp. Happy Friday night.

(My sarcasm is flippant; really, one of the best things a journalist [or blogger, or just the media generally] can do is sort out the facts for the people to decide, which is why I make a stab at it as often as I do. And it's why any concerned voter should be checking in at Politifact, Factcheck.org and some of the other fact-checking operations of newspapers as often as possible.)

Both Candidates' Strange Plan For "Savings" From The Iraq War Paying For Other Things

I thought this was a great find from the team over at the Foreign Policy Passport blog: the notion that John McCain would some how use money from the conclusion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are paid for by borrowing, to reduce the deficit. As it happens, Barack Obama has the same notion of using savings from the conclusion of the Iraq War to spend on other things. It sounded, on the surface, like it was an impossible notion.

That's what federal budget experts have concluded, too: "Washington is charging the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to its national credit card. So far, the government has spent between $700 billion and $800 billion since 2001. Simply deciding to spend less money the government doesn't have will not free up real money to pay down the current deficit or help pay for new endeavors." Added Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: "They kind of create money out of thin air."

Read the whole contents of the link for what McCain and Obama's advisers had to say in defense of this notion, and how even then the two campaigns are on shaky ground. And then go back to Passport, where Blake Hounshell wonders appropriately about how McCain can even count on the conclusion of the war in Afghanistan any time soon -- "Imagine telling your mortgage lender: 'My plan to pay off this debt in four years is to get a new job that pays me a million dollars a year.' Sure, it could happen. But I doubt the bank would be impressed by the proposal."

Weak Explanations For Obama's Non-Flip-Flop On FISA

This will probably be my last refereeing of who's flip-flopping or not for a while, because you could be at it all day every week in this campaign lately... but the Barack Obama campaign has been making some effort to act like he hasn't shifted his stance on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation that the Senate voted to send to President Bush for a signature Wednesday, and their explanations deserve a response.

There are two explanations, both faulty. One is that this bill is different than the one he pledged to filibuster. Here's what's wrong with that: He vowed to filibuster ANY bill that included retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly assisted President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. There is no one who has argued credibly that this bill is likely to result in anything but retroactive legal immunity.

The second explanation offered by the Obama camp is that he voted in favor of amendments to remove retroactive legal immunity from the bill, therefore his position is consistent. Here's what's wrong with that: He vowed to filibuster ANY bill that included retroactive legal immunity, and this one effectively does. So while his opposition to retroactive immunity is consistent, his position is not. If he was committed to blocking any bill that includes retroactive immunity, though, why did he support this one? He may oppose retroactive immunity, but he no longer opposes any bill that includes it. What's more, Obama had a chance to vote to continue debate -- that is, filibuster -- and on Wednesday he voted against continuing debate.

It amounts to a pretty obvious shift from Obama's previous stance. And it may be that he has good reasons for revoking that stance; it's not for me to decide. This piece runs through some of them, and includes some previously unrevealed details about some of the advice Obama received. But when Obama chides the media and others for saying he has shifted to the center, he should leave FISA off the list of things on which he hasn't changed positions.

A "McCain Flip-Flops On Iraq" Story Should Be Forthcoming, Yes?

I've spent some time here delving into whether Barack Obama flip-flopped on Iraq, concluding that he did not; now, today, comes a maneuver similar to Obama's from John McCain, so let's see whether he's subjected to the same charges.

The impetus for McCain's situation is Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's call for a memorandum of understanding about a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of his country. McCain has spoken at least as adamantly about the foolishness of timetables as Obama has about their wisdom. Probably more so. Obama did indeed reserve the right, all along, to change his plan based on conditions in Iraq. A McCain adviser on Wednesday cited similar "facts on the ground" caveats to McCain's anti-timetable stance. McCain, as demonstrated here, has indeed built some flexibility into his Iraq stance. (It's fair to say that judging by the McCain campaign's relative silence on the point that al-Maliki's pronouncement caught them off guard. In a race where some of the momentum on the Iraq issue appeared to be shifting to McCain's advantage, more than just McCain's team failed to take into account that the Iraq War could take a turn against the Republican.)

If there's a difference -- besides one of tone -- in the situations Obama and McCain have found themselves in on Iraq in recent weeks, it's that McCain has been less clear than Obama on what he intends to do next. After all the confusion, Obama settled on what amounted to a clarification of his position: I very much intend to end the Iraq War, but that intention could change based on conditions in the country and the advice of military leaders. Per the Post: "On Tuesday, McCain's campaign declined to respond directly to the question of whether he now supports the idea of setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country." Making matters more difficult, McCain years ago said that if a sovereign Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, then it's "obvious" troops would have to be removed.

It may be hard to level the charge of flip-flopping at someone who won't respond about the nature of his current position. But stopping short of that: Obama said he supports a timetable, but might not depending on the facts on the ground; McCain said he opposes a timetable, but an adviser hinted he might not depending on the facts on the ground. The coming days will determine whether political reporters apply the same standard to McCain as they do Obama on this issue -- and whether they press McCain to clarify what his position is.

Obama's Berlin Visit Sparks Debate Among German Politicians And Irks Bush Administration

Barack Obama's upcoming visit to Berlin has sparked a debate among German politicians whether to grant the Democratic candidate the privilege of speaking at historic Brandenburg Gate. The mayor of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit, supports the idea. Wowereit told the German News Channel N24 that "we would be happy if... Barack Obama would use Berlin as a platform... to send out his messages." Wowereit acknowledged that Brandenburg Gate is of high symbolical value, but added that he doesn't expect any problems with the Chancellory.

Earlier, German news site Spiegel Online and Berlin daily Tagespiegel reported that the Chancellory wasn't so keen for Obama to give a major speech at Brandenburg Gate. Brandenburg Gate is the most famous place in Germany and one that is most deeply rooted in history, an unnamed source in the Chancellory told Spiegel Online. In the past, the place was used only for very special occasions and was reserved for elected presidents, the unnamed source added.

According to the Tagesspiegel, a government source told the paper, while Brandenburg Gate in fact was not only reserved for elected heads of state, it was never used for a campaign event. Spiegel Online had reported previously that the German government was worried that through an Obama campaign speech at Brandenburg Gate, the historic venue could become a preferred campaign stop for other candidates as well. According to the site, the Chancellory emphasized that John McCain would be very welcome in Berlin as well and that no decisions would be made during talks with the Democratic presidential candidate.

While the head of the German Liberal Democratic Party (FDP), Guido Westerwelle, urged officials to let Obama speak at Brandenburg Gate, the head of the German Greens is skeptical about an Obama speech there. "I am not sure whether it is smart by Barack Obama, as an American presidential candidate, to want to speak at Brandenburg Gate," Reinhard Buetikhofer told daily Saarbruecker Zeitung (see my take on a speech there here). Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy came as presidents when they gave their famous speeches, he added. Refering to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Buetikhofer said, "it didn't help him at home to show how popular he is in Europe."

Meanwhile, all the recent attention Obama has been getting in Germany has ruffled some feathers with the Bush administration. "It would be nice if the German government would intensify the contacts with us again and not already look over our shoulders at our successors," Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the German daily Bild. He pointed out that the current administration is still in office until January 20.

72 Percent For Obama, 11 Percent For McCain - In Germany

Just in time for Barack Obama's trip to Germany, a new poll shows (once more) that an overwhelming majority of Germans favor the Democratic presidential candidate over his Republican rival John McCain. A poll conducted on July 3 for the German Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag found that 72 percent of Germans want Obama as the next U.S. president. Only 11 percent hope for a McCain victory in November.

Similiar to U.S. polls, Obama is especially popular among people with a high school degree (86 percent). Interestingly, East Germans (77 percent) favor the Democratic candidate more than Germans in general. A possible explanation for this factoid could be that East Germans on a whole are more inclined to vote for left-of-center candidates than Germans in general.

When asked about their priorities for the next president, the answers given by Germans differ quite dramatically from those usually given by Americans. Almost every third German (34 percent) views the global fight against poverty and hunger as the most important issue for President Bush's sucessor. For 22 percent climate change is the dominant topic. Only 18 percent say staving off a global economic crisis is the most pressing issue. Even less (14 percent and nine percent respectively) perceive the fight against international terrorism and improving relations between the U.S. and Europe as the most important topic.

In American polls, the energy situation (gas prices), the state of the economy and the war in Iraq are usually always ranked as the most important issues, whereas climate change and the fight against poverty don't normally come up as individual topics. If they are perceived as election topics than only in relation to energy costs and the economic situation in the U.S., but not on a global level.

Day Two Of Uninformed Coverage Of Obama's Iraq "Shift"

There's some snarkiness out there today toward Barack Obama from reporters after he chided them for their coverage of his recent statements on Iraq. We reporters, like all humans, do sometimes bristle at criticism, but everyone who erroneously reported that Obama had somehow changed his position ought to just go ahead and swallow this medicine.

Obama simply did not change his position, as some reported he did. A little basic research is all it takes to learn that. Obama, as far back as September of 2007, refused to commit to fully pulling out troops before 2013. That's more than 16 months, the timespan he frequently cites for ending the Iraq War. No, he has not often emphasized his "facts on the ground" argument, but it's always been there.

When Obama said today, "I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," he was wrong in his characterization of the media's calibration. It was quite poorly calibrated, in fact.

The New York Times piece linked above suggested that somehow Obama was doing a flip-flop within a flip-flop by changing his story from "I wasn't clear enough" in Thursday's second press conference to "you didn't hear me right." To me, this reads more like the kind of thing anyone says in an argument; being charitable to the other party, one might start by saying, "Perhaps I should have said it better," but when the message still doesn't get through, charity goes out the window and things shift to "You should listen better."

Obama might have felt compelled to bring the subject up again because of pieces like this, which delve into whether he's on the verge of getting saddled with a flip-flopper label.

Writes the AP in another bit of strange reporting: "His problem is that his change in emphasis to flexibility from a hard-nosed end-the-war stance — including his recent position that withdrawing combat troops could take as long as 16 months — will now be heard loud and clear by an anti-war camp that may have ignored it before. So he could face a double-whammy in their feelings of betrayal and other voters' belief in the Republican charge that he is craven." It's hard to understand why any reporter would postulate that. A very casual scan of some of the most liberal blogs -- home of the most strident anti-war positions on the left -- shows that, in fact, it is only the media that has drawn their scorn, not Obama. And as TPM pointed out, the 16-month timeline is not "recent," either.

In my day job at Congressional Quarterly, I report on policy first, politics second. But here, at Across the Pond, I'm a political reporter first and foremost. And incidents like the recent spate of reporting and "analysis" on Obama's Iraq stance give dishonor to that profession.

Obama Must Carefully Weigh Possible Public Appearance At Brandenburg Gate

It seems like Barack Obama's trip to Berlin is taking shape. According to Berliner Morgenpost Online, the preparation team for the Democratic candidate's European trip made an inquiry for the last weekend in July for Obama to travel to Berlin.

The internet portal reports that there are deliberations for an Obama appearance at Brandenburg Gate, or a speech at a think tank in Berlin. However, the Secret Service voiced objection's against a public Brandenburg Gate visit that is hard to secure, Morgenpost Online reports. As far as Berlin-based think tanks with a U.S. affiliation are concerned, the American Academy as well as the Aspen Institute Berlin come to mind. Both are located outside of the city along beautiful Wannsee and are thus more easily secured.

While Germans would surely relish a public appearance by Obama at historic Brandenburg Gate, there are not only security reasons that speak against it. While an Obama speech there would definitely invite renewed comparisons with John F. Kennedy's famous Berlin visit ("Ich bin ein Berliner"), it could also backfire.

How would American voters feel if they see televison pictures of the Democratic presidential candidate in front of thousands of enthused Germans? Many would surely be glad that after almost eight years of President George W. Bush his possible successor is not greeted by mass protests but by throngs of fans. On the other hand, for some Americans it might have the contrary effect.

If the Germans (and God forbid maybe even the French too) are enthralled by Obama and greet him like a pop star, that alone could be reason enough for some to vote for John McCain. I am sure the Obama campaign is acutely aware of this phenomenon and will try to tightly manage the public appearances by their candidate.

Obama's goals during this European trip are to bolster his foreign policy credentials and get some photo ops that show he is comfortable with European leaders. Enjoying a bath in a German or French crowd is not necessarily one of them.

McCain's Risky Latin America Trip

The Republican presidential candidate just completed a trip through Latin America that had The Washington Post asking, "Why is John McCain in Colombia?" McCain has his own answer, but some saw the trip as a risky gambit.

McCain, as I wrote recently, is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to emphasizing his foreign policy strengths or the economy, on which he is weaker but that voters care more about right now. On that count, this trip could further enhance his foreign policy experience, but the Post notes: "McCain could not have made this trip because he needs to burnish his foreign policy credentials," because he already has the advantage there. Barack Obama's planned overseas visit is certainly for that reason.

In many areas of Latin American policy, the two men are alike. Could the trip be about trade? Perhaps, but in that regard, the U.S. public is very divided about free trade agreements. Could the trip be about immigration? Maybe, but McCain's stance against an immigration bill he once helped negotiate has put him in a strange position, caught between Hispanic voters and those on the anti-immigration right. And while many have interpreted the trip as an attempt by McCain to curry favor with Hispanic voters, that very immigration position has probably cost him -- at least compared to Obama, whose views are closer to those McCain once held that were more forgiving of illegal immigrants in the country now.

That leaves appeal to Catholics as a highlight of the trip, as the Times suggests, since McCain spent some time with the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico City. That's a significant voter group, but could McCain have won them over without a visit to Latin America? It could just be that this whole thing is a leftover from the perception that McCain's campaign is wobbly and still finding its legs -- which, given the campaign shakeup of late, is not the most implausible reason for the visit at all.

No Major Change In Obama's Iraq Policy, Despite Flurry Of Coverage

It's not as if there isn't serious ammunition for anyone who wants to claim Barack Obama has shifted his positions on some issues of late, or (gasp!) flip-flopped. But Friday's confusion -- in the press, in the blogosphere -- over whether Obama has changed his stance on pulling troops out of Iraq isn't that ammunition.

If someone thought that Obama had put in place some kind of absolute plan for all troops to be removed within 16 months, they could hardly be blamed. Obama himself has made it sound like that's his stance. But that position has always come with caveats, caveats that were common to all the Democratic presidential candidates. None of them, in a September debate, would promise to withdraw troops by 2013. Why not? For the very same reason Obama wouldn't Friday: “I have always reserved the right to do what’s best for America’s national interest… I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”

What's new here, if anything, is the emphasis. By signaling he was open to the possibility he might "refine" his Iraq plan, he called attention to something that he had not much called attention to before. That he would do so may or may not be worthy of criticism, but it is that shift, not the imagined one, that should get it.

Obama Or McCain: Angelina Jolie Still Undecided Who Will Get Her Vote

Unlike her fellow celebrities Susan Sarandon and Bryan Adams as well as Ricky Martin, Angelina Jolie has not decided yet whether she will cast her vote for Barack Obama or John McCain in November. "Everyone thinks that I have made up my mind," she told German daily Frankfurter Rundschau in an interview. "But my decision is still very much open. I have listened very carefully for what Obama and McCain stand for, which is something that every voter should do. I will make my decision only after I know what both candidates plan to do in the areas that are important to me," Jolie added.

One of those areas of interest to the actress, who is also an ambassador for the UN Refugee Agency, is Iraq and the refugee situation in that country. With that in mind, Jolie said it is "not possible right now to simply hand over the reins to the Iraqis and pull out. The U.S. has not only a moral obligation to help the Iraqi refugees, it is also a US national security interest to end this crisis."

In the interview, Jolie critized the Bush administration's "highly questionable foreign policy," but said that was not the reason why she and her family live mostly in France. "French is the second language in our household, so it is good to be there right now," the actress said.

Germans Elated By Obama Visit May Be Surprised By Tough Talk On Afghanistan

Some time ago we wrote about the possibility of Barack Obama traveling to Europe during the campaign. Now it is definite, the Democratic presidential candidate will visit Germany, Britain and France as well as Jordan and Israel this summer. The exact date of the trip has not be disclosed, but according to media reports it could be as early as mid-July.

Unsurprisingly, Germans are elated by Obama's decision to travel to Berlin. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier would be very happy to meet him, a Chancellory spokesman said on Monday. He added that no date had been set yet. The German government's coordinator on U.S. relations, Karsten Voigt, previously even went as far as telling a German paper that the German government would welcome every American presidential candidate, but especially Obama.

While Germans will be more excited to see a candidate Barack Obama for the first time than they were ever to see George W. Bush in his two terms as president, it may come as a surprise to some that a difference in style does not necessarily mean a difference in issues. The prime example of this will be Afghanistan. The Bush administration in the last years repeatedly called for Germany to send troops to fight the Taliban in the more dangerous Southern region of that country. The American demand was rebuffed several times.

It will surely be revisited by Obama during his visit to Berlin and brought up again should he become president. He stated so in other words when announcing his trip: "France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are key anchors of the transatlantic alliance and have contributed to the mission in Afghanistan, and I look forward to discussing how we can strengthen our partnership in the years to come. This will be an important opportunity to have an exchange of views with leaders in these countries about these and other issues that are critical to American national security -- and global security -- in the 21st century."

The theme of burden sharing is not new for Obama. Already in January he said that Europeans couldn't just leave the "dirty work" in Afghanistan to the Americans and the British. As the presumptive Democratic candidate with a good chance of winning the election, his words will have more resonance now then earlier. And just by Obama not being Bush, Germans will have a harder time rejecting his plea.

Possible Obama Presidency A Reason For U.S. And Israel To Speed Up Iran Plans?

