Like I said, I dont have much knowledge of the previously mentioned situation in Iraq, so I have to maybe take back some of the definitive nature in my statements. This has definitely spurred me to do more research and broaden the scope of my understanding, and I thank you for that, as well as for your replies throughout this thread.
As far as the latter part of your post is concerned, I couldnt agree with you more. Neither candidate has mentioned Sudan on their own, the only thing ive heard were responses in the first debate...its almost as if the situation has evaporated since then. Or perhaps the candidates both realize that the majority of Americans are of the "me-me-me" mindset - and if either candidate stressed that situation, or any other foreign situation we are not currently well invested in, it might be seen as a lack of proper priority, or useless liberalism. Too an extent this is the most logical tendancy American voters posess. Distinct concern with issues DIRECTLY related to life in America...I suppose that its the most important aspect of an administration - foreign policy takes a back seat right now, simply because its just not as pertinent.
EDIT - This obviously excludes Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea. Aside from those three, I cant really think of any other foreign policy issues getting attention this campaign, from either candidate. (Well shit, right as I typed that I thought of Canada, but you get the picture. These are all issues that directly concern America...while the situation in Sudan will most likely be an afterthought).