I just want to highlight the fact that Obama said this last night:

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

The desire to truly repeat Kennedy's call to reach the Moon within a decade has long been a dream of politicians, actual and fictional.

The end goal, in this case, is undeniably admirable (and politically savvy). It is somewhat broader than Gore's call for clean electricity within the decade and more clearly beneficial to our economy and foreign policy than Bush's call to reach Mars. As Obama says, it is securely at the nexus of economic, foreign policy, and environmental concerns. (I would also add humanitarian.) I'm sure I don't need to rehash to this audience why such an action helps us reach major goals in each of these areas.

Only time will tell whether Obama will be able to do so. It is a major challenge. As Governor Schweitzer so entertainingly laid out on Tuesday, we currently consume 25 percent of the world's oil output and only 3 percent of the reserves.

His strategy?

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

The $150 billion is a good start. Hopefully, in the near future, we'll see more details.

I'll leave deeper analysis of the speech to those more partisan, but, as a piece of rhetoric, it was one of the most complete convention performances I've seen. It's worth a watch regardless of your politics (or nationality).

The foreign policy section begins about 28:55 in (ful text of this section after the jump). He makes the big call for energy independence in 10 years (which echoes Al Gore's call for clean power in a decade) and talks about finding Bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, international terrorism, Afghanistan, Russia, and Georgia.

He didn't delved deep into specifics here, but, near the end, we see what I hope will be the glue that holds together his foreign policy agenda:

But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease.

Let's hope we hear something similar out of Senator McCain next week.

Full text of the foreign policy section:

And just as we keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

The Convention marches on...

• Colorado is the key: Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe says internal polling shows that Swing voters favor Obama, and that, if Obama wins Colorado, McCain has a "5% chance of winning the election."
  
  
• Don't Go it Alone: New polling from the Better World Campaign shows that 66% of the public supports the U.S. "doing its fair share in the world."
  
  
• Already thinking about 2012? The RNC has changed their primary calendar to allow at least one month of campaigning between the first round of states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) and the rest.
  
  
• Richard Haass: this is a sobering moment for international relations. The next president will face one of the most difficult tests of the past 200+ years.
  
  
• Great political theater: Hillary has her name put on the Convention ballot...and then she yields New York's delegates to Obama to put him over the top.
  
  
• From the Pepsi Center:
  • Bill backs Barack.
    
  • Floor so croweded people are fainting left and right.
  • John Kerry's best speech ever? Too bad the networks didn't cover it.
  • Mama Biden steals the show.
    
  • Obama makes a surprise appearance and declares that "Hillary rocked the house last night."
    

Starring Bill Clinton and John Kerry

I would think that these two went a long way last night toward erasing any bad taste left in the mouths of Democrats after their recent campaign performances. Both speeches were rhetorically masterful.

More importantly, they sold the foreign policy responsibilities of the next president.

Clinton, who is gearing up for CGI (we'll be live-blogging), left these highlights:

Our position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation; a perilous dependence on imported oil; a refusal to lead on global warming; a growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders; a severely burdened military; a backsliding on global non-proliferation and arms control agreements; and a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.

Clearly, the job of the next president is to rebuild the American dream and restore America's standing in the world.

...

He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries. He will rebuild our frayed alliances and revitalize the international institutions which help to share the costs of the world's problems and to leverage our power and influence. He will put us back in the forefront of the world's fight to reduce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to stop global warming. He will continue and enhance our nation's global leadership in an area in which I am deeply involved, the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, including a renewal of the battle against HIV/AIDS here at home. He will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort. But in a world troubled by terror; by trafficking in weapons, drugs and people; by human rights abuses; by other threats to our security, our interests and our values, when he cannot convert adversaries into partners, he will stand up to them.

...

Barack Obama also will not allow the world's problems to obscure its opportunities. Everywhere, in rich and poor countries alike, hardworking people need good jobs; secure, affordable healthcare, food and energy; quality education for their children; and economically beneficial ways to fight global warming. These challenges cry out for American ideas and American innovation. When Barack Obama unleashes them, America will save lives, win new allies, open new markets and create new jobs for our people.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

That was the question--with respect to the global problems we currently face--that Tom Brokaw posed to the spectacular panel at "Enhancing the U.S.'s Role in the World," sponsored by the National Democratic Institute, the Rocky Mountain Institute, and the Better World Campaign. Some of the participants biggest nightmares?

