Speech will be about foreign policy:

On the foreign-policy challenges and President Obama:

-- "...the international agenda today is unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap  between rich and poor. All of these challenges affect America's security and prosperity. And all threaten global stability and progress."

-- "For President Obama and me, the question is not whether our nation can lead, but how it will lead in this new global context."

-- "...we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies. We have the right President. And we have the American people, diverse, committed, involved and open to the future."

On the foreign-policy priorities:

-- "reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat;"
-- "isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world;"
-- "encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue a comprehensive peace in the Middle East;"
-- "pursue global economic recovery and growth - by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs;"
-- "combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future;"
-- "support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights of and deliver results for their people;"
-- "and stand up for human rights everywhere."

On "smart power":

-- "Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values  and interests. Some will seek to undermine our efforts. In those cases, our partnerships will help constrain or deter their actions. And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say: You should know that our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. You should never see America's willingness to talk as a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends and ourselves vigorously when necessary with the world's strongest military. This is not an option we seek. Nor is it a threat; it is a promise to the American people."

-- "...smart power counsels that we lead with diplomacy, even in the case of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of weakness or naiveté - or acquiescence to these countries' repression of their own people. That is wrong. The President and I believe that refusing to talk to countries rarely punishes them. And as long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table."

On Iran:

-- "We watched the energy of Iran's election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign nationals, expelling journalists, and cutting off access to technology. As we ... have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable... Neither the president nor I have any illusions that direct dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success. But we also understand the importance of trying to engage Iran and offering its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation."

According to excerpts of her prepared remarks that were shared with Foreign Policy, Clinton plans to say that "the international agenda today is unforgiving," with the United States facing "two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap  between rich and poor."

"All of these challenges affect America's security and prosperity," the excerpts say. "And all threaten global stability and progress."

But a key theme of Clinton's speech appears to be defending the administration's pursuit of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, despite widespread international outrage over the Iranian regime's violent crackdown on demonstrators protesting against alleged vote-rigging in the June 14 presidential election.

An excerpt from the prepared remarks:

"Smart power counsels that we lead with diplomacy, even in the case of nations with whom we disagree. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of weakness or naiveté -- or acquiescence to these countries' repression of their own people. That is wrong. The president and I believe that refusing to talk to countries rarely punishes them. And as long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table.

"Negotiations can provide insight into regimes' calculations and the possibility -- even if it seems remote -- that a regime will, eventually, alter its behavior in exchange for the benefits of acceptance into the international community.

"We know very well what we inherited with Iran. We know how far its nuclear program has advanced -- and we know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran's treatment of its citizens. Neither the president nor I have any illusions that direct dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success. But we also understand the importance of trying to engage Iran and offering its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

"Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. . . . Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain indefinitely."

Wonderful: your most horrible military-death-cyborg-synergy dreams come true.

A Maryland company under contract with the Pentagon is developing a robot that can burn organic material and use collected debris as fuel -- including, but not limited to, things like sticks, grass, debris -- and dead bodies.

Then this person claimed abortion rights were identity politics because it was only relevant to a portion of the population.

The Obama administration has taken steps toward engaging not just Iran but other US foes like Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but its hopes to engage North Korea have stumbled amid a showdown over Pyongyang's missile and nuclear programs.

She [Hillary] rejected critics who suggest that engagement is "a sign of naivete or acquiescence to these countries' repression of their own people."

Engagement, on the other hand, can provide insight into the calculations of a hostile regime and open up opportunities for change, no matter how remote, she said.

The implication, particularly emphasized by the photo, is that Hillary is being marginalized.

With a few exceptions -- during the presidential primary campaign, she had derided the idea of engaging Iran -- the speech sounded like one Mrs. Clinton might have given as a candidate, when she sought to make her foreign policy credentials a trump card over the rival who is now her boss.

REYKJAVIK, Iceland -- Iceland's parliament voted by a narrow margin Thursday to apply for membership in the European Union, moving to relinquish some of the recession-hit country's cherished independence in the name of stability.
Members of Iceland's parliament, the Althingi, voted 33-28 to start membership talks with the EU. Two lawmakers abstained.
Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir wants to submit a membership application to the EU by the end of the month.
A final decision to join the 27-nation bloc would need approval by Icelanders in a referendum.