The question whether the Bush administration mulls attacking Iran's suspected nuclear weapons sites before a new president is sworn in has been raised for quite some time. There has also been a continuous debate about Israel's ability and willingness to strike targets in Iran, should Tehran continue with its enrichment efforts and the U.S. decide not to persue a "military option."

In the last days, however, the discussion of a possible U.S. or Israeli attack against suspected Iranian nuclear weapons sites has intensified: Israel recently conducted a large military excercise that could be interpreted as training for a military strike against Iran, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and an ardent supporter of military action against Iran, John Bolton, predicted an Israeli attack and Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker that the U.S. has stepped up secret operations inside Iran and its funding of Iranian opposition groups.

So how do Barack Obama and John McCain figure in the equation? So far neither presidential candidate has commented specifically on these latest developments. McCain's position toward Iran is pretty much in line with that of President George W. Bush. Obama, on the other hand, has suggested direct talks with Iran's president, but has toughened his stance toward Iran lately.

Still, an election victory by a more dovish Obama has been mentioned as one reason for the U.S. and Israel to hasten their preparations for a possible strike against Iran. The argument that a prospective Obama victory in November is pressuring the Bush administration and Olmert government to speed up their military plans has been put forward by neoconservatives like John Bolton and William Kristol, but also by Israeli foreign policy experts.

Leaving aside the usefulness of a strike against Iran, I don't think that assessment is correct as far as Israel is concerned. When it comes to Israel's national security - and an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is considered a grave threat to the country's existence - Israel will do whatever it deems necessary to diminish or eliminate that threat. It doesn't matter whether Obama is in office or not. As far as the Bush administration is concerned, however, that rationale might hold more water.

Whether Obama Or McCain Will Change The U.S. Posture Toward The World

These things keep coming in twos: A pair of articles out today argue that the next president won't undo President Bush's foreign policy. One, here, focused exclusively on Barack Obama. The other, here, expands to both candidates.

What say you, reader.... are they wrong?

Obama Keeping Robert Gates As Defense Secretary Has Plenty Going For It

With the idea of Barack Obama keeping on Robert Gates as Defense secretary floating around for weeks, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Instead, the objections from liberal thinkers continue to be rather tepid.

Backers of the notion of keeping Gates aboard observe that he may work in a Republican administration, but he and Obama have a great deal in common. They have considerable overlap in their view of Iraq, and around the same time President Bush was hinting that Obama was an "appeaser" for being willing to talk with Iran, Gates was advocating talks with Iran. Although Gates was also a critic of the Iraq War and as a member of the Iraq Study Group called for the eventual removal of troops in a fashion similar to the one Obama has supported, he is thought by most to being about as good a job managing a difficult war as one can. A top Obama foreign policy adviser has openly suggested Gates would be a good fit in a Democratic administration. Gates has long been as popular as Republicans get with Democrats, and in his biography, he had tons of praise for the foreign policy of President Jimmy Carter. If Obama wants to pick a Republican to serve in his administration and have a bipartisan cabinet, Gates is as suitable a candidate as remains with the Bush team.

A number of moderate Democrats like Time's Joe Klein or this writer for the New Republic are warm to keeping Gates for all those reasons. They don't, though, often reflect the views of the broader party. So where are the critics of keeping Gates? Matthew Yglesias writes that the major problem with keeping Gates is that, well, he's a Republican: "It's desperately important for the Democratic Party's leaders to avoid re-enforcing the idea that Democrats can't run national security." The explanation of his objection is not exactly vociferous. Likewise, you'd think an article in the liberal magazine The Nation entitled "Gates to Join Obama? Uh-Oh" would have more negative to say. Instead, the author practically makes the case for Obama keeping Gates.

Really, with some party moderates high on keeping Gates, with a key Obama adviser speaking well of him and only mild objections from the left, there's much to making the idea a reality. The biggest problem may be Gates himself. Per the L.A. Times: "When asked at a recent news conference if he would stay on after the end of the Bush administration, he replied: 'The circumstances under which I would do that are inconceivable to me.' Gates frequently mentions a clock he carries to count down the minutes until he can return home to his manse on a lake outside Seattle."

Barack Obama Alienates Europeans By Favoring Dealth Penalty And Right To Bear Arms

While Barack Obama continues to be Europe's favorite presidential candidate, his stated support for the death penalty gave Europeans an important reality check. Obama disagreed with a recent supreme court decision to prohibit the death penalty for child rape. Apparently suprised by the presumed Democratic nominee's hard-line stance toward the death penalty, German politicians unanimously condemned his remarks.

The fact that so many high level German politicians were surprised by his position, speaks to the continued Obama fascination in Europe, but also to a certain lack of insight or naivete about American politics. To win the election, Obama needs to woo independents and moderate conservatives. By demanding the abolition of the death penalty, as suggested by German politicians, he would make liberals happy, but alienate independents and conservatives. The Obama campaign figures since liberals have nowhere else to go in this election anyway, their candidate can only win with his pro-death penalty stance. They are probably right. You can read a good exploration of Obama's political strategy here.

Interestingly enough, another high profile issue for Europeans on which Obama has chosen to take a more hard-line approach didn't get much attention across the pond: gun control. Obama, in response to a supreme court decision, stated that he supports an individual's right to possess guns. Surprisingly his remark didn't trigger the same political outrage in Germany as his statement about the death penalty. Maybe because of Euro 2008.

What is politically interesting is that Obama has arguably switched to the right on two key issues for conservatives in the last week: gun control and the death penalty. Which brings up the old issue of flip-flopping again. Does this make him a flip-flopper or a savy politician? That probably depends on whether Obama can argue his switch convincingly. What do you think?

McCain's Dilemma: Whether To Talk About National Security Or The Economy

In my last post, I wrote about whether John McCain or Barack Obama has the advantage on foreign policy in the 2008 presidential campaign, with McCain being thought of as having the upper hand by most but with some challenging that; as it happens, a lot of influential Republicans would prefer that McCain not emphasize his national security experience so much in a year when the economy is foremost on voters' minds.

The L.A. Times writes: "Even more puzzling to observers is McCain's emphasis on national security and foreign affairs -- Saturday he met with the leaders of Iraq and the Philippines -- at a time when domestic matters have surged to the fore of voter concerns." Some of those observers, in fact, include two of the top campaign officials for President Bush and John Kerry in 2004. "You can't shoehorn in an issue the American people aren't focused on every day at their kitchen table," Matthew Dowd, who ran Bush's campaign, told the Times.

The problem, of course, is that national security is one area where the polls, at least, suggest McCain might have an edge. On the economy, Obama holds an edge.

What McCain has done in a few recent instances may be the blueprint for merging the two, with his foreign policy experience rubbing off on some domestic issues. Energy, immigration and trade all have foreign policy elements, and he's focused his attention on all three of late. What's problematic for McCain, though, is that in all three of those cases, he holds positions that divide either his Republican base or moderates who will be key to his chances or both.

When the economy's gone south, the president's party always suffers in an election year. Maybe McCain could benefit from focusing on the economy a little more than he has, but McCain's between a rock and a hard place here. He may just have to pick the national security hard place and stick to it. As pollster Floyd Ciruli tells the times: "If people are voting on economics, they're going to vote Democratic... To win, Republicans have to focus this election on national security."

The Foreign Policy Advantage: McCain Or Obama?

Two pieces Friday -- here and here -- conclude that Barack Obama, not John McCain, might have the advantage on foreign policy. It's an interesting idea. I wonder if the Obama campaign has the same confidence?

The arguments for Obama have floated around all campaign long, but sometimes good journalism is about putting the case all in one place. The case is as follows: The public is unhappy with the Iraq War. Advantage, Obama. The idea of war with Iran is unpalatable. Advantage, Obama. In other areas, it's something of a wash. The public is tired of all things Bush administration, so any continuation of his policies comes with a taint; and yet, the public trusts McCain more on terrorism than it does Obama. Obama may criticize hawkish policies, but he has enough of his own to make it hard to paint him as one dimensional; his position on Afghanistan, for instance, is more hawkish than McCain's. And making matters more difficult for McCain is an apparent philosophical divide within his camp. In the Reuters piece, an anonymous campaign aide even says that McCain no longer stands behind his controversial position that Russia should be kicked out of the G-8, one of the most hawkish positions he holds. It no longer "reflects where he is right now," the aide said.

Then there's the advantage of this being 2008. Per the final paragraph of the Free Press piece: "'The reason Obama has a decent chance of winning the foreign policy debate is Americans are not nearly as scared today as they have been at other moments,' said Peter Beinart, a foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'That had a lot of resonance in 2002 and 2004. It has less resonance today.'"

That's what makes Obama's moves to the center on foreign policy of late all the more fascinating. There's been a huge divide of late among big-name liberal thinkers in particular about Obama's reversal on an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Obama has said he supports the new bill, also backed by the Bush administration. MSNBC personality Keith Olbermann praised Obama for supporting the bill, saying it proves he will stand up to his party's liberal wing" "Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- Obama Voted Against FISA -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA." Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald counter-argues: "That's the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it's that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated."

It's impossible to say whether Obama's shift on FISA comes from a sincere change of heart or a political one. But his trend of moving to the center on foreign policy once the primary ended does hint at the possibility that the Obama campaign may have doubts that his positions are the politically stronger ones.

While McCain And Obama Fight Over Nuclear Power, France Relaxes And Enjoys It

France is usually a dirty word on the U.S. campaign trail, but does America's frenemy offer any lessons for the two presidential candidates on a subject over which the two have been feuding this week? John McCain sees nuclear power plants as a path to energy independence and clean air. Barack Obama sees potential in it, but worries about safety and how to dispose of nuclear waste. France, meanwhile, as the country most reliant on nuclear power, likes where it gets its electricity for all the reasons McCain is touting the atom, and doesn't fret about the things Obama does.

America gets something like 20 percent of its energy from nuclear plants, compared to nearly all of it in France. This excellent series extensively documents the effort in the U.S. to steer U.S. energy policy toward nuclear power. It's got a little momentum, and would get some more under McCain, who wants to construct 45 more reactors by 2030; Obama has aptly been described as "lukewarm" about it. But the problems with popularizing nuclear energy here have been many-fold. Some of them are fairly unique to the U.S., like the political winds against storage of nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain taking a strong turn in 2007, when Harry Reid, D-Nev., became the Senate Majority Leader, a position from which he can exert considerable influence. The U.S. experience with Three Mile Island has no comparison in France, and while anti-nuclear activists exist in both countries, they appear to have been more successful pleading their case in America.

This PBS piece explains that France has its own unique cultural reasons for embracing nuclear power, including a stronger-than-usual desire to be independent of the Middle East (or anyone else) and an affinity for large technology projects. In some ways, America has both, too. But perhaps the biggest difference is that the federal government has relentlessly sold the French public on the value of nuclear power. Wrote the PBS producer of his tour through Civaux, cite of a nuclear plant under construction: "The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear."

The most remarkable aspect of this is that France overcame resistance to storage of nuclear waste. How did the government do this? By convincing the populace that waste wouldn't be permanently buried and stored -- it would be "stocked," the major difference being that the latter emphasizes the waste would be detoxified later down the road. Tied into the plan was a commitment for scientists to work on that problem.

Could something like that work in the U.S.? Perhaps, but it would take a monumental public relations campaign like France's, or bigger. The policy approach would be a difficult sell. France's policy is, in essence, "Let's keep enjoying the fruits of nuclear power, and worry about this whole nuclear waste thing another day." You could argue that's America's energy policy, too, but with oil. The difference is that nuclear power is not as ingrained to the American lifestyle as it is in France, so the momentum in the U.S. has been to keep exploiting the thing that is and fear the new problems that might come with adapting to something else.

In Energy Policy Speech Obama Praises Germany, But Leaves Out Important Details

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama praised Germany for the development of its solar power industry and urged the U.S. to follow suit. In a speech outlining his energy policy in Las Vegas he said:

"Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that."

Obama is correct in stating that Germany over a relatively short time has become the world leader in solar, but also in the wind power industry. (You can find a good analysis of Germany's renewable energy policy here.) He is also correct in his assessment that Germany's renewable energy production has skyrocketed and created jobs - by how much depends on which time frame one takes into consideration.

Obama's statement that German companies used technology that was developed using U.S. tax credits is probably also correct, but not all that remarkable in a global business environment. (The MP3 player, for instance, was invented by a German scientist working for a German research instution funded to a large extent by German taxpayers, but cleverly marketed by a company called Apple.) And is also true that the German government provided the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart the renewable energy sector.

What Obama left out, however, was the tool by which the German government collected the money to allocate these investments: the ecological tax or ecotax. The basic premise of the ecotax, which was implemented starting in 1999, is that energy use is taxed. Therefore consumers as well as businesses have an incentive to save energy and use energy efficient products.

As part of the ecotax the gas price in Germany increased 3.07 Euro cents (ca. 5 U.S. cents) per year per liter (0.26 gallons) from 1999 to 2003. Obviously, many Germans were not very happy about paying not only more at the pump but also for energy consumption in general. And even today, the ecotax is a divisive topic in Germany, that had to be taken up by country's highest courts.

So yes, Germany in a pretty short time established a viable renewable energy sector. But it comes at a price. And someone who brands himself as a new kind of politician like Barack Obama should tell people not just the goal, but also name the price. In his speech on energy policy he didn't.

A Good Read On Obama Foreign Policy Shifts To The Center

Referring people to the Wall Street Journal is a little like suggesting they check out this little movie called The Wizard of Oz -- odds are good they've already seen it. But this piece does a great job of tracking a variety of positions on which Democrat Barack Obama has shifted to the middle, including a number of key foreign policy stances, so I recommend everyone to it anyway. Besides, it ran on A8. Maybe fewer people saw it because of that.

The piece starts with Obama's change of heart about whether he would support any bill rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that contains retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies. I examined the subject in-depth here, and it remains the biggest issue on which Obama's position changed dramatically since becoming the presumptive nominee.

But the Journal collected some other good examples of Obama shifts, too, among them his positions on Iraq, Iran and Israel. There's a little domestic policy stuff in there, too -- if that's your kind of thing.

McCain And Obama Should Laud EU For Sanctions Against Iran

The European Union deserves a big round of applause by Barack Obama and John McCain. After the Bush administration thanked the EU for adopting new sanctions on Iran, both presidential candidates should do so as well.

Why? Because over the years the Europeans have been criticized by the U.S. - rightfully in my opinion - for trying to have it both ways on Iran. Europeans have always detested President George W. Bush's saber rattling, but have also not been willing to impose tough economic sanctions as an alternative out of fear it could hurt Europe's trade with Iran.

That has changed. The EU, and Germany in particular, as a traditional trading partner of Iran, have stepped up to the plate recently and done their homework. The latest round of sanctions against Iran's Melli Bank combined with travel restrictions for officials underscores the EU's seriousness on the issue. While McCain and the EU have a different take than Obama on the usefulness of direct talks without preconditions with Iran, both candidates should be appreciative that the EU is participating in the effort to halt Iran's nuclear plans.

McCain Aide Regrets Terrorism Gaffe

We all know there are many things one just doesn't say, even if they are true. That applies to conduct in private life. And it applies to conduct in public life and the political realm.

John McCain's senior advisor Charlie Black violated that basic rule of conduct by telling Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack against the U.S. would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential contender. Black's remark was in bad taste and shouldn't have been made.

We all know as well that sometimes people do say things that they shouldn't have, even if they are true. That, too, applies to private and public life and the political realm. So what does one do, if one said something that shouldn't have been said? Apologize.

And that is exactly what Charlie Black did: "I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," he said.

So Black made a mistake and apologized. Since no one really was hurt, except perhaps John McCain and Charlie Black himself who has been critized for his past lobbying work, it's time to move on.

Just for the record: The Obama and McCain campaigns reacted as expected to Black's remark. And Mark Finkelstein at the conservative media outfit Newsbusters pointed out that former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had made a similiar remark previously. Which is good to know, but doesn't make Black's remark any better.

Fewer Nukes In Europe Likely Under Both Obama And McCain

A new U.S. report on lax safety standards for nuclear weapons stored in Europe has Germany's parties on the left calling for their removal, but it may be a moot point. The next president of the United States was likely to answer their call before it even was made.

As the International Herald Tribune points out, just last month, Republican John McCain said that "in close consultation with our allies, I would like to explore ways we and Russia can reduce - and hopefully eliminate - deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe."

Democrat Barack Obama's position on the precise issue of nuclear weapons in Europe was harder to discern, but one can infer that since 1. he wants to reduce the overall U.S. stockpile and 2. eventually rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely, he would favor the removal of nukes from the continent.

So that's that. Maybe there's some value in it politically to the Social Democrats and other opposition parties in Germany to make the call they did, as the IHT suggests; maybe, that same group is aware of the difference between campaign goals and presidential policy and this puts pressure on Obama and McCain some how to stand firm in their position. But everyone's on the same page with this one, post-Bush administration.

Immigration Flip-Flop By McCain?

One of the challenges John McCain faces in this campaign is being perceived as a flip-flopper by the electorate. I wrote about this a few days ago. Now McCain is being accused by the Obama campaign of trying to have it both ways on immigration.

It all started with a private meeting McCain held with Hispanic leaders in Chicago on Wednesday. Since the meeting was private, no official transcript of McCain's remarks exists. Between Wednesday and the weekend two different accounts of what the presumptive Republican candidate said to the group of Hispanics have emerged. Rosanna Pulido, who attended the meeting and heads the anti-illegal-immigration group Minuteman Project in Illinois, says that McCain talked about immigration reform before the assembled Hispanic leaders.

"He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another," Pulido told Political Punch's Jake Tapper. "I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus." According to Pulido, McCain's "mantra" at the meeting was comprehensive immigration reform. This would run counter to his promise to focus on border security first before tackling immigration reform. McCain made that promise after his immigration reform proposal failed in Congress. You can find a good analysis of McCain's stance on immigration here.

