Telecom Immunity: An Iowa Caucus Voting Issue?

One part of presidential politics that fascinates me is how certain national news stories permeate campaign narratives in Iowa and others do not. Generally, I think the Iowa press does a good job filtering out the real stories from the dumb stuff. Former Sen. John Edwards’s $400 haircut did not make nearly the dent here that it made nationally, for instance. Sen. Hillary Clinton, despite her best attempts, was not able to make her attack on Sen. Barack Obama for being willing to talk to the Iranian president with no preconditions stick here. The list could go on.

But sometimes, issues that probably should get more attention in Iowa do not, and it appears to be mostly to the detriment of second-tier candidates. Case in point: Sen. Chris Dodd’s efforts to stop a new iteration of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act that grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies who were complicit in illegally spying on American citizens has not made much news, and I don’t know why.

One potential explanation, though, is that Dodd himself has not pushed the issue here. The TV ad he released here this week is biographical, and it makes no mention of telecom immunity. Although some of Dodd’s biggest applause lines at events deal with his emphasis on the rule of law (this is how he ties his book signing events into his campaign message, for instance), he has not yet made FISA a central part of that message. And he should, because it is a point on which Clinton is vulnerable.

Today, Dodd’s national Communications Director, Hari Sevugan, sent out a memo blending together Obama’s and Clinton’s responses to Dodd’s plan to stop any Senate bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies, explaining that “After it was clear that Dodd’s actions were resonating with activists and a public campaign by advocacy groups, Senators Clinton and Obama, albeit to varying degrees and with little clarity, followed Dodd’s lead and agreed to ’support’ a filibuster of a bill that provides such retroactive immunity.” Although it is right for Dodd to take credit for leadership on the issue, blending together the frontrunners’ positions on the legislation will only muddy the waters again, just as Gov. Bill Richardson’s blending of the top three candidates’ Iraq positions has served to diminish the impacts of the differences between the top candidates on how to end the war. This is the wrong tack, because it goes after two of the race’s giants instead of one.

To break the issue into the traditional media in Iowa, Dodd needs to get more specific, and he needs to pick his target. In this case, it should be Clinton, who, as best I can tell, has not committed to oppose all forms of telecom immunity as Obama has, but merely the bill in its current form. Dodd’s message needs to be clear, and his target needs to be more strategic. And above all, he needs to be persistent, continuing to highlight it on TV and at events until it catches on here, because it will.

While Dodd campaigns under the slogan “Results Matter,” Iowans know strikingly little about Dodd’s “results.” They know he authored the Family and Medical Leave Act, and they respect him for it. They know he has been in the Senate for a long time, and some see both advantages and disadvantages of his long resume. But what they do not seem to have gotten yet is that Dodd has a comprehensive plan to advance progressive issues right now, and that he has a detailed vision for how to achieve more results as president. This is one of a few pressing, present-day issues that Dodd can really hang his hat on, and he is going to have to work hard to make it an issue that resonates in Iowa. If he works at it, Iowans will start listening.

The full memo from Sevugan is below the fold.

To: Interested parties
From: Hari Sevugan, Communications Director - Chris Dodd for President
Date: October 26, 2007
Re: FISA, Iraq and Leadership

Folks,

There’s been a lot of talk about being “ready to lead” or having the “judgment to lead” in this presidential campaign. Unfortunately, this rhetoric has not translated into very much actual leadership amongst many of the candidates in the race. The difference between rhetoric and action was made clear once again this week.

As many of you may be aware, over the last few weeks, Chris Dodd has been leading the fight against amnesty for telecom companies that were complicit in the Bush Administration’s domestic spying program. After it was clear that Dodd’s actions were resonating with activists and a public campaign by advocacy groups, Senators Clinton and Obama, albeit to varying degrees and with little clarity, followed Dodd’s lead and agreed to “support” a filibuster of a bill that provides such retroactive immunity. I’ve included some clips below that detail how prominent observers describe Dodd’s leadership on the issue.

