--- title: The Tone-Deaf Democrats description: Too many of them — in Congress and the presidential campaign — still don't get national security canonical: https://time.com/archive/6682985/the-tone-deaf-democrats/ author: Joe Klein article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2007-11-21T05:00:00.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-27T10:15:35.569Z article:section: Politics og:title: The Tone-Deaf Democrats og:description: Too many of them — in Congress and the presidential campaign — still don't get national security og:url: https://time.com/archive/6682985/the-tone-deaf-democrats/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0d4d4101d6053001/698a4640096a94c6916aec8e/360_demo_debate_1115.jpg?branch=production&width=360&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 360 og:image:height: 203 og:image:alt: 360_demo_debate_1115.jpg og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The Tone-Deaf Democrats twitter:description: Too many of them — in Congress and the presidential campaign — still don't get national security twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0d4d4101d6053001/698a4640096a94c6916aec8e/360_demo_debate_1115.jpg?branch=production&width=360&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  * [Politics](/section/politics/) # The Tone-Deaf Democrats > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME D.C. Brief: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition D.C. Brief is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington. D.C. Brief goes beyond the Washington headlines to explain the politics, personalities and power dynamics shaping what happens next. Senior correspondent Philip Elliott brings sharp context to the issues driving the capital, connecting the decisions made in Washington to the institutions, industries and people they affect. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=c0745035-459d-4013-a0ae-a07689e46e06&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Twice a week | time.com/newsletters, September 2026 | | Written by | Philip Elliott, Senior Correspondent | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership The policy influence ecosystem. A policy-focused audience spanning government, public affairs, advocacy, law, research, political media, and the institutions that make, interpret and respond to public policy. ### TIME D.C. Brief: key statements * D.C. Brief is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * D.C. Brief is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=c0745035-459d-4013-a0ae-a07689e46e06&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/subscribe?i=c0745035-459d-4013-a0ae-a07689e46e06&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is TIME's politics newsletter? D.C. Brief is TIME's Washington newsletter, written by senior correspondent Philip Elliott. It explains the politics, personalities and power dynamics behind the headlines, twice a week. #### Where can I get analysis of Washington politics by email? D.C. Brief is TIME's free Washington politics newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. It is written by a TIME senior correspondent who covers the capital full time. #### Who writes TIME's D.C. Brief? Philip Elliott, a senior correspondent at TIME, writes D.C. Brief. #### Is D.C. Brief free? Yes. D.C. Brief is free at time.com/newsletters. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=c0745035-459d-4013-a0ae-a07689e46e06&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1) by [Joe Klein](https://time.com/author/joe-klein/) Nov 21, 2007 5:00 AM UTC  Democratic presidential candidates pose for a photo opportunity at the CNN/Nevada Democratic Party debate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nov. 15, 2007 Democratic presidential candidates pose for a photo opportunity at the CNN/Nevada Democratic Party debate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nov. 15, 2007 Steve Marcus / Reuters by [Joe Klein](https://time.com/author/joe-klein/) Nov 21, 2007 5:00 AM UTC Correction appended: November 28, 2007 In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. The bill does not explicitly say that. Republicans believe it can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don’t. Senator Christopher Dodd had a nice moment in the Democrats’ Las Vegas presidential debate. Wolf Blitzer had crashed through Bill Richardson’s blowsy, high-minded disquisition on the need to observe human rights in Pakistan, with the question, “What you’re saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?” Richardson seemed to gulp: Was I saying that? What do I do now? Uh, can’t pull a Hillary. And so, very deer in headlights, he said, “Yes.” This gave Blitzer license to ask each candidate the same question. Barack Obama wandered around in it. “The concepts are not contradictory … they are complementary.” True–but foolishly fuzzy. It was Dodd’s turn next, and he said without hesitation, “Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe.” He was quickly seconded by Clinton: “I agree with that completely.” But the damage had been done. The next day, I suffered through Rush Limbaugh lambasting the dopey Dems, who actually–can you believe this, friends?