The second half of my sentence you quote comes from Obama himself. The first half is not an unfair inference from Obama's worldview, writings, statements, associates, etc. Lump me in with conservative talk show hosts if you like. I am in good company if in Rush's company at least.
Obama's foreign policy will only be more realistic if by realistic you mean like that of the Clinton years minus all the good things that Clinton did with opening trade and recognizing the benefits of globalization. Obama's realistic foreign policy, one can assume, will be realistic in the sense that he will be hesitant to assert America's interests in any meaningful way. Thus we will become isolated because of our lack of will to advance America's interests militarily or economically. (The wrong lesson to learn from Bush's supposed overreaching.) So as far as a do-nothing foreign policy is realistic, it indeed will be realistic. (I suspect you mean it won't be overreaching, and I agree.) While Gore may have invaded Iraq (I'm not as shocked as Nick by the contention) can anyone imagine Obama doing so. I would be more shocked by such action should a similar situation present itself.
At best the man's policies and views are unquantifiable which should be enough to disqualify him this late in the game. However, the most cursory review of his past and present leads me to suspect there is little that is heterodox about him when it comes to the left. America is nearly alone in facing up to threats around the world among those with any capacity to do so. Indeed even most Western countries do not have the resources we do to face Middle Eastern terrorism/Iran-Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, or potentially China let alone the will to do so.
I am not a fan of John McCain, but that does not mean that I should leave such important decisions in the hands of almost anyone in the Democrat party let alone a nobody like Obama. That is what abstaining from this election means.