As mentioned above, Pulido's version is one side of the coin. The other is presented by Rafael Rivadeneira, a vice chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Illinois. "This was not a secret meeting," he told the AP. Rivadeneira added: "There was nothing he said that they wouldn't want people to hear."

While the McCain campaign has been silent on the controversy until now, the Obama team hasn't. Obama's communications director lashed out against McCain, saying he was having a "tortured debate" with himself on the issue.

Whether McCain really is trying to have it both ways on immigration or not doesn't really matter politically. What matters is that if McCain continues to open himself up to charges of flip-flopping like he has been some of them will surely stick over time.

A Pivot To The Middle For Obama On Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Barack Obama made a move to the middle in the first major foreign policy-related test of how he will pivot from primary to general election mode comes next week, expressing support for an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules that the administration favors but that the left despises. In doing so, he reversed a position he held just months ago, and angered many on the left of his party.

Obama was silent for a couple days on the new legislation. Politically, it's easy to see why: No matter which way he votes on the bill, he is going to catch hell. So sensitive is the matter that he even caught hell for not speaking up. Liberal bloggers had been pounding him, casting him as perhaps their only hope for stopping the bill.

During the primary, Obama voted against an earlier version of the bill, with his campaign saying that he was particularly concerned about granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies who are being sued for their alleged role in the president's warrantless surveillance program. The new version of the bill would almost certainly result in the same thing, but in a more roundabout fashion. Obama says he opposes that part of the bill, but it's hard to read his support of the overall legislation as anything other than a stark reversal, since he once said he would support a filibuster of any legislation that provides retroactive legal immunity.

Obama could have angered some moderates by voting against the bill, and given John McCain a target for more national security-related attacks. It is not clear how the electronic surveillance issue will play out in the general election; Republican attacks against Democrats who voted against the Bush administration's position in 2006 did not prove effective. It also may not register with voters who are more preoccupied with the Iraq War and gas prices. But Democrats remain wary, after decades of being cast by Republicans as weak on national security, of stepping into any traps. If that trap is going to ensnare Obama, it would be here, in the general election, instead of during primary season.

One of the things, however, that has marked the Obama campaign is a certain willingness to stand firm on a national security-related position even if Republicans are likely to attack because of that position. It may be that other factors were at play here in Obama reversing that practice -- like the fact that as president, he might benefit from the enhanced spying authority in the bill, or the fact that congressional leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had backed the new bill, forcing him to think about party unity or being labeled as more extreme than the San Francisco Democrat. No matter the motive, the pivot is extremely noteworthy.

Obama Criticizes McCain For Free Trade Speech In Canada

The second largest country in the world doesn't usually get much press coverage by its smaller southern neighbor - or by many other international media outlets for that matter. But when a U.S. presidential candidate visits Canada during his election campaign, all eyes are briefly on the only constitutional monarchy on American soil.

But to be frank, even then the focus was not really on Canada, the focus was on what John McCain and Barack Obama made out of the McCain's trip to Ottawa. A trip with a special history. Earlier this year a memo by the Canadian government had been leaked that said Barack Obama's opposition to NAFTA was just political posturing and not meant seriously.

So the Republican candidate had travelled to Canada to emphasize his support for free trade and NAFTA and to distance himself from his Democratic rival. In his speech to the Economic Club of Canada, McCain didn't say anything surprising. He pointed out that "cross-border trade has more than doubled since NAFTA came into force." He suggested harmonizing U.S. and Canadian energy policies. And he took a swipe at Barack Obama, by saying that "even now, for all the successes of NAFTA, we have to defend it without equivocation in political debate" and by promising his audience that "if I am elected president, have no doubt that America will honor its international commitments."

So how did Obama respond to McCain's trip and his remarks? Poorly. "It's interesting to me that he chose to talk about trade in Canada instead of in Ohio or Michigan", the Democratic candidate said on Friday, adding that thousands of jobs had been lost in those states during President George W. Bush's tenure.

That is simply not logical. Does talking about trade in Canada exclude doing the same elsewhere? Who said McCain will not talk to voters in Ohio and Michigan about trade? In fact, McCain will have to address trade and NAFTA in detail in those must-win states. It looks like, Obama's reaction to McCain's trip to Canada will be water under the bridge for those skeptical about the Illinois Senator's perceived isolationist economic tendencies.

Giuliani Levels, Then Draws, National Security Fire For McCain

Rudy Giuliani stepped back into presidential politics Wednesday to boost John McCain's national security-based attacks on Barack Obama, but got an earful from the media, Democrats and bloggers when he made negative remarks about Obama's views that were similar his own views at one time -- and about stances that put him at odds with McCain.

What's fair is fair. If, when Hillary Clinton sticks up for Obama, the Republicans jump all over both of them, they should expect the same back. The most compelling material dredged up on Giuliani is that he criticized Obama for his laudatory remarks about the 1993 World Trade Center case, but Giuliani himself had praised the same convictions for the same reasons back in 1994.

Then, of course, there's the matter of previous Republican primary sniping between McCain and Giuliani. McCain criticized Giuliani for having negligible national security experience -- the very attack he's leveled at Obama. And Giuliani and McCain likewise fought over the legality of interrogation techniques back then, a noteworthy point because it mixes up the message Giuliani was trying to send on behalf of McCain Wednesday about legal issues in the "war on terror."

As I wrote about with Clinton vs. Obama, the issue of Guiliani vs. himself and Giuliani vs. McCain probably won't get the same attention upon subsequent Giuliani forays back into a political campaign, since memories fade. But Wednesday? They were still pretty fresh.

McCain And The Danger Of Flip-Flopping

John McCain has a problem. He has to play to the Republican base whose support he desperately needs to be viable in November. But at the same time he has to court moderates and independents since conservative votes alone won't win him the election.

Sounds like a tightrope walk? You bet. And if McCain doesn't tread real carefully he might end up like John Kerry, as the FT explains in a brilliant take on the Republican candidate's strategy.

Don't Expect A Reversal Of U.S. Foreign Policy Under Obama, Says Hungarian Think Tank

We all pretty much know what the major countries in Europe and the rest of the world think about Barack Obama and John McCain. We wrote about it here many a time and it was also reported by various other outlets. But how do smaller countries in Europe feel about the election? Are there aspects that are important to them that are neglected because we tend to look only at the big players?

On that note, there is a good piece on Obama and McCain's foreign policy stance from a Hungarian perspective in Budapest Analyses, which is worth checking out anyway if you are interested in other international topics. The bottom line of the article is that both McCain and Obama want to bring back a multilateral approach to U.S. foreign policy. For NATO members this will mean a new push by the U.S. to contribute to global missions.

Both parties, according to Budapest Analyses, are unhappy with the work of existing international organisations, which underscores the fact that continuity in American foreign policy is more of a pattern than discontinuity. Because America's interest remains the same it would be delusional to believe that Obama would bring radical change, writes Budapest Analyses and quotes Josef Joffe.

Therefore the only real foreign policy differences between Obama and McCain are the Democratic candidate's anti-free trade stance and his Republican opponent's tough position on Russia especially on security matters.

Meet Obama's Foreign Policy Team... Kind Of

These two pieces in the Tuesday editions of the Wall Street Journal and Hartford Courant took a look at the Middle East foreign policy team of Barack Obama, but the details are disappointingly short. We're given names, but little information on where they've stood in the past on issues, how they're hashing out any differences they have behind the scenes of a campaign that has bucked some conventional foreign policy wisdom, etc. So far, the reporting on the behind-the-scenes struggle in the John McCain campaign has been both more interesting and contained more information, in particular on the tug-of-war between foreign policy pragmatists and neocons.

The Journal uses its profile to delve into some of the well-worn arguments and counter-arguments about meeting with enemy leaders, with its most telling details being about the group's influence on Obama's speech to AIPAC... but there's little examination of what some saw as a shift back toward more mainstream foreign policy concepts. The Courant piece -- actually a column, unlike the Journal's news piece -- at least asks a question about whether his group of advisers is sufficiently seasoned. But it doesn't come up with an answer, and may be missing the point. Wouldn't Obama boast that his advisers' lack of experience is a good thing, since he argues that what is needed is a fresh start and new approaches? An examination of the pros and cons of an experienced foreign policy team vs. a fresh-faced one with historical specifics would make for enriching reading, especially since that goes to the crux of one of the major Obama-McCain arguments over which of them to trust on foreign policy.

At least we know this: One of Obama's foreign policy advisers says everything we need to know about national security, we can learn from Winnie the Pooh. This strikes me as exactly the kind of thing that Republicans might jump on, regardless of whether the adviser's point is sound or harmlessly anecdotal. If they don't, I'll be surprised. It seems Democrats often forget how eager Republicans are to portray them as soft on terrorism, weak on national defense and the rest.

Free Trade As A Mechanism For Lowering International Standards To The United States' Level

It wasn't so long ago -- 2004, actually -- that Democratic presidential candidates like Howard Dean only supported free trade agreements if the country on the other end of the deal raised its environmental and labor standards to match ours. But from the way Barack Obama has been talking lately, he will only support expanding trade with South Korea if it LOWERS its safety and environmental standards.

Set aside the question of whether South Korea's beef with our beef safety standards is a product of legitimate concern or nationalism or both. There are experts who think their concerns are rational, and experts who think their concerns are paranoid. Although Obama claims our standards are higher than South Korea's, the New York Times fact check linked above concludes that the truth remains that if South Korea adjusts to American standards in this case, it will be lowering those standards.

Likewise for South Korea's automobile size-related tax. On Monday, Obama complained about the imbalance in car imports and exports between the U.S. and South Korea. But the reason for their tax is at least in part because of environmental standards.

China's People's Daily: Don't Believe The Obama Hype

Guess what the Swiss business community and China's Communist Party have in common? That's right, both are skeptical about Barack Obama's "change" platform. I wrote about the Swiss' reasons here.

China's Communist leaders for the first time in this campaign gave some clues on their view of the candidates. Of course they didn't come out themselves and speak their mind. Instead they let the government's main newspaper do it for them. In the English language overseas edition of the People's Daily, senior desk editor Ding Gang analyses the "Obama phenomenon in (the) U.S.".

But while both Reuters and AFP interpret Gang's article as a clear rebuke of Obama, I am not so sure that it really is meant as one. What I gather from the article, which is at times difficult to understand, is that Obama will not be able to deliver all the things he has promised during the campaign and that his presidency would not end America's racial problems.

Let's review the article then. According to Gang, the Democratic Senator's skin color and his change rhetoric are the dominant aspects of his candidacy. They are also the reason why Western media outlets are fascinated by Obama.

So let's look at the skin color argument, as presented by the People's Daily. He is "the representative of the racial merging rather than a symbol for assimilation. So his rise has not done away with privileges for the white Americans but reinforces their privileges on the contrary", writes Gang in a sentence that I don't understand.

Never mind what Gang means by the privileges he is writing about. But how does Obama's multi-ethnic background reinforce those privileges?

Also, according to Gang, Obama, has a "different skin color (than whites do), but shares the same American background". Then a few lines later, Gang asserts that Obama because of his skin color "needs all the more to display his American values than any white presidential candidates." That doesn't make sense. First, to even emphasize that someone whose skin color is not white can also share an American background is very revealing about the author's thinking. And second, if Obama shares the same American background then why does he need to display his American values more than any white presidential candidate? Are American values not automatically part of an American background?

Now let's look at the second major factor, as seen by People's Daily: change. "In the case of (the) Iraq war, Obama is quite determined and resolute with his attitude against the war", writes Gang. He adds that it is very hard to believe that Obama's approach to simply bring the troops home as soon as possible is feasible because the issue is too complex for such a move. "And similar or identical issues also exist in such fields as economy, social security and education."

Most experts agree that a rapid withdrawal of American troops regardless of the situation would be counterproductive. It seems pretty obvious that Obama is aware of this and would not pull out all troops immediately. As to the other fields mentioned by the People's Daily - economy, social security, education - Obama hasn't really made revolutionary promises.

To sum it all up: Will a President Obama deliver everything he said and turn the country upside down? Probably not. But most people with experience in democratic election campaigns inside and outside the U.S. are aware of this. Perhaps for some people the mere fact that a person with a multi-ethnic background can become president of the U.S. is already change enough.

Obama Angst In Switzerland

If the world could vote Barack Obama would be the next U.S. president. There are however still some international holdouts. Switzerland, or the Swiss business community to be exact, is one of them. "McCain is for free trade and a free market economy and against protectionism and government interventions," Martin Naville, CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, told the Swiss business publication Cash.

While Swiss companies had nothing to fear from a President John McCain, a leftist President Obama might hurt the Swiss economy in several ways, writes Cash. Swiss pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and Roche would face lower margins in their most important market due to Obama's plan to lower drug prices through imports from other countries. Swiss banks and their booming wealth management sector would suffer from Obama's goal to restrict the exodus of capital to low tax countries like Switzerland. And finally, according to Cash, Obama is skeptical about globalization and has vowed to curb outsourcing, which would also affect Swiss suppliers.

But will Obama as president really be as radical as he was during his campaign, asks Cash. "He has talked so much about 'change' that he can't really wiggle his way out of it," answers the CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, Martin Naville. "After the Bush era it might very well be that the pendulum now swings back to the opposite side."

Ron Paul Ends His Campaign And Makes Global Headlines

It happened already two days ago, but you know that we can't let a good story just zip by us. On Thursday night, more than three months after John McCain effectively sealed the Republican nomination, Ron Paul ended his presidential bid. And while Paul never stood the slightest chance of becoming the nominee, let alone president, the news of his decision reverberated around the globe. From MTV in the U.S. to Le Figaro in France, from Scotland's Herald to Germany's Focus Online to China's Xinhua – never have so many outlets reported news about a candidate without a chance.

Of course, for regular Across the Pond readers Ron Paul's international newsworthiness doesn't come as a surprise. I wrote - and wondered - about the maverick Republican's global appeal earlier. And quite frankly, I am still perplexed by it today. But I am also happy that Ron Paul stuck to his spiel and left with a bang that won't rock the world, but serves as a nice closer for his campaign: The Republican candidate announced that he would support not his party's candidate John McCain, but instead campaign for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.

However, this may not be the last word regarding Ron Paul's support for a presidential candidate. That's because another maverick contender out there has also reached out for Paul fans: Ralph Nader. The former Green party and now independent candidate is always good for a surprise or two himself.

Obama's Coming To A Country Near You

How's this for a fascinating notion: Barack Obama is considering going on an overseas tour during his presidential campaign.

Presidents have sometimes left the country during presidential campaigns. McCain is scheduled to go to Canada next week. But not since I've been following presidential campaigns have I heard of anyone doing a full-on tour. McClatchy, linked above, has a good take on on the pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it could offer a boost to his foreign policy credentials, perhaps, and a rebuff of John McCain's criticism about Obama not having visited Iraq since 2006. On the minus side, he'd have to make some tough decisions about where to visit and how.

One note left out of the McClatchy story: It might be hard for Obama to get an unvarnished view of Iraq should he go there. There'd have to be a heavy security presence, and lawmakers on previous trips -- including McCain -- have sometimes confused life inside that particular bubble with what the rest of Iraq is like. That's assuming the Secret Service would even allow it; one presidential candidate visiting instead of both -- as McCain once offered -- might be more feasible.

This overseas tour is an ambitious, risky concept. The trip may not happen; an Obama adviser would only go so far as to say "it's on the table," in effect. But it fits in with an Obama campaign theme that he could restore American esteem around the world, a notion that may not have mattered much in previous elections, but could be something voters take into account this go-round, with the United States increasingly disliked around so much of the world and with some Americans sensing the country has lost its leadership role. A positive reception abroad would stand to bolster his case.

And A Third Note On Detention Policy: What Would The Candidates Do?

The Washington Post Friday morning raises one more interesting point -- besides those previously raised by Michael and myself -- about the Supreme Court ruling on the Bush administration's detention policies and how it affects the presidential candidates.

Buried deep in the Post's analysis is this:
"[President] Bush has long expressed a desire to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and his administration has moved in recent years to return large numbers of detainees to their home countries. But of the 270 still detained there, about half are considered too dangerous to release, even though the government does not have enough evidence to charge them -- presenting a serious dilemma to presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom have promised to shut down the facility if elected. In commenting on the Supreme Court case yesterday, neither candidate offered a detailed prescription for how he would fulfill his pledge."

McCain did, on Friday, suggest Congress should adopt legislation to address the court decision. That would, if successful and constructed properly, mean McCain would avoid having to deal with "a detailed prescription" for dealing with that segment of potentially dangerous detainees. But given that the court has now repeatedly struck down restrictive policies on this front, it may only be successful until that legislation was scrutinized by the Supreme Court again. And getting the legislation through what is expected to be a Democratic-controlled Congress doesn't sound easy. McCain also left the door open to eventually supporting a constitutional amendment narrowing habeas corpus rights. Such an amendment would have a difficult time getting enacted, to say the least, but it would at least avoid the courts.

Because of the unlikelihood of any of McCain's proposals coming to fruition, in the end, McCain is headed in the same direction as Obama -- in need of a "detailed prescription for how he would fulfill his pledge."

McCain attacks Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo

On certain issues there is a clear difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. The legal status of foreign terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, also called unlawful combatants, is one of them. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied foreign terrorism suspects access to courts, unconstitutional.

That same day the presumed Republican nominee, McCain, was still carefully mincing his words. He stated, that he had not read the ruling yet, but the decision concerned him. He added, however, that it was time to move on. That sounded like the end of the story.

Not quite. On Friday, McCain had apparently decided it wasn't time to move on too quickly after all. "I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," he blasted. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."