• Richard Holbrooke: Indonesia's assertion of viral sovereignty. Though the dangers of Indonesia's embrace of such a concept are scary enough, the Non-Aligned Movement is looking to take up the issue later this year. The consequences of other nations following suit could be disastrous should a global pandemic breakout within their borders.
  
  
• Jessica Matthews: Our worsening climate. I don't think this country is anywhere near confronting its energy use. The choice being presented is one of oil vs. renewables. That's not the choice. We must confront demand, and energy use, and we are frighteningly close to serious consequences with our climate already.
  
  
• Vin Weber: That Israel might strike Iran. There is no such thing as a quick and precise air war against Iran. Any action against Iran would lead to a protracted war. Whether the United States would be supportive of Israel in this action, Iran has the capability to reach U.S. soil with its missiles.
  
  
• Richard Haass: We've all been asked the question--what's the most important thing to do?--but the issues that are going to bite us are all ones that are going to take some time to work out. There are a stunning number of problems of significant scale and complexity, for which we are not prepared economically or militarily, and for which we don't have the international credibility to take on alone. This is a sobering moment in International Relations. The next president will face one of the most trying moments of the past 200 years-plus.
  
  

Here's the powerpoint of the aforementioned UN Foundation poll on public concern about international issues.

Yes, Hillary's was well done too, but I'm talking about Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. That guy knows how to work a crowd.

It's worth the watch if for only that reason, but he also delivered what has, to this point, been the Convention's most robust prime-time argument for a new direction in energy policy.

"America consumes 25 percent of the oil, but has less than 3 percent of the reserves. You don't need a $2 calculator to figure that one out. There just isn't enough oil in America -- on land or offshore -- to meet America's full energy needs. Barack Obama understands that the most important barrel of oil is the one you don't use."

Kudos to Schweitzer for clearly recognizing the importance of efficiency and energy independence.

His support for "clean coal" is misguided, but, all in all, Schweitzer delivered a message that must be heard in prime time.

Free video streaming by Ustream

Can the Next President Make the Middle East Irrelevant? Starting NOW and running to 2pm, John Kerry, Greg Craig, Joschka Fischer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Mel Levine, Walter Isaacson, Steve Coll, Rob Malley, Daniel Levy, James Zogby, and Janice O'Connell discuss at a Washington-Note-hosted DNC forum.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

The last year in which the public trusted the Democratic party more than the Repulican Party on the issue of national security was 1967.

Although we're mired in both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even though only 21% of the American public believes that we're winning the War on Terrorism, national security remains the Democrats', and Obama's, Achilles heel.

Witness the following from a Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosener Research poll from earlier this year:

* 45% of independent voters rated Senator Obama as "not tough enough" on national security, compared to Senator McCain.
* Who would do a better job of "ensuring a strong military" (Republicans--57%; Democrats--28%)
* Who "respects the military" (Republicans--54%; Democrats--26%)

So how can progressives make inroads on the national security debate?

Enter the Truman National Security Project. It bills itself as "the nation's only organization that recruits, trains and positions a new generation of progressives across America to lead on National Security." At an event titled, "The National Security and Defense Policy of the next president," former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig broached how Obama hopes to make inroads on McCain's bread and butter issue.

Danzig and Perry suggested several dimensions to Obama's strategy to win the National Security debate:

1. Continue to connect the energy crisis (and, relatedly, global warming) to the national security debate (including the war on terrorism).
2. Shift the "war" focus from the gains in Iraq to the failures in Afghanistan.
3. Talk about "character," and specifically, the temperment of John McCain

Whether their strategy will succeed remains to be seen, but history seems to suggest that for each of these items, Democrats have their work cut out for them.

With respect to energy, Democrats have failed to find solid ground, and have gotten slammed on domestic oil drilling. They can't seem to decide what their policy on drilling should be, let alone common talking points or party message.

Shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan would seem like a strong idea, but anyone who can think back to 2004 will remember that this was one of the principal arguments of John Kerry--that we "took our eye off the ball" in Tora Bora--but it never really stuck with the public.

