In general, I think he's missing one key dimension: Democrats need to regain the moral high ground, which can't simply be done by embracing a fairly wonkish and boring set of ideas. The other problem is that these are things that Democrats already sort of support. It wouldn't be news.On the first issue, I'm not sure we disagree, honestly, although the wonky and boring ideas are of course important (Neoconservatism, after all, started as a set of wonky and boring ideas). The second criticism is that "these are things Democrats already support." But that's the whole jig, isn't it? A liberal foreign policy should embrace pre-existing liberal ideas, putting them together into one-all encompassing, competent vision. It wouldn't be "news" in the sense of shocking the beltway (as a denunciation of the UN would), but it would be news to the vast majority of people who have no idea what the Democrats actually stand for on foreign policy. Getting all of the disparate liberal groups together, working on one common foreign policy vision, is, I think, more crucial right now than doing something shocking to wow swing voters.