President Obama presented the case for his foreign policy last week – again.  He addressed the cadet corps at West Point in what was billed as a comprehensive strategic statement for the balance of his tenure in office, and for America's future.  Obama's speech came just over a week after John Kerry issued his own call for America to take a large and active role in the world — urging Americans not to "allow a hangover from the excessive interventionism of the last decade to lead now to an excess of isolationism in this decade."  It set the pitch and tone for the President's address. [1]

Poll numbers are the life blood of politics these days. Anything expressed in digits has a claim to truth that assertions without digits cannot make. They inspire confidence - especially among those aspiring to public office - that they actually understand what public sentiment is.

There are moments in life when you receive an unmistakable sign that the game is over. That it’s time to fold your tent, to pull up stakes, to pack it in, to furl the flag, to trim the sails, to let go of a lost cause. At best, to wait for next year. In the extreme, to write it off permanently. And if one chooses to breast the tide, to do so stoically.

The memoirs of public men are exercises in self-promotion and self-justification. They are designed to etch a portrait of the (wo)man that will live across time. It's the legacy thing. These days, that legacy pertains also to the "here and now" since memoirs are not necessarily the conclusion of a career but rather the curtain-raising on its next act.

Accountability is on the endangered species list. No - not the word. Indeed, “accountability” reverberates around the electronic ether almost as frequently as “thwarking.” It is the reality of persons, especially public persons, taking responsibility for acts of malfeasance in ways that entail exemplary punishment and personal costs.

Hillary Clinton has been enthroned as the presumptive next President of the United States - by the celebrity mongers, by the trendy Hollywood set, by the media, by the pundits, by the big donors, by Congressional Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer and by the Las Vegas odds-makers. The crystallization of a consensus three years before the event is as intriguing as the questions about what sort of president she would make. 

The near meltdown of the United States government evoked worldwide dismay and confusion. Both reactions were especially acute among America’s well-wishers. For not only would they have suffered the consequences of a global economic crisis but they also feel dependent on the probity of American leadership. That dependence may stem in part from their own failures to assume their reasonable share of responsibility for sustaining an orderly international system - a state of affairs remarkably unaffected by the costly flaws in Washington’s custodianship over the past several years. It is nonetheless real.

On Tuesday Barack Obama called President Francois Hollande of France to explain the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance of French government offices, businesses and private citizens. Obama stated that this was a well-meaning attempt to protect both countries from Islamic terrorism. He offered to “reexamine” the program so as to determine whether the right balance was struck between public safety and privacy rights.

Defending and renewing the global order is a priority for the United States and Europe. An important part of this effort will be accomplished if transatlantic partners can successfully engage four “global swing states” — Brazil, India, Indonesia and Turkey — in the management of global issues, because of their geopolitical and economic status, as well as their desire to have a stronger voice in the various international forums. Successful engagement of these nations will be key to preserving the international order and U.S. leadership.

The U.S. defense budget has faced a sharp reduction since 2010, linked to the drawing down of two wars and the Great Recession. 

The second term of Barack Obama’s presidency has introduced new Foreign Policy leadership that suggests changes for the future. The White House will likely centralize foreign policy making and the Treasury Department may play a bigger role in the country’s global engagement. Despite new policy direction, no framework for the strategic renewal of U.S. global leadership has emerged.