TPM's Josh Marshall on The Hill. He is casting a bit of light on Kerry's 'foreign leaders' gaffe.

Just consider a few facts.

The record of foreign elections over the last two and a half years is telling. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a foreign leader who has supported Bush in any high-profile way and then survived a national election. True, it’s hard to find many examples beside Jose Maria Aznar. But that’s because it’s hard to find any foreign heads of state who have been supporters of the president.

More revealing is how many foreign heads of state and candidates for national office from traditional American allies have successfully played the anti-Bush card in their election campaigns.

The clearest examples are President Roh Moo-hyun, who won election two years ago in South Korea as the first South Korean presidential candidate to openly question the U.S.-ROK security alliance, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who pulled out a razor-thin victory in his 2002 re-election campaign by campaigning against Bush’s Iraq policy.

Washington has tended to view Schroeder’s gambit as cynical and craven, particularly for the leader of a country that has been so closely allied to the United States for half a century. But there’s seldom a shortage of craven or cynical politicians in the world. For understanding America’s current standing in the world, the key point is not so much that Schroeder was or wasn’t craven as that his tactic was successful.

Nor is it much of a surprise.

As Fareed Zakaria — hardly a lefty or a Bush-hater — noted a year ago, the president’s policies have "alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it."

For anyone who follows foreign policy even remotely closely, it has to be close to a given that the overwhelming majority of foreign heads of state and foreigners in general hope that Bush will be heading back to Crawford next January.

The president’s deep unpopularity among foreigners and foreign governments is a fact that either campaign could probably use to its advantage. But the fact itself can’t be denied.

link to entire piece

The record is clear. Side with Bush, and you'll likely be on the outside looking in.

I can see this as being a major win for Bush in that we, as Americans don't need anybody. I can see this as being a major win for Kerry in that we, as Americans now need everybody.

I would not speak without bringing up the environment. Just a bit at first, to get people accustomed to hearing about it. I'd then link it to higher energy costs, and global security. In a race as likely to be as close as this, it is THE issue that Bush is absolutely naked, and indefensible against.

Bush and Kerry can volley other points around, but Bush is a polluter. Kerry would do well to start making noise about the environment. By November, he can MAKE it an issue. I would.