Tim wrote about the ramifications of McCain and Obama’s position for various voter groups yesterday and pointed out that McCain has been carefully trying to distance himself from President Bush while at the same time agreeing with certain positions held by Bush. Obama on the other hand, has been trying to portray McCain's Guantanamo stance as a mere extension of Bush’s Guantanamo policy.

With his statement today McCain made not only clear where he stands on the issue, but also made it so much easier for Obama to link his Republican opponent to President Bush.

Detention Ruling Poses Opportunities, Risks For McCain, Obama

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the detention of terror suspects prompted reaction from both the candidates. The reaction of each points to how they'll discuss the issue in the general election, as Ben Smith suggests. Let's delve into that.

Voters overall have been fairly split on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, although none of the polls here, from last year, get into the nitty gritty of what the actual Supreme Court ruling was about.

John McCain, who was the leading voice on the law that the Court overturned in part, has to cater to a couple different constituencies. First, Republican voters have, since Sept. 11, largely endorsed the idea that the president should have flexibility to do most anything to pursue terrorists. McCain's "concern" today that the Court's ruling gives "unlawful combatants" status they don't deserve is red meat for those voters. But independent voters who are attracted to McCain because of his own independent streak are uncertain about Guantanamo. McCain's restatement of his desire to see Guantanamo closed -- which he has indeed expressed in the past -- is for those independents. On that point, McCain is also emphasizing distance between himself officials in the Bush administration who talk about closing Guantanamo eventually but not, like McCain has advocated, "immediately."

Smith gets the politics of the Obama rhetoric right. Emphasizing civil liberties is big for many hardcore liberal voters. It's also big with a smaller swath of independents with a libertarian bent. By emphasizing "bring[ing] terrorists to justice" too, though, Obama is appealing to moderate Democrats and independents who are willing to sacrifice some of their civil liberties (and/or, in this case, those of foreign terror suspects) for an increase in security. And it gives Obama another chance to tie McCain to President Bush, since, on the question of habeas corpus, the two have been in harmony.

With the economy taking center stage, and Iraq and Iran dominating many of the headlines that have a foreign policy twist, the Court's ruling doesn't have the look of an issue that will come up very much in the campaign. But for those crucial independent voters, it could factor into the overall equation, and the wrong answer for each candidate's base could deepen intra-party doubts about both men.

Gaddafi goes from insult to conspiracy theory against Obama

Haven't heard from Col Muammar Gaddafi in a while? Yep, it's true, since the Libyan leader morphed from strongman of a rogue state to partner of the West, he has managed to tone down his rhetoric. But now Gaddafi is back. In a speech in Tripoli he not only attacked, but insulted Barack Obama. Referring to Obama's speech earlier this month at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which the Democratic presidential candidate stated his support for Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, Gaddafi said Obama was either ignorant of Middle East politics or lying to further his campaign.

Gaddafi elaborated in his speech marking the 38th anniversary of the departure of U.S. troops from Libya: "We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites." And just for good measure, Libya's military leader threw a bit of conspiracy theory in the mix. "We suspect he may fear being killed by Israeli agents and meet the same fate as (assassinated former U.S. President John Fitzgerald) Kennedy when he promised to look into Israel's nuclear program," Gaddafi speculated about the reasons for Obama's pro-Israel stance.

What does this tell us? First, that an old hand like Gaddafi, once called a "mad dog" by President Ronald Reagan, doesn't learn new tricks. And second, it might make Barack Obama rethink the usefulness of his approach to talk to leaders of rogue states unconditionally.

Repeat Of 2000 With Obama And McCain?

Very interesting analysis by Stuart Rothenberg regarding the Obama/McCain electoral map. According to Rothenberg there exists a "serious possibility" of a repeat of the situation in 2000. One candidate could win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To find out where Barack Obama and John McCain end up in this scenario click here.

McCain's New Blog Tries To Take A Stab At Obama, ABBA – And McCain

Just in time for the campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama to start in earnest, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has kicked off a new blog. Called The McCain Report, the first entry was posted yesterday by Michael Goldfarb, formerly of The Weekly Standard. The new blog is apparently an addition to McCain's already existing blog. The official goal of the McCain Report is to give journalists and bloggers more insight into the campaign and "to provide quotes and information you won't be able to get anywhere else." Another, unstated goal of the blog, appears to be to poke fun at Obama and to mellow McCain's image as an old Cold Warrior with a history of getting angry.

The subtitle of the McCain Report, "A blog you can believe in", is obviously a spoof on the Obama theme "Change you can believe in" - albeit one that's not exactly knee-slapping funny. The other goal, mellowing McCain's image, is tackled by displaying a picture of McCain from 2004 that shows the Arizona senator clad in t-shirt and baseball hat holding an alligator. And, by revealing that McCain is an ABBA fan, Hillary-leaning readers are invited to "Take a chance on McCain". Also not exactly hilarious (pun intended), but you shouldn't judge a blog by its first posts, so let's wait and see.

Interestingly, and contrary to popular belief, McCain has been very active in reaching out to the internet community. Obama, of course, has been regarded as a master of utilizing the internet to pull in money and connect with voters. But John McCain, at least as outreach is concerned, doesn't lag far behind, and may even be on par with Obama. For details about McCain's internet strategy, check out this piece from The Nation.

Obama, of course has had a blog - the Obama blog - on his site for quite some time. Unlike McCain's new blog, it is a pretty straightforward campaign tool with lots of excerpts from Obama's speeches and quotes by campaign managers. No effort to be humorous or reshape Obama's image. What's good about the Obama blog is its interactivity through readers comments and its savy use of the internet with videos, pictures and social networking sites. Overall, the Obama blog has a sleaker, hipper feel to it than the McCain Report. However, should the McCain Report over time become a tongue-in-cheek campaign chronicle that doesn't take both Obama and McCain too serious, it could fill a niche. And win McCain some sympathy points as well.

Clinton Promises Support, But Buttressing Obama On Foreign Policy Will Prove Difficult

Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech today that she will support Barack Obama on the campaign trail, but tops among the issues where she will find praise for Obama challenging is foreign policy, the area in which the divisions between the two Democrats have been the most stark. Republicans have already begun an effort to haunt Obama with Clinton's remarks during the primary race, and, notably, many of her criticisms they highlighted were on foreign policy -- both because of those divisions and because that's the area where Republicans want to attack Obama, too.

Of course, remarks during heated primary fights have not proven decisive or even particularly influential in subsequent general election battles. It was George H.W. Bush who saddled Ronald Reagan's economic policies with the label "voodoo economics." Scathing though it was, Reagan opponents could not use the term to stop him in 1980. And Bush ended up as Reagan's vice president, the same place Clinton reportedly is angling for with Obama. But at least for the near-term, any time Clinton talks about Obama's foreign policy, reporters are likely to highlight areas where she has criticized Obama in the past and praised John McCain over him. Republicans will try to keep those Clinton criticisms at the forefront.

While the two often staked similar policy stances, they also often fought sharply over each others' records. Although they feuded over their respective past positions on Iraq, their policies going forward were quite alike. On Iran, the two candidates used strikingly different rhetoric despite positions that were very similar at their most basic -- with the exception of whether and how they would meet with leaders of that country and other enemies, but where Obama's position is harder to read these days. On free trade, the two candidates had heated exchanges over who had previously offered the most support for NAFTA. Clinton's criticisms of Obama on those points will be used by GOP opponents to cast him as a flip-flopper on Iraq and free trade, and squishy on Iran and other dictators, for starters.

Clinton and Obama will be able to finesse those feuds to a certain degree, given their basic agreement. The remark that will surely be thrown into their faces the most, though, are comments along these lines from Clinton during the primary campaign: "In this election we need a nominee who can pass the commander-in-chief test. Someone ready on day it defend our country and keep our families safe. We need a president who passes that test. The first and most solemn duty of the president of the United States is to protect and defend our nation. And when there is a crisis and when the phone rings whether it’s 3:00 p.m. or 3:00 a.m. In the White House, there is no time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a time of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference. I think since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander in chief threshold. I believe that I have done that and certainly Senator McCain has done that. You will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

Clinton's remarks today did not touch on Obama's foreign policy in any meaningful way, briefly mentioning the need to get troops out of Iraq, the urgency of conquering global warming, how the world would be different on foreign policy if Democrats had been in charge of late, and a general declaration that Obama has proven he is capable of being president. Carl Bernstein, a Clinton biographer, said on CNN today that Clinton will have to get around to explaining why Obama is suddenly qualified. That will take not just finesse, but an almost total reversal.

Americans Support Barack Obama's Stance On Iran, Or Do They?

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a new Gallup poll that said a majority of Americans think Barack Obama's idea to talk to hostile leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, makes sense. According to the poll, even half of the Republicans questioned felt that way. These figures were a slap in the face for John McCain who has attacked Obama constantly on this issue. That's what I wrote then, because that's how it looked then.

Now, three days and two polls later, the picture of how Americans feel about talking to Iran looks different. A new survey by Public Agenda finds that 47 percent of Americans think using diplomacy is the best way to deal with the current situation in Iran, while only seven percent feel military action is the best way to handle Iran. This seems to confirm the findings of the Gallup poll, but only at first glance.

The Public Agenda study, which didn't receive much press coverage (Democracy Arsenal, Think Progress, and the Iranian outlet Press TV, being one of a few who reported it), is part of a larger, multi-year study called the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. The survey was conducted from mid-March to the beginning of April and therefore long before the Iran debate between McCain and Obama started to really heat up. What's more, due to the nature of the Public Agenda study, the questions are more general: Probably most people would agree that diplomacy is the best idea to try to deal with the current situation in Iran. But as we have learned, what one means by diplomacy is very much up for interpretation. In a nutshell: The Public Agenda poll is not a valid indicator as to whether Americans support Obama's Iran policy or not.

The latest Rasmussen poll is. According to the survey, conducted on June 3, most likely voters (45 percent) agree with Obama and think it is a good idea for the U.S. president to meet with his Iranian counterpart. However, when asked whether Iran should be required to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities, 59 percent answer with yes. When asked who would do a better job negotiating with the Iranian president, McCain and Obama fare the same, each receiving 42 percent of the vote. The Rasmussen Poll was also not widely reported, CQ's Polltracker being one the few to do so. (Iran's Press TV didn't mention the Rasmussen poll.)

So what do the results of both polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, mean for Obama and McCain's position on Iran? Americans want a middle of the road approach. Most people favor negotiating with hostile leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but not under any circumstances. Their message for McCain and Obama is: Let's try something new and talk to Iran's president, but only if Iran shows some goodwill as well.

"Uncle Barack's Cabin"

Let's get meta! This may be the only opportunity of my life to write for a German news website on American politics, from America, about the U.S. reception for a German newspaper's coverage of politics in the United States -- as originally covered by yet another German newspaper. So here goes:

Die Tageszeitung's headline following Barack Obama's clinching primary win reads, "Uncle Barack's Cabin." Spiegel Online poses a question about the headline: "Offensive or satirical?"

This is exactly the kind of thing that, if a U.S. newspaper did it, would lead to all kinds of outrage. But since it's in Germany, the reception here has been more restrained.

The biggest U.S paper to give it any attention so far is USA Today, which asks: "Is German paper's Obama headline racist?" The rest is a rather sober rehashing of the Spiegel article.
The Village Voice finds in the "Uncle Barack's Cabin" headline a certain commendable quality, based on the editor-in-chief's justification of its intended satirical quality and his response of "tough luck" to any readers who don't understand it. Writes the Village Voice: "When's the last time you heard an editor of a major U.S. daily say that?"

And just to close on a meta note, the satirists over at Wonkette do their own satirical take on the Die Tageszeitung headline: "Ha ha, here is some great newspaper from Nazi Germany that comically names the White House 'Uncle Tom’s Cabin,' because a slave may soon call it home."

High Hopes And A Dose Of Pessimism For Obama In Africa

Worldwide reactions to Barack Obama securing the Democratic nominiation for president against his tenacious rival Hillary Clinton were overwhelmingly positive, sometimes bordering on hysteria. We wrote about international perceptions of Obama many times in this blog. But it is fair to say that all the enthusiasm about Obama's win in the U.S or Europe pales in comparison to how Africans feel about this historic event.

Kenya, Obama's father's native country, obviously leads the continent in elation about the Senator from Illinois' nomination. Mukau Mutua in The Daily Nation calls it an understatement that Kenyans are ecstatic about the possibility that Obama "a Kenyan-American of Luo extraction" might become president. "Judging by word on the street, one would be forgiven for thinking that Mr Obama was poised to become either the president of Kenya, or of Africa. There are many reasons for the hysteria, but the immediate one is national, racial, and ethnic pride that a black man can become 'king' of the empire."

Ugandans, too, are excited about Obama's victory, and optimistic that he can defeat Republican John McCain in the general election in November, writes Uganda's New Vision. According to the paper, Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa described Obama's win as historic because a black man was for first time contesting for the U.S. presidency on the ticket of a main party.

Ray Hartley comments in his blog The Wild Frontier for the South African Times that Obama's ascendency "has raised the hope that the US will finally assume its role as a responsible super power that will extract itself from the conflict in Iraq." For Hartley, Obama's win "signals the long overdue deracialization of American politics. Should he become president, it will go a long way towards removing racial loyalty from politics."

How important the Obama nomination is to Africans becomes clear when Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade calls it "a revolution". "I think the fact that whites can choose a black candidate to represent them in presidential election is a good thing," Wade was quoted as telling reporters, adding that "this is akin to a revolution of attitudes in the United States." But what underscores the relevance of Africa's feelings about Obama even more is the fact that the Chinese news agency Xinhua published this story refering to a report by the Senegalese News Agency.

While Africans are generally enthusiastic about Obama and his prospects, there is also scepticism whether Obama can fulfill high African hopes. Makau Mutua writes in Kenya's The Nation that "the United States has had a structurally racist and exploitative relationship with Africa." Mutua continues: "It is partly because of these traumas that Africa is so underdeveloped and marginalised in global politics. That is why to America, Africa has either been an afterthought or an object of pity and charity. It would require an ideological shift by the U.S. to change its relationship with Africa to base it on equality, fair trade and investment, and a voice for Africans in global institutions."

According to Mukau, this cannot be done by the president alone because it requires a realignment of U.S. foreign policy away from what he calls Eurocentrism. I think Mukau makes an interesting point about Africa-U.S. relations.

Where I and probably many Europeans and Americans disagree is that American foreign policy still is Eurocentric. In recent years, the U.S. has refocused its foreign policy away from Europe (military, diplomatic, economic). This has been much maligned here. However, the benefactor of this realignment was not Africa, but Asia.

Is The Iraq War Now A Boon To McCain?

On a night when the race took another conclusive step toward becoming a general election campaign, both Barack Obama and John McCain spent large swaths of their Tuesday evening speeches focusing on Iraq. But to whose advantage?

The Washington Post's editorial page (hat tip Foreign Policy), which strongly supported the Iraq War, sees ample evidence that Obama will have to shift his Iraq stance. The major reason is the fact that May was the least deadly month of the entire Iraq War, among other security improvements and some of the most optimistic assessments of Bush administration officials yet.

When those details become widely known, it would not be surprising at all to see public opinion polls show a slight favorable shift toward the Iraq War. But it would be surprising to see the Iraq War become popular in any way whatsoever, let alone enough to be of aid to a candidate -- McCain -- whose identity is closely tied to it. Americans love winners, to be sure, and just as surely want success in Iraq. It's just that, after years of lives and treasure consumed for what turned out to be a faulty justification for war, few Americans want to see any more consumed. The proof is in the same polls. Since the surge, the security situation in Iraq has gotten better. And yet, the Iraq War is as unpopular as ever. This question, for an ABC/Washington Post poll, is particularly telling: "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" Since the beginning of 2007 through mid-April, the percentage of people who answered "worth it" has not crossed 40, and at last count stood at 34.

What's more, the Obama campaign -- whether ingenuously or sincerely -- has left itself options should Iraq's turn for the better continue. Obama's position, and that of all the Democrats who ran, has always been that he will consider the facts on the ground in deciding when or if to pull out troops. The only thing he's truly committed to is not staying in Iraq for 100 years -- a commitment that plays on a remark McCain made about that span of time and that Democrats have been using out of context. That flexibility will make it easier to mitigate any McCain gains if the war continues to move in a good direction.

McCain has little alternative but to try and capitalize on the improving situation in Iraq. He can't run from Iraq, at least not very much, nor has he really tried. But short of a 100% victory, a ticker tape parade and a sudden transformation of the Middle East because of it, it's hard to see how Iraq in 2008 is a political issue that can hurt Obama.

Eight Reasons Why Clinton Lost And Obama's Soft Spots

International reactions to Barack Obama's victory and Hillary Clinton's defeat are pretty much as expected. Most commentators are not surprised and glad the Democrats finally have their candidate. You can find an overview of global reactions here and here.

Let's look at two more interesting takes on the end of the Democratic campaign:

In an editorial titled "The Weaknesses of Barack Obama," Austria's Die Presse argues that John McCain stands a good chance of becoming President because for many Americans Obama is "too liberal, too black and too aloof." Obama's pros are his drive, his refreshingly positive style – and McCain's age, adds the paper. But Obama's long campaign against Clinton has revealed weaknesses. "The black darling of the educated elite has considerable difficulties with white workers and in large states, which were all won by Clinton. Should McCain manage to hold on to Florida and Ohio, and win Pennsylvania, than the Democrats have a real problem on the 4th of November."

