Debate debate debate debate

Greg Sargent flags a bit that got lost in the post-debate frenzy (about Hillary v. Obama on diplomacy) so I do:

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to [meet] with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

It seems like the fact that Edwards is also using the "propaganda purposes" phrase should at least be part of the discussion here. For what it's worth, Edwards is agreeing with Hillary, but he's also saying that answering that narrow question in isolation is basically meaningless. Which, of course, it is.

It's sort of interesting I think that, by running the sort of detail-oriented campaign that crusty old pundits and wonks have long thought should be conventional, Edwards has suggested a fair number of "things" that will likely need to happen if we're ever to change the politics of our country. Meanwhile Obama is running a campaign that, by being premised on the idea that we need to change the politics of our country, is completely conventional by all other standards.