It took me a while to find it, but I eventually found the non-obvious link to Obama's speech in Berlin. Sometimes a speech is a speech and it should be linked as a 'speech'. The main reason for interest in this is that it outlines Obama's most likely approach to foreign policy.

The first part of the speech discusses the common causes of humanity, seeking freedom over tyranny through the action of both the few and the many. He uses the analogy of Berlin, isolated by communism, as an outpost of liberalism sustained by both local action, and national action - such as the airlift and NATO - to ensure that freedom was maintained.

The second part of the speech contains global issues that are bigger than any one nation to tackle. He uses the analogy of Berlin and humanity's common cause in freedom to thread to shared concerns by individuals, communities and nations at a global level. However he celebrates diversity in that cause:

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden.

In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

Obama's approach to foreign policy is international liberalism. It is predicated on the freedom of human action, global markets, and the open communication between individuals, communities and nations. The policies stem from the common causes of humanity and shared interests; rather than real politick of 19thC European power politics or the Cold War detente.

International Liberalism and its strands, such as Wilsonianism carries an element of idealism in it, but so does American politics courtesy of its innovative constitution and the imprint that leaves on the American people and politicians. Obama's conclusion in his speech is consistent with American aspirationalism:

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world.

Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares.

What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Neoconservatism was always too small and myopic for America. Its insular nationalism and fear of international institutions left it isolated. A paradox as America is quite an international and global culture - and despite President Bush's constant rhetoric about freedom in his intervention into Iraq it always stunk of real politick and the Carter doctrine.

Obama's foriegn policy speech is big enough for the American dream of a better world, but implementation counts too. Woodrow Wilson was unable to establish his view of international liberalism either at home or abroad. In the same way the Doc Evatt's efforts at international liberalism fell afoul of the bipolar detente policies of the Cold War.

I have no doubt Barack Obama will be the next US President. The US Republican Party is literally broken as a brand and repugnant democratically through the bad governance of the Bush, Hastert and Delay years. I prefer the policies of international liberalism to the intrusive and nationalistic nature of neo-conservatism. I wish Obama luck in achieving the ideals expressed in his Berlin speech.

The two US Presidential candidates are established and both have announced their Vice Presidential [VP] co-runners. Where once the VP was whoever came second in the electoral college, now it is an essential political positioning for any candidate. Obama used Joe Biden to plug any holes he had in his foreign policy legitimacy, while McCain chose a left of field candidate which no-one is really sure why.

Portrait of a Candidate from Time

Obama is leading in the polls and electoral college currently but much is up in the air. He is a more natural politician than McCain and a better rhetorician. Additionally his campaign has been more disciplined which in the day and age of gotcha journalism allows for fewer off-message sound bites to escape.

McCain is not the same man that ran in 2000. He lived to his maverick self but was beaten by the electoral sensitivities of Bush and Rove; who are very skilled at getting elected but absolutely woeful at governance.

The McCain campaign of 2008, once becoming the front-runner, is now preaching to the evangelical base and espousing a Jacksonian foreign policy populism.

I personally think there will be another electoral blood-letting in 2008 the same as their was in 2006 with Republicans in the house and senate toppling like dominoes. I expect Obama will win in an electoral-college landslide as well even though the polls don't point to it yet.

The counter-weight is that identity politics still count. Palin is being touted as 'one of us' by evangelical conservatives who weigh in more on character identity than resumes, competency or merit. It may be that identity to McCain's evangelical message, populist foreign policy, republican party identity and maybe even latent or passive racism against a black president will get McCain across the line.

I don't see it though. I expect the Republicans to lose the Senate as well and Obama to walk in as President. The Bush Administration; through bad governance, political abuse and sheer incompetence; has, in my opinion completely broken the republican brand for at least ten years.

We shall see.

From Obama's press conference:

The news coming out of the auto industry this week reminds us of the hardship it faces, hardship that goes far beyond individual auto companies to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a vibrant American auto industry.

The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I don't know why the auto-industry gets so much in the way of subsidies. Manufacturing is a declining sector. In the US manufacturing jobs made up 25% of the labor workforce, now, it is under 10%. To add to that, a good chunk of a manufacturing firm's labor is service industry and information workers.

There are political issues. Auto firms tend to be heavily capitalized, and as a consequence, huge in economic size with well organized lobbyists. There is also a nationalistic style of idealism, in much the same way there is with Naval production. Possibly the "what is good for GM is good for America" line of thinking. But that doesn't really explain the Australian subsidies for Ford and Mitsubishi.

It looks like the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress will continue to allow the American auto-industry to get fat at the trough of public money.

Streaming video across the internet couldn't meet viewer demand during the inaugration of Barack Obama. Apparently Akamai had 5.4 million viewers a minute during the peak. Techcrunch notes:

When it comes to big live events with millions of people watching at the same time, traditional TV broadcasters have nothing to worry about. Right now, the Internet breaks at about one million simultaneous streams. That is nothing when it comes to the audience size for historic events, or even a big football game. The Internet simply does not shine when it is used as a broadcast medium.

Then again, the across the air bandwidth the TV broadcasters (or cable) are given monopolies on are massive amounts od data throughput. And the internet is exceptionally new as a mass media, only becoming popular in the mainstream in the 90s, fighting a medium which has sixty years to build itself out.

Another issue is that only recently internet servers have commodified to the cost of production; which high-end server makers like Sun are discovering, so it is getting cheaper and cheaper to have large numbers of servers.

But currently the internet is more popular for historic events than its infrastructure can provide.

Obama's entire speech in Cairo. It is well written, probably well orated as well, and deeply rooted in human rights and dignity as the center of all policy making and solutions. A couple of excerpts:

It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

and on democracy:

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

Each time an issue is expounded upon in the speech it comes back to the freedom inherent in political rights and the dignity of self-expression and self-determination. The latter becoming truths in their own right. Quite impressive.

I think one of Obamas strengths is that he doesn't treat constituents like idiots or children, or even stupified consumers of media. He doesn't 'catapult the propaganda' so it sinks in either. He is prepared to speak on tough issues, triangulate the best mechanisms through discussing the issue from multiple points of view but with the grounding of political rights, human dignity and self-determination.

American politics can be absolutely bizarre at times. I have no idea why Obama is being berated because he represented his country's interests at the IOC in Chicago's bid to host the Olympics. No matter what the politics of a nation's statesman, I expect that they will represent their country's interests in sports and the olympics. I see it as perfectly consistent that Rudd, Howard, Keating, Hawke etc would all do it. I don't see why disagreeing with someone's politics makes the national interest change in the area of olympic bids.

Sullivan wrote that it was 'political tone deafness' for Obama to go to Copenhagen and put his weight behind Chicago's Olympic bid. Again I cannot understand that. Obama is American, Obama is a Chicagoan - so why wouldn't he want to see the Olympics in America and Chicago. It is national statesmanship 101.

There was actual glee when Chicago got it from members of the media as it was seen as a failure on Obama's part. The new attacks of narcissism over the speech are just stupid. Apparently American politics have always been like this, and hyper-partisanship of this type completely natural but to not want to see America get the Olympics so that Obama has another failure on his belt is just surreal.