What Obama Should Say In His Victory Speech Saturday Night

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:58:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Barack Obama will easily win the South Carolina primary Saturday. But because the win will be fueled by overwhelming African American support, the momentum of such a win may be blunted. There is a way for Obama to make that victory something transformational for his campaign -- he can announce in his Saturday night victory speech that he will be returning to Washington to join Chris Dodd in his fight against telecom immunity. As Glenn Greenwald says:

The only way for there to be any prospect of impeding Bush's most extreme demands for vast warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunity for lawbreaking telecoms is for the presidential candidates -- Obama, Edwards and Clinton -- to demonstrate (rather than speak about) real "leadership" and take a stand in support of Chris Dodd and his imminent filibuster.

Some will say Barack Obama can not do this when he needs to be in 2/5 states campaigning. I think they are wrong. The bully pulpit of a Senate filbuster will get Obama immense national coverage that will reach into all of the 2/5 states. It will prove that Barack Obama is indeed a Fighting Democrat, ready to take on extreme Republicanism. It will reassure liberals and Democrats that Obama will fight for Dem values. It will be good for Obama's political fortunes AND for the country. A perfect combination for him. He should do this.

< Wednesday Reading and Open Thread | Distorting The Reagan Dispute >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Obama Should Say In His Victory Speech Saturday Night | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes, but I doubt he'll (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST

do it. Could be used against him as soft on the war on terror. But, will Hillary Clinton show up?

Yeah, what about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:14:37 AM EST

I'd like to see her do this, too--especially since her lead in a lot of the upcoming states is so vast, I think she can afford to take time off. He's going to get hit on his being absent more than her while the primaries have been going on. Especially blasting her on the Iran vote when he wasn't even there for vote. ("Present" doesn't work in the US senate)

What hillary Should Say In Her Concession Speech (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:16:42 AM EST

did not seem like a catchy title to me.


Ha. Now that I realize (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:19:39 AM EST

the true purpose of the title is to persuade us to actually read the post, . . .


: Heh (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST

Obama is still distracted by (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:17:31 AM EST

Bill Clinton:

TRUTH SQUAD


Would be a smart move (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Mimir on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST

Would be more difficult for Hillary to keep accusing Barack of having voted "present" if she doesn't also show up to help Dodd.

: Kyle Lieberman (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM EST

That Would Be Showing Actual Leadership (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST

Unfortunately, our leading candidates don't do leadership. They make speeches about leadership.

Actually, why should they do anything other than make speeches when so many of their supporters are willing to settle for only talk. Supporters of both Hillary and Obama address this challenge by telling you that their candidate said that they support a filibuster on this issue.

I hope one or both of them surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.

: You are probably right. (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST

Lets send Bill Clinton. I'd like to hear him filibuster.

an old saying: (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by cpinva on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM EST

"don't count your victory speeches before they hatch."

the romans learned this the hard way, as hannibal pillaged the countryside.

: Ditto. There is a reason Obama is (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM EST

not only staying in S.C. but also criticizing HRC for leaving and for Bill and Chelsea staying.

Another advantage of joining Dodd's filibuster (none / 0) (#9)
by Mimir on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST

Hillary and Barack can use their question time to sharpen their attacks on each other. Would be a great debate forum without the inanity of the Russerts, Blitzers, etc.

Plus, Dodd's going to need the time for bathroom breaks.

Oy. Silly, silly, silly. (none / 0) (#11)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:33:38 AM EST

Not meaning to be rude, but this post falls into one of the many campaign season fallacies that are generally avoided on the front page here at Talk Left. BTD is confounding one of his personally important issues with something that the public is interested in.

That's not to say that the issue isn't important. And perhaps the morally right thing to do would be to follow BTD's advice. But politically? To stop campaigning in the single most critical period of the primaries to fight a legislative battle that the public neither knows nor cares about? Why is that smart?

Maybe The Public Would Know Why They (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:40:47 AM EST

should care if Obama and Clinton showed that it was important enough to return to D.C. to fight the battle.


I doubt it. (none / 0) (#22)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST

If you're saying that Obama's victory speech should be a long harangue at the general public for their lack of interest in a subject that's considered vitally important by a small fraction of the population -- that hardly sounds like a wise political move to me.


: Heh (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM EST

I am pretty sure you distorted that comment.

: Please Take The Time To Read My Comment (none / 0) (#41)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST

It referred to returning to D.C. to fight the battle. I did not mention anything about making a speech. I, personally, think that there have been too many speeches and too little action.
Don't tell me what you plan to do. Do it. Don't tell me you are a great leader. Show me some leadership on a very important issue.

What's destructive (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST

is the attempt to separate politics from policy.

You may want to hear another "unity, unity, together, hope, unity" speech, but I'd prefer hearing about some issues. The issue mentioned in this post is of some particular urgency.


I certainly like to hear about policy. . . (none / 0) (#26)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:03:46 AM EST

on which score I think, in general, Clinton is somewhat better than Obama.

