As Glenn Greenwald and others have noted time and again, Democrats often fail - miserably - to counterpunch against Republican attacks on their philosophy, policies, and character. After tonight's speech and this week's events, I really don't think we need to worry about that anymore with Barack Obama. Even if you do not agree, and think that Obama still went to easy on McCain tonight, or didn't hit the right themes, there is another perhaps more important fact you must consider: the media largely saw Obama's counterpunching as very strong and very effective.
Many of you are no doubt thinking, what's with my obsession with the media? Well, I have my reasons. First among them is my strong belief that so much of our discourse, and the way that people perceive politics and politicians, hinges on the way that these things are described and covered by our increasingly ubiquitous news organizations and punditry. This is especially the case when the media seizes uniformly on a singular narrative, and in so doing psychologically surrounds the public in a way that is very difficult for people - especially people who don't keep up on events independently - to resist.
Accordingly, even if you didn't think Obama attacked strongly enough, or on the right topics, if the fundamental thrust of that concern is the effect that such an attack will have on the public and the ability to win the election, it is just as well if the media overwhelmingly thinks he did. I think we already have strong evidence that this is the case.
On almost every station (not including the lost cause of Fox) to cover the convention and speech, the assessment was clear and consistent - Obama hit McCain hard and challenged him on his own "strengths." Chris Matthews, that bellwether for every overcompensating, chest-thumping male, went into full shiver-up-the-leg mode with the resolve Obama communicated in both words and tone. Brian Williams pontificated that Tim Russert would be creaming his pants if he were alive today. Even Republican mouthpieces like Alex Castellanos and Amy Holmes, who can generally be relied on to put a negative spin on every Democratic happening, were sputtering that Obama walloped McCain. Mr. Castellanos even went so far as to say the people not selected to be McCain's running mate were the lucky ones.
Now, I realize what some might say - that by failing to attack on certain themes such as torture, illegal wiretapping, and other forms of Republican lawlessness, Obama's boost is rivaled or outweighed by the condoning effect of his silence on those issues. As you might imagine, I do not believe this to be the case. From speech to speech, especially on ones as heavily watched and scrutinized as tonight's, Obama has to make utility calculations as to what to say and how to say it. With literally millions of people crying out for him to address innumerable issues, and a dizzying array of political factors to consider, some things - even major things - are bound to be left out. That said, I do think Obama twisted the knife on enough matters, and for other matters made his attack more subliminal, to avoid essentially endorsing the things he did not mention.
To expound on the latter aspect of that point, I think we must keep in mind that Republicans are not the only ones capable of "dog whistling." Oftentimes, liberals rightly note that a Republican has managed to say something without actually saying it, usually as a way to avoid any of the direct fire for having said it outright. Usually, they do this with regard to cultural, racial, and similar issues. These tactics are often very, very effective - perhaps more effective than frontal assaults because they allow the listener to make the mental connections, which causes a deeper internalization of the point. Also, as mentioned, the dog whistle allows the speaker to avoid the potential ramifications of having made the point bluntly.
We may not fully realize it, but Republicans are not the only ones with dog whistles. Democrats can make them too, granted on different, more substantive matters.
Of course this is not to suggest that there is or should be anything shameful about the message being sent - for instance, opposition to illegal wiretapping. However, we must always keep in mind the extreme toxicity and irrationality of our current political and media environment, and particularly consider the effectiveness of the subtle versus the overt technique for any given time, venue, and speaker. Beyond this, never underestimate the power and utility of surrogates, such as Al Gore in his speech tonight, when he referenced some of the issues not often mentioned. Yet even Al Gore, hero to me and others with a passion for curbing government abuses, did not address every issue of abuse specifically. Instead, for those he did not mention, his call to protect the Constitution was - if not a dog whistle - a broad umbrella under which the smaller issues lay. Even Al Gore, now regarded by many as a great example of how a leader must act, understood venue, audience, and technique.
In essence, therefore, I think we liberals and our allies in the rational world have much with which to be pleased tonight. Of course, we also have much to contemplate, the candidate is not "perfect" on everything, and the election is far from won. Nevertheless, Obama's speech has sent shockwaves through our establishment communication centers and the country at large. Quite simply, he has left little doubt now that his candidacy bears hardly any resemblance to the last two Democratic campaigns for president, and not just with his speech tonight. What we saw throughout the week, culminating this evening, was indeed a rollout of a wildly different kind, for a campaign and movement unlike anything the Democratic Party has seen in a long, long time.