On March 2nd, the Washington Post online published a Q&A with Barack Obama regarding his foreign policy positions.  Much of it is similar to what we've heard previously in speeches and in the debates, regarding the redistribution of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, opening up diplomatic possibilities with adversaries, enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and increasing funding for the National Endowment for Democracy.  One point that I have been impressed with in my own readings about Obama's position but hasn't gotten as much play in the recent campaign is highlighted early in the Q&A:

Q. You have said that within your first 100 days in office, you would give a major speech in a "major Islamic forum" in which you will "redefine our struggle." What is that redefinition? What would be the substance of that speech?

A. As president of the United States, I will directly address the people of the Muslim world to make it clear that the United States is not at war with Islam, that our enemy is al-Qaeda and its tactical and ideological affiliates, and that our struggle is shared. In this speech, I will make it clear that the United States rejects torture -- without equivocation, and will close Guantanamo. I will make it clear that the United States stands ready to support those who reject violence with closer security cooperation; an agenda of hope -- backed by increased foreign assistance -- to support justice, development and democracy in the Muslim world; and a new program of outreach to strengthen ties between the American people and people in Muslim countries. I will also make it clear that we will expect greater cooperation from Muslim countries; and that the United States will always stand for basic human rights -- including the rights of women -- and reject the scourge of anti-Semitism. Simply put, I will say that we are on the side of the aspirations of all peace-loving Muslims, and together we must build a new spirit of partnership to combat terrorists who threaten our common security.

This speech that he talks about is tied up with another one of his proposals: the America's Voice Initiative, part of his larger service iniative, meant to expand public diplomacy abroad - sending fluent language speakers, human rights workers, teachers, engineers, and other workers to help to change the damaged perception of America among other communities.  These proposals offer the promise that Barack Obama could be the most effective public diplomacy president since Reagan, and offer one of the most convincing distinctions between him and Hillary Clinton: she, in comparison, is severely lacking in her public diplomacy proposals.  For all her foreign policy wonkiness, her positions can be spun abroad as being statist.  It's easy for important populations (like those in the Muslim world) to perceive her as being just as arrogant as Bush.

And while Obama has talked about the proposals, he's been a little more reticent of late with this point than with some of his other proposals.  I wonder if this is fallout from the baseless smear that he is a secret Muslim Manchurian Candidate.  We all know that he is a Christian, that is a fact (well, all of us except Hillary, who believes he is a Christian "as far as she knows"), but the effectiveness and the danger of the smear have possibly pushed Obama's talking points about the war of ideas in the Muslim world somewhat into the closet.  This is ironic, as it demonstrates just how far we have to go towards building understanding with Islam.  We're perceived in the Muslim world as a racist country who persecutes Muslims - how can we change that perception if the worst thing you can call a man running for president is a Muslim?

The McCain and Clinton campaigns have both trafficked in this smear to varying degrees.  They may perceive it as attacking just one man, and those of us informed about the campaign have dismissed it as petty and ridiculous.  But we should not underestimate the damage that this smear itself can have on our national interests and national security.  It has affected how we speak about issues and how we judge important challenges to the American people, and could have global effects when disseminated to other communities.

Perhaps this is the way that we should be talking about the smear, next time some radio host says Barack Obama's middle name with a sneer, or next time Clinton wades into misinformation about Obama's faith in an interviews; or Hell, even when the Obama campaign feels a little uneasy about bringing up this potentially vital proposal in speeches or debates.  It's not just that it's incorrect.  It's not just that it's another part of negative campaigning.

Not to sound hyperbolic, but these words and actions endanger the nation by being another confirmation of radical Islam's teachings about the United States.  And anyone, Clinton or McCain or their surrogates - who spreads them isn't just being unfair - they're making us less safe.