Torsten Krauel, Washington correspondent for the German daily Die Welt, lists eight reasons why Clinton lost against Obama: 1. Clinton focused on the large states and neglected the small ones. 2. Clinton neglected important new donors in Silicon Valley and instead relied on her old Hollywood connections. 3. Clinton's election campaign was still from the 20th century while Obama's was from the 21st and harnessed the power of the internet. 4. Bill Clinton's vicious comments that often had a racial undertone. 5. Lack of Brutality: When the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced Clinton could have played them constantly in her campaign and seriously damaged Obama's chances. She chose not to for fear of dividing the party. 6. She hesitated to distance herself clearly and convincingly from her vote for the war in Iraq. 7. Proportional representation hurt Clinton. In this campaign there was only one chance to build a lead among delegates: Super Tuesday. Had it not been for proportional representation, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee on February 6th. 8. Race beats gender: Clinton thought women's rights were the core question for liberals. She was wrong. The race issue was.

What is your explanation of Clinton's defeat and Obama's win? What are Obama's weaknesses in the race against John McCain?

Meeting With Iran Is Dangerous... Unless It's Not

Was there ever previously a major campaign issue where the positions of the candidates were so loaded up with caveats, apparent contradictions and ambiguities the way there has been with the 2008 debate over how and whether the next president should meet with the leaders of enemy countries?

That debate kicked into a higher gear a couple weeks ago when President Bush, in a speech in Israel, made a cloaked allusion to Barack Obama's stance about being willing to meet with the leader of Iran and implied that Obama favored a policy of "appeasement," akin to those who favored negotiating with Adolf Hitler.

Set aside the apparent reversals, or, at best, subtleties in Obama's actual position on meeting with Iranian leaders. As it happens, Bush himself not so long ago indicated he had no problem meeting with leaders of Iran.

According to excerpts from a 2007 interview with Bush by an NBC News war correspondent, Bush said: "We can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen. Not on my watch. We tried to have dialogue with Syria, right after the war, didn’t get much."

That contrasts with Bush's statement in Israel ridiculing those who would "negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Around the same time Bush said that in Israel, his Defense secretary was saying of Tehran, "'We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,' [Bob] Gates said. 'If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.'"

Maybe Bush can explain the difference between his two statements, but they are contradictory on their face. So, too, is the apparent "triangulation" by Obama on meeting with controversial foreign leaders at a time when polls suggest its popularity, and John McCain's continued assaults on Obama's position despite its positive reception from voters. But then, the latest twists and turns in this debate are par for the course.

President Obama Bound To Disappoint Europeans

It looks like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will make the world outside the U.S. happy tonight. Obama by becoming the official Democratic nominee for the presidential election in November, Clinton by finally deciding to end her campaign and by her willingness to be Obama's vice president.

Lots has been written about the world's infatuation with Obama, here and elsewhere. With Obama's candidacy assured, however, how he is perceived by an international audience and what is expected of him becomes more important. No more fantasy football. Now it's the big leagues.

A lucid analysis of Obama's international role and its possible problems offers Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund of the United States: Entitled The Dalai Obama, Stelzenmüller writes that Germans' high hopes for an Obama victory are not unfounded, but they may still be dissappointed.

First, because John McCain is a veritable opponent. Second, because no one knows whether racial prejudices will play a role on November 4 or not. And third: Should there be a deterioriting financial situation or a downturn of events in Iraq, Americans are more likely to vote for someone who stands for security than for someone promising change.

Even if Obama defeats McCain and becomes President, the end of the euphoria is foreseeable writes Stelzenmüller. "Obama will call on the help of Germany and the rest of Europe to combat authoritarian regimes worldwide. Iran, NATO in Afghanistan, engagement on Europe's borders, diplomacy in the Middle East, and perhaps stabilization assistance in Iraq. As an idealist, Obama hopes his appeal to Europe's sense of responsibility, but if that fails, he must continue as a realist - without Europe."

That sounds about right. What many people in Gemany and Europe who hope for a Democrat in the White House don't realize is that a President Obama can and will ask for so much more of Europe than President Bush ever could or John McCain will or can.

Americans Support Obama's Approach To Talk With Iran And Other Enemies

Food for thought for John McCain. According to a new Gallup poll, 67 percent of Americans think it's a good idea that the U.S. President meets with leaders of countries the United States considers enemies. This sentiment is so strong it even holds when asked specifically about Iran, the nation that is perceived to be the country's biggest enemy. When asked whether it would be a good idea for the U.S. President to meet with his Iranian counterpart 59 percent answer with yes. Interestingly, not only most Democrats and Independents agree with the idea, but also almost 50 percent of Republicans.

What did McCain do the same day the poll was released? He blasted Barack Obama again for his earlier suggestion (which Obama had altered recently) that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), McCain portrayed Obama as a candidate inexperienced in foreign policy and out of touch with the situtation in the Middle East: "We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before," the presumed Republican nominee said without mentioning his Democratic rival by name.

McCain's problem is that most Americans apparently don't care whether the idea is old, bold or new. They simply think it's a good one. They say let's give it a shot and talk to the president of Iran and other hostile leaders. And by supporting that idea, they also clearly support Obama, who brought it up in the first place.

The poll is great news for Obama in an area where he really needs it – foreign policy. It shows that large numbers of Americans are willing to consider a different foreign policy approach in dealing with rogue states. It also shows that at least on this important issue McCain's finger pointing at Obama is simply not good enough. If McCain wants to keep the status quo, he has to convince people of his reasons. He hasn't been able to do that yet. Just calling Obama and his ideas naive won't do the trick.

Candidates Unite On Darfur, But What Next?

Recently, the three U.S. presidential candidates released a joint statement on Darfur calling the situation there a genocide and blaming the Sudanese government for it, a remarkable bit of cooperation during an election season. Naturally, the candidates won praise for setting aside partisanship on an important issue. But the statement is short on specifics, and what the candidates have proposed separately in the past neglects at least one of the thorniest problems.

All three -- Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama -- have called for a no-fly zone over Darfur, as did President Bush last year. The idea is supported by some Darfur-related advocacy groups, including the Save Darfur Coalition, which spearheaded the tri-candidate letter. But the idea has not been greeted so warmly in parts of Europe. At the European Union, a top official has called it "technically impossible." Others dismiss it for other reasons. For example, the candidates have specifically called for a NATO-backed no-fly zone, which some experts believe could create more problems than it would solve, since the regime might respond by worsening its attacks or cutting off relief. (Interestingly enough, an Obama adviser, Susan Rice, told VOA last year that there should be a "'very short duration ultimatum in which to accept an effective and robust international force with a mandate to protect civilians - or face the threat of the use of military force,' she said. According to Rice, this force should take the form of 'air strikes, targeted at the aircraft, the airfields [of the Sudanese government]. That's exactly what we [the international community through the UN] did in Kosovo, in a far lesser humanitarian crisis. It's striking to me that we aren't even discussing or contemplating that in the context of Darfur.'") All three candidates, as well, have voted for or proposed increases in funding to help improve the situation in Darfur, and there are minor variations in some of their other, smaller, proposals.

But one of the biggest barriers to solving the problem, if not the biggest, is another country entirely. That country is China, since China is buying up much of Sudan's oil, rendering divestment campaigns around the world less effective and making it hard to deal out any economic pressure. Furthermore, with its veto as a member of the U.N. Security Council, China has been an impediment to all manner of international attempts to intervene in Darfur. If the candidates have enunciated anything they would do specifically to convince China to A. get out of the way of international efforts to intervene or B. use its own economic leverage to halt the genocide, they have done so discreetly. All three did support a boycott of the Olympics' opening ceremony as a way of highlighting various controversial China policies. But as with all things Darfur, there is no agreement on whether the best policy on China as it pertains to Darfur is humiliation or incentives. There are some signs that China has gotten skittish about Darfur, but there's little evidence to suggest they've gotten skittish enough about it to force change. Anonymously, Chinese officials have noted that their country is not the only one to support repressive regimes that are rich in oil.

The joint statement from the candidates, and the respective records of each on Darfur, suggests that all three, as president, would be inclined to do more than Bush. Giving attention to the issue at all is part of the solution. But eventually, the candidates -- or, at minimum, the one who wins the White House -- will have to fill in some difficult blanks.

Negligible News Day II: Ricky Martin Says Si To Hillary Clinton

Remember Ricky Martin? Yep, the crooner who is responsible for the tune Livin La Vida Loca, which we all had to listen to for what felt like an eternity after the hit was released in 1999. Well, Martin, a Puerto Rican, now has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton ahead of the Democratic primary in Puerto Rico on Sunday.

"These elections will have historic repercussions both in the United States and the world. Senator Clinton has always been consistent in her commitment with the needs of the Latino community," Martin said in a statement released by the Clinton campaign. The former First Lady stated in a press release she feels "honored to have Ricky Martin's support. He is a very important voice in the Latino community and together we will work to improve the lives of families and children across the country."

In the 2001 presidential campaign, Martin had supported then Governor George W. Bush. The duo apparently hit it off so well that Martin performed at a pre-inaugural celebration for Bush.

A later falling out was triggered apparently by the Iraq war, which Martin opposed.

Now Martin is backing Hillary Clinton, who, by the way, in 2001 also backed the Iraq war. So maybe the war isn't the only reason Martin is supporting Clinton instead of Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the get-go. What are Ricky Martin's reasons then beyond Hillary Clinton's "committment" to Latinos? Hard to say, and also not that important. Clinton was already projected to win big in Puerto Rico prior to Ricky Martin's endorsement.

So what does all this signify? Nothing really. Just another piece of Negligible News.

The Candidates' Cluster Bomb Divide

Over in Dublin this week, the world was uniting behind a treaty to ban cluster bombs -- well, most of the world, anyway, since there were some significant hold-outs: the U.S., Russia and China, for instance. As it happens, two of the three presidential candidates almost certainly would maintain the United States' current position on cluster munitions.

Democrat Barack Obama has voted in the Senate to support a ban on cluster bombs in civilian areas. The vote came in 2006, and Republican John McCain voted against the ban, as did Hillary Clinton -- one rare vote where Obama and Clinton voted differently. Ultimately, the vote fell short, 30-70.

A search of newspapers and the candidates' Senate websites from that year turns up no explanation for why each candidate voted the way they did. It is therefore unclear whether Obama opposes cluster munitions in all cases or just in civilian areas. For a pretty good breakdown of the pros and cons of cluster bombs -- morally, tactically -- the Associated Press did a run-down here.

Negligible News Day: Susan Sarandon And Bryan Adams Back Barack Obama

There are days when it's good enough to just kick back. Today is one of those days. Forget about Iran, Iraq, kooky pastors and controversial foreign leaders. Forget about Hillary Clinton's remarks, Barack Obama's gaffes and John McCain's bladder stones. Just for now. Relax and read.

Actress Susan Sarandon might relocate to Italy, Canada or somewhere else should John McCain become president. "If McCain gets in, it's going to be very, very dangerous," Saradon, who supports Barack Obama, told the Irish Independent. "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I'll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss." No word if husband Tim Robbins would also leave the U.S. By the way, Sarandon's new movie Speed Racer is now playing in theaters.

Canadian Rocker Bryan Adams didn't mention any moving plans should McCain win, but he also hopes for an Obama election victory. "I hope Obama will win," Adams said in Berlin, where his photo exhibition, Hear the world, is being shown. "Everything is better than what we have now", he added according to German news agency dpa.

What does all this signify? Nothing really. Just a piece of Negligible News.

Foreign Policy Blunders By McCain Help Obama

My colleague Michael wrote recently about the foreign policy gaffes of Barack Obama and how they feed into John McCain's strategy of emphasizing his foreign policy credentials and Obama's inexperience. But as it happens, McCain has had his share of international affairs blunders this year. They've happened farther away from the spotlight, often at moments when the protracted Democratic primary battle was particularly heated, overshadowing anything McCain did or said.

The first was a series of misstatements where McCain had to correct himself for claiming multiple times that Iran was training al Qaeda operatives. That organization is Sunni, while Iran is overwhelmingly Shiite, and rarely have the two played nice with one another. McCain got hit by the Washington Post's Fact-Checker for making the claim.

More recently, McCain asserted that because "the average American" thinks Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of that country, he is. In fact, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the one with authority over foreign policy. This is a little akin to Hillary Clinton's statement that she's not going to "put my lot with economists" when every economist alive criticized her plan to suspend the gas tax.

Another McCain embarrassment on the foreign policy front is that a number of people working for his campaign had lobbied for repressive foreign governments, including Burma and Saudi Arabia. This one was a double hit, because not only were the actual affiliations of those campaign officials dubious, but McCain has spoken many times before about the evils of lobbyists. Several have departed, but not all of them.

And the newest mistake was McCain's claim, in ridiculing Obama: "Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades." As this writer and others were quick to point out, the U.S. policy on Iran has, for decades now, been not to talk to Tehran. (Three of the four here, notably, are about Iran.)

In each of these cases, liberal groups, blogs or political organizations quickly jumped on McCain. Democrats clearly have learned from a strategy popularized by Bush's former political guru, Karl Rove: Focus the attacks on an opponent's strength, not just his weakness. Republicans attacked John Kerry in 2004 over his Vietnam War record, when Kerry's resume as a veteran was one of the things that Democrats thought would make him electable and hard to attack on defense issues. McCain has the edge in overseas-related experience, sure, but going after mistakes he makes on that front gives Democrats a chance to try and neutralize that apparent advantage. In a campaign where sensitivities about race and gender have been in the forefront, that line of attack also gives Democrats a chance to play to concerns about McCain's age by questioning whether the ravages of old age have left him confused. Republicans have implied that's Democrats' intent, anyway; so far, none of the attacks have been that explicit.

The thing to watch will be whether Democrats can combine McCain's support of the Iraq War and some of the aforementioned blunders into a potent enough antidote to the problem Michael wrote about.

Obama Thrashes McCain In European Election Poll

Nothing has changed. Europeans continue to be enamored with Barack Obama. According to a new poll conducted for the Internet portal of Britain's Daily Telegraph, Obama would score a blow-out victory against John McCain if voters in Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia could elect the next American president. The presumptive Democratic candiate received 52 percent of the vote across those five countries. McCain, his Republican rival in waiting, fetched only 15 percent.

Obama is most popular in Italy with 70 percent and Germany with 67 percent of the vote, respectively. Only in Russia is the race even remotely close. Here, Obama registers the least amount of support with just 31 percent of the vote compared with 24 for McCain. In Germany (six percent) and in France (eight percent), McCain doesn't even make it out of the single digits.

When asked who they think is better prepared to lead the global economy out of the current crisis, the winner is also Obama. Only in Russia do more people believe McCain (36 percent) would handle the current economic turmoil better than Obama (28 percent).

Among the five European nations polled, Italians are the most pro-American. Almost half of the Italians (49 percent) consider the U.S. a force for good in the world. In all other countries, the majority of those asked perceive the U.S. as a force for evil. In Russia, a whopping 56 percent of those polled feel that way.

So what do we glean from this poll? First, that the Obama swoon in Europe may be over with some in the media and policy wonks, but definitely not with the general public. Secondly, that anti-American sentiment is alive and well. And thirdly, that Hillary Clinton has been counted out of the campaign by Europeans. Clinton's name wasn't even mentioned in the poll.

Foreign Policy Blunders By Obama Help McCain

John McCain appears to be convinced that he can win the election against Barack Obama largely based on his foreign policy experience. It seems as though McCain thinks he owns the issue. I wrote about his sharp attack and his offer to tutor Obama on Iraq yesterday. But it's not just Iraq, McCain and the Republicans claim that Barack Obama simply lacks the experience to deal with international relations in general or with Iran, Russia, or North Korea in particular.

Obama, to be honest, doesn't possess a foreign policy or military background. Neither did George W. Bush and Bill Clinton prior to taking office. But because of his lack of international experience, Obama has to be especially careful on this topic. With his engagement-not-isolation proposal, he has laid out a vision to deal with unsavory regimes, which despite being criticized by McCain and the Republicans, promised a clear break with the past and could be perceived as cogent and sensible by the average voter.

Now a couple of botched remarks by Obama could be interpreted as a confirmation of McCain's claim of inexperience on the part the presumed Democratic candidate. First, Obama misspoke about his uncle's role in World War II. The Illinois Senator said in a Memorial Day speech that his uncle had participated in the liberation of Auschwitz. After a quick intervention by the Republican Party, the Obama campaign corrected the statement by saying that he had meant Buchenwald and not Auschwitz. While it probably was merely a mix-up, it is problematic for Obama. Since he has no military background, he was trying to become part of a one by familial extension. It backfired. Instead of his family's service in the war, his verbal blunder made the news.

Even more dangerous for Obama and his goal to be viable against John McCain was his remark about negotiating with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So far, Obama's position was that he was willing to meet with Ahmadinejad. That changed yesterday: "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran", Obama said. Haaretz' Shmuel Rosner calls this a 180 degree change and offers an excellent exploration of the issue. However, I don't share Rosner's final analysis that this episode is merely a case of lesson learned for Obama and the voters.

In my opinion, that would be underestimating the potential Obama's reversal presents for Republicans on an important election topic. Already Senator John Ensign of Nevada accused Barack Obama of a "John Kerry-type" of flip-flop. Republicans will monitor closely media reactions to Obama's changed stance and be on look out for further opportunities to stick the flip-flop label on Obama.

McCain And Nukes: Three Key Points

Everyone has had a different take on the big foreign policy speech by John McCain Tuesday, which was about how he would pursue nuclear non-proliferation as president. With all that the Republican presidential candidate said about nukes today -- and, more discretely, a couple days ago -- it's worthwhile to boil down the most meaningful policy and political ramifications of it all into three key areas:

1. McCain did indeed take a more moderate tack than President Bush has in several areas, although not in any dramatic way. The Los Angeles Times' take on this is particularly sharp. For instance, while Bush has supported the development of "bunker buster" bombs, McCain said he would not do the same. But because Congress has not provided funding for bunker busters, Bush has largely backed away from making a push for them. As with several aspects of McCain's speech, there is a substantial difference in the positions between McCain and Bush on non-proliferation, but the actual, practical difference is tiny to non-existent.

