In his blog today, Andrew Sullivan recommended to his readers the full text of the speech that Sen. Barack Obama gave yesterday to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga).

So I looked it up, read the full text and was duly impressed. But 45 minutes later, I was hungry.

Sen. Obama is justly renowned for his oratorical skills. I was particularly struck by the powerful imagery on display in this paragraph, where he says that if the American people have confidence in their next President, they will be ready to see America lead the world again:

“They will be ready to show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city.”

But for the most part, the speech was long on generalities designed to appeal to the mass of voters, and short on specific policy proposals.

For example, this section on foreign policy:

“No President should ever hesitate to use force –- unilaterally if necessary -– to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others –- the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

“And when we do send our men and women into harm’s way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.”

Nothing new or controversial there. Remember the Powell Doctrine?

And when Sen. Obama was specific, the specifics didn’t exactly inspire my confidence –- such as when he proposed to double our spending on foreign aid. His rationale was that for the last 20 years, U.S. foreign aid has done little more than keep pace with inflation. That may be true, but it also ignores the fact that private U.S. contributors –- foundations, corporations, churches, universities and individuals –- provide nearly six times the amount of aid provided by our government.

Yet while I was skeptical of the speech as a whole, my eyes were drawn to two sentences in particular, in which I think that Sen. Obama put his finger on a profound truth regarding America’s relations with the world at large. “The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now,” he said, “is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it.”

Amen to that.

In his own analysis of Sen, Obama’s speech, Andrew Sullivan offered the most persuasive argument I have yet read in favor of electing the gentleman from Illinois as our next President. He says, in effect, that electing Obama would be the quickest way of restoring America’s image around the world. It would amount to a “rebranding” of America.

The whole of Andrew’s commentary can be read at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/the_rebranding_.html, but the nub is this:

“Obama brings something no one else does to this moment. By replacing one of the most globally despised and domestically divisive presidents in American history with a young leader half-Kansan and half-Kenyan, America would be saying something to the world: Bush-Cheney is not who we are. America is not what it has come to appear to be. This country is among the most culturally and racially and religiously diverse on the planet. America has long been a powerful and vital beacon for human rights -- not, as recently, the avatar of torture, rendition and executive tyranny. The simple existence of Obama as a new president in a new century would in itself enhance America's soft power immeasurably, just as a clear decision to leave Iraq would provide much greater leverage for diplomacy and military force in a whole variety of new ways. Obama would mean the rebranding of America, after a disastrous eight years. “

I’m not sold on Obama yet, by any means. But I have to admit that I’m intrigued by Andrew’s argument.