alex gallafent

A short distance from the principal convention events, the National Democratic Institute is holding a series of discussions focussed on what an Obama presidency might do in terms of foreign policy.

The one going on right now features some of the main players in Senator Obama’s foreign policy team, notably Susan Rice.

The thing that strikes me immediately is how careful each of the speakers is to couch their thoughts in the framework of what Obama himself believes. The talk is of ‘Senator Obama’s vision’ and of ‘what Senator Obama thinks’. That makes sense: this week is focussed on transforming the image of Obama from idealist foreign policy juvenile into wise global leader. So while the stage is filled with some of the most experienced foreign policy specialists in the Democratic Party, they’re intent on making it sound like their opinions flow from the direction set by the candidate. That’s probably true, but there’s a unmistakeable intent to make that absolutely clear.

The other thing that’s kind of fun is that in three directions I see people fast asleep. Maybe that’s because the q & a is yet to begin. So far the discussion has been about the broad brushstrokes of Obama’s foreign policy. Engagement & diplomacy. The measured use of force or threat of force.

A few moments ago, one speaker referred to the perceived lack of detail in Obama’s speeches on these issues and rebutted. But if the detail is there, the problem is that not everyone is hearing it, in the room or in the electorate.