The New York Times claims that Obama has a huge foreign policy back-up team.

Every day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.

One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week.

Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters…

No wonder he needs to raise $50m a month.

Very interesting and thoughtful speech. Transcript here.

Later: Dave Winer is not impressed. (And he’s an Obama supporter).

Imagine Obama looking into the camera saying “Fuck it, we all know why Bush and McCain want to stay in Iraq. All this talk about waiting for this or that to happen — it’s all bullshit, they know it, I know it, the press knows it, and if you think about it you know it too.”

We’re not going to leave Iraq because if we did, it would become a province of Iran. It’s pretty close to being that now, even with 150K American troops camped out in bases spread through the country. The President, Maliki, is Iranian (for all practical purposes). Al Sadr is Iranian. The only guys who aren’t Iranians are the remnants of Saddam’s government and the guys we call evildoers who call themselves Al Qaeda. They’re all equally evil, and we’re no better. We fucked that country, hard, killed huge numbers of Iraqis, wrecked the country. The Arab world will be cursing us for a long time for what we did to Iraq, and we’ll deserve it.

If we pull out, Iraq and Iran will merge, combine the countries with the 2nd and 3rd largest oil reserves, and a huge army, run by people who are serious and they’re not the idiots the Republicans keep portraying them as. They’re astute politicians, much more sophisticated than Bush or McCain. In the game of chess they’re playing with the US, a country that’s many times its size, they’re pretty close to taking our queen.

The American president who leaves Iraq is going to be blamed for the oil debacle that’s coming (even so, it’ll be unrelated to Iran taking over Iraq). $4.50 a gallon is nothing. It’s going to get a lot worse. Everyone knows it, that’s why the stock market is tanking, why there are runs on the banks, why the govt is furiously printing money to shore them up, which only feeds more inflation.

The lines at banks with people waiting to draw out all their money aren’t being shown on TV, cause if everyone knew what was going on the panic would likely turn into a 1929-like collapse.

Outside the US no one wants to call us on our bullshit because we have this huge army, navy, air force, with aircraft carriers, bases all over the world, and an unbelievably huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. If we get scared enough we might just use em. That’s the only reason the Saudis are willing to still meet with Cheney, and why they keep sending us oil which we pay for with dollars that they all know are a joke.

Obama knows this. He can’t leave Iraq and he won’t. Of course McCain won’t either. He was actually telling the truth when he said we’d be there for 100 years. We will, if we can. Obama can’t and won’t change that.

Interesting NYT column by David Brooks.

When he is swept up in rhetorical fervor, Obama occasionally says that his campaign is 90 percent funded by small donors. He has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less.

The real core of his financial support is something else, the rising class of information age analysts. Once, the wealthy were solidly Republican. But the information age rewards education with money. There are many smart high achievers who grew up in liberal suburbs around San Francisco, L.A. and New York, went to left-leaning universities like Harvard and Berkeley and took their values with them when they became investment bankers, doctors and litigators.

Political analysts now notice a gap between professionals and managers. Professionals, like lawyers and media types, tend to vote and give Democratic. Corporate managers tend to vote and give Republican. The former get their values from competitive universities and the media world; the latter get theirs from churches, management seminars and the country club.

The trends are pretty clear: rising economic sectors tend to favor Democrats while declining economic sectors are more likely to favor Republicans. The Democratic Party (not just Obama) has huge fund-raising advantages among people who work in electronics, communications, law and the catchall category of finance, insurance and real estate. Republicans have the advantage in agribusiness, oil and gas and transportation. Which set of sectors do you think are going to grow most quickly in this century’s service economy?

Simon Caulkin is the most perceptive writer on management in the UK. He’s also been a relentless critic of the Labour government’s obsession with ‘targets’ in the public services. This morning he excoriates the latest absurdity, namely

Alan Johnson’s inexpressibly depressing announcement the week before last of a ‘compassion index’, the results to be published on an official website, to show how kind hospitals are to their patients. This is so tragic that it’s hard to know where to begin (although I already have an idea of the ending). But let’s try.

The question is not whether compassion is desirable. It should go without saying that it is vital. For at least 50 years, it has been known that recovery from injury or illness is a delicate joint venture in which dedicated medical care and will and optimism on the part of the patient feed off and reinforce each other. A health service without compassion is therefore a contradiction in terms – compassion indeed figured among the important reasons the NHS was set up in the first place. In such a context, the question that needs answering is: how and why did compassion get lost that it now has to be inspected and audited in again?

The culprit is the dehumanising, Soviet-style regime of league tables, inspection and audit by which the UK public sector is now run…

The effect of targets is to create professions that are increasingly administrative rather than vocational.

First, simplistic targets (waiting times, exam results, detection rates) take away from professionals the duty to use independent judgment and make them accountable to inspectors, auditors and ministers rather than the citizens they are serving. Then, to deal with the mountainous bureaucracy that targets generate, the next step is to break the professions in two. As a Guardian blogger noted, over the last decade nursing has been turned into an academic and ‘managerial’ discipline, with wards turned over to managers and the basic caring component (bathing, feeding and comfort) hived off to less trained, lower-status heath care support workers. Exactly the same process of separating out the menial, ‘volume’ tasks from the rest can be seen at work in schools (classroom assistants) and the police (community police support officers), all in the vain quest for economies of scale.