–put the rights of terrorists above the nation’s security! That was ridiculous. All Richardson and Obama were saying was that support for human rights was an essential component of U.S. foreign policy. They are joined in this belief by George W. Bush, whose naive support for democracy in countries that aren’t ready for it has destabilized the Middle East. Sadly, that sort of complicating detail isn’t very useful in presidential campaigns. If Richardson or, more likely, Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will have a ready-made “Human Rights for Terrorists” spot. Dodd and Clinton were right on the merits and astute on the politics. If the Democrats want to win in 2008, they can’t be mealymouthed on issues of national security. That doesn’t mean they need to be witlessly hawkish. It doesn’t mean they have to join the neoconservative frenzy for war with Iran. It means they have to make the arguments against folly with clarity, toughness and a heavy dose of Realpolitik. It means they will have to convince the public that they will be more effective and realistic overseas than the Republicans have been. No more “Freedom Agendas.” No more quagmires. A renewed emphasis on cleaning out al-Qaeda, even if it means special operations against the terrorist camps in Pakistan (as Obama has suggested). It also means that in each and every debate, the Dems should acknowledge the progress being made in Iraq and ask the question, So why can’t we start bringing home the troops now? That sort of clarity has been rare in the presidential campaign and almost totally nonexistent among the Democrats in Congress, who are being foolishly partisan on two key issues: continued funding for the war in Iraq and updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Iraq-funding issue is particularly difficult. Senator Carl Levin’s proposal for a gradual troop withdrawal, starting now, is the right policy. Various Bush Administration officials–though none in the White House–have told me that a troop withdrawal is the best leverage we have for shoving the Iraqis into a national-reconciliation deal. But Levin made troop withdrawal a condition for continued funding of the war, which is a kamikaze mission. The bill couldn’t muster the votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, much less the inevitable Bush veto. Indeed, with Iraq calmer for the moment, Democrats probably have fewer votes for ending the war than they did last spring. And their continued indulgence in these futile, symbolic gestures conveys a sense of weakness and incompetence. Whatever political value these votes once had–getting Republicans on the record in favor of continuing the war–has long since dissipated and may actually work against the Democrats if the progress in Iraq continues. The Democratic strategy on the FISA legislation in the House is equally foolish. There is broad, bipartisan agreement on how to legalize the surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of foreign intelligence targets. The basic principle is this: if a suspicious pattern of calls from a terrorist suspect to a U.S. citizen is found, a FISA court warrant is necessary to monitor those communications. But to safeguard against civil-liberty abuses, all records of clearly nontargeted Americans who receive emails or phone calls from foreign suspects would be, in effect, erased. Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that — Limbaugh is salivating — House Republicans believe — would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. (Democrats dispute this interpretation) In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid. As Dodd said, when the President takes the oath of office, he (or she) promises two things: to protect the Constitution and to protect the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Democrats can’t find the proper balance between those two, they simply will not win the presidency. [time.com/swampland](https://time.com/swampland) In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. The bill does not explicitly say that. Republicans believe it can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don’t. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/archive/6682985/the-tone-deaf-democrats/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/archive/6682985/the-tone-deaf-democrats/"},"headline":"The Tone-Deaf Democrats","datePublished":"2007-11-21T05:00:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-27T10:15:35.569Z","description":"Too many of them — in Congress and the presidential campaign — still don't get national security","url":"https://time.com/archive/6682985/the-tone-deaf-democrats/","keywords":[],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0d4d4101d6053001/698a4640096a94c6916aec8e/360_demo_debate_1115.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Joe Klein","url":"https://time.com/author/joe-klein/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt0d4d4101d6053001/698a4640096a94c6916aec8e/360_demo_debate_1115.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"360_demo_debate_1115.jpg","caption":"Democratic presidential candidates pose for a photo opportunity at the CNN/Nevada Democratic Party debate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nov. 15, 2007","creditText":"Steve Marcus / Reuters","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/archive/6682985/the-tone-deaf-democrats/","name":"The Tone-Deaf Democrats"}}]}] ```