Barack Obama will be John Kerry’s hand-picked keynote speaker during this week’s Democratic National Convention. Who is Barack Obama? Well, he’s running for U.S. Senate from Illinois, he’s gotten a lot of money from folks who do business with George Soros, and – according to James Taranto – he’s toned down a lot of his radical rhetoric over the past couple of years.

But when he speaks to the convention, what can America expect to hear? Well, here’s a look at a speech he gave in Chicago last month, which might give a glimpse:

As some of you may be aware, I have a particular stake in an intelligent foreign policy. My father was an economist from Kenya, my mother, an international development specialist from Kansas. I was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, before moving to the continental United States to attend college. In grade school, I was a Protestant child attending Catholic school in a majority Muslim country.

International pedigrees, in and of themselves, don’t mean a lot. Henry Kissenger had them. So did Madeleine Albright. Nobody would mistake their brands of foreign policy as similar. And, while we’re at it: Does anybody have a stake in an unintelligent foreign policy? Or is he playing a game of “our foreign policy is smarter than your foreign policy?”

My own life experience has taught me the interconnectedness of our world, the common threads that link disparate nations and cultures.

So I speak from the heart as well as the head when I tell you that our nation is served by being part of the world, and not apart from it.

It depends. Which part of the world? The part that allowed Saddam Hussein to fill mass graves with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, or the part that helped get rid of him? Obama makes no distinction.

American leadership has been a mighty force for human progress. The steady march of democracy and free enterprise across the globe speaks to the steadfastness of our leadership and the power of our ideals.

It also speaks to the utter incorrectness of those who believed the U.S. could co-exist with the U.S.S.R and communism forever – people including Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern and John Kerry.

Today, we face new and frightful challenges, especially the threat of terror.

Never has it been more important for America to lead wisely, to shrewdly project power and wield influence on behalf of liberty and security.

Unfortunately, I fear our once great influence is waning, a victim of misguided policies and impetuous actions. Never has the United States possessed so much power, and never has the United States had so little influence to lead.

Sadly, today, much of the world no longer listens to the United States.

Libya might not agree. Saudi Arabia, which has embarked on democratic reforms over the past year, might not agree, either. What about Great Britain? Italy? Poland? Australia? What might Africa say about American leadership in fighting AIDS? In Kenya – remember, his father was from Kenya – fifteen percent of the entire population is living with AIDS. Obama comes back to the AIDS issue later, with interesting results.

On September 12th, 2001, the banner headline in Le Monde read ‘We are all Americans.’

Just think about that – a French newspaper expressing such support less than three years ago. And think about how we have squandered that good will since then and what we could have done with it in building support of common goals.

Obama has adopted Kerry’s perspective on 9/11: that it’s only to be discussed in terms of how we’ve “squandered (the) good will” of the French in its aftermath. The pain and suffering of Americans is a secondary mention – if a mention at all.

In forming a “coalition of the willing” in Iraq that failed to include the most capable and sophisticated of our allies—France, Germany, Turkey, among others—the United States increased exponentially the risks and costs of the war.

He doesn’t discuss how the “risks and costs” would have “increased exponentially” by giving Saddam more time to hide weapons, strengthen the already-existing relationship with al Qaeda or provide the Iraqi military more time to plan for an invasion.

And, by the way, Obama fails to note his rationale for saying France, German and Turkey were more “capable and sophisticated” than Great Britain, an ally who joined the coalition.

The absence of international support not only weakened our credibility and moral authority; it also made the occupation more difficult and dangerous.

Obama believes that, without the French stamp of approval, U.S. action had weaker “credibility and moral authority.” He may forget that while negotiations continued at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, French President Jacques Chirac famously proclaimed that his country would never support any military action - at all - against Iraq. Period.

Even worse, we undermined moderate Muslim leaders who were receptive to American ideals and leadership. Terrorists have had a recruiting bonanza with the images of slain children and civilians, the pictures of torture and sexual humiliation at Abu Gharib prison, the image of an oil-rich Arab state under U.S. occupation.

Three days after Obama’s remarks, the president of Iraq’s Muslim-led government vowed to “annihilate” all terrorists in Iraq. So the pictures may be having an affect – just not the one that Obama suggested.

