If you come to this site, it's highly likely that you've heard that Kerry claims to have been told by foreign leaders that regime change is needed in Washington.

In the linked to piece by Rupert Cornwell reporting for The Independent, there is this bit of analysis:

His remark, at a fundraiser, drew a mocking response from the White House, where officials pointed out that "US voters, not foreign leaders, decide who becomes President." But it shows how foreign policy - usually a low ranking election issue here - may be front and centre of the battle this time around.

Mr Kerry named no names when he addressed a fundraiser in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. But said: "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'you've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy.'"

I think it's MORE than merely foreign policy. I would say that it's more likely to be global policy. The world needs a progressive policy on the usual foreign policy matters to be sure, but there is now the looming specter of global climate change -- that no seriously considered climatologist seems to refute.

Economies, terrorism, and you can fill in blanks with all of your pet issues, but the one remaining issue -- where the U.S. should be playing a real leadership role -- is the environment. It's the one issue that transcends a presidential term, or a human lifetime, yet it is only now being taken seriously as the biggest, most dangerous, 'elephant in the room.'

I honestly don't believe that Bush has the intellectual acumen to lead on the environment -- even if it was on his radar screen. A radical policy is probably necessary, but unlikely to be undertaken by any serious politico. But we must begin to change our habits and our thinking about the environment. Global climate change is the one issue that if we don't, as a species, deal with it, it will deal with us. Think I'm a doomsayer? Blame the Pentagon. Those tree huggers put me up to this. ;)