While I agree, do you really think voters, by and large, are interested in a discussion of "foreign policy issues"? I don't.

It seems that most voters are largely uniformed on and disinterested in such matters.

Most voters, it seems, don't care about Cuba policy and don't know what Kyl/Lieberman is. Voters care about Iraq only because of its prominence as a subject of the broadcast "news" media.

Just look at the relatively small amount of discussion your book is receiving here, Matt. TPM Cafe used to be one of the serious sites on the web for discussing foreign policy. Back in the day, a book club discussion like this would be generating 150 to 200 comments per post. But the site has pretty much evolved into another Kos, My DD, etc. thoroughly dominated by electoral politics.

Democrats worked very hard to elect a new group of representatives in 2006. A lot of them campaigned on antiwar platforms. Within a few months we had all gotten the message from Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel and Co. that nothing was really going to change. It took the heart out of Democrats.

Speaking of which, I was somewhat perturbed by Obama's seemingly hesitant answer to a question on Iran's nuclear ambitions by George Stephanopoulos during last week's ABC News debate. It came down to simply this: "Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?" Here's how Obama answered (from the transcript):

SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

Clinton was much more direct:

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. . . .

Indeed, as has by now been widely reported, she has since threatened Iran with "obliteration" if they were to lauch a first-strike attack against Israel. So, what I would like to see is the following three follow-up questions posed to both Obama and Clinton (and perhaps McCain, if he's feeling well enough):

(1) What "carrots" are you willing to offer Iran to keep them from continuing their uranium enrichment program and building or acquiring nuclear weapons?

(2) Do you believe that it is necessary to convince the Iranian regime that we are prepared to take military action against them in the defense of Israel should Iran ever launch an attack against them. If so, how?

(3) If Iran were to launch a "first-strike" nuclear attack against Israel, what action would you take?

And I would like to be able to compare their answers, as I believe others would too.

Obama has already won the nomination, so there's absolutely no point in engaging Clinton in a battle
over HER foreign policy cluelessness.

Attacking her "Obliteration Doctrine" would only make it easier for the Repugs to paint him as weak on national security and soft on mass murder.

It's time to ignore Hillary and focus on McSame.

LK

Excellent post indeed.

Democratic hawks want us out of Iraq but still want us to be a finger-on-the-trigger military power, and probably find Obama's positions too intellectual and liberal. And Democratic realists (sorry, doves) are horrified by the thought of nuking anyone and see international alliances as the key to, as Obama has said, making organizations like Al Qaeda simply irrelevant.

That’s the whole point of the 3:00 am ad. Clinton-types say she’s more “experienced”, which is a covert way of saying she’ll not only answer the red phone but is more than willing to push the red button. Obama-types say he’s more measured and will prevent the 3:00 call in the first place. But we’ve have been more reluctant to face this divide than to harp on race, class, gender, bowling, beer chasers, or bitterness. Party leaders no doubt see this as something that could actually fracture the party completely.

Hillary timed her nuke-em remark brilliantly. She got away with saying what she really thinks by mentioning it in a morning talk show on a big primary day. Since then, Democrats have been so entranced by the magical ever-changing primary math that "obliteration" got pushed about as far down the front page as, well, food riots in Asia. If she'd said this a week before the primary the turmoil would be on a whole 'nother level.

I sure hope someone beats Matt's drum sometime before the super delegates start getting ideas.

Unfortunately for our world future, the comments of Chris B., Dan K and syvanen above are all correct: Americans are under-interested and under-informed on world affairs, and there is very very little for a candidate to gain by wading into the stuff-storm that follows any Presidential candidate's failure to follow the MainstreamMediaMythology of the current year. This has been going on for decades now.

I'm one of the few that care, I've been trying to understand the world and follow world affairs for four decades now, picking up Highest Honors in Modern History from a good state U in the process. As an independent historian who has accepted the challenge that history will only be studied if it is profitable and entertaining to do so, I have long maintained that the thoughts and actions of EVERY INDIVIDUAL matter, as these are precisely the grains of sand that come together to create the granite and marble 'structures' that we understand as our history.

I'm going to keep pounding. There are a million of us intelligent US residents who understand this. We must a strong organization for political action, backing candidates of existing parties, creating candidates and parties of our own, lobbying office-holders and educating the public: A DEMOCRATIC AMERICA CANNOT SURVIVE AN IMPERIAL FOREIGN POLICY. America needs to massively reform our imperialist foreign policies and foreign economic policies, and seek our democratic future safety in a world of international law, in which we welcome living by the same intelligent rules we would wish others to follow.

We are not so wonderful or democratic or rich that we are going to be able to maintain a universal, eternal military superiority very much longer, and the effort to do so is actually the gravest threat to our future freedom and prosperity. We are spending more money on our militaries than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED, why aren't we more secure than oall other nations combined?

We must begin the discussion and organization of this resolutely anti-imperialist political organization, to begin to change the discussion. There has to be a voice in the American landscape for sanity in foreign policy, a strong group able to run at least low-budget ad campaigns and compete for the attention of media and officeholders.

The advanced cadres will join in a Margaret Mead-type effort to begin 3 to 5 generations of education leading toward a future state of decentralized, small-d democratic world federalist government. (A union of the current bloody and stupid states is the opposite of what nearly everyone wants, don't tar us with that brush.)

The future depends on our thoughts and actions, start now!

Matt- part of the issue is that people just don't pay attention to doctrine unless it has a clear unifying theme that sticks. sounds a little cheap but I think it's true for most voters who have families and work long hours.

I think Obama's been onto something when talking about addressing the mindset behind start of the Iraq war and he needs to pursue that. something simple like "keeping America safe with strength and smart diplomacy". then contrast that with the extremely controversial policies of Hillary and McCain. Hillary's campaigned is staffed with hawks and she's talking about nukes, and McCain's "bomb, bomb Iran" song, and of course they both voted to go into Iraq. extremely dangerous and controversial...

but i think its really that simple. we will be less safe with another hawk in the White House.

In the Pennsylvania primary just concluded, Clinton won a majority of those who think health care and the economy are the most important issues. Those who thought Iraq was most important favored Obama. Aside from what this says about Obama's ability to connect, it also says that most Pennsylvania Democrats did not hold her vote to authorize the Iraq War against her and, concomitantly, did not buy one of his principal arguments, namely that he showed better judgment by opposing the war. This has been one of his major talking points throughout. So, just as she was able to shrug off all the hoopla over the Bosnia gaffe, she was also able to quash one of the biggest gripes against her coming from the Left.

There haven't been enough questions to these candidates about foreign policy in months. I realize we're close to the finish line here, but I think it behooves Democrats to press the leadership for the candidates to confront these issues before the nomination is finally and conclusively settled.

Brilliant point about the personnel working for the campaigns. There is a vast unexplored difference there.

Why aren't the democrats talking about foreign policy lately?

1. Its the economy...

2. Clinton has little to gain as more to lose with the democratic base, and has done her best to spin her own position and explain her votes on the war.

3. Obama, though he has more to gain, has likely learned from his prior Pakistan comment - not that he would have to weather attacks from Clinton. It gives him room to adapt his position to be more palatable to the general electorate (Clinton has an advantage here). Finally, as a potential future leader, the world is now watching, and being vague now also gives Obama a better range of options to handle foreign policy issues if he is elected. He's already given enough clues.

Right now, most Americans aren't reading past #1...

Matt writes:

To some extent, though, it's both progressive voters and progressive elites who are to blame -- enormous pressure has been brought to bear to get the candidates to commit to fairly specific ideas about health care and climate change, whereas there's been enormous willingness to settle for bromides about "ending the war in Iraq" in ways that don't even necessarily entail the war actually ending. It's a troubling situation.

But it's already too late. The war is nearly over. The imperialists won. While Democrats have been busy with our interminable nomination process, events in Iraq have overtaken us. People sense this, which is one reason why the foreign policy debates have started to take a back seat. Our party had a chance to do something about this war back in 2006, when it would have mattered. But our leaders blew it, and now it's too late. The Iraq debate is starting to resemble a lost cause.

The Bush administration just opened the largest embassy in the world. It's in Baghdad, and its the new US imperial headquarters in the Middle East. The Bush administration and the Iraqi government are in the process of negotiating the terms of a long-term US military presence in the country. That government, whatever one thinks of them, is recognized around the world as the legitimate government of Iraq. What do you think is going to happen when that agreement is presented to the US Congress for rubber-stamping as a done deal? What percentage of members of Congress do you think are going to say we should get out under those circumstances?

The Iranian government has been working to shore up the Iraqi government for a couple of years now, and is signaling that it is betting on the government in Baghdad to survive. Iran appears to have tilted more strongly away from Sadr's organization and toward the government, rather than covering all the bases. That puts the US and Iran on the same side, whether they admit it or not. The Iraqi government is already negotiating the contracts for the development of its super-giant oil fields, and foreign firms are lining up.

Our government set out to engineer a hostile takeover of an oil-rich, foreign state and incorporate that state into the US imperial orbit, such as it still is. It cost Iraq somewhere between 400,000 and a million lives, and will cost us three trillion dollars. Ironically, the empire has been contracting and crumbling around the world while the takeover was is progress, but it looks like we might have landed our coveted oil prize.

Essentially, Americans have NEVER been interested in foreign policy except when it's goring their ox. Pearl Harbor. The draft during Viet Nam. The Communist threat. Now 9/11. Otherwise, they want to be left alone to pursue their lives and assume everyone else in the world is doing the same (except for the evil doers). Matt, this lack of interest is nothing new and shouldn't be surprising.

I must stubbornly persist in saying that while most American's don't have what we might call a nuanced view of foreign policy, they are very, very opinionated and interested in it. Otherwise, why would Obama's middle-east comments gain any traction?

If Obama doesn't start articulating his positions, Hillary will continue to win on the "ready to drop the bomb" issue. Americans tend to think pacifism or militarism as the only options because that's what they've been told ever since Vietnam. Many who worry about terrorism have been convinced by Bush that Sept. 11 happened because people "hate our freedoms." And they've also been persuaded that even the thought that resource inequities and political oppression equals aiding the enemy. Someone will need to convince them otherwise, and you can't do that by hiding from the issue.

the less obama talks about foreign policy the more he can be the empty vessel into which voters can project their own views. when the number one foreign policy issue - a bloody and unforgivable ONGOING disaster - is an issue on which clinton and obama have virtually identical voting records and mostly indistinguishable policy plans, count me nonplussed when anyone wonders that obama doesn't talk more about foreign policy.