However, this post doesn't advise Obama to simply talk about policy, it advises him to essentially cede the February 5th races to Clinton. The implicit argument that it would help him politically to stop campaigning in favor of taking action on this relatively unimportant (in the public mind) issue just seems silly to me. Right now he's in a tight race for the nomination, his job is to secure that nomination, and his taking time off for another endeavor, no matter how important we may believe it to be, is unrealistic.


Wow (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST

First of all, no one suggested that he stop campaigning.

Second, his job is to be a U.S. Senator. If he does a good job there, and tells America about it, the primary voters should come.


First off. . . (none / 0) (#42)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM EST

I think that's pretty much was BTD was, in fact, suggesting.

Secondly, I think you echo that in your second statement -- that Obama's job is to be a Senator first and candidate second. I agree that there's a big problem with people currently serving in some other post taking on the full-time-plus role of candidate. But unfortunately that's the deal in the current system. Obama's job right now -- his only job, if he has a hope of succeeding in it -- is to win a majority of delegates on Feburary 5th.

Elsewhere in this thread I've outlined why I think it wouldn't help him in job 1 (winning February 5th) to spend a lot of time in DC on this issue.

There are, incidentally, plenty of other Senators who aren't running at the moment. It's odd that there simply isn't much support for Dodd, even from strong civil libertarians in Congress.


This is a campaign strategy , (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:38:25 AM EST

and it would get attention because Obama already gets attention.

What's the only thing anyone knows about the Senate? The filibuster.

Obama apparently now has a problem with liberals; this is a good way to correct it.


If liberals are willing to support him (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST

based on faith, why bother?


As I said. . . (none / 0) (#50)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST

I think it wouldn't get any attention because no more than 5% of the primary electorate follows this issue or particularly cares about it (and if that's an indictment of the electorate, so be it).

Yes, the public knows about filibusters but if Dodd filibusters with support from others it will still be the Dodd filibuster. And I'm not sure how much the public supports filibusters in the abstract. Again, the blogosphere is crazy mad for filibusters, but I don't the broader electorate will care and, if they do, they might not care in the same direction as you do.

Finally, Obama does not have a problem with liberals -- he derives his (Democratic) support from liberal, college-educated, high-income elites. His problem is with working-class, pocket book issue Dems and, increasingly important on 2/5, hispanics.


Did you read the entrance poll from Nevada (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST

and the exit poll from NH?

Obama most certainly does have a problem with liberals.


No. . . (none / 0) (#53)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM EST

I'm working from reports of demographic breakdowns and imputing liberalism to college educated high-earners. Please post more info if there is specific data on "liberal" support.


See (none / 0) (#54)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:45:45 PM EST

here

Hillary beat Obama by double digits with liberals.


: Thanks for that data. . . (none / 0) (#55)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:54:36 PM EST

I'll just point out Clinton beat Obama in all left-to-right comparison groups (yes, by the largest amount in self-identified liberals) and in almost all the groups of any kind in that Nevada entrance survey.
Obama seems to also have a big problem among Catholics, for instance -- bigger than his problem with liberals. Perhaps some time in Rome would be more to the point?

I am pretty sure (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:05:54 AM EST

that was not what I advised.


I beg your pardon. . . (none / 0) (#39)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:20:12 AM EST

you wrote:

he can announce in his Saturday night victory speech that he will be returning to Washington to join Chris Dodd in his fight against telecom immunity. . . Some will say Barack Obama can not do this when he needs to be in 2/5 states campaigning. I think they are wrong. The bully pulpit of a Senate filbuster will get Obama immense national coverage that will reach into all of the 2/5 states.

I took the phrase "returning to Washington" and "when he needs to be in the 2/5 states" to mean that he would actually return to Washington and largely stay there as part of potential filibuster against immunity legislation.

You yourself point out the other side of the argument: "Some will say Barack Obama can not do this when he needs to be in 2/5 states campaigning". I believe that to be correct.

Specifically, I don't believe there will be "immense national coverage" resulting from any action on this issue. I think they'll be a few reports on NPR and the in the Times (in which Dodd would figure most prominently) and not much else. I think you're confusing immense blog coverage with national coverage.

If Obama wants to get the benefit of this he could simply announce that he will support a filibuster, without pre-scheduling an absence from the campaign. Of course, Clinton would then try to get her supporters in the Senate (assuming she has any -- Obama seems to be racking up the endorsements) to schedule a vote for the first few days of February to get Obama off the trail.


Well (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST

one day in Washington with what I believe will garner immense national coverage is good for his campaign.


: In that case. . . (none / 0) (#52)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:32:57 PM EST

I did not clearly take your meaning.
Certainly, appearing briefly in Washington on some important matter that concerns the public would be a good campaign move. I don't think the telecom immunity issue is that matter, but I don't think it would hurt him that much (again, as long as he weren't away from campaigning for a significant number of hours), so why not?

When I read mcjoan on the war and FISA (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:37:37 AM EST

and now this, I sigh and wish our most astute analyzers would just dump the campaign stuff and revert to analyzing the issues.