As we know from last week’s Senate report on U.S. intelligence failures, the very reasons we presented to the world for going to war in Iraq were also wrong.

Obama’s speech came out before the 9/11 report, which confirmed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. It ignores, though, evidence that Iraq had, indeed, sought out Uranium from Africa and that it continued its WMD and long-range missile efforts in spite of a ban on those activities under U.N. resolutions.

Importantly, Obama – like others who oppose the war – ignores the full set of reasons military action was launched. Here is what President Bush said during a news conference at the Azores summit before the war:

The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people.

The war was never a WMD-only activity. Back to Obama:

The credibility of the United States, its most important asset in wielding influence and leadership in the world, has been damaged for generations to come.

That’s a broad statement, and ignores unanimous U.N. Security Council adoption, on June 8, of a U.S.-backed resolution supporting Iraq’s new sovereignty.

There is a well-known story from the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis when Dean Acheson, who was serving as special envoy to brief French President deGaulle, offered to document the American case by presenting satellite photos of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. The normally contentious deGaulle shrugged and replied, “No, the word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

That kind of confidence in American leadership will be difficult to restore. So will the willingness of our partners to join us in attacking a host of other global problems.

But it wasn’t good enough to keep France from bolting NATO in 1966 so it could go off on its own, unilateral nuclear program. And it wasn’t good enough to give the Reagan Administration clearance to use French air space to retaliate against Libya for terrorist activity. French-U.S. relations had gone downhill under both Republican and Democratic administrations since that deGaulle quote, but, for some reason, Obama chooses to ignore that history.

The unilateralism of the Bush administration, in all aspects of American foreign policy, has added to the burden of restoring American prestige.

This Administration walked away from a host of efforts to promote international security, environmental protection, and human rights, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide.

Treaties or conventions don’t guarantee anything. None of the anti-pollution treaties has been signed onto by any number of big-pollution creating countries; none of the anti-weapon treaties was signed onto by rogue nations (including Saddam’s Iraq) or rogue organizations (like al Qaeda.) He doesn’t mention that.

In fact, any international obligation that requires compromise, that in any way restricts our ability to act unilaterally, has been rejected.

Obama finds this a problem when the U.S. is involved – even though it received unanimous approval for Resolution 1441 that authorized decisive action against Iraq. If he has a problem with Iraq ignoring its international obligations, he says nothing about it.

Some see this as conservative. In fact it is radical—the abandonment of 50 years of American principles practiced by Democratic and Republican presidents alike.

Is it any more of a departure than President Clinton’s decision to send troops to the Balkans without U.N. support or approval? Any more of a departure than LBJ’s escalation of military action in Vietnam?

I do not suggest that we cede any of our sovereign rights. Multilateralism is not an end in itself. We don’t pursue cooperation for the sake of cooperation alone. It is in our national interest to work with others to accomplish national goals.

As long as the French agree, or a Democrat is in the White House.

With American troops in more than 100 countries, it is in our national interest to observe the Geneva Convention so that we do not diminish the potential protection of our troops in those nations.

With the threat of terrorism on U.S. soil and abroad, it is in our national interest to work with others to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention so that we protect our citizens from terrorism.

Would a treaty stop an AQ Khan? Would it stop al Qaeda? How are Iran and North Korea doing with the Nuclear non-proliferation treaties?

With all that is at stake when we do not have stable nations and governments around the world, it is in our national interest to support democracy building.

But the top of the ticket doesn’t think it’s essential. Kerry, on Meet the Press, April 18:

I think that what is important is to have a pluralistic representation. It doesn't have to be, at least in the early days, the kind of democracy this administration has talked about, though that's our goal and we should remain there.

Back to Obama:

And, where the stakes are the highest—in the war on terror--we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.

Been there, done that. To wit: the U.S. arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Pakistan.

The globalization of the economy also means our self-interest is tied to cooperation and the ability to effectively negotiate conflict. It is in our national interest to work to ensure that economies do not collapse and infant democracies do not fail as we have seen failed states become breeding grounds for belligerents, even terrorists.

