There is a really good diavlog at Bloggingheads with Chris Hayes of The Nation Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard.  They cover a wide range of topics from the McCain campaign's foibles and fumbles to Rick Perlstein's Nixonland and the Packer piece, and on the campaign I think capture pretty well the stalled phase we are in right now. 

They have what I believe is the most reasoned discussion of the pure politics of the appeasement (etc. etc.) debate that raged loudly a week or so ago.  They seem to agree that it is a debate with some potential upside for Obama, if he plays it correctly, and wonder if he should portray his position as a radical break with the past on talking with international actors we see as adversaries.  

I wanted to post my two cents on that question here and see if I get any feedback, because I believe this is maybe a crucial point for Obama's positioning both as related to this topic and overall going into the fall.  This is from the comment I posted on the Diavlog:

"This topic should serve as THE defining point on which Obama connects McCain to Bush: McCain's position is Bush's, except where it's even MORE extreme. (In fact McCain's position is meaningless, since we do talk now to Iran at various levels under Bush, and contrary to Continetti's distorted characterization of the You Tube debate, Obama did not and has not promised to meet with any head of state, only their "leaders." In fact he has not promised to talk with unsavory types at all, only affirmed his WILLINGNESS to do so without PREconditions, which is not the same thing as UNconditionally. But back to the politics, since the merits are not a winner for anyone here, since it's all gibberish anyway since no one is representing correctly what he said, AND McCain's policy is not in place even under Bush.)

Obama must portray his stance on diplomacy not as something radically new, but as the restoration of the American way in foreign affairs: diplomacy first, violence only if made necessary by bad actors, and then according to the Powell doctrine. It's not new; it's tried and true (except when we stray from it and get stuck in unwinnable wars, of course). If he ties McCain to Bush on this question -- which he absolutely MUST do because it is one of the most unequivocal points on which they are in fact tied -- he can allow it to be the symbol of the restoration he would bring of the firm confidence with which America has traditionally confronted the world, and of the overall direction he wants to take the country in.