Yglesias argues that Obama should emphasize foreign policy issues more in the closing weeks of the campaign, and he does so in an article that is entirely free of any consideration of substantive differences (or lack thereof) between Obama and McCain except as it relates to Iraq.  Holding talks with the Iranian government is all very well, but when you consider that the goals of Obama’s Iran policy are indistinguishable from McCain’s goals it isn’t entirely clear why Obama would want to emphasize that he holds nearly identical views on Iran with the man whom he has been castigating as the third term of a deeply unpopular President. 

Obama’s response to the war in Georgia was more measured and sane, at least at first, until he was gradually bullied by more hawkish advisors to spout boilerplate about Russian aggression and reviewing U.S.-Russian ties.  Obama’s position on NATO expansion remains every bit as foolish and reckless as McCain’s.  When the Bush administration inexcusably called off the planned cooperation with Russia on civilian nuclear energy to “punish” Moscow, Obama, who has leaned heavily on his collaboration with Lugar on nonproliferation and securing loose nukes as evidence of his preparedness, hardly uttered a word about it if he said anything at all.  One area where the candidates differ, Pakistan, is the one where Obama probably does not want to explain why he favors and McCain opposes unilateral actions that the elected government of a major allied state considers unacceptable.  Obama could talk more about foreign policy as Election Day nears, but except for talking about Iraq what would he say that would not sound like an echo of John McCain?