2. However, while Bush has moved toward the middle on North Korea, McCain has veered back toward the more hard line, neoconservative point of view. That's what the Washington Post took out of an op-ed Monday in the Asian Wall Street Journal. The Post's take is correct, which is assuredly why the McCain campaign sought to avoid answering how it feels about the current status of the Bush administration's negotiations with North Korea. McCain wanted to play up his differences with Bush because Bush is unpopular, but in an area where McCain is to the right of Bush, that appeals only to a narrower slice of the electorate.

3. One particularly crucial aspect of McCain's plan -- seeking greater coordination with Russia -- has got to be sending mixed messages to the United States' old Cold War rival. McCain notably said last year that when he looked in Vladimir Putin's eyes, "I saw three letters: K.G.B." McCain has said he would seek to kick Russia out of the G-8. These are both confrontational postures. But Tuesday, McCain toned down his rhetoric about Russia. Per the LA Times: "On Tuesday, McCain argued that the U.S. and Russia still had 'serious differences' but said they were 'no longer mortal enemies' in the post-Cold War era." That said, Democrats are correct to point out that McCain's call to eject Russia from the G-8 is hard to square with his call for greater cooperation with Russia on other matters.

Risky Business: McCain Separates Himself From Obama And Bush On Iraq

It looks like John McCain has chosen to pursue an interesting Iraq strategy in his campaign. He is not only distancing himself from President George W. Bush and his presumed Democratic opponent Barack Obama at the same time. McCain also believes that with his foreign policy credentials, he can actually score points on the Iraq issue against Obama.

Clearly separating himself from President Bush, McCain said yesterday in a speech to veterans marking Memorial day, "I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them." He added that "we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq." (Dispite McCain's statement President Bush will appear at fundraiser with him today.)

On the same day, McCain also took a hefty swipe at Obama: "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," McCain told the AP. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly." McCain went on to attack Obama for not having visited Iraq enough. Asked whether he would take a trip to Iraq with his Democratic rival McCain said yes and offered to "to educate Senator Obama along the way."

McCain's Iraq strategy is bold - and risky. He is correct in his assessment that President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq is very unpopular. But to assume that it's primarily the bungled management of the war and not the war itself that irks people is dicey. Most recent polls indicate that a majority of those questioned think that it was wrong to start the war in the first place and are in favor of bringing it to an end as soon as possible.

Among Republicans however, McCain's assumption holds more water. Many criticize the handling but not the war itself and oppose a quick withdrawal. If McCain hopes to reach out to this voter group, his strategy might work.

But it comes at the risk of alienating independent voters which he also needs for a chance to win in the general election against Obama. And whether non-Republican voters appreciate McCain's paternalistic offer to "educate" Obama is also questionable.

"It's No Longer Going To Be That We Are In The Lead And Everyone Follows Us"

The news out of the U.K. this evening is rather fascinating. The Guardian reported that Barack Obama, in a telephone address to a group of American expatriates in London who were gathered at a fundraiser, called for a fairer relationship between the U.K. and U.S. But what was most compelling was what an unnamed foreign policy adviser to the campaign told the Guardian, a statement that would reflect a rather dramatic shift from the George Bush years.

"We have a chance to recalibrate the relationship and for the United Kingdom to work with America as a full partner," Obama reportedly said. Even more interesting, the Guardian reported that an Obama foreign policy adviser told the paper: "It's no longer going to be that we are in the lead and everyone follows us. Full partners not only listen to each other, they also occasionally follow each other."

On one level, Obama's position placates anxiety in Great Britain toward years of playing loyal second fiddle to the U.S. Tony Blair, regularly derided as "Bush's poodle," suffered politically for supporting the president on the Iraq War. Current prime minister Gordon Brown has indicated he will not be so unconditional in his support of the U.S.

But what of the unnamed Obama adviser? Obama has made plain that he would emphasize diplomacy in his foreign policy as president, so the remark could just be an extension of that. But it comes at a time when there is a discussion in foreign policy circles about whether the U.S. is about to enter into "The Post-American World," the title of a book by noted international affairs writer Fareed Zakaria; the case being that the U.S. will still be a world leader, but other states will rise in influence. Is the Obama adviser tilting in that direction?

Clinton, Obama And The Media Play The Blame Game

This story isn't going away fast. On Friday Hillary Clinton - mentioning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - made a controversial argument why she believes a long Democratic campaign won't hurt party unity. Today, three days later, what Clinton said or meant, or could have said or meant, and whether her remark had anything to do with Barack Obama or not is still a dominant media topic. You can find my take on Clinton's comment here.

But now the American media as well as the Clinton and Obama campaigns have moved to the next stage of the news cycle. Having discussed the issue at length, it's time for the blame game. Who's fault is it that the story is still alive?

At this phase of the news cycle, the surrogates take over. (While Hillary Clinton in a piece in the New York Daily News tries to explain what she really meant, she doesn't point a finger.) That's Howard Wolfson's and Terry McAuliffe's job. Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, called the Obama camp's reaction to Clinton's statement an attack and inflammatory. McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman, accused the Obama team of keeping the story going over the weekend.

McAuliffe was probably alluding to an e-mail sent out by the Obama campaign on Saturday highlighting Keith Olbermann's blistering comment about Clinton's remark. When asked about it, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod dogded the question.

So is the Obama campaign stoking the fire? Hardly. The campaign's rebuttal after Clinton's statement on Friday was in line and its wording didn't fan the flames. To send out the Olbermann transcript points more in that direction. But if one wanted to incite the issue, there sure are better ways than to send out the manuscript of Olbermann's televisual rage to reporters. Every journalist who has anything to do with campaign coverage has seen or read it before.

So what's next? Well, Obama, Clinton, their surrogates and the media have dissected the remark itself, its historical and current context. Now that we also had a go at the blame game, I would think enough is enough. But who am I to say?

Congressional Elections And Their Influence On Foreign Affairs

There are a handful of areas where Congress' influence on public policy is particularly weak, and foremost among them is foreign affairs. The upcoming congressional elections aren't likely to have much sway over the United States' international posture.

Congress has little authority to alter the day-to-day diplomatic efforts of the executive branch. Within the sphere of foreign relations, Congress' greatest power, as with most matters, is that it assigns funding. For example: Democrats have attempted to alter funding for the Iraq War in a way that would have the effect of ending the engagement in Iraq. In the House, where Democrats have a strong majority, they have routinely succeeded in adding such language to funding bills, since even unanimous Republican opposition cannot overcome Democrats when they are mostly unified. In the Senate, where Democrats hold a one-vote margin of control and procedural differences make it harder for one party to ram its agenda through, unified Republicans can be far more effective. Rather than vote against an unpopular war, they have stood with President Bush.

That dynamic could change somewhat with the next Congress, where Democrats are likely to widen their margin of control in both the House and Senate. Election forecasters believe they are unlikely to pick up enough seats in the Senate to be able to foil a Republican filibuster -- 60 are needed to avoid such a procedural blockade. Should Barack Obama take control of the White House, this point becomes largely moot. To return to the Iraq example, Obama has made clear his plan to withdraw troops. But if John McCain wins the White House, and several Republicans lose their reelection bids and it turns out that Iraq was one of the reasons, McCain will have a bigger problem on his hands than Bush did on the Iraq front. Say Democrats have 57 members in the Senate in 2009. Now only three votes are needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Some Republicans may be more inclined to break their party unity after watching other Republican senators lose their job over their Iraq votes, and join the Democrats' anti-war efforts.

But because McCain would likely veto any bill that is geared toward ending the Iraq War, Democrats would need to win 70 votes to overturn that veto. There is little chance they would get that many unless Republicans suddenly make a sudden and dramatic shift in their voting patterns.

As American political scientist Larry Sabato told McClatchy: "If it's McCain, he would find his domestic policies dead on arrival. His only real influence with Congress would be in the foreign sphere." In other words, McCain likely wouldn't be able to convince a strong Democratic majority to adopt much of his domestic agenda. But he'd be able to defend his foreign agenda from attack by Democrats. To be accurate, McCain would be better defending against the Democratic agenda on both domestic and foreign policy. But because he has more leeway on foreign policy, he would be more free to do there as he pleased than he would on domestic issues.

Foreign policy issues, like the war in Iraq, may end up having some effect on congressional races. But the outcome of those congressional races are almost certain not to return the favor.

What Clinton Was Asked And Said And What Some Journalists Make Of It

Wow. Just yesterday I lauded the U.S. media's coverage of McCain's health records. Today, in my estimation, many American outlets get the controversy over Hillary Clinton's remark about Robert F. Kennedy wrong.

This is what Clinton said in an interview with a South Dakota paper when asked about whether the long race could hurt the Democratic party: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Sure, to bring up RFK's assassination at a time when the Kennedy family is dealing with a serious healh issue is insensitive and in bad taste. And true, any talk about assassination in conjunction with American presidential elections understandably is dangerous territory, especially when there have been concerns about the safety of her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

But that still doesn't justify what many outlets made of her remarks, which by the way she had stated before. Let's look at the facts: First, Clinton' s answer was in response to a question whether the drawn out campaign could damage party unity and not – as was widely reported – a reponse to a question why she was staying in the race. Second, she didn't mention Barack Obama by name at all in her answer. Third, the RFK remark made up only half of her argument why party unity was not hurt by a long campaign in the past. The other half consisted of a reference to her husband's campaign in 1992.

So in essence, Hillary Clinton said – in a stupid way - that Democratic primaries have gone into June before and it didn't damage the party. Of course everyone is free to interpret what Clinton really meant or insinuated like Bob Cesca of the Huffington Post or Keith Olbermann.

But if a one really believes or fears that Hillary Clinton is somehow hoping for a climactic event - such as an assassination - that could win her the nomination after all, one should get her to say exactly that in an interview. And if one really considers her remark as part of a pernicious plan to steal the nomination and invoke fears about Obama's safety, there is an easy way to spoil those efforts: Don't write about it.

McCain's Health: Of Bladder Stones, Basal Cells And Prostate Tissue

-Cholesterol Level: 192
-Resting Pulse Rate: 88 per minute
-Weight: 163 pounds (6 pounds less than last year)
-Blood Pressure: 122/78
-Four malignant melanomas removed since 1993
-Some basal cell and squamous cell cancers removed
-Small kidney stones and benign cysts in both kidneys
-Four bladder stones removed by laser in 2001
-Benign enlarged prostate tissue removed in 2001

This, of course, is John McCain's health status in a nutshell. To get more, a lot more, click here or here. There has been much media focus on the timing of the health facts release and of the limitations set by the campaign.

But what strikes me the most is the sheer depth and detail of the candidates personal health that are made public. Probably most Americans now know a lot more about John McCain's medical status than about their own or their spouses.

I know that health issues have always been an important aspect in American presidential races. And yet, as a German, I still find it fascinating how the release of very personal details of a candidate is simply part of what is required if one wants to get in the White House. What is also astonishing to me – in a positive way – is how the majority of media outlets deal with the issue. Most of the coverage is analytical, serious and fair.

In Germany, this whole process is inconceivable. First, the right to privacy - even for top politicans - trumps the public's right to know. Second, an important part of the media, the tabloids, would sensationalize the issue and dig merely for juicy details.

My guess is that this is true for most other countries as well. If you know of countries that are closer to the U.S. model, I'd be interested to find out about it.

So which model is better? Hard to say. Probably most people wouldn't want the world to know their entire medical history. And is it really necessary and helpful to publicize how many bladder stones were removed at what time and by which method?

On the other hand, most people also don't run for the highest office in the country. If you want the responsibilty to be president, chancellor or prime minister, I think it is fair that the people you want to govern know in advance whether you're fit for the office. If that requires listing every single bladder stone is another issue.

McCain's Double Pastor Problem

Let's hope that Barack Obama and John McCain have a better sense for selecting running mates and cabinet positions than for picking pastors they associate themselves with. Usually what one hopes to gain from religious leaders is spiritual or moral support and guidance on how to deal with life's difficult issues. For some reason, this doesn't seem to work out with Obama's and McCain's pastoral affiliations. Instead of providing support and guidance, they mainly cause trouble for their prominent followers.

While Obama had one problem pastor, McCain bests him with two. One of them, John Hagee, has stated that God sent Adolph Hitler to help the Jews reach the promised land. He also characterized the Catholic Church as a "great whore," a remark for which he apologized later. The other pastor, Rod Parsley, according to ABC News, has called Islam "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil," and an "anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world." After the remarks received a lot of media attention, McCain distanced himself from Parsley and rejected Hagee's endorsement.

To be sure, as McCain was quick to point out, Hagee and Parsley were not his pastors and he didn't belong to their churches. But McCain accepted Hagee's endorsement in February at a time when the teleevangelist's statements about Catholicism were already causing ripples. As for Parsley, McCain didn't seek his endorsement. But, as Tim pointed out earlier, applying McCain's own flawed logic of association ties him to Parsley even though he never officially supported his positions.

It is understandable that McCain who has had difficulties with Christian Conservatives wants to bolster his credentials with this important voting block through the support of prominent preachers who represent that group. It was also understandable that Obama didn't want to cut his ties with a prominent preacher in the African-American community.

However, this attitude is very shortsighted. Over the duration of a long campaign, every potentially controversial statement or affiliation will be vetted either by the opposite side or by the media. Obama and McCain would be prudent to do some serious vetting themselves. Better to fess up about a problem early on and steer the process than do damage control later.

A Little-Noticed Item On Each Campaign's Views On Israel-Syria Peace Talks

The Jerusalem Post managed to get the U.S. presidential campaigns to weigh in on the Israel-Syria peace talks. The results mirror the divide between the candidates themselves on a central foreign policy argument they've been having over the value of diplomacy and what form it should take.

Barack Obama: "'I am encouraged that Israel and Syria have renewed peace talks and fully support Israel's efforts to advance peace with all its neighbors,' he said in statement e-mailed to the Post. 'I have consistently said that the United States must stand ready to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors and should not block Israel from the negotiating table, nor force it to negotiate.'"

John McCain: "'Senator McCain's view is that the sovereign government of Israel should be free to make its own decisions on how best to defend Israel and whether to engage in negotiations,' said Randy Scheunemann, the campaign's director of foreign policy and national security, who wouldn't comment on the potential for an American role in the talks."

But in some ways what their anonymous surrogates said in the story was more interesting.

The announcement of the Israel-Syria talks came after President Bush made a remark in Israel that implied meeting with controversial leaders like those in Iran constituted "appeasement." The Post writes: "Some political analysts have viewed Israel's announcement of indirect talks with Syria just days after the political controversy of Bush's Knesset remarks as a vindication for Obama's position. 'He has said many times that he thinks diplomacy is a very useful tool for achieving our national interests and goals. It's a tool that has been underutilized by this administration,' said an Obama campaign adviser. 'But he's not citing these developments to prove a point.'"

McCain's team, which backed up Bush's "appeasement" remark, dismissed the usefulness of talks with Syria. Per the Post: "The McCain camp pointed out that talks can be more than difficult - they can be pointless. 'It's clear that it takes more than just talking and meeting up with countries like Syria to achieve a resolution of differences,' someone close to the campaign told the Post, saying that former US secretary of state Warren Christopher 'practically had a second home in Damascus' but came up empty-handed."

Slow Campaign Money Flow From Foreign Companies

It was that time again: The presidential candidates filed their monthly fundraising statements with the Federal Election Commission. And again, no surprise. In April, Barack Obama easily beat his two competitors in the money race raking in $31 million.

So let's look at a more interesting aspect of that race. Foreigners are by law barred from donating money to federal, local, and state elections in the U.S. It is, however, possible for foreign companies to contribute to political causes through Political Action Committees (PAC) set up by their American subsidiaries.

And some international corporations are doing just that. According to Opensecrets.org, one of the best political money tracking sites, foreign-connected PACs in the current election cycle so far have contributed roughly $7.3 million to Democrats and Republicans, with both parties basically splitting the money.

With almost $6.7 million, the overwhelming majority of donations stem from companies headquartered in Europe. Of those, most are based in Britain ($2.4 million) and Germany ($871,000). Among those listed are well known firms such as Deutsche Bank, SAP, GlaxoSmithKline and Rolls-Royce, but also lesser known companies such as Lehigh Cement or Kennecott Holdings. According to Opensecrets.org, the largest contribution from a German headquartered corporation came from T-Mobile USA with $220,000, the largest contribution from a British headquartered company came from GlaxoSmithKline with $478,000.

By the way, most of the money doesn't go towards presidential but to state and congressional candidates. What do foreign-connected PACs hope to gain from their donations? The same as domestic PACs: access and influence to candidates. So the big question is: Why aren't more foreign companies with business interests in the U.S. pouring money into the campaigns?

Cool Tool III: Fact-Checking Foreign Policy Claims

I'll do my best in this space to point out factual inaccuracies and false claims by candidates and their surrogates on foreign policy. But there are a variety of organizations that regularly fact-check the candidates on a variety of issues, including foreign policy, that I can recommend.

For starters, my own non-DW World employer, CQ, has a relatively new fact-checking wing: Politifact. (Recent fact check on: John McCain saying "Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions.")

The most established of the fact-checking operations is the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org. (Recent fact check on: "Two Democratic Party TV ads hit McCain on Iraq and the economy. We supply context and corrections.")

And The Washington Post has their own fact-checkers monitoring the campaign. (Recent fact check on: "McCain, Obama and kissing dictators.")

Cuba: Isolate Or Negotiate

It looks like the question whether the U.S. should engage or isolate hostile states is here to stay. First it was Iran, now it's Cuba. John McCain attacked Barack Obama for stating that he would negotiate with the Cuban government if necessary. McCain vowed to keep the American trade embargo in place, if elected. Obama fired back that McCain was merely continuing President George W. Bush's failed policy.