Interesting (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM EST

You think no one care about this? You think there would not be a symbolic importance to Obama fighting for this issue that would give Democrats reassurance about Obama?

I disagree.


Recent polling shows the public (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by BeBe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST

does not want immunity for the telcos. If one went back to the Senate for the debate, the other would fly in quickly. This could be an excellent campaign platform to attack Bush. They could go after Bush instead of each other and appear (rightly or not) to be working together for the interests of the country instead of just themselves. Or that is how I would push it in the campaign.

I love this site. Thoughtful, bright people who love their country first and party second.


That is correct. (none / 0) (#35)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST

You think no one care about this?

"No one" is a pretty strong term -- obviously the left blogosphere is very concerned about it.

In the wider world of the general public, however, I'd say very close to "no one" cares about it, yes. I'm a little surprised that anyone would actually believe that this issue is much in the public consciousness.

You ask:

You think there would not be a symbolic importance to Obama fighting for this issue that would give Democrats reassurance about Obama?

I think that among the very limited number of people who are following this issue and incensed about it (that is, about the same percentage of the primary electorate as voted for Dodd), it would have the effect you describe.

Among a somewhat larger (but still not that large) portion of the electorate it would cause questions to be asked about Obama's political acumen -- why the heck is he not in the most important primary states before February 5th?

And among the broadest part of the electorate the decision itself wouldn't have any effect -- they probably wouldn't even know about it. The only effect in that case would be that following from his absence on the campaign trail, with Clinton getting daily local news coverage and Obama -- maybe -- getting one mention on the national news.


The primary electorate is what matters here (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:14:54 AM EST

As I say. . . (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:25:10 AM EST

a good estimate of the portion of the primary electorate that would be swayed by this is to look at the percentage of the vote that Chris Dodd received.


: that seems wrong to me (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM EST

But you are entitled to your opinion.

Tactically (none / 0) (#17)
by commissar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:54:12 AM EST

I tend to agree.

But for how many days?

I believe one day (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST

would be enough.

PARTICULARLY if Obama lobbies his endorsers like Clarie McCaskill and Ben Nelson and Patrick Leahy.


Awesome (none / 0) (#21)
by commissar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:58:46 AM EST

He should do it.

Ten days of calling the Dynastic Duo liars, (an accurate charge IMHO), won't move the needle in 22 states.


: Seriously (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:02:31 AM EST

This COULD be transformative.

Wil the TV cameras follow, or (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM EST

just C-Span?


If Obama does this? (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:04:30 AM EST

do I need to define Media Darling for you?


He's no Dirksen. Might diminish (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:06:50 AM EST

the media's adulation of him.


Dodd would do most of the talking (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST

In that case, neither Obama nor Clinton (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST

will bother. Too bad. What about the gang of 14 agreement on filibusters?


Why? (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:13:56 AM EST

I do not follow your logic.

That Dodd will do most of the talking is why they CAN do it.

They can leave after a half day or so.


: IIts like that photo of Huckabee in the pew (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST

at MLK Jr.'s church.

I think it would be a brilliant gambit (none / 0) (#32)
by magster on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:07:03 AM EST

would regain him the liberals he lost after Iowa, fall right into his theme about standing up to the politics of fear, and would distinguish himself from Clinton.

Conversely, Clinton could get me to change my vote from Obama if she's the one to stand up.


He Should Definitely Spend A Lot Of Time (none / 0) (#43)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:37:56 AM EST

with McCaskill. She has already backed Bush on FISA. Also, she has received contributions from the telecoms.

Wish I could find the chart that showed the list of politicians receiving money from that sector. It was a great piece of information, but I have forgotten where I saw it and been unable to locate it.


: Months ago, I saw a link establishing (none / 0) (#57)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM EST

telecommunications is the 2nd largest donor to Congressional campaigns.

and to be clear (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by commissar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:57:34 AM EST

I agree 'on the merits' that this is a worthwhile, important issue. As a conservative who favors limmited governmental powers, esp. the federal executive.


this is (none / 0) (#28)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST

a very good breakdown of the Clinton-Gore years and their domestic policies...One of the best I have seen recently....

leadership vs. hope & change (none / 0) (#56)
by commissar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:01:34 PM EST

I've thought more about this. From Obama's perspective, it may not be the amount of time required, that's is problematic. (Let's suppose he'd get positive free media.)

The problem may be that this looks, indeed it IS, "stopping stuff" not "making good stuff happen." I'm not debating that the filibuster would be aimed at stopping bad stuff.

It's just hard to incorporate into "hope & change."

Political campaign themes & framing is waaaay over my paygrade, but this action might be tricky.

On a detailed, Obama-centric matter, why would he want Dodd to do most of the talking? Making speeches is what he does best. Or do I misunderstand your point?

Why is the Senate debating this instead of (none / 0) (#58)
by Ben Masel on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:42:21 PM EST

more pressing problems, like videogames?