If Edwards becomes President it is vital for the EU to engage him immediately and constructively on trade issues, otherwise a confrontation will be nigh-inevitable.

As for the national governments, I am not so sure.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

Neo-liberal is inadequate.

Secondly, your article will not be well received at dkos. No one (a bit of exaggeration) in the US can project international consequences of the presidential election. No one (more hyperbole) on the www is even concerned about Congressional gambits in the '08 election cycle. Perhaps they are waiting until V-E Day, coinciding with canvassing season, to advance an analysis of the president-elect's political capital, so to speak?

I'm glad your cross-posted/ I didn't recommend it, given the commentary thus far. Doing so is an empty gesture.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

In her book, she called the Cyrus Vance-Lord David Owen plan for Bosnia a "giveaway" to the Serbs, and also she said "it bought them time," even though the Serbs agreed to it as a peace plan.

Now, the Dayton Plan has its flaws, and we may yet see it unravel if the Bosnian Serbian Republic ever manages to secede, but it was the best peace plan that was in place, and Milosevic the horse trader got what he wanted when he traded the Krajina for the Bosnian Serb Republic.

I'm imagining that, since Dayton was so close to Vance-Owen in terms of actual territory, that Power was none too happy with Dayton either.

This means that she may be a maximalist when it comes to foreign intervention. If you're going to scuttle a peace plan like Vance-Owen, then a humanitarian such as Power is not going to stand by and watch 100,000 be slaughtered. That would be hypocritical and ironic. This would mean that she would have favored foot soldiers on the ground in Bosnia combating Serbian militias and paramilitary.

That's an important distinction to make about Obama's foreign policy team.

There are two radically different games being played here

1. Do/say whatever it takes to get elected

2. Think about what you really want to do when you get elected and appoint your governing (as opposed to your campaign) team appropriately at that point.

For Obama it was easier.  Hillary was the front runner running a typically centrist campaign to try and overcome her partisan image and pull in some independents.  Position yourself slightly but distinctly to the left of her.  Opposing Iraq was a no brainer if you weren't so obsessed with not being trumped by GOP on national security. First focus on wresting the Dem nomination from the heir presumptive Hillary.  Otherwise she had it sown up anyway.

For Edwards the focus was perhaps more on trade and corporatism at the expense of workers.  Position yourself slightly to the left of the heir presumptive Clinton on social and economic issues.

In trying to secure her right flank Clinton left herself too exposed on her left flank on both foreign and domestic policy.

2)  So what would they all actually do if elected?  To an extent they have to at least appear to genuflect to their base which got them into power.  So the initial mood music and image management would certainly be different.  But very soon the actual election and how it was fought and won is forgotten.  Events dictate what happens next and for all I know Clinton could be more radical and decisive than the other two.  She certainly has waited a long time for her chance and for her there will be no next time.  I don't have a clue what Obama would do except that is focus might be more Asia than Europe.  Edwards might be more focused on domestic rather than foreign policy issues -provided events did conspire to force him to focus on trade and geopolitical issues more.

But its all guesswork.  You need to have the inside dope on what these guys discuss in private when they are not talking electoral politics.  It really has vry little to do with actually being President.

Index of Frank's Diaries

Sounds or seems to me a shade of Bush there...

• The current military establishment is exhausted and broke. A HUGE "investment" in armaments will be required if the U.S. is to maintain its ability to "lead" by military means. For example, most our F-15 air superiority fighters are all grounded because of structural failure, and the army is literally worn out--both in equipment terms and human terms.
  
• Energy crisis. The recent energy bill was a whitewash, and everybody in Washington knows it. Car fuel is one thing, but with heating bills exceeding $1000 per month in the Northeast, the problem is going to have to be solved.
  
• Global warming. While Bush and Cheney might not be willing to confront this problem, the next president will have to--given that his or her potential second term will overlap the start of the big and obviously undeniable environmental effects.
  
• Health care and social security. The baby boomers are just now starting to retire, and when they look at their first social security check and realize that they can't make their house, car, and medical payments, they will start to ask questions that have been ignored for 50 years.

The next decade is going to be interesting, that's for sure. I expect a Democrat to win, but it's really difficult to predict what they might do when confronted with so many big problems at the same time.

as for exceptionalism, i thought it was an american affliction until i heard chirac's farewell; apparently there is a fully developped french version.

in any case, i love the site, and think you all should spend a year in some midwestern american town, which is where i live. it is a vastly different place than the america you imagine.