Who's right? Probably both candidates would say that their goal is to topple the Castro-led regime and to establish a democratic Cuba with free and fair elections. The U.S. trade embargo has been in effect now for almost 50 years. During that time no negotiations between a U.S. president and Fidel, or now Raul, Castro took place. In essence, John McCain's current stance toward Cuba has been carried out for almost five decades. The result? The Castro clan still rules the island, democracy is still absent, as are freedom of the press and other basic human rights.

So Barack Obama is correct that the policy of economic embargo and political isolation has failed to achieve its intended goal. What he conveniently left out is that it's not all George W. Bush's fault, but that this stance has been a pillar of American foreign policy for close to 50 years regardless whether a Democrat or Republican was in the White House.

What's more, if Obama believes that this policy has failed, one would think he would reverse the course. But all that he has said on the issue until now is that he would allow Cuban-Americans to send money and visit relatives, and that he would be willing to meet with Cuba's leaders. Letting people wire money and visit Cuba is a far cry from lifting the economic embargo. Today, President Bush announced that he would allow Cuban-Americans to mail cell phones to relatives. It seems like Obama – despite his rhetoric – may be continuing Bush's Cuba policy after all.

McCain Wants To Imitate U.K., India; More On Obama And Islam

--John McCain just made a great number of fans out of the kind of nerds who watch C-SPAN at odd hours. C-SPAN broadcasts the floor action of the U.S. House and Senate, but has, on occasion, broadcast the British tradition alternately called "Question Time," "Prime Minister's Questions" or something else, where the prime minister engages in a rapid fire exchange with the legislative body. The tradition is also found in India, Israel and a number of other countries, and has a cult following here in the States. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, said last week he would like to subject himself to the same treatment, which is often marked by hollering and quick-witted insults.

Because the proposal was buried in a more far-ranging policy speech, it only recently started getting any attention of note. An unscientific sampling of responses suggests it could help McCain win over some of his skeptics. When I mentioned it to one friend, he replied, half-joking: "I almost want to vote for him for that alone." Christopher Hitchens, a British-American writer who sometimes defends the Iraq War but whose politics have moved to the left, wrote some gushing praise of McCain's idea. CQ, linked above, found a mixed reaction from members of Congress themselves.

--A follow-up on yesterday's post about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and whether he would be shunned in the Muslim world:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has weighed in on this as of today. Where the group has received criticism, it has been from groups or individuals who argue CAIR has promoted extremist views. So that would seem to lend added weight to its interpretation, since the most extreme strain of Islam would seem to be the one most likely to consider Obama an apostate.

CAIR concludes that the New York Times op-ed is inaccurate. The group's own op-ed states: "Obama is neither a convert nor an apostate for the simple fact that he never declared himself a Muslim to begin with. The fact that his father and grandfather were Muslims does not itself determine his own faith status."

Reasonable people differ on this. But much of the evidence seems to favor the view that, at least for the majority of the Muslim world, including some extreme elements, Obama would not be considered an apostate.

Contradictory Claims On Obama And Islam

I'd seen this article not long ago, alleging that Barack Obama would be unpopular in the Muslim world because of his background, and thought it was interesting, especially since it was in The New York Times. But something about it wasn't quite right.

First, its author, Edward Luttwak, is not some detached observer. He is widely referred to as a neoconservative. Second, I am no expert in Islamic law. So I wasn't sure whether it was accurate, and since it was an op-ed instead of a news article, there was no counter point of view. I certainly had to wonder: If the leader of Hamas said Obama was his preferred candidate, surely Obama's conversion to Christianity wasn't that big a deal, right?

As it happens, there is a great deal wrong with the op-ed. This author -- writing for the liberal Huffington Post, so take that into account -- makes a persuasive case nonetheless that the op-ed is factually incorrect.

So, just to summarize, here are all the things that are wrong with Obama on this front according to his opponents, accurate or no:
1. He is secretly a Muslim.
2. He is affiliated with his crazy Christian ex-minister.
3. Even though he was born a Muslim, that won't make him popular with Muslims because his conversion to Christianity will make him a heretic to them, undermining one of his foreign policy claims.
4. He is the favorite candidate of Hamas, an organization rooted in Islam.

It can't be all of them, right? It all adds up, as this writer states, to "dangerous nonsense."

Chavez And Ahmadinejad Mum On Preferred Presidential Candidate

What a shame: Venezulean President Hugo Chavez - always good for outrageous oratory - chose the high road in an interview with a group of American journalists by declining to take a position on the U.S. presidential election. He ventured only so far as to say that he has a preference. That leaves the world guessing. Does Chavez favor Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

But would that be Chavez-style? My hunch is that Hugo Chavez (click here for a collection of the best Chavez quotes) is a secret admirer of Ron Paul, who despite John McCain's insurmountable lead still hasn't officially ended his campaign. Paul's strict anti-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy agenda, his opposition to NAFTA as well as his tendency towards rhetorical outbursts could have won over Chavez' heart.

Another outspoken orator of our time also hasn't publicly endorsed a candidate, at least not to my knowledge. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is keeping his cards close to his chest. He probably wants to make his preference known when it will have the biggest impact, which is close to the election. Or maybe he is just too busy. He hasn't gotten around to posting any new entries in his blog since December 2007.

Democrats Growing Confident On National Security

Earlier this year, I wrote part of a cover story for CQ Weekly about Democrats challenging President Bush on national security. In particular, what struck me was how Democrats who had just months earlier gave Bush every bit of warrantless wiretapping authority he wanted suddenly turned around when it was time to make that authority permanent and said, "No more."

What, I wondered, had gotten into them? What I found was this: Democrats looked at the polls and found that they were closer than they had been in a long time to Republicans on national security, who have a historical advantage with voters on that topic. Democrats also found that by offering a compelling defense of themselves instead of just trying to change the topic to the economy or some other area where they had an advantage, they were able to, in this case, have some success winning the argument with the public.

It is now exceedingly clear that the model Democrats used there will be their formula in the presidential campaign, too. The dispute over Barack Obama's willingness to meet with controversial foreign leaders shows it. Democrats quickly jumped to Obama's defense and stood firm. On Sunday, they also tried to win the argument. In a televised interview, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden explained how Republicans have done the very same thing Obama would do: "Let’s talk about talking. President Bush, the White House, called me, several years ago, told me Air Force Two was waiting for me at Andrews Air Force Base; would I get on the plane and go meet with (Libyan President Muammar al-) Gadhafi, a real known terrorist, personally, a terrorist — personally responsible for killing kids at the school I went to, Syracuse University, blowing up that Pan Am flight,” Sen. Joe Biden said on ABC’s “This Week." “The president of the United States asked me to go. He cut a deal with Gadhafi, directly. It was a smart thing to do. He gave up his nuclear weapons, Gadhafi.”

There's something strange about Democrats simultaneously saying that 1. the Bush and John McCain attacks on Obama for meeting with controversial foreign leaders shows the need for change, since Bush's approach hasn't worked; and 2. Republicans do meet with controversial foreign leaders, too. There are other counter-arguments as well. And maybe it all plays into Republicans' hands in the end, since the amount of time spent on national security arguments could favor them by keeping the focus where they want it. What's interesting is that Democrats are even making the argument at all.

How They'd Meet With Controversial Foreign Leaders: Trivial No More

Not long ago, I wrote about how the manner in which the two Democratic presidential candidates would meet with controversial foreign leaders had become a major campaign issue. It had become a major campaign issue despite the fact that Barack Obama and his team had fuzzed up their position (would meet with controversial leaders "without preconditions," but with "preparation") to the point that it was hard to distinguish from Hillary Clinton's (would only meet with controversial leaders with preconditions). Many had originally dismissed the divide as trivial.

After President Bush's veiled attack on Obama, comparing his position without mentioning his name to the appeasement of Hitler -- an attack Republican John McCain seconded -- it's now the story that's dominating the campaign headlines in the U.S.

CNN has it right: This is a preview of the general election campaign. McCain thinks the issue plays to his image as strong and firm on national security. Obama thinks it will help him link McCain to Bush's foreign policy.

Barack for Bavaria

Barack Obama is an inspiration – to the Bavarian Social Democratic Party (SPD). The Social Democrats want to apply Obama's successful method of online fundraising to the state election in Bavaria this fall, German news agency ddp reported. According to ddp, Parlamentarian Thomas Beyer said during a party delegation visit to Washington the SPD hopes to raise a large number of small donations through an internet campaign like Obama did in the primary campaign. The Alpine states' Social Democrats also hope to increase the identification of donors with the party.

The Bavarian SPD needs all the help it can get. In all state elections since the founding of Bavaria as a German state in 1945, the SPD was the strongest party only once – in 1950. The last time an SPD governor (Ministerpräsident) ruled Bavaria was in 1957. In the last election in 2003, the Social Democrats received 20 percent of the vote, the Christian Social Party (CSU), which has been ruling non-stop since 1957, scored 61 percent of the vote.

So there is room for improvement and copying Obama's internet fundraising success may just be applicable to Bavaria's SPD. However, looking at the Social Democrats dismal election record in this state, it seems to me the Bavarian Social Democrats may have missed the more important lesson from Obama's success: You need an inspiring candidate to have a chance of winning.

Bush's Failed Nazi Comparison

Should the U.S. negotiate with unsavory regimes, terrorist organizations or autocratic rulers? President George W. Bush used his visit to Jerusalem to mark Israel's 60th anniversary to talk about this politically charged topic. "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," he said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ""Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."" We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Bush's remark was generally interpreted as a slap in the face for Democratic candidate Barack Obama who had stated that he would negotiate with Iran.

As a German, I am sensitive to Nazi comparisons. Actually, I generally think that Nazi analogies are made far too often and far to easily which tends to minimize the holocaust. What's more, most comparisons between Hitler and other political figures are ahistorical and don't work. That goes for Bush's remark as well. It is so unspecific and vague that it defeats the intended purpose of warning the public about the perceived or real dangers of appeasement.

What does President Bush mean when he warns of negotiating with terrorists and radicals? In the 1980's and 1990's, most people would have classified the PLO and Sinn Fein as radical organizations to say the least. That didn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with them. Most people would have considered the Communist Party in the Soviet Union a radical entity. That didn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with its leaders. Most people today would consider North Korea's dictatorial dynasty a radical regime. That doesn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with it.

If President Bush wanted to say that Obama's approach to directly negotiate with the Iranian regime is wrong and dangerous because of repeated statements by its president to wipe Israel off the map, he should do just that. To merely lump the words radicals, terrorists, Nazis, Poland, Hitler and appeasement together undermines a serious discussion of the issue.

Obama As Foreign Policy Revolutionary

Quite by accident, I find myself following closely on the point of my colleague Michael's latest post.

John McCain has drawn plenty of attention in the 2008 presidential campaign as the candidate bucking traditional foreign policy wisdom in key areas... some of it positive, as Michael finds, although certainly not all of it. But is it the Republican's expected Democratic rival, Barack Obama, the real foreign policy revolutionary?

That's the view of liberal writer Matthew Yglesias, who argues the lengthy primary battle against Hillary Clinton has sharpened Obama's foreign policy views. I quote Yglesias extensively: "As the campaign stretched on and Clinton sharpened her attacks on Obama’s commander-in-chief credentials, he began to counter by questioning her whole approach to foreign policy—the establishment approach. Today, Obama calls not only for direct negotiations with leaders of rogue states, but also for an American commitment to eventual global nuclear disarmament (in part to reinvigorate nonproliferation efforts); a substantial rebalancing of American military priorities toward Afghanistan (and away from Iraq); a softening of the embargo on Cuba; and a widening of the current, single-minded focus on democracy promotion to include other development goals that might more effectively prevent terrorist recruitment. Many think that there’s little difference between the Democrats on policy grounds. That may once have been true, but over time—and largely in response to Clinton’s barbs—Obama’s foreign-policy approach has evolved into something substantially different from either Clinton’s or McCain’s."

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele is less hopeful. He sees potential in some of Obama's unconventional views listed above, and his approach toward viewing the United States as the rest of the world does. But he finds retreat in Obama's positions on Iran and Israel of late: "So the big questions remain: does Obama really want to change US foreign policy and can he, if he does? Having a black person in the Oval Office, and especially one with an understanding of US imperialism, would have a colossal international impact in itself. But would this merely result in even greater disappointment once the months go by and US policy stays the same? In my kishkas I feel Obama is our best hope. In my mind I prepare for business as usual."

Europeans Would Be Crazy To Wish For A President Obama Writes German Editorialist

In an interesting editorial for the German business daily Financial Times Deutschland, Wolfgang Münchau argues that Europeans would fare better with Republican John McCain as President than with his Democratic rivals. Headlined "McCain for President", Münchau writes that, as usual with U.S. presidential elections, Germans and other Europeans are hoping for a Democratic victory. "We dream of a Kennedy and are disappointed when we end up with a Nixon, Reagan, or Bush…And we celebrate every time when the Americans elect a Clinton, Gore, or Obama because their politics most closely reflect our nebulous European sentiments."

Münchau astutely points out that Germans and Europeans on a whole often underestimated the larger trends in American politics, such as the conservative revolution. And he says they are doing it again by underestimating the current trend of American protectionism. (which for an export-driven Germany spells bad news.)

Of all the candidates, no one symbolizes the trend toward protectionsim more than Barack Obama, writes Münchau with reference to Obama's "Invest in America" policy. According to Münchau, the presumptive Democratic candidate's "Fair Trade" policy will lead to restrictions on global trade, but it will be cloaked under the banner social justice for his clientele.

Adding to his list why Obama is bad for Europe, Münchau says that Obama is a mostly reactive politician and not a policy wonk.

For those reasons, Münchau thinks Europeans would be crazy if they wished for a President Obama. He points out that - contrary to Obama - until now McCain has clearly supported free trade, even though he is generally not very interested in economic issues. For Münchau, Hillary Clinton is also preferable to Obama since her economic policies probably would be pretty much in line with her husband's, which he calls a big exception among Democrats.

Is Münchau right? Should Europeans be afraid of a protectionist America under an Obama administration and thus wish for a President McCain?

While it is true that both Obama and Clinton have struck a protectionist tone in their campaigns while McCain has not, we all know that campaign rhetoric doesn't always translate into political action. Secondly, can a single country - even a superpower such as the U.S. - in a globalized economy pull up the drawbridge on world trade without negative consequences for its own people? Not really. And thirdly, Münchau doesn't really sound all that convinced about McCain himself. In Münchau's entire editorial, McCain is mentioned but four times. Let's hope that there are more reasons to support a candidate than because he is the least worst alternative.

Obama's Israel Views -- Better With The Left, Bad With The Right

Barack Obama's tour to win the hearts of Jewish voters has had the intended effect with some -- approval. It has had the opposite effect with people he never had a chance of winning over -- condemnation. The rest? That may yet take time to sort out.

Obama won over the editor of The New Republic, a hawkish but predominantly moderate Democratic publication. That editor, Marty Peretz, is among the "more vocal U.S. backers of Israel" I talked about yesterday. He won over Jeffrey Goldberg, the interviewer.

Those on the right? They pounced on what they could, which many dubbed dishonest. At the very minimum, conservatives didn't give Obama the benefit of the doubt. In one sense, what those on the right say about Obama and Israel doesn't matter much, because they aren't the people he hoped to convince. But if their interpretation makes it into the broader debate, it might be able to poison the well for the larger audience Obama does want to reach.

It is those voters we haven't heard from much -- most of the response thus far has been from opinion-makers on one side or the other. Again, Obama's potential problems with Jews may be overstated and based more, as I said yesterday, on the fact that the Democratic race remains unsettled. One key Jewish supporter of Obama told the New York Times that his poll numbers, already climbing with Jews, would assuredly continue to inch up after Obama's nomination is locked up.

McCain To World: Global Warming Is A Problem

In a move that will be welcomed by Europeans and especially by environmentally conscious Germans, John McCain vowed to take action against global warming and distanced himself from President George Bush. In a speech at the Oregon plant of Danish wind turbine producer Vestas, he pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050 and to make the U.S. the leader in the fight against global warming.

In a jab at the current administration's reluctance to take climate change serious and agree to the Kyoto protocol McCain said: "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto."

He also vowed to push China and India to agree to international solutions to curb greenhouse gases. But he stressed - again distancing himself form President Bush -that the United States has an obligation to act even if efforts to include China and India in an international settlement fail.

Reactions to his proposal from experts were mixed at best. Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly lauds McCain for facing the issue, but calls his cap-and-trade-solution "pretty weak tea." Bradford Plummer of the New Republic writes that Obama's stance on the issue is a lot stronger. The environmental organization Sierra Club went even further and in a press release called McCain's proposal bound to fail.

Never mind the actual merits of his plan, which are hard for non-experts to analyse. On a psychological level, McCain's speech will have an impact. To Europeans, his proposal signals that the presumed Republican candidate is part of the political mainstream on this important global issue. Bush's long resistance to even acknowledge that there might be a problem convinced many European that his administration was on the fringe bordering on kooky where environmental issues are concerned.

For the conservative wing of the Republican party, it will reinforce the conviction that McCain is too moderate. Larry Kudlow in the National Review probably speaks for many conservatives by calling the plan a "huge government command-and-control operation that taxes, spends, and regulates on a grand scale."

So the key question is: Will McCain's environmental position win him enough independent and moderate votes to offset losses from conservative Republicans?