Some strong states have become “breeding grounds” as well, including Great Britain (Richard Reid the “Shoe Bomber”), Mohammed Atta (who picked up his fundamentalist credentials in Germany – remember Germany, that “sophisticated” state?), and even the U.S. (Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh, Timothy McVeigh.) With poor countries, the carrot is fine – but it’s worthless without the stick.

Robust and fair international commerce can increase living standards here and abroad, while buttressing new democratic institutions.

Finally, American leadership and international cooperation are critical to attacking systemic problems that span borders--whether it’s the growing threat of AIDS, nuclear proliferation or environmental degradation.

But just when the need for American influence and leadership is the greatest, the evidence of our new lack of influence is manifest.

Here, Obama is wearing blinders to the Bush Administration’s efforts on fighting AIDS in Africa. Even Bono called the effort “a bold, long-term vision” and “paradigm shift.”

The effort to rebuild Iraq has no new recruits among nations. NATO rejected our request for additional personnel and resources to secure free and fair elections in Afghanistan. And when the Bush administration rightly sought the collaboration of our allies to prevent the starvation and slaughter of innocents in the Darfur region of Sudan, we were largely ignored.

Two thoughts: First, this was exactly the same response the U.S. received when 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda while Bill Clinton was president. But Obama forgets about that. Second, this just points out a U.N. track record that shows indifference, paralysis or corruption when it comes to heading off or fighting world catastrophes. It’s almost painful to say – since it’s almost cliché – but Obama’s rhetoric gives nothing but ammo to conservatives who point out the failings of the “Blame America First” wing of American politics.

None of us, as a citizen or an elected official, should just curse the darkness. So, let me tell you where I’d try and light some candles.

To begin with, we must confront the immediate challenge involved in returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Although I loudly and vigorously opposed the war in Iraq, I understand that it was an American commitment, not a Republican one.

If he uses this line in his keynote, it ought to score especially big points with the “not in our name” wing of the party.

Now that we are there, all of us want to see the mission succeed. The stakes are enormous for the world and our own security.

If Iraq can find its way to a reasonable semblance of a modern, reformed and democratic state, it will reap benefits in the region for generations to come. If it disintegrates into chaos, it will plant the seeds of an even greater and more poisonous radicalism.

We must leave behind a government that has enough legitimacy and political support from all three factions—the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia - to survive on its own. The best path to that is through free and fair elections and a constitution that preserves minority rights. For these elections to take place next year, as scheduled, there must be sufficient security in the country and, therefore, we must maintain a strong military presence while encouraging the interim government to hold elections as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, we desperately need international assistance in Iraq in order to succeed.

Again, he ignores this resolution - approved unanimously, by the way – which provides a good measure of that assistance. But if he’s talking cash, he doesn’t specify how much, what percentage of total costs or what “compromises” would have to be made to get it.

This will not be easy, but it is possible. It will require us not only to persuade other countries that we share a common interest in preventing failure, but also to give them a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs. We should give them fair access to the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts.

He doesn’t define “fair.” Does “fair” mean providing billions of dollars in commerce to countries who would still – if they had their druthers – see Saddam still in power and commerce conducted solely under the province of the corrupt oil-for-food program?

Let them be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together again. In return, they must forgive Saddam's multi-billion dollar debts to their countries and help pay the reconstruction bill. We should also be giving other nations a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region. Restoring our influence, and our standing in the world, is thus a critical component of securing that cooperation.

So to restore its influence, the U.S. must give rewards and bonuses to countries that fought us? And, by the way, which nations? He doesn’t specify.

A second top global priority is the fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The United States must build and lead an international consensus for early preventive action—before the necessity of force—to secure existing weapons of mass destruction and collateral nuclear material.

Doesn’t Resolution 1441 fit into this category?

I believe there is no better dollar for dollar national security investment than the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for the Soviet Union. More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia still has nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more. At the current pace of spending - a $450 million funding level - it will take 13 years to secure all the potential bomb material from the old Soviet Republic. With increased funding and focus, we can do it in four.

