Guess what? The media is paying lots of attention to global issues. At last, writes Heather Hurlburt on the Connect US blog, those of us who've been working feverishly to get the public to sit up and take notice of what the U.S. is doing around the world have their wish granted.

Lo and behold, these issues will be a key feature of the debate in this election season, and prominently -- not just on Iraq, but regarding intervention in general, preventing the spread of deadly weapons, force vs. diplomacy, the style with which the U.S. behaves itself in the world, energy policy, the Middle East, etc. Especially if you read speeches and policy papers, the primary season has produced a reasonable amount of rich content. A great moment for advocacy groups to be out there talking to the newly-engaged public, right?

But the public isn't hearing our carefully nuanced language about responsible U.S. engagement. Hurlburt cites a recent survey indicating that when Americans hear the word "engagement," they think "troops." Writes Hurlburt, "The public has just lost, in the past seven years, all concept that we have other ways of interacting with the world. They sure aren't being shown alternatives on TV." She issues a challenge to advocates on foreign policy issues: be direct, be concrete and don't shy away from the fact that these issues are complex. Generalities get misunderstood.