Look! This campaign does have substance: Foreign Relations (not Iraq)

With the glare of a thousand suns glaring back, let's look at the bald spot of both Clinton and Obama's platforms, foreign policy. It is actually quite incredible that both miss the point so dramatically.

Outside of Iraq, it could be argued that China and Palestine-Isreal are the two biggest foreign policy hurdles facing the next administration - but neither candidate has an explicit plan to address the two hot spots.

On China.

Clinton started out 2007 framing our one-sided relationship with China as "an erosion of our own economic sovereignty." Clinton also sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, urging them to ensure that foreign governments do not own too much of our debt.

Beautiful rhetoric, but unfortunately this faint attempt at beginning to address China ended early in 2007, as promising sentiment turned to a lame, hollow platform. Clinton's foreign policy aspirations are laid out in an eight page piece, written by Clinton, in Foreign Policy magazine (the article is the main foreign policy link on her website). Of the eight pages, a scant 132 words are devoted to China, 67 of which are dedicated to the description of a climate change plan that would have the United States, China and Japan work together to create greater energy efficiencies.

Clinton's plan is laughable, not ha-ha funny, but, wow, this is actually her plan funny - but at least she feigns interest in China, that is more than Obama can say.

Zero, zilch, nada, that's what you will find in Obama's official foreign policy platform regarding China. In one debate, Obama said China was "neither our enemy nor our friend" - its a good thing Obama is the change candidate, as decisiveness may not be his thing.

On Israel-Palestine.

Both take a decidedly pro-Israel stance. Neither thinks Hamas should be recognized until they recognize Israel's right to exist, stop the violence and abide by past agreements between Israel and Palestine. There are a few shiny objects thrown in to distract onlookers from the otherwise drab opaque that is their Middle East plans. For example, Obama supports continued development of the Arrow Missile Defense system (designed to thwart attacks from Iran), and Hillary supports the security wall between Israel and the West Bank.

But for the most part, both plan fit nicely into their candidates’ overall foreign policy motif - minimalist.

On Iran, Clinton has taken a harsher stance than Obama. In a move chided by many of her Democratic counterparts, Clinton voted for a resolution labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Clinton has maintained that she supports further diplomacy with the region, but some see Clinton as a Democrat capable of supporting military action with Iran.

Obama's plan centers on diplomacy, with the prospect for incentives. If Iran were to abandon its nuclear program and give up its support of terrorism it could receive incentives under the Obama plan. Such sugar cookies could include: membership into the World Trade Organization, economic incentives and normalized diplomatic relations.

Both candidates’ see Afghanistan as the 'forgotten front-line’ and both would redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama would redeploy two brigades to Afghanistan; he would also call for NATO to increase their efforts in the region. Like Clinton, he also calls for measures to end corruption in the Afghan government and secure the boarder. But like the rest of his plan, offers no way to pay for the plan.

Clinton does not give exact troop numbers, but simply says we must engage in counter terrorism efforts in Afghanistan. She would combat oppey production by funding crop-substitution programs. Her plan, unlike Obama's, directly deals with the countries infrastructure, she says that if elected she would initiate a large-scale road building project.

Both candidates fail to say how they will pay for much of their foreign policy platforms, and in many cases they are less than specific. Foreign policy for the Democrats is, at best, a work in progress.