It would be great to eliminate this threat immediately. Spending on Nunn-Lugar would be a big part. The Bush Administration’s first budget proposed $1 billion on Nunn-Lugar and related projects “the highest single-year request ever made for these projects.” Obama ignores this.

At the same time, in order to ensure that these efforts are of real value, we must strengthen global rules against proliferation. The existing Non-Proliferation Treaty allows countries to develop all the building blocks of a nuclear program and then withdraw from the treaty without penalty-- once they are ready to create enriched uranium or produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. International nuclear powers, like the United States, should help non-nuclear countries develop nuclear energy by providing them with uranium, while maintaining control of the fuel cycle so that spent nuclear material can be taken back and stored securely.

This plan was tried in North Korea. That country signed on to the deal, and then secretly pursued a nuclear weapon program anyway.

This must occur so that it cannot be used to build weapons. Automatic UN sanctions should apply to any nation seeking to escape these controls.

Why stop at sanctions? Why don’t we throw in a “strongly worded message” too?

And, when there are countries that have been proven to have the capability to build weapons of mass destruction, the United States must lead in the efforts to deflect them from that dangerous path.

We have seen this in Iran, which the Bush administration has correctly targeted as a dangerous cheater in the nuclear game. According to a report released by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency last month, Iran is continuing to assemble parts and materials needed for building nuclear weapons—in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory.

What better illustration is there of the importance of the United States to be able to lead and work with other nations than in Iran, where the United States can work together with Russia and European nations who supply the expertise and business connections there.

That’s assuming other countries aren’t supplying Iran with technology and materials.

A third issue crying for attention is North Korea. This Administration spent three and a half years refusing to negotiate directly with North Korea, in the name of a misguided sense of moral purity. The consequences of that delay are now evident. Because we refused to talk, experts believe North Korea may now be close to having six to eight nuclear weapons. Because we refused to talk, many more Koreans faced starvation by their own government. Because we refused to talk, China and South Korea are beginning to act on their own. That is not my conception of morality.

Here’s what Secretary of State Colin Powell said immediately after North Korea was caught cheating on its nuclear agreements: “We are going to be patient," Powell said on CBS's Face the Nation. "We are going to continue to apply pressure. We are going to consult with our friends and allies and we are going to hope that common sense will ultimately prevail. We are going to keep channels open in case that there are messages coming from North Korea. We want to communicate with North Korea and wait for an opening to solve this diplomatically."

Substitute “North Korea” with “Iraq” and Obama sounds like he endorses the policy. Perhaps his morality varies according to the address of the tyrant.

While it is important to have backing from the partners in the Six-Party talks, bilateral talks are a key to progress. The United States must insist on complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear capability, while facilitating a reform agenda that is broader than denuclearization. Only genuine negotiations will determine whether diplomacy can bring an end to Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions or whether economic pressure and possibly even more forceful measures will be necessary to convince Pyongyang that its nuclear weapons program poses an unacceptable risk.

If he’s talking about “negotiations” with North Korea, he doesn’t specify what he would give up in exchange for “verifiable” (whatever “verifiable” that means to the North Koreans) abandonment of its nuclear weapons program.

This brings us to a fourth challenge – our relationship with China. China’s role in the North Korean nuclear standoff illustrates its growing importance in both diplomatic and economic affairs. In the new China, we face both a threat and an opportunity.

The United States should be firm on issues that divide us—like Taiwan—while flexible on issues that could unite us. We should insist on labor standards and human rights, the opening of Chinese markets fully to American goods, and the fulfillment of legal contracts with American businesses—but without triggering a trade war that could prove disastrous.

China’s growth has been so explosive, it’s factories and people fueling such massive economic activity, that any downward spiral there would reverberate throughout the world. In the words of New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, “the world cannot tolerate any sort of prolonged instability in China. If the China bubble bursts, it will be the mother of all burst bubbles.”

Fortunately, the track record of the Bush Administration here is noteworthy. From 2001 through 2003, the value of U.S. exports to China more than doubled the amount during the last three years of the Clinton Administration. And this occurred at a time when the world economy was enduring a global recession caused greatly by the dot.com bust.

