With the economy, in particular oil prices, appearing to improve, and the so-called housing 'crisis' receding in our collective memories, foreign policy will likely re-assert itself as the primary issue concerning most Americans.  That's making Senator Obama, the Democratic nominee, nervous, as well it should since significant numbers of voters correctly understand that his depth of knowledge and experience in that realm is best measured in micrometers.

Since the potency of arguments can often lie in their context, Kaplan provides transparent, if unwitting, justification for mainstream voters to be skeptical about Obama by arguing that a visit from a sitting United States president just isn't what it used to be:

"A presidential visit is not the cherished commodity that it once was, because the United States is no longer the superpower that it used to be."

He builds this trendy house of cards on the wholly specious premise that the U.S. has failed in Afghanistan and Iraq and that after the fall of the Soviet Union the nations of the world "began to go their own way, pursue their own interests, build their own alliances...without giving much thought to Washington's feelings about the matter."  So, despite the fact that the U.S. produces 35 percent of the world's wealth, that the military budgets of any half a dozen nations doesn't equal ours, and that our economic global reach is both uncontested and redoubtable, Mr. Kaplan says the world effectively ignores us, that we're a back-bencher nation.

Consistent with his fellow liberals, Kaplan habitually apologizes for the Bush Administration's years of defending American values, of asserting that he won't put our interests behind any other nation's, and that although we welcome allies, if necessary, we'll protect our interests and those of our allies alone--not much different from Bill Clinton, who unilaterally launched a military campaign in Bosnia without United Nations approval.  If you don't recall Kaplan becoming apoplectic over that it's because he and his leftist brethren sat quietly on the sidelines.

Kaplan finishes his agonizingly misinformed editorial with an equally obtuse assertion:

"Either way, not only was Obama's remark not naive; it reflected a more instinctive understanding of the post-Cold War world than either of his opponents seem to possess."

We're left to ponder in what way pledging to sit down with Ahmadinejad--who just yesterday said that Israel is slated for destruction--reflects an "instinctive understanding of the post-Cold War world." 

The post-Cold War world Kaplan refers to is, most conspicuously, one in which asymmetrical warfare has emerged as the greatest threat, one that apparently escapes the exquisitely refined sensibilities of the modern liberal.  The left's view of the world is predicated on a moral equality of all nations, myopically lumping totalitarian states in with America. 

It's not only antithetical to the American exceptionalism that came to the world's aid in two world wars, it belies the reality that, in light of the scourge of radical Islam, America is truly the world's last best hope.

The clarity that was supposed to inform the end of the Democratic nominaton for president was nowhere in sight last evening.  Senator Obama, long the presumptive nominee, gave his supporters a strong speech, but the shadow of Senator Clinton cast a quiet but unmistakable pall over what should have been a moment of unequivocal celebration.

Although Obama has certainly 'made history,' it's ironic that it stands in contrast to the dream of Martin Luther King, which was that we would judge people based on character, not skin color.  Compounding the irony was Rep. James Klybourn, the most senior African-American member of Congress, who said that Dr. King would approve of Obama and his church afiliation.  Really?  Run the tape of Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger in your mind and then juxtapose it with King's speeches, which had the intuitive ring of truth.

However, back to the specter of the looming presence of the Clintons.  Overshadowing Obama's unprecedented achievement was Clinton who offered her services as VP, a prototypical power play by the ones who wrote the book.  Word has it that she plans to force her way onto the ticket, making the argument that if voters truly want Obama to win in November, she's the best choice.

It's been observed that an expansive ego is a pre-requisite for national politics, and if that's the case, Hillary must think she's Rushmore material.  The problem is that the more outsized the ego the more blinkered its judgment, and with Bill in the wings, incandescent over the scathing article in Vanity Fair, the prospect of bringing her onto the ticket must make Obama ill. 

A more substantive alternative, sans the political baggage, is former Sen. Sam Nunn, whose broad and deep foreign policy experience brings desperately needed gravitas to the ticket.  Former Sen. George Mitchell has also been mentioned, but he's stronger in diplomacy, a suit where Obama excels, to a fault.

But before the nation is fully lulled into an Obama-swoon, we hope voters will more closely examine who this man is, and where he might take America should he win.  An editorial by Michael Powell in today's New York Times, provides a curious kind of insight:

“I am like a Rorschach test,” he [Obama] said in an interview with The New York Times. “Even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something.”

What it is, might elude the average person, because imputting values into a politician can be both unproductive and dangerous.  Most voters want more definition, less pop psychology.  Indeed, it's disturbing that a candidate for president would say such a thing because it suggests he's something of an empty suit--whatever you want me to be I'll be.  How's that for moxie?

And, in the same piece:

"But his insistence that he can bridge the nation’s ideological chasms without resort to partisan warfare leaves some with the nagging sense that he makes it sound too easy, and that his full measure as a politician has yet to be taken."

Well, yes.  It's certainly an undestatement that we've not yet taken his "full measure," but with timely assistance from his wife Michelle, we are learning quite a bit.  Listening to clips of her on Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday illustrated how she might well be the equivalent of Clinton's Bill, the kind of irrepressible personality that is at once powerful asset and a permanent liability.

Mr. Obama seems to be all things modern, fitting into a cultural definition that's both hip and articulate; Powell tells us:

"He favors moderate tastes, preferring organic tea to a tumbler of gin, salmon to steak, a fruit plate to fries. He jokes about tossing back a beer, but his tippling amounts to a swig or two, most often to try to prove to television cameras that he is a 'regular guy.'"

Frankly, this kind of stuff is difficult to tolerate.  The picture of a Tribeca kind of guy who gets his Omega-3s and is the picture of restraint from the excesses that typify politicians, is one where posturing equals substance, which is to say a kind of cardboard personality.  It's the kind of image that makes you yearn for the authenticity of a Jack Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan, whose bright personalities shone guilelessly through their politics.

We may never get that far with Obama because that Rorschach test may be the end of the road for this guy.  Indeed, his platform echoes the threadbare ideas of yesteryear's liberals--more government, more regulation, deft, adroit foreign policy--yawn.  Time will tell, and although Sen. McCain is not failing to live up to his annoying reputation as a maverick, there's a real sense of substance in his thinking, not the intellectual tap-dancing Obama seems to favor.