Well said. But as you’ve heard me say before, I think Ron Silver’s speach at the last Republican Convention is very much still valid. There is only “one” thing (ok it’s a small set of things) that really matter. And I for one am yearning for an American Leader who “gets it” but is more adept at handling it than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (W gets it all right, but is inept at dealing with it).

Whether Americans like it or not, “the West” is an American Empire. When will Americans wake up to the responsibility of Empire. When the U.S.S.R potentially threatened us with annihilation, we did ok. But since Ronald Reagan effectively put the Cold War into history, we have sort of wished we “didn’t have to” lead the world. Alas it doesn’t work that way. And we now have an ascendant Chinese, Indian and Arabian Empires, as well as a few lesser tyrants such as Venezuela. Some of these will ally with us (India?) Some will compete with us commercially first, but ultimately militarily if they have to (China?) and some want to take us on right now… so now what? Lead already!!! and stop kvetsching.

Do I ish for a better choice than Obama/McCain? Absolutely. But given this choice, I know McCain is more apt to assume the mantle of leadership appropriately. If Obama backed his eloquence with substance, I’d be his biggest supporter. He had a GOLDEN opportunity to do so this past week, but all he offered was the same pablum. And it IS beginning to sound stale. I more readily cry watching Bambi now than listening to his rhetoric. That was NOT true when HE spoke at the Democratic Convention last.

Is McCain gonna do what he thinks he has to do in order to win the election? you betcha. Do I wish neither side should have to play politics to win the election? you betcha. But out in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. that crap works. But I have heard McCain speak and he “gets it” in terms of what is really important, and he knows that just giving a rousing speach isn’t going to solve the problem. He spells out solutions.

Oh, and lastly, yes he WAS right on the surge and he remains right that Iraq is going to need more help and support for longer than next year despite what Maliki says. Will you give him credit for being right? After all, by being right he helped ensure that we probably won’t need to be there 100 years from now.

And regarding Brooks’s comment about optimism without reality being Disney, first I would dispute that you can characterize what Obama said yesterday as optimism without reality. But even if I were to accept that characterization, I would take it over McCain’s vision, which is pessimism without reality. And that isn’t leadership — it’s a depressed Emo kid.

If Undiplomatic is to live up to your intentions, which I know you are capable of, you need to shed the starry eyed, teenage angst ridden, unadulterated adoration of “Obama Boy” sycophancy. I hope you got a chance to read Brooks’ Op Ed in the NYT today for a much more balanced view of the speech.

The selfsame adoring European populace who see in Obama the Commander-in-Chief who “thinks like us” have long forgotten the debt all of Europe owes to unadulterated, strongly militeristic as well as socio-economic, political and cultural leadership that America has provided the world over the past century through two world wars and beyond. Under the military intervention and subsequent protection of American taxpayers, Europe has transformed itself from a perrenial state of war, to perhaps the most peaceful real estate outside of the 50 States. Sure they can be all pacifist and righteous today, but could they have been had America not provided its leadership - which in Korea and Vietnam was not necessarily all that beautiful. And in the midst of the Marshall Plan, it looked very bleak indeed!

With leadership and power comes responsibility - to keep the peace. To achieve peace, and/or to keep it requires one of two conditions to be met: either total defeat of one’s enemies, or (these are mutually exclusive) engagement with a foe who agrees to play by a mutually agreed set of rules ad principles (witness the Cold War). European citizenry tolerated a virtual constant state of war up to the 1900’s because the rules were well understood and adhered to. These were relatively “gentlemenly” fought contests. The horror and scaleability of the brutalities of both World Wars, shocked that same populace, finally, into seeking a better way. But they couldn’t have done it without American intervention and protection.

Unfortunately, we don’t get to choose our foes - and they do get to choose whether to live by the rules or not. We live in a world where the current threats to peace come from those who openly reject our value system. The question is will the next Commander-in-Chief recognize that when your enemy choses to ignore the rules, his defeat is the only opton left? And I am not saying that this inevitably means a hot war! I can all too easily criticize the current administration for its simplistic approach. Yes Virginia, the Machine of State needs to propel itself with more than two gears (full frontal attack, and retreat). But a useful lesson can be gleaned from the Roman Empire - which lasted for a lot longer than many modern ones: all a Roman Citizen had to do was declare himself as such and he was guaranteed good treatment in the known world. The price of violating him was simply too high, and the benefits and prosperity that accompanied acquiesence were too enticing. As such, for me the declaration isn’t about whether “Ich bin ein Berliner” or “Heute sind wir alle Amerikaner.” The question is does “Civis Americanus Sum” means something or not? And is the American Leadership willing to enforce that? For Barak to show, ex ante (which he must to be elected) that he can stand up to that test he needs to offer us much more than vision and hope. As Brooks concludes “…optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s Disney.”

And it is also very likely that the election is more or less over; between Malaki’s statement and Bush’s shift on troops in Iraq (helping to deprive McCain of his one key issue) and McCain’s looking older and older and older…..

But…..will the “average American” who looks at the “commander in chief” issue as important and who has had doubts about Obama be reassured by this speech about his competence (if, indeed, these people either saw or will hear about the speech)? Or will they wonder why a candidate for president is giving a speech abroad to a “foreign” audience instead of focusing his attention here at home? We have so many times seen a kind of nativist grumbling about the injection of “foreign” elements into our politics…We do not yet know…but may know in the next few weeks..about whether this inspiration to Americans of a US president speaking for America abroad can also apply to a candidate speaking abroad….

Junius