Fifth, American influence and leadership is critically required with respect to the AIDS epidemic.

This week’s alarming report by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV-AIDS showed epidemic levels of new AIDS cases in certain provinces of China and India—the world’s two most populous nations. Although overall national infection rates are now low, if new infections grow at rates even close to those we saw in Africa, the world would not only be faced with another humanitarian crisis. There would also be a tremendous destabilizing effect for the world economy, and in a fragile region of the world.

Without American leadership and influence, how can we prevent this mounting epidemic from continuing its steady, destabilizing and destructive movement around the globe?

The United States must give its fair share to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. President Bush’s budget this year actually cuts the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund by 64%. As Senator, I will work to hold the president to his word and fully fund our commitment to the war on AIDS.

Obama may actually want to start with Congress. The Bush Administration continues apace on its multi-year commitment to spend $15 billion fighting the AIDS epidemic globally, primarily in Africa. But the only cuts to his proposals have been made by Congress.

I also recognize that fighting the war on AIDS will take more than money. American drug companies also hold the key to combating the scourge of AIDS. Today, our government requires FDA approval of all generic drug cocktails purchased with US funds-- despite the fact that a generic drug approval system is already in place under the auspices of the World Health Organization.

The United States must take a leadership role in making generic drugs accessible to AIDS victims around the world. There is strong evidence that this is needed. A breakthrough reported last week by the New England Journal of Medicine shows that a new two-drug treatment for pregnant women with AIDS prevents transmittal of the virus to the newborn infants in 98 percent of cases. U.S. policies which ensure the provision of generic or affordable drugs to stop the spread of AIDS to infants, and sustain the lives of mothers to care for their healthy babies, are critical to turning the tide.

That, and abstinence.

By the way: Is this the same World Health Organization that did such a bang-up job making sure SARS wasn’t transmitted from China to everywhere else around the globe?

Sixth, America’s moral authority and credibility will be needed, now more than ever, in the quest for a Middle East peace.

Really? More than ten years ago, when Saddam began rewarding families of Palestinian homicide bombers?

Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy.

Iraq’s not an ally? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? He continues:

The Administration’s failure to be consistently involved in helping Israel achieve peace with the Palestinians has been both wrong for our friendship with Israel, as well as badly damaging to our standing in the Arab world.

I do not pretend to have all the answers to this vexing problem, and untangling the issues involved is an appropriate topic for a separate speech. What I can say is this – not only must we be consistent, but we will not succeed unless we have the cooperation of the European Union and the Arab States in pressing for reforms within the Palestinian community.

Whew. What a relief. Because when President Bush unveiled his Roadmap for Peace, he said, “The United States has developed this plan over the last several months in close cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations.”

Seventh, and closer to home, the United States has a powerful interest in sustaining democratic reforms in Latin America. We must restore the United States’ reputation as a defender of democracy in this region.

I wonder how this sentiment goes over with the top of the ticket. From a Boston Globe bio on Kerry:

Within weeks of taking office in 1985, he was off to Nicaragua, accompanied by reporters on a 36-hour, self-appointed fact-finding mission with another freshman, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Congressional Democrats had accused the White House of exaggerating the communist threat posed by the Sandinista regime. So the two senators were publicly castigated when -- just days after meeting with Daniel Ortega and other leaders of the regime -- the Sandinistas climbed aboard a plane to Moscow to cement their Soviet ties.

Looks like Kerry worked the ol’ charms there, convincing Ortega on the benefits of democracy.

The U.S. must continue to advocate, in word and action, multilateral action to support democracy. If the citizens of these countries do not see the economic benefits of democracy in their daily lives, their support for democratic governance can erode rapidly. That is when demagogues, like Hugo Chavez, will take advantage of those economic inequalities. We must work toward meaningful democracies, through fair labor standards and the bolstering of the rule of law, to bring about real economic justice.

And Obama took the first, bold step in this direction by opposing the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

And, in every region, we must remember that our armed forces cannot impose democracies. We must support those brave men and women fighting for democracy in their own countries – whether it is in China or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.

Too bad Obama wasn’t around when John Kerry was fighting aid to the Contras.

