After Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s first “Meet The Press” interview as a Democratic presidential candidate, one reality was plainly visible: Democrats need to change the subject.

In a 50-minute sit down with host Tim Russert on Sunday, the only domestic issues discussed were gay marriage and social security reform. (The latter of which was primarily discussed in the context of how his main rival, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is obfuscating her position on that and other issues in contrast to Obama.)

It’s ironic that traditional Democratic pet topics – such as gas prices, health care, the economy, the environment – are not in the forefront of such long-form interviews with Democratic candidates. Mainly though, this is a function of who is asking the question.

If anything, this shows how President Bush, who many of ‘ivory tower-ers’ in this country have written off as a lame duck, may be more relevant than thought.

Despite his low approval ratings and his unpopular war, Bush can still be a factor in the election and an asset for Republicans.

That’s because until Jan. 20, 2009, Bush still will have his bully pulpit.

Bush is the president. When he talks, people listen, especially the media.

Make no mistake, it is not happenstance that the main topic of discussion Sunday for Obama besides Iraq was Iran.

When the president declares that a country obtaining nuclear weapons can lead to World War III, that’s news. It’s news also that sucks the air out of the room for a whole host of potentially Democratic friendly domestic issues.

Questions on health care and home heating oil costs seem rather irrelevant besides topics as war, peace and nuclear fallout.  

Much like his team did successfully in 2004, Bush can be expected to talk up and draw attention to terrorism, Iraq and, as an added bonus this time, Iran.

It is doubtful that in the next 365 days or so before the next election, Bush is going to start a national dialogue about health care for uninsured, the growing income gap between the rich and poor or rising gas prices.

Avoiding national security topics or foreign policy issues, though, will not win the Dems the White House in ‘08. But letting the other party set the agenda won’t either.

On Sunday, it’s not that Obama fumbled any major foreign policy questions, with the exception of one possible misstep on – no surprise here – Iran.
 

• On one hand, he chastised Clinton for pledging a greater role for remaining U.S. forces in Iraq than he envisioned following a major troop withdrawal. Both admit they will keep soldiers on the ground after the war ends. Clinton, however, would direct remaining U.S. troops to have as one of their directives fending off Iranian influence within Iraq, Obama said. Obama would not. On the other hand, as Russert pointed out, Obama said in 2006 that it was in the United State’s national interest to prevent Iran from using Iraq as “a staging area from which to attack Israel and other countries.” But Obama never answered – and Russert never asked – how exactly he plans to prevent Iran from creating those staging without giving U.S. forces the directive or ability to do so.

It is largely a media myth that Democrats are inherently inept on matters of foreign policy or that the American public view them as such, which recent polling supports.  Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and even Bill Clinton were no doves. In fact, Clinton’s military budget expenditures surpassed that of some of his Republican predecessors. And President Jimmy Carter’s military spending was on par with modern presidents.

But ignoring – or rather allowing the media to neglect – the domestic, social issues that have played a large role in defining the Democratic party is not a prudent strategy.
[Meet The Press]