Paradigm Shifts, Juxtaposing Differences, and Slamming Dubya Policies

On a related story to Edwards speech.

Why is the media pretending that holding contrasting policies to Bush is not policy, or plan or strategy. Example: If my opponent believes in abortions-for-none, and I say I believe in abortions for all; really do I have to say more? What do you want to hear, how many abortion clinics I intend to build, where, and when and with who? Is that it? Screw you. What you wanna do with that? Argue that that's way too much money to spend on abortion clinics! There's no discussion to be had here. We disagree on a fundamental premise, the logical consequences of each are irrelevant to the other.

E.g., I support multilaterism, you don't. Does it matter how I go about winning friends and influencing people? No! You don't like people, you pinhead! What do you care? I have a plan, for one, I am not going to tell the UN Security Council, they are irrelevant, nor that the most powerful nations in the EU are "Old Europe" --- read "also irrelevant". There's a plan! And it costs me nothing for a start.

And the pundits, eating it up, hook, line and sinker: " Where's your plan?"

Pundits will blast you for having the charisma of a toad if, you so much as look like you want to detail your plan. Hyposhites.

Seriously, the differences between Dubya and Friends and John&John are fundamental, and of principle, they must be juxtaposed for clarity. We are not arguing semantics or relative differences (of degree). We are talking paradigm shifts here. The Democrats, under media and Republican pressure, are making a mistake by trying so hard to avoid juxtaposing the paradigmatic differences. In other words, the Bush-bashing, and so-called hatefest is necessary and hitherto, insufficient. I want necessary and sufficient.