On the character issue, much will depend on how negative the Obama campaign is willing to go, and whether this message will resonate with the public-- neither of which I dare try to predict. Only time will tell, I suppose.

From the UN Foundation and Better World Campaign:

The United Nations Foundation and its sister organization, the Better World Campaign, released today the results of a six-month public opinion research project indicating shifts in the issues Americans are concerned about internationally and the approach they want the United States to take. The research shows a sharp swing in public concern about international economic issues (dependence on foreign oil and trade) a dramatic decline in the landscape of foreign policy and national security concerns and a new national security agenda and outlook that is significantly different from the one in the period after 9/11. (emphasis mine).

"An underlying shift is occurring in American attitudes regarding the international role and priorities of the United States. Voters across the party spectrum understand that America's reputation has faltered, and believe this is a problem for the nation that needs attention and repair," said Timothy E. Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation. "Both dependence on foreign oil and strengthening the global economy have skyrocketed, displacing terrorism at the top of voters' international concerns."

Concern is also growing over America's dependence upon foreign oil across the political spectrum. Of those asked, 67% feel America's dependence on foreign oil is the number one international concern. Global economic and trade issues ranks below that, pushing terrorism down the list of concerns, as compared to similar polling conducted by the UN Foundation and Better World Campaign last fall.

"To advance these and other issues, our research shows that Americans overwhelmingly support policies that promote a balance of military strength and diplomacy, and to prioritize international cooperation, instead of going it alone to advance our interests," said Wirth.

Seventy-six percent of Republicans and Democrats and 70% of swing voters selected "a balance of toughness and diplomacy" as one of the top three attributes of the next president. Both Republicans (86%) and swing voters (74%) also chose keeping "America safe and secure" as a top attribute. Working with organizations such as the United Nations and with other countries to tackle global terrorism was a priority attribute for Democrats (73%).

Key highlights of the research include:

* The overwhelming majority of American voters believe that America's reputation has suffered in the world. 78% of all voters believe the United States is less respected by other countries than it has been in the past.

* 80% of voters believe that working with major allies, and through international organizations, is a wiser strategy for achieving U.S. international affairs goals.

The research, undertaken by a bipartisan polling team led by Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies and Geoff Garin of Peter D. Hart Research Associates, is the second round of an extensive two-year effort involving polling and focus group work. In 2008, Public Opinion Strategies and Peter D. Hart Research conducted two surveys on behalf of the United Nations Foundation. A national telephone survey conducted July 16-20, 2008 among 800 registered voters (MOE = +3.46%). A national internet survey conducted July 16-21, 2008 among 1,600 registered voters (with four national replicate subsets of 400 registered voters). (MOE on 1,600 = +2.45%, MOE N=400 = +4.9%).

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

Some of the highlights (and lowlights) of Day One at the DNC:

• Breakfast with Global Leadership for Climate Action--a UN Foundation/Club of Madrid Partnership. Participants, including former heads of state, foreign ministers, business leaders and U.S. Ambassadors, express optimism about a post-Kyoto agreement with an Obama Administration.
  
  
• Tim Wirth and John Podesta declare that Democrats' Energy Plan doesn't go far enough.
  
  
• "Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and advertise"--Ted Turner's "words to live by" at the Philanthropy Forum.
  
  
• Touche, Joe Lieberman? Jim Leach, former Republican representative from Iowa, begins the Convention with an Obama endorsement that doesn't quite bring the house down.
  
  
• Reports of a planned Obama assassination attempt abound.
  
  
• A tribute to Ted Kennedy, Michelle Obama praises Hillary, and James Carville thinks the first day was a failure.

by Travis Moore, reporting from the Democratic National Convention in Denver (cross-posted at On Day One)

Democratic Party leaders--including Howard Dean, Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi--opened up the DNC last night at a reception hosted by the National Democratic Institute by calling, virtually in unison, for Obama to restore American leadership in the world. They pledged to the audience, which included a delegation of Georgian government officials, that an Obama Administration would return the United States to its position as a "strong partner with the rest of the world."