Expanded trade, technical assistance, aid for infrastructure development—all these things can help build and sustain the broad middle classes necessary to secure democracy.

Now, while America has historically led by the force of its ideas and ideals, as well as by force of arms, our fundamental obligation must still be to maintain the best, most sophisticated military in the world. Our military must be able to meet the new threats of the 21st Century.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have reduced the pace of military transformation and have revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. This Administration has overextended our military - as evidenced by the recent decision to recall 5,600 ready reservists to Iraq for 18 months. And, by grossly underestimating the costs of war, the Bush Administration has been stealing from tomorrow’s budget to pay for today’s war costs.

But remember, Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he …Oh, never mind.
One could argue, though, that Afghanistan highlighted exactly how quickly our military could transform itself – on the fly, while engaging an enemy. Remember Johnny Apple’s famous comparisons of Afghanistan to Vietnam? Remember the fear that the harsh, Afghanistan winters would claim untold lives of American GIs? Remember retired Gen. Barry McAffrey estimating that door-to-door combat in Baghdad could claim 3,000 American lives? Never happened, never happened and never happened.

We must make sure we have enough troops and that those soldiers are given the best equipment and training available.

The foundation of the All-Volunteer force is that they will serve with honor, bravery, and integrity and that, in return, we will ensure they will be treated with the honor and respect they deserve. Since 9/11, the U.S. has embarked on the largest call-up of members of the Guard and Reserves since World War II. Forty percent of those serving in Iraq are members of the Guard and Reserves.

We must ensure that members of our National Guard and our reservists have access to affordable, quality health care. While active duty members receive free health care through TRICARE – the military health care service – reservists only have access to it for a limited time surrounding their active duty service. That is not honoring our troops.

We must also ensure that our activated troops do not have to worry about having enough money to take care of themselves and their families, that they do not have to forfeit a good education when they are called to active duty, and that our military families receive the support they need.

He doesn’t say how he would do it, how much he would spend, and how quickly he would roll it out. He doesn’t talk about that $87 billion that Kerry voted against, that would have accomplished much of that.

Along with strengthening our military, we must strengthen our intelligence capabilities. In recent years, through international cooperation, our government has had some success in tracking the terrorists’ financial resources, arresting important terrorist leaders and, thus, making our people more secure. We should be thankful for that.

But, to succeed in the war on terror, we must have extraordinary international cooperation on all fronts, while reforming our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens. We must make sure that our intelligence sharing capabilities are improved across agencies and between federal and local law enforcement. We must provide the needed resources to our first responders to ensure their access to critical information at the critical times.

That’s like saying, “I favor peace and prosperity. Next topic.” No details. No examination of how this isn’t getting done under the Bush Administration.

And we must give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable. I recognize that this is not an easy political move – there will remain turf battles within the Executive Branch and Congress. Such reforms will require a determined effort by the President, the congressional leadership, and members of the Senate, and I will be supportive of such efforts.

Again, Obama should have been around in 1995, when Kerry’s CIA-cutting proposal flopped in the U.S. Senate and was sharply criticized by fellow Democrats like Sen. Dennis DConcini and Sen. Daniel Inouye.

Finally, our national security strategy must include a plan to free America from its dependence on foreign oil. In an increasingly more hostile and dangerous world, neither American security, nor our economic potential, can afford to be held hostage by those half a world away because our nation is too dependent on others for our energy. This requires concrete steps to move us toward energy independence including requiring that 20% of the nation’s power supply portfolio come from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy by 2020, and that a percentage of our nation’s fuel supply is provided by renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

Well, if Kerry loses the presidency, maybe Obama can ask him to bring the issue up if Kerry votes at the annual shareholder meetings of the Big Oil companies where his family owns a lot of stock.

If it’s possible, the closing paragraphs of Obama’s speech were even vaguer and lighter on detail than the rest so we’ll close it out here. So who is he?

He’s a man who we hear is well-spoken, sounds even more pro-France than even John Kerry, and would have been classified as a “right wing nut” to any Democrat from Massachusetts during the 1980s, as they fought a tough, Reagan-backed line on the Soviets and communism in Latin America.