- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"The strategists for the Democrats in Congress seem to think that it's their words that matter, when in fact it's their deeds that matter, and the muddled messages that they convey when they back down in the face of an aggressive attack speak volumes to the American people about who the Democrats are. If they're trying to change the perception that the Democrats are weak in the face of aggression, the first way to do that is to stop being weak in the face of aggression at home and to stop being fearful every time the Republicans rattle their sabers."
There is both right and wrong in Westen's message-- on one hand he points to Jim Webb as an exemplar of how democratss should comport themselves, referring, mainly to his State of the Union response while neglecting to address Webb being among the dems who buckled on crossing over to vote with the GOP on this summer's FISA legislation. Likewise, I absolutely agree with him regarding Kerry's failure to defend himself. To me (and I imagine many others) he seemed more concerned about demonstrating his patrician aloofness and unwillingness to break into a sweat in response, only reinforcing a certain GOP narrative.
Unfortunately, our mediocre-- or worse-- big time national news outlets tend to take their cues from the opposition candidates during election cycles when it comes to critiquing administration policy, and during the week leading to the FISA vote, HRC and Obama absorbed a lot of the time the tv news devotes to politics in slinging sound bites back and forth regarding whether or not Obama was sufficiently tough or sufficiently experienced, when they could have been educating the public about what was at stake in the FISA vote and attacking Bush,jr.
One may object thusly, "yes, but isn't that the media's job to explain what's at stake? Shouldn't the candidates hash out their differences?"
Sure-- but the so-called "MSM" generally don't do their jobs, but just regurgitate sundry talking points. And the only "analysis" that occurs is disproportionately offered by right-wing blowhards who have their own axe to grind. And in the case of the FISA debate, one of the reasons the dems look weak is they generally don't allow for the big-time news organization not doing their jobs, and here the two leading candidates helped allow this to happen, even if they did so unwittingly.
Westen, at least in this interview, doesn't seem to be taking this disadvantage that dems face into account. Their "meta-message," the cumulative impression voters get about any given candidate, is only shaped by TV ads to a comparatively small extent. Westen talks about how the democrats are seen as wafflers, but doesn't touch upon how the recent utterances by at least four of the six candidates seeming to backtrack on getting us out of Iraq will hurt them. And unless they address this squarely, it will.