Obama, Israel

Barack Obama has been having a devil of a time with some of the United States' more vocal backers of Israel, who have been critical of him for, among other things, his willingness to have talks with the president of Iran, who has been very threatening toward the Jewish state. "Some of the United States' more vocal backers of Israel" is not necessarily the same as "Jewish voters," as this writer points out. But there's sufficient overlap to make one wonder about this poll, which shows that Jews back Obama over Republican John McCain but not as overwhelmingly as they did the 2004 Democratic candidate, John Kerry. Whether that is because of the problem Obama is having with his Israel position or something else -- like the still-unsettled Democratic primary, where voters are divided between Obama and Hillary Clinton -- is unclear.

Still, Obama tried to spotlight his commitment to Israel and affinity with Jews in this interview with The Atlantic. (The interviewer wrote a very interesting piece, which he linked to in the interview with Obama, about the "existential dread" in Israel these days.) Obama's general commitment is fairly standard for American politicians. To put it another way, as this writer did, being "pro-Israel" is not much different than being "pro-food" among U.S. pols. If his goal was to put questions about his views to rest, the interview probably didn't do the trick by itself; this writer, admittedly not Obama's target audience because he writes for a conservative publication, still has plenty. But Politico's Ben Smith, who writes for a non-partisan publication, also noticed Obama was trying to walk a bit of a tightrope. It's difficult political terrain Obama is traversing here.

Lesson Learned: McCain's Convention Manager Steps Down

Whoever said that politicians never learn their lessons? After Barack Obama's enduring trials and tribulations due to his reluctance to cut himself loose from pastor Jeremiah Wright, all candidates are now trying to sever ties swiftly with controversial aides and staff. As we wrote earlier, an Obama advsior who had met with Hamas has resigned.

Now it was John McCain's turn. After Newsweek revealed that Doug Goodyear, the organizer of the Republican convention and a fellow Arizonan, had lobbied for Burma's military junta through his company, DCI, the McCain campaign wasted no time. Goodyear resigned shortly after the story broke. In a mail to Politico, Goodyear said it was his decision and the right thing to do. He is definitely correct on the latter point. His representation of the military regime not only clashed with McCain's stark rhetoric against Burma's authoritarian ruler General Than Shwe. The horrible failure and negligence of the junta to help its people would have ensured continuous negative media coverage of McCain's choice for convention manager.

Whether the first point – Goodyear's statement that it was his decision to step down – is entirely true, or whether there was a hint from the McCain team, is water under the bridge. More important is the fact that there is a learning curve in the presidential campaign 2008.

No Matter Who Wins: No More Guantanamo Bay

The Boston Globe penned this thoughtful piece about each of the remaining candidates' stance on Guantanamo Bay. All three have said they want to close it.

There are subtle differences between all three candidates on the issue, and Republican John McCain has left the door open to some Guantanamo Bay-like replacement. But his position is at odds with President Bush -- even though administration officials have talked of closing the facility eventually -- something that could help McCain make the case that his administration will not "a third term for Bush," as Democrats have been trying to convince voters.

Cool Tool II: Political Trends

Earlier I wrote about the US Election 2008 Web Monitor, a project that tracks the international coverage that presidential candidates receive. Another great tool for reviewing the trends of the current campaign is PoliticalTrends.info.

It tracks political blogs according to various topics and candidates. Want to know the dominant foreign policy topic of the last two weeks? If you read this blog regularly, you probably already know what it is. If not, click here and find out.

A Costly Mistake On Hamas

Pretend that you're an adviser to the Barack Obama campaign. A Hamas leader speaks complimentary words about your candidate. The Republican candidate, John McCain, however faulty the logic, makes a point of associating your candidate with Hamas because of the leader's remarks. Other Republicans, meanwhile, try to tie Obama to former president Jimmy Carter's meetings with Hamas. Obama's position has always been that those meetings were a bad idea. Do you, as an adviser to the Obama campaign, then proceed to meet with Hamas yourself?

One such adviser, Robert Malley, did. He either left or was fired from the campaign because of it. Now, it may be that he is but one of "hundreds" of informal advisers, as the Obama campaign stated. It may be, in the end, a tempest in a teapot. But this has been a sensitive issue in the campaign, and every little bit of tempest adds ammo to the attack.

Malley said the Obama camp knew generally about his meetings with "all kinds of people" in his job at a conflict-resolution think tank, but may not have known about the meetings with Hamas specifically. But shouldn't Malley have mentioned it to them? Or, is the fault of Obama's "inexperience," as a McCain spokesperson said?

Web Tip For Election Afficionados: Real Clear Politics

If you are someone who just can't get enough news and information about the campaign, there is one site you shouldn't go without: Real Clear Politics is probably the best one-stop-shop for all the latest news about the presidential election.

Whether it's polls, commentary, videos or analysis, if it's worth while, you probably find it at this great aggregator portal. And if you're looking for some distraction, hey they even have a Fantasy 08 Game available.

An International Affairs VP?

Mining a theme from a previous post, we're starting to get in the ballpark in this presidential race where talk turns to who will serve in the next administration. Noteworthy in this talk? The question of whether the Democratic nominee will pick someone as his or her running mate who has a foreign policy or national security background.

Speculation is speculation, of course, and McClatchy clearly subscribes to "truth in labeling" with the headline on this story, about who Barack Obama might choose as his vice president. But it's informed speculation -- it quotes both party officials and outside experts. Four of the eight people on McClatchy's have resumes that feature national security or foreign policy experience. They are Senator Joe Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman (whose potential I already discussed here); retired Army General and former NATO commander Wesley Clark; former Governor Bill Richardson; and Senator Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary. Each have pluses and minuses separate from their international or security credentials, and other factors may play into the selection; the list also includes four minorities.

Foreign policy doesn't figure as heavily into the speculation on the Republican side about who might run alongside John McCain. Of the 32 hypothetical candidates picked by CQ, fewer than 10 can be said to offer international credentials as one of their main selling points.

Some Democrats, such as these, may be feeling confident that they can win the argument over national security in the general election. But it's clear to others that they might want a little insurance.

American Expert Warns Germans: Beware Of Friend Across The Pond

There are American experts on foreign policy and the U.S. who are probably more familiar to Germans than to Americans. Marcia Pally might be one of them. She teaches at New York University, is a regular contributor to German newspapers (see the English versions here) and has just published a new book.

As far as I can discern, at the moment it is only available in German under the title "Warnung vor dem Freunde: Tradition und Zukunft amerikanischer Außenpolitik" which translates: "Beware of the friend: Tradition and future of American Foreign Policy". However, the translation offered on Pally's home page sounds quite different: "The Religion, Values, and Foreign Policy of the Country with the Biggest Guns".

Why the pun on "Beware of the dog" for the German book title? Well, according to a recent BBC poll, Germans overwhelmingly have a negative view of U.S. influence in the world. The publishers surely are aware of this perception and hope to capitalize on it. They are probably right.

Bittergate Reloaded: Clinton’s Remark About White Americans

Hillary Clinton's campaign is over. At least that was the verdict of international and U.S. media right after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on Tuesday. Of course the media is not always right. So it is perfectly fine that Senator Clinton vowed to press on with her campaign.

However, the way she has chosen to justify it smacks of bitterness to many commentators. In an interview with USA Today she cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"This won't go over well at all" writes Kyle E. More in Comments from Left Field: "In the end, this is not what any of us needs. It's not what Clinton needs as, even if she is holding hope of winning the nomination, she can hardly be helped by a racially charged gaffe. It's not what Obama needs, as I've outlined in my post linked above. We know there are regional struggles with white voters he has ahead of him, but he needs a comment like this like he needs a baseball bat to the head. And it's not what the party needs, not at a time when the focus should be on repairing unity and gearing up for the fight against McCain."

"How bad was Clinton's remark", asks Isaac Chotiner at The Plank. His answer is that she should be able to state her opinion. But, he adds, she is saying these things about the Democratic candidate and not in a vacuum. "And if she really cares about electing a Democrat in November, she probably should not be saying such things."

The Roland Report points out that in order to win the election the candidates need to build a broad coalition instead of focusing on narrow constituencies. With her remarks about hard-working white Americans Hillary Clinton alienated many in the Democratic Party. Unnecessarily so. It won't bring her any closer to the nomination. In fact it will only increase the pressure on her to quit the campaign. Until that happens, John McCain and the Republicans can relax and enjoy.

The Pivot To The General Election

Usually by now in the United States, the presidential campaign would have spawned a great number of articles like this one: "An in-tray full of foreign policy problems," reads the headline, and the author lays out any number of challenges ahead for the candidate who wins the race. That is: articles that spell out, issue by issue, the topics that the next president will have to address, what each candidate might do with those issues and who might help them do it.

The prolonged Democratic primary has prevented a good number of them -- it has been the focus of almost all of the reportorial energy out there. But I think they're about to start flowing after yesterday's setbacks for Hillary Clinton. Today came this one, about who might serve in a Barack Obama cabinet, as well as a John McCain cabinet, and, oh, by the way, just in case, a Clinton cabinet.

I expect to contribute my share of those kind of pieces at Congressional Quarterly, which I will link here when appropriate. This week, I wrote the cover story for CQ Weekly, about the dramatic reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community. I found that many experts, whether they were in favor of it or not, found it to be a disappointment. What progress has been made, they said, has not been so much because of the reorganization but because of the personalities in all of the top jobs now. Unfortunately, few experts are hopeful that the cooperation in place now would last into the next administration, when Obama, McCain, or, remotely, Clinton take office. It's going to take a concentrated effort -- or as one former Sept. 11 commissioner noted, leadership to go back to Congress and change the flaws in the 2004 law that created the reorganization -- to make more progress. U.S. intelligence obviously plays a major role in its foreign policy, from the Iraq War to the Syria/North Korea situation to all the rest.

(In a rare bit of convergence, it turns out that an entry that I did for a boxing blog has an dual U.S. presidential/international affairs angle -- former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is trying to help former heavyweight champ Vitali Klitschko become mayor of Kiev, Ukraine. You can read it here. It's not related to the topic of this blog entry, but if I'm going to cross-promote, I might as well REALLY cross-promote.)

Obama's Strong Showing Means Clinton Needs A Miracle

Now we know. Hillary Clinton lost decisively in North Carolina and barely won in Indiana. For the international media the case is clear. Clinton is out, Obama will be the nominee. Whether its Germany's Die Welt headlining "Hillary Clinton's ultimate defeat", Austria's Tirol Online leading with "Hillary Clinton's defeat is definite" or Britan's Daily Telegraph writing "Barack Obama tightens his grip as Hillary Clinton falters": Most commentators agree that the Democratic race is all but decided.

Up until the primaries Obama has been hammered by the press about his relationship with his controversial former pastor. The fact that he won North Carolina handily and lost Indiana by a slim margin shows political stamina and resilience. "Bittergate" and his dealings with Jeremiah Wright were the first serious threats for his candidacy. In the end, he came out pretty much unblemished.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand didn't profit from Obama's recent political troubles. One wonders how she would have fared without them.

Despite her poor showing, she vows to stay in the race. Why? A German paper wrote "Now Hillary needs a miracle". Perhaps that really is her only rationale for continuing with her campaign.

U.S. Presidential Campaign "News Of The Weird," African Edition

As of this writing, the votes in North Carolina and Indiana are still rolling in, so we won't find out for a day or two whether the aforementioned foreign policy differences between Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were influential to the outcome. The networks are calling North Carolina for Obama and Indiana for Clinton, and early exit polls, while notoriously unreliable, suggest the economy was central.

But worlds away in recent weeks, the race itself was having a huge impact.

In Nigeria, rebels were considering a ceasefire because of an appeal from Obama. The best part about this? Until after the news broke, Obama hadn't urged a ceasefire anytime recently.

Nigeria is not the only African country that seems to be paying very close attention to the Democratic primary. A couple weeks ago, this news surfaced: In Kenya, "Hillary" and "Barack" are now two of the most popular baby names. (Hat tip to Foreign Policy.)

What this all means, I won't even try to guess. But it's awfully interesting.

Foreign Policy Once Again Front And Center At A Crucial Moment In The Democratic Primary

Whether the general election this year turns on foreign policy issues, as it did in 2004, we cannot know now.

But in the Democratic primary, at least for now, foreign policy is once again taking on a prominent role at a key moment, in the waning days before Tuesday's votes in North Carolina and Indiana. It is an issue where voters can decide on policy differences, as opposed to more trivial matters. Consider this writer's viewpoint, rendered after watching separate television appearances by the candidates: "In a primary race where the differences between the two candidates are sometimes hard to discern, there were two vivid ones on display Sunday morning as Barack Obama did Meet the Press and Hillary Clinton did This Week in a town hall setting in Indiana. The first is temperamental... Second, their foreign policy perspectives are markedly different. From his point of view, threatening Iran is 'George Bush foreign policy.' From hers, it's making clear to our most menacing adversary that we mean business. Yes, they have merged views on Iraq (if you take them at their word), but the similarity ends there." [Commentary magazine, because it is thought of as a neoconservative publication, has a tint of ideology to its other characterizations of the candidates in the same blog entry.]

Those foreign policy differences have been prominently on display, with most headlines in the last couple days reading something like this one: "Clinton and Obama spar on gas tax and Iran policy." Iran is, by definition, a foreign policy story. The gas tax feud, because of the questions it raises about U.S. energy policy and its relation to overseas oil -- and because of less-covered components of Clinton's plan -- is also heavily a foreign policy story.

Russia: Energy Giant Under New Leadership Is Hardly A Campaign Topic

When foreign policy becomes a topic in the presidential campaign, candidates talk mainly about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and sometimes China. One country is strangely absent in the debates and in media coverage: Russia. As the world's largest gas exporter and second largest oil exporter the country plays a leading role in the energy market. With energy prices soaring and a new Russian president taking office one would think that the candidates policies toward Russia would be an important topic in this election.

They aren't. So far the candidates haven't really focused their attention on Russia, so it is no wonder that their stance toward it is defined largely by a few strong one- liners. John McCain famously quipped: "I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B", refering of course to President Bush's well known remark that he saw President Putin's soul. Hillary Clinton, refering to the same remark, proclaimed that Putin doesn't have a soul. Only Barack Obama so far hasn't come up with a memorable one-liner on the subject.

But beyond bashing Bush and Putin and brief comments on issues such as the missile defense shield and the expansion of NATO the candidates have not laid out a Russia strategy. So it was up to the Moscow Times to try and paint a broader picture of how the candidates view Russia. To do that the paper interviewed the Russia policy advisers for John McCain and Barack Obama. And yes, they have more to say than one-liners. You can find the article here. For a brief summary of the candidates positions toward Russia you may also want to go to the Council on Foreign Relations website.

McCain Foreign Policy Concepts That Europe May Undo

Republican presidential nominee has proposed two foreign policy ideas that are certainly bold, and, in the words of some, "radical." One of them is his League of Democracies, which I touched on here. Another is his plan to ejected Russia from the G-8.

Whatever the value of these two proposals -- both have more detractors than fans, it seems -- they are both marked by one thing: They appear to be impossible. They both rely on foreign cooperation that, in the current environment, at least, doesn't appear to be in abundance.

McClatchy's Washington bureau has examined the proposal to eject Russia from the G-8. The main problem, they found, is that the G-7 won't let him. "'In Europe, there's very little support . . . for a policy like that,' said Stephen Larrabee, an expert on Europe and Russia at the RAND think tank. 'It's too late in the game to try and oust Russia.'"

The lack of interest in Europe so far for a League of Democracies, too, makes the idea for that less feasible.

To their credit, the McCain foreign policy team recognizes the difficulty of the G-8 idea. "Randy Scheunemann, the foreign-policy director for McCain's campaign, acknowledged that 'there would be very vigorous discussion' within the G-8 of a proposal to exclude Russia. He said Russia was 'on a different political and economic trajectory' when it joined the group a decade ago, and he said it's unlikely that the same invitation would be extended today."

In some ways, the value of the Russia proposal may be separate from whether it's feasible. The goal may have more to do with putting pressure on Russia. But that's a separate question that will require more examination as the campaign goes on.

Core Question About Iran Remains Unanswered

There wasn't really anything new to be learned from Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's appearance on different Sunday talk shows on U.S. televison. From a foreign policy perspective the most interesting aspect was a virtual exchange about Clinton's recent comments that as President she would obliterate Iran if that country launched a nuclear attack against Israel. When asked about it Obama critized his opponent for using the language of George Bush and engaging in saber rattling. When confronted with Obama's statement Clinton defended her remarks.

Obama went on to say that his goal was to not let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. But that goal is not the issue. Everyone agrees that it's better to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place than to deal with the consequences later. The issue is how to achieve that goal.

Unfortunately, on that most important aspect Obama remained rather vague, mentioning three points. He said he wants to engage the international community. He stated that he wants to apply a carrots and stick approach. And he again called for direct talks with the Iranians.

The first and second points are not new. In fact, the international community has been engaged with Iran both through the IAEA, the group of the UN security council members and Germany and the EU. The sticks and carrots approach has been discussed for a long time as well and is actually making progress. The Europeans and especially the Germans have fulfilled their committment and increased the economic sanctions against Iran. (But China has to some extent stepped in and taken over the business the Europeans left behind.)

So the only point really worth discussing is the suggestion of direct talks. But again, the Europeans have held and are still open to direct talks with Iran. The question is: What do you talk about with Iran that has not been adressed within the other frameworks mentioned above? What could the U.S. offer through direct talks that could make Iran rethink its strategy? Would lifting the sanctions and restoring diplomatic relations be enough to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions?

Which brings us to the core question for the presidential candidates: What would you do if Iran has decided that it in fact wants to continue its nuclear program and when do we know that this is the case?

Whether Obama And Clinton Want European-Style Health Care

New York Times fact check of John McCain claims says, "No."

(And, according to FactCheck.org, McCain's complaint about Democrat groups saying he's in favor of a 100-year war in Iraq -- mentioned in the Times piece -- is valid.)