In the wake of the latest charm offensive, Alex Massie observes that Britain is still enamored:
Not being Bush still works in Europe. Indeed, such is Bush's legacy that Obama arrived in Britain as the least controversial president in more than 30 years. Ronald Reagan was adored by British Conservatives but loathed by the left and a "peace" movement that hated the presence of American nuclear weapons on British soil. George H.W. Bush was a politician's politician, not a media performer and though Bill Clinton was admired by the British left, the Conservatives viewed him with suspicion.
There has been a growing overlap between Obama's and Cameron's approach to foreign policy:
Mr. Cameron has generally been much tougher in his criticisms of Israel and more hawkish in his support of Arab revolutions than his U.S. counterpart, but Mr. Obama said they had “turned a corner” and built a common front. Mr. Cameron, standing beside the U.S. President, called his speech “bold” and “visionary.”
The interesting question for me is what the Cameron government will do when the UN vote on Palestine comes around in September. Cameron has no interest in giving Netanyahu any comfort right now, and suggesting a possible yay vote from the UK would maximize his and Obama's leverage to persuade Israel to sign on to a viable two-state solution. But when push comes to shove? I really don't know. An abstention?
More immediate is the G8 position. Everyone is on board – except, weirdly, Canada.
The Dish 