The obvious answer - it depends. And it does but . . .
In a running dialogue I had with Marie a few days ago I started up my broken record that Iraq is the #1 issue, on substance and politics. Marie argued for the primacy of domestic issues. Perhaps too cavalierly, I may have created the impression that I view domestic issues as "easy."
What I meant was that our Democratic positions are fairly defined and being for them seems "easy" to me, and I would argue, for our candidates (I guess some don't fid it so, Alexander, et. al). Now getting them done, the politics of domestic issues, is monumentally difficult. And why I have alot of admiration for Clinton (brickbats abound), he had a firm understanding of the cliche - 'politics is the art of the possible.' The Earend Income Tax Credit alone should be enough to give Clinton some positive credit, but he don't get much love here sometimes.
I think, on substance, foreign policy issues are much more difficult - think of Iraq, not the War, which I thought was an easy call, don't do it, but the overall problem since 1991. I think it was, and now is 10 times so, an extremely difficult and dangerous issue. The policy and implementation will take, in my view, great insight and implementation abilities, sonethig we know Bush lacks.
Anyway, the question is, in a general sense, what is the more difficult, domestic or foreign policy issues?