The New York Times editors, without a hint of irony, remark on a chastened Hugo Chavez calling on FARC rebels to lay down their weapons:

We suspect this change of heart has been driven more by self-interest than conviction. Mr. Chávez is increasingly unpopular at home and increasingly isolated abroad, especially as evidence has mounted of his meddling in Colombia. The change nevertheless is welcome and well timed.

Whoa. Whatever happened to the notion that the Times‘s favorite son presidential candidate was going to have a summit with Chavez without preconditions because no real progress can come about unless we chat with these folks? Hmm. Isn’t this yet another real-world example that pressure and isolation are often the best means of forcing rogue state leaders to curb their actions? What if instead the U.S. had invited Chavez for tea at the White House, let him help set the agenda, and lauded him as a leader worthy of a dignity promotion?

Obama and the Democrats consistently berate the Bush administration, and in turn John McCain, for a lack of “realism.” But there is plenty of reason to suggest that Obama’s brand of “realism” doesn’t have much to do with how our adversaries in the real world respond to pressure, be it diplomatic, economic, or military.