A funny thing happens when Democratic presidential contenders debate without ever mentioning Iraq: They relentlessly agree. And — when in front of diehard party loyalists like they were last night at Washington’s historically black Howard University — the Democrats come across a bit more liberal than most might want to be remembered, if one of them gets the nod to run against the Republicans in next year’s general election.

The debate aired by PBS was the first to skip over the war in Iraq, giving the candidates a break from once again airing their differences on that subject. But it also made this session a bit boring and repetitive as candidates took turns using similar words, endorsing their many shared priorities, from fighting racism and poverty to proposing universal health care and higher taxes for the rich. Indeed, I fell asleep about 10 minutes into this one. Luckily, I had it on tape — and you can bet the Republicans do, too.

After getting hammered for years by the conservative takeover of talk radio, Democrats are fighting back on several fronts — from challenging their foes on air to endorsing the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, the abandoned federal regulation that once obligated broadcasters to balance the political opinion they air.

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, raised the roof on this emerging campaign against conservative punditry by phoning in to MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Tuesday to debate right-wing icon Ann Coulter.

Behind the scenes, prominent Democratic lawmakers are exploring the idea of more regulation. While some of this is aimed at showing the party’s grass-roots activists that their leaders are fighting back, it also provokes a serious debate about the role of government in regulating public airwaves.

Unless broadcasters take steps to voluntarily balance their programming, they can expect a return of fairness rules if Democrats keep control of Congress and win the White House next year.