Real Security Press Conference - A Missed Opportunity?

[Mass]

As was largely discussed yesterday, the Congressional Democrats had an event "launching" their national security platform.

Nice event, with a brand new DNC website listing the main points:

http://www.dnc.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

However, what could have been the perfect opportunity to show that the GOP has been lying all over and that Democrats are presenting a continuity in their thoughts, by highlighting that these proposals were mostly the proposals of the 2004 campaign and that some had been offered as bills by the Democrats in the previous years, became a biteless event highlighting mostly that the Clinton policy was good.

If anything, the media reports today make it clear:

- The media cannot remember anybody who spoke, quoting for the most part Reid and Pelosi, and for some Clark. The Financial Times is the only one quoting Reed, though Reed is supposed to be the Democratic point man on these issues in the Senate. Known senators and Congresspeople, like Kerry, Biden, Murtha, Levin, ... who are known to the public, apparently served as backdrop to the event (not necessarily all of them). The message is as clear as possible:in 2006, the only people we have to offer are the one who were in power 6 years earlier. Do not count on the Senate and the House to weight in on these issues.

Sierra Times

Flanked by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed that Democrats could do a better job of defending the country than the Bush administration has done since the Sept. 11 attacks.

- The media are all using the fact that "it is not new". It may be the major flaw of this operation. Democrats are presenting their national security plan as if it was new. Obviously, we all know it is not. But, rather than putting this in evidence and explain clearly how the Republican House and Senate rejected them, they keep silent.
Media Matters got part of it, but, instead of putting the blame to whom it belongs, they accuse the NY Times. May be it would have been better if the Democrats had made the point themselves.

- Iraq: May be the weakest point of the conference, but I am not sure it could have been avoided. The platform does not offer anything else than a vague assessment that we need a "reasonable redeployment" (except blaming Bush). They do not even talk about the Levin Amendment last year as an accomplishment of the Democrats.

www.liberaloasis.com

... But they do agree on the fundamental principle that Iraq can’t be truly liberated and stabilized if our troops never leave – a principle that the GOP rejects, but also is extremely uncomfortable saying publicly.

...

In the new “Real Security” plan, Dems call for “responsible redeployment,” but don’t define what that means, and don’t explain how that is different from the GOP position -- a step backwards from last November's resolution.

(For what it's worth, according to the Financial Times dispatch from the “Real Security” announcement event: “ Reid said that withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq by 2008 was “a goal” but added that he did not believe in imposing a timetable.”)...

As Bill Scherr says later in the article,

But you can count on Dems being asked over and over again, “what do you mean by responsible redeployment?”

So they best have an answer. And it should be an answer that helps voters make a choice in November.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603300002

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002898802_dems30.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032900338.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a0c00328-bf7d-11da-9de7-0000779e2340.html

Results: Zilch. Articles saying Democrats have nothing to show for National Security and networks showing Pelosi holding the pamphlet upside-down.

[Mass]

1. A few clips of the event

http://www.housedemocrats.gov/video/RealSecurity.mov

Makes clear the point concerning the absence of Congresspeople speaking.

It is not that the people who spoke were bad. It is that it is an event for the Congress and they behave as if nobody was able to talk about the issues in the House or the Senate.

(You can get a glimpse of Kerry a couple of times when they show the complete podium - He is at the top left of the podium).

[MH1]

2. Good post.

Missed opportunity, indeed. Sigh.

[wisteria]

3. Another good idea gone wrong.

Do we purposely set out to be so ineffective? I realize the media was no help, but our "leaders" should add the media factor into any plans they make. I though the purpose of a press conference was to attract the press and in turn the publics attention.

This may be why Kerry is calling in on Ed Schultz and Frankin's show. (changing the topic a bit,I wonder if Frankin will question him on anything "Kos" had to say about Kerry or Kerry's campaign?)