Knowing Clinton's own preferences and those of the chief architects of the speech, I expect it will hint at a more aggressive and interventionist policy than Obama's supporters might have thought they were voting for. Clinton and her closest advisers tend toward liberal interventionism, which isn't as different from neoconservative interventionism as liberals would like you to think. In fact, perhaps the key difference is that neocons want the United States to intervene anywhere and everywhere that we might have vital interests, while liberal interventionists want to intervene even when -- perhaps especially when -- we don't have any vital U.S. interests. During the Bill Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton pushed for intervention in Serbia and Haiti, two places where the United States had little to gain by getting involved.

President Obama wants to focus on building a bigger federal government, with more citizens dependent on it, by nationalizing health care, education, energy, and finance. What he wants from foreign policy is "no surprises." That gives his secretary of state an opening to be the chief architect of U.S. foreign policy, as long as she manages to avoid problems and not create distractions.

One thing we can assume Hillary Clinton won't do on Wednesday is promise to fulfill President Obama's campaign promise to end the war in Iraq in 2009 and bring the troops home.