I think Dana's wrong to suggest that this election will see the sublimation of foreign policy beneath domestic concerns -- at least for very long. Hillary Clinton's success at muddying her own opinions on Iraq has created an appearance of rough unity among the Democrats, which is "why this contest has turned into a debate over corporate influence, economic insecurity, and health care." But the key words there are "this contest." Foreign policy has receded has a definitional issue in the Democratic primary by virtue of the Democrats largely agreeing that Iraq is going poorly. Within that agreement there exist plenty of shaded prescriptions, from Richardson's "all troops out yesterday" to Clinton's "end the war but keep thousands of troops in Iraq to carry out combat missions," but wonks have proven unable to force those distinctions out into the open, and voters don't seem to exhibit much preference for one approach over the other. So the conversation has moved onto other issues where Edwards and Obama see more hope of drawing distinctions with Hillary.The day the nominee is chosen, however, that ends. The space between the Democrats and the non-Ron Paul Republicans on foreign policy isn't a pothole -- it's a chasm. And the Democrat is going to do everything he or she can to push Mitt Huckabee into it. It will be defining in the general for the very reason that it's been quieted in the primary: Democrats disagree with Republicans, rather than with each other, on what to say about Iraq. That's not to suggest that health care and the economy will recede from the agenda. With a potential recession looming and nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, neither issue is going away. But I wouldn't use the primaries as a template for how the general will look. The places where the Democrats are exhibiting convergence are places where they've settled on what they believe to be a strong political argument. Since they're all making that argument, it's not doing them much good against each other. But it will roar forth when they can use it to pound the Republican into a pulp. However, it will not be like health care, where they all make basically the same case. How the Democratic nominee chooses to attack on foreign policy is damn important, and will vary substantially from candidate to candidate. WHEN DEMOCRATS (WILL) STOP BEING POLITE, AND START GETTING REAL.
I think Dana's wrong to suggest that this election will see the sublimation of foreign policy beneath domestic concerns -- at least for very long. Hillary Clinton's success at muddying her own opinions on Iraq has created an appearance of rough unity among the Democrats, which is "why this contest has turned into a debate over corporate influence, economic insecurity, and health care." But the key words there are "this contest." Foreign policy has receded has a definitional issue in the Democratic primary by virtue of the Democrats largely agreeing that Iraq is going poorly. Within that agreement there exist plenty of shaded prescriptions, from Richardson's "all troops out yesterday" to Clinton's "end the war but keep thousands of troops in Iraq to carry out combat missions," but wonks have proven unable to force those distinctions out into the open, and voters don't seem to exhibit much preference for one approach over the other. So the conversation has moved onto other issues where Edwards and Obama see more hope of drawing distinctions with Hillary.The day the nominee is chosen, however, that ends. The space between the Democrats and the non-Ron Paul Republicans on foreign policy isn't a pothole -- it's a chasm. And the Democrat is going to do everything he or she can to push Mitt Huckabee into it. It will be defining in the general for the very reason that it's been quieted in the primary: Democrats disagree with Republicans, rather than with each other, on what to say about Iraq. That's not to suggest that health care and the economy will recede from the agenda. With a potential recession looming and nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, neither issue is going away. But I wouldn't use the primaries as a template for how the general will look. The places where the Democrats are exhibiting convergence are places where they've settled on what they believe to be a strong political argument. Since they're all making that argument, it's not doing them much good against each other. But it will roar forth when they can use it to pound the Republican into a pulp. However, it will not be like health care, where they all make basically the same case. How the Democratic nominee chooses to attack on foreign policy is damn important, and will vary substantially from candidate to candidate. 
