JPod has a good rejoinder to my post on how neo-conservative Obama’s speech was. Just a couple more things. It’s definitely true that Obama has, over time as commander-in-chief, evolved beyond the utterly juvenile views he expressed as senator and on the campaign trail in 2008. By all means let’s welcome, but also let’s not make too much of, affirmations of American goodness and values that must appear in pretty much any major address by any American president. JPod thinks last night showed yet more growth on Obama’s part. Perhaps, but I’m not sure how much. Consider: “The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known”; “no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power” (Cairo). “The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms” (Nobel). “We believe that [our childrens'] lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity…We are heirs to a noble struggle for freedom” (West Point). What would have been remarkable last night is if Obama had left this sort of thing out. What was most necessary was that the speech give us a sense of all that we have accomplished in Iraq, of its strategic importance, and of our absolute determination not to let it slide away, and on that front, I found it lacking. Finally, a point on nomenclature (one that JPod also makes at the end of his post): an American president saying that we’ll lead around the world and side with freedom is not really neo-conservative, it’s typically American. I’m glad Obama said these things, but I temper my enthusiasm with skepticism about his follow-through abroad and horror at the ruinous, exceptionalism-wrecking domestic agenda he wants to make the centerpiece of his American leadership.