Although Dean told me he couldn't "talk foreign policy" (or give me an On Day One idea), he did then proceed to run down a litany of actions that an Obama Administration--and the Democratic Party--would take to work more constructively with the world. He touched on all the usual, albeit critical, steps that an Obama Administration could begin with, including bringing the Iraq war to a close, working with and treating our allies with respect, and (perhaps directed towards the Georgian delegation) opposing authoritarianism while defending democracy and human rights. Pelosi followed suit, committing that an Obama Adminstration and a Democratic Congress would "work together for the freedom of mankind."

While the rhetoric certainly wasn't anything new, it underscored both major parties' continued commitment to greater international cooperation should Obama win in November. Indeed, as noted here earlier, the selection of Joe Biden brings a committed internationalist on to the ticket. Given the public's concern about America's standing in the world, this is certainly smart politics.

Russ Carnahan, one of the Party's up-and-comers, finished off the night by offering his ideas for Day One, which reaffirm many of Dean's and Pelosi's statements.

The United Nations Foundation and the Better World Campaign (the sponsors of this blog) are hosting a panel discussion tomorrow afternoon at the "Big Tent" in Denver. The pollster Geoff Garin will present findings on foreign policy and national security "messaging" from his new report: Language for a New American Consensus on International Cooperation. The Washington Note's Steve Clemons will respond. Be there or be square.

By Katherine Miller, executive director of communications, UN Foundation

Yesterday's convention headlines were dominated (and rightly so) by Sen. Ted Kennedy's moving display of personal strength and party loyalty, as well as Michelle Obama's touching portrait of her loving family. But behind the scenes there important discussions about climate change and global philanthropy taking place.

The National Democratic Institute is hosting the International Leaders Forum, a series of events for the more than 1,200 foreign dignitaries who are here to witness Barak Obama officially taking control of the Democratic party and begin the final push towards Election Day. C-Span is featuring some of the video on its DNC hub.

The diplomats are especially excited about Wednesday's day long program featuring Madeline Albright, former Sen. Tom Daschle, Richard Holbrooke, former Sen. Tim Wirth (president of the UN foundation) and rumored guest Joe Biden. But until then they are spending their time listening to members of Congress, policy advisers, and others discuss the role of international cooperation and ideas for the next Administration's foreign policy approaches.

Alongside of the NDI program is the 2008 Rocky Mountain Roundtable hosted by the city of Denver and Mayor Hickenlooper. Yesterday's panel on global philanthropy was held before an audience of more than 900 people and featured Ted Turner, Larry Brilliant, Mary Robinson, Andrew Young, and many others. It was moderated by Walter Isaacson. It was inspiring and feisty, and there was a general consensus that, among the issues facing us, Climate Change is the most important. As Brilliant said, "if we don't do something now, we'll have malaria in Los Angeles and we won't have to worry about the design for the 9/11 memorial because New York will be underwater." Dramatic statements, yes. But not untrue according to the world's scientists.

Listening to these amazing men and women was totally inspiring and (unknowingly) prepared me for a discussion I had later that evening in the Convention Hall. After listening to Kennedy's speech, I ran into former Ohio Representative John Kasich. Now a commentator on Fox, Kasich took the opportunity to tell me how screwed up the UN is, how we all need to fix it and that its letting people die.

It was clear (and disappointing) after much discussion that Kasich, probably doesn't understand the role the UN plays in humanitarian situations. Or at least things of them along parallel lines. He has just returned from a trip to Rwanda and commented on all the amazing things happening there but refused to acknowledge the role of UNICEF, WHO, or others on the ground there and throughout the rest of Africa. Instead he is fixated on trying to make the UN into something it is not, a governing body instead of a diplomatic one.

We closed out our conversation agreeing to disagree but, I did invite him to NDI's session on Wednesday. Maybe hearing about the good work of the UN, the American public's desire for international cooperation, and meeting some of the 2,200 people expected to attend will open his eyes a little more.

Over at On Day One, our man in Denver Travis Moore is catching politicians, media celebrities, and activists with the On Day One cam. So far, we have On Day One ideas (that is, "what do you think the next president should do, on day one") from Vice President Walter Mondale, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan and, below, from the MSNBC Morning Joe duo Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinsky.