Drama stems from conflict, opposition, adversity and competition. There should be risks for losing and prizes for winning and the resources must be less than is needed to satisfy the participants.

So an agreement would only ever be reported if it was a strategic alliance to defeat another opponent...

This is a standard complaint about modern media coverage of politics, and God knows I'm sympathetic to it. I'd sure like the media to spend more time on substance. On the other hand, Clinton and Obama themselves didn't exactly take the chance to elevate this into a scholarly colloquium themselves, did they?

I think you're right Kevin. Journalists should cover what the candidates themselves consider most important. They can't simply ignore what the candidates are doing and substitute their own judgment. Since the candidates themselves have decided to spend the time duking it out about who is more isolationist, journalists have the duty to cover it.
Similarly with the issue of Hillary's cleavage and Edward's hair cut. Candidates spend a lot of time deciding what to wear, how to dress, and how they should look. If after all the time spent thinking about the issue, Hillary decides to show off her cleavage on national TV or Edwards decides to spend hundreds of dollars on his hair cut, journalists MUST cover it because that is what the candidates are spending the most money and time thinking about.

I, for one, have had more than a belly-full of Bush/Cheney and I have no intention of supporting Bush/Cheney/LITE.

The very notion that diplomacy can only be conducted with friends undermines the entire concept of international communication. How many MORE wars would have been fought WITHOUT dialogue with foes (or potential foes)? Bush and Cheney deserve to have a college within a prestigious university named after them. Perhaps it could be dubbed The School of Fractured Logic and Endless Hostility. I might even be in favor of giving Hillary a scholarship.

On the other hand, Clinton and Obama themselves didn't exactly take the chance to elevate this into a scholarly colloquium themselves, did they?

And why would they? Knowing that the media, for the most part, would never substancially cover a serious debat about foreign policy, what motiviation do the candidates have to engage in a serious debate?

Sensationalist jounalism leads to sensationalist campaigning.

On the other hand, Clinton and Obama themselves didn't exactly take the chance to elevate this into a scholarly colloquium themselves, did they?

And why would they? Knowing that the media, for the most part, would never substantially cover a serious debate about foreign policy, what motivation do the candidates have to engage in a serious debate?

Sensationalist journalism leads to sensationalist campaigning.

On this one, Kevin, I'd agree with you.

But the MSM passes up on so many opportunities to cover serious issues in the context of the horserace if they want to.

For instance, take Iraq. The WaPo or NYT or CBS or somebody could try to pin down each candidate on what missions they'd have our army doing in Iraq in mid-2010, and within 10-20K, how many soldiers they expect to still have over there then.

A story like that would attract a lot of attention, and only the MSM can pull something like that off. When Chris and Matt over at OpenLeft try to ask that question, there's little downside to a campaign that gives them the brush-off.

Is it any wonder the press covered this as a food fight rather than a serious debate?

All three front runners have a (dis)advantage. They are, or were, senators. They've got voting records, for chrissakes. Even if I'm buying a beater used car, I'll look at Consumer Reports.

You could bestir yourselves, o tribunes of the Republic, and see whether what they've done squares with what they've said would do, instead of fixating on what they said about each other.

We have today a little problem with the former governor in Texas, and trying to square, in a timely fashion, what he said about what he would do with what he had done, could have saved the Republic a lot of tsuris.

On the other hand, Clinton and Obama themselves didn't exactly take the chance to elevate this into a scholarly colloquium themselves, did they? ....Is it any wonder the press covered this as a food fight rather than a serious debate?

Oh, please, Kevin.

How much money do big time MSM journalists earn? $100,000.00 a year? More? ( I think more. )

Any fool can just repeat candidates talking points. Any. For a lot less than these fools earn.

So why don't these fools earn their keep by adding value to the product? Like discussing the substance.

Otherwise, let's get rid of them and replace them with some of the kid journalists who are reporting for my local TV station. They can repeat the talking points every bit as effectively as Wolf Blitzer.

The entire idea of isolating what we deem to be "naughty" countries is only able to work, as poorly as it has (and does) so long as WE are the biggest game in town. Well here's a newsflash...Russia and China and even India are fast reaching a point where they will become co-equal games in town so that by blowing off a country on our part does nothing and they can get whatever they desire from the others.

Being a fading ONLY superpower is hard, but it is something that we cannot avoid. We, for a brief flash of history, were THE top dawgs...and now we are unceremoniously (thanks to Bush/Cheney and their many debacles, both economic and militaristic) falling on our faces. China, Russia, India, the EU...all are going to come out of our fall rather cleanly and in a very good position to do a Nelson "Ha-ha!" at us right as we fully faceplant.

Isolation for the "naughty" countries doesn't work. At best it murders and brutalizes many innocent civilians (like our idiotic lockout of Iraq did for so many years) while doing Jack Squat to the meanies at the top. IT DOESN'T WORK! So of course we should change the way we deal with other countries.

low-tech cyclist: The problem is that the candidates would simply refuse to answer. They'd hem and haw and say that it would depend on events on the ground.

I'm obviously not defending the media here, which really does spend way too much time on gossip and trivia. On the other hand, it's harder to pin candidates down on subjects they don't want to be pinned down on than it seems.

The comments of Clinton and Obama are, I think, attempts to sum up the issues of the substantive debate in a media-friendly soundbite. That's not necessarily evidence of callowness on their part, just practicality. They could have dressed up their critiques in a more civil, loquacious manner, but their comments do express substantive differences between their positions.

It's still over a year until the election, and there's a lot of airtime to fill. This is politics as a sporting event.

They're bickering over something pretty small when they could be talking about how rotten the Bush administration has been.

Edwards wins!

Gravel and Kucinich clearly don't spend a lot of time polishing their image, and look where it's gotten them. Also rans. (At least Kucinich didn't get arrested trying to get into the debate this time).

Bottom line on the Clinton/Obama Foreign Policy issue:

I would MUCH RATHER see my president used as propaganda by a foreign dictator, than see that foreign dictator use a successful nuclear test as propaganda.

Maybe it's just me, I don't know. . .
But if Hillary thinks that her image, and her pride, and her domestic PR are more important than stopping NK or Iran from successfully developing nuclear weapons, then I think calling her "Bush-Light" is spot-on-target.

Clinton and Obama are politicians. We expect them to act politically in their own interests and they did. The media is the one that dropped the ball here.

Here's the threat we now pose to the world: If you
don't behave as we desire we will unleash our devastating incompetence on your ass.

The rise of the pundit class has transformed the function of the modern media from descriptive to predictive. It doesn't matter what either cancdidate says, all that matters is what the consequences of having said it will be. Since the pundits don't have any particular knowledge of policy, their ability to predict the future tends to be limited to the realm of politics, which works out pretty well for them since they are well situated to fulfill their own prophecies.

What is telling is the posture that each candidate took and the constituency to which each appealed--Hillary played to the David Gergen/DC Punditclass with her 'serious' and 'presidential' answer whereas Obama emphasized a need for dialogue as a break from the Bush administration approach--an answer that is in line with the Democratic base.

It's a useful hint as to what meaning the actual policy statements have for each candidate.

I think once you've noted that Obama is for change, with lots of useful qualifications and Hillary is for more cautious change using most of the same qualifications, the substance of their difference is all layed out. In other words the real substance of this debate is how well they fight in the political arena. It's close, but Obama turned a small disadvantage with his first response into a small advantage. Cool. I would've been just as happy had it gone the other way. We need an effective debate tactician at the top and they're both doing very well.

Also, they and the rest of the Democratic field are 10 or more orders of magnitude better at offering us voters hope for effective use of diplomacy than anyone the Republicans are considering. There are probably less than 5 Republicans who can do diplomacy and none of them are running.

dennis;
I'd have to agree with you - Hillary saw an opportunity to sneak a strawman in after Obama's answer that dovetailed nicely with her strength. I think that that showed an impressive cleverness and ability to think on her feet. It also betrayed an instinct for dishonesty.

I don't think Obama made a mistake in that debate by omitting the minutae of diplomatic vetting and procedure from a 30-second answer, when the question was focussed on what his policy stance was. And there was nothing he could have done, within the debate to counterattack. Once Hillary took the initiative, it was over.

But it's definitely a welcome change that both Hillary and Obama can counterpunch effectively in the public arena - a skill that has been critically lacking in Democrats for about 30 years.

The press covered the cat fight because there really isn't any substantial difference between their actual policy positions. It sure wasn't hard for enterprising journalists to find old clips of one sounding a lot like the other.

Each was seeking to reassure the policy wonk portion of his or her base. Both were successful although by the end of the week, Obama could claim a slight advantage.

I would say it was a good week for Edwards who was able to call shame on both of them from the side line. His position seems to be about the same as theirs. Like I said the actual policy differences are small potatoes.

I noticed today that Obama is trying to tap in to Edwards populist message. Look for either Edwards or Obama to take a shot at Hillary's cozy relationship with the rich and powerful and her perceived unwillingness to fight very hard for the little guy. Edwards has been building up to the attack for weeks. Obama might try to beat him to the punch.

Shifting gears on this thread, check out the link for an article on Hillary's pen pal letters from Wellesly College.

It turns out that even back then she was a self-important bore and an elitest snob.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20033163/

I disagree, in part...

I've noticed over and over again, that when Republicans put forth a 'substantive policy' - even if it's obviously meat-for-the-base pandering like a vote to ban gay marriage - the media reports it as if it was a substantive policy question.

They include extensive quotes from Republican politicians about their Great Moral Purpose in putting forth the resolution.

They quote from conservative think-tanks and Christian-right groups stating the dire need.

And they will occasionally quote a Democrat accusing the Repubs of playing politics. Once. At the bottom of the article. But of course, the Repubs get the last word.

Contrast that with Democratic policy initiatives or debates. Here, the first thing that doesn't happen is: actual quote from Dems summing up what they are doing and why. You'll get a few lines of paraphrase, that greatly oversimplify the issue, and usually completely eliminate any necessary context.

Then you'll get at least three quotes from Republicans and wingers, accusing the Democrats of playing politics. No substance needed here, just the accusations, played out over the next three paragraphs or so.

Then the reporter treats with the question of whether the Dems are, in fact, playing politics, and how the whole thing will likely fail, anyway, so must be just politics, and how the Dems could achieve something if they were willing to compromise, but they're not, so it must all be politics.

Finish with a quote from a "center-right" independent source about the failures and fecklessness of Democrats.

And that's the formula. Day in and day out.

On the other hand, Clinton and Obama themselves didn't exactly take the chance to elevate this into a scholarly colloquium themselves, did they? ... Is it any wonder the press covered this as a food fight rather than a serious debate?

Chicken, meet egg. Egg, chicken.

Is it any wonder the press covered this as a food fight rather than a serious debate?

So, the candidates had a food fight, and it was covered as one. Yawn. Kevin, of all the things you could pick to post on, why this? I know it's not because you think Yglesias is a lightweight -- so why make him look like one?

Kevin:

Actually, I think acknowledging that Senator Clinton's policies are "Bush-Cheney lite" are enlightening. Some like to pretend that George W. is an extreme idealogue, but the truth is he is just an incredibly incompetent non-ideologue.

One of the problems that I have (of many) in endorsing a Hillary presidency is that it would mean (potentially) 28 years of the same type of leadership. There are too many similarities between the Bushes and the Clintons for my comfort, and I hope Obama continues to highlight those similarities.

Consider that neither family seems wedded to any great principles, but enjoy power for its own sake. That's why it was easy for Bush 41 to forsake his no new taxes pledge, why Clinton 42 could have an administration that began with the alleged mandate of providing for universal health care only to later declare the era of big government over, and why Bush 43 could insist he was a conservative while indulging in the greatest federal power grab in history. Hillary has not expressed any firm set of governing principles separate from her husband.

Beyond that, both families are incredibly beholden to corporate interests, have a fetish for personal loyalty and conducting public policy in secret (Hillary's healthcare plan and Cheney's energy plan), forsake any interest in building the broader interests of their respective parties, have an unhealthy habit of always blaming others for problems of their own doing, and engage in a dispiriting form of politics that demonizes opponents and is not aimed at consensus. That both families also preach international interventionism is just one of many ways they are the same body in a different suit.

Bill and Hillary are obviously much smarter and abler than their Bush counterparts, so if you have been happy with the policies and direction of the country the past 20 years and simply want someone to execute them better, than Hillary is your candidate, but if you have the notion we need new approaches and a new direction, then how can you not look elsewhere for our next president?

Jeremy and Scott:

Excellent posts, both. Thank you.

I think the reason no one is discussing substance here is because there isn't any. One country "talking to" another is not the same thing as two heads-of-state having a sit-down. Both Obama and HRC (and the rest of the D field) think there should be no preconditions for the former. Both Obama and HRC think there should be a specific precondition for the latter, namely that the diplomatic scutwork of establishing that there is something for two heads-of-state to meaningfully talk about is done ahead of time. At least that's the sum of the debate answers and follow-up clarifications from both camps. What we have here are two rival political campaings trying to frame their (and their opponent's) near-identical positions politically -- with the caveat that Obama fumbled his answer, and HRC nailed hers. Nothing but politics. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

(For the record, I do not support a candidate at this time, but if pushed I'd prefer Obama to HRC).

Wow, you've really got nothing huh Sportsfan?

Some like to pretend George W. is an extreme ideologue. Others like to pretend that he isn't.

Hey, at least we agree he's incompetent! :)

Bill and Hillary are obviously much smarter and abler than their Bush counterparts, so if you have been happy with the policies and direction of the country the past 20 years and simply want someone to execute them better, than Hillary is your candidate, but if you have the notion we need new approaches and a new direction, then how can you not look elsewhere for our next president?

Posted by: Scott C. on July 30, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Agreed -- but Edwards, a longtime populist, is the answer, not Obama, who merely endorses Oprah feel-good, no-substance populism.

Keeps 'em in the news until the Clinton/Obama ticket, no?

Kevin: Between Barack and Hillary, I don't have a dog in that fight since I'm not supporting either one, but your pox on both their houses analysis seems a mite strained. Even you acknowledge that Hillary hit first with the disinegnuous attack on Barack's alleged naivete.

Barack then hit back by saying Hillary supports Bush-lite. But Hillary DOES support Bush-lite. She still doesn't repudiate the argument for getting into Bush's war, but only criticizes his management thereof.

So Hillary started it, and Hillary alone resorted to dishonesty. On the other hand, Barack has been quite lame on getting out of Iraq, so he's no hero of the Democratic party either.

That's why I support Gore/Clark.

Just saw a good quote elsewhere.

Bill Clinton says, "Hil and Bama are engaged in a vigorous agreement that we should be more engaging."

The media has no incentive to present serious debates since the public has shown clearly that they are more interested in snippets, conclusory statements, and things that don't require serious thought. Of course, there are some that do, and for them there are blogs, scholarly works, and other forums. How many well informed people use the MSM for their information?