But I also wanted to take a moment to point out that this wasn’t the first time that Senator Dodd’s leadership has caused others to follow and do the right thing. Earlier this spring, convinced that the only way for Congress to end the war in Iraq was to use its power of the purse, Chris Dodd was the first candidate in the Senate to call for a firm deadline for redeployment tied to funding of combat operations. Following Dodd’s leadership on the issue, Senators Clinton and Obama, again with varying degrees of clarity, publicly stated that they too would support such a measure.

There is no doubt that leadership is going to be a key issue in this election. But, when voters ask themselves which candidate offers the leadership America needs - leadership that can get results - they are going to draw the distinction between who has actually been leading and who has just been talking about it. Voters understand that in order to achieve results the next President is going to have to offer principled leadership, speak with clarity and bring people to his or her cause. For just those reasons, Chris Dodd has gotten results on these issues in convincing others to follow his lead, just as he has on hundreds of other issues for the last 26 years, and just as he’ll do as President. Chris Dodd will be a President that will not just pick a fight, but achieve results.

DODD LEADS ON SPYING, CLINTON & OBAMA FOLLOW…

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/_by-amelber

“Chris Dodd has drawn a line in the sand, pledging to filibuster any legislation granting immunity to telephone companies that illegally spied on Americans. Now Dodd’s leadership has drawn two more Democrats into the fight: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.”

[The Nation, October 24, 2007]

Obama and Hillary on the Dodd Bandwagon

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/056792.php

“This is fascinating. You remember a few days ago, Sen. Dodd — who sometimes doubles as a presidential candidate — said he would filibuster the telecom immunity bill now moving through the senate. Now both Hillary and Obama are saying they’d support Dodd’s filibuster.”

[Talking Points Memo, October 23, 2007]

The NATION: Chris Dodd Forces the Issue of Iraq

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195959

“It is a very good thing, indeed, that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

“Dodd is far from a frontrunner. But he is a candidate with stature and a decent campaign treasury, and he is willing to use both those assets to pressure the top-tier contenders, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama, to do the right thing.

“That’s what happened this week when Dodd, who has worked hard to position himself as an anti-war contender, purchased television ads in early caucus and primary states to trumpet his support for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from in 120 days.

“When word came that the Feingold plan could be coming to a vote in the Senate before the Memorial Day break, the Dodd campaign scrambled to develop the commercial highlighting the fact that Dodd would vote with Feingold while Clinton, Obama and another Democratic runner, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden, were distancing themselves from the explicit exit strategy.

“While Clinton, Obama and Biden talk an increasingly good game when it comes to criticizing President Bush’s handling of the war, all three shy away from using the power of the purse to constrain executive excess in a time of war.

“Dodd did not let the others off the hook. He challenged them directly with a 30-second spot that featured Dodd looking at the White House and declaring:

“Half measures won’t stop this President from continuing our involvement in Iraq’s civil war. That’s why I’m fighting for the only responsible measure in Congress that would take away the President’s blank check and set a timetable to bring our troops home. Unfortunately my colleagues running for President have not joined me. I’m Chris Dodd. I’m running for president. I approve this message because we can’t simply wait for a new President. We should have the conviction to stand up to this one.

“The ad was smart and edgy in its approach. And it worked. Clinton, Obama and Biden voted with Dodd, Feingold, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, andalmost two dozen other Senate Democrats on Wednesday to back procedural moves to bring the anti-war measure to a vote. To be sure, Clinton, Obama and Biden did so somewhat grudgingly - in Obama’s case, extremely grudgingly. But Dodd got them on the right side of the issue, and on the record.

“In the end, attempts to move the Feingold proposal forward failed by a disappointing margin, on a 67-29 vote with almost a score of Democrats joining the Republicans in opposition.

“But the Senate Democrats who would be president have, as a group, take an anti-war stand that is far more in keeping with the sentiments of the American people than most of official Washington yet understands.

“That’s good for the party and good for the country. And it is unlikely this would have happened without the timely intervention of the candidate is moving the Democratic race in the right direction: Chris Dodd.”

[The Nation, May 16, 2007]

FEINGOLD’S ALLY ON IRAQ IS DODD

“U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has been a true hero in the struggle to bring an honorable end to the nightmare that is the American occupation of Iraq.

“But he has not stood alone.

“When the Senate has voted on questions of using the power of the purse to constrain President Bush’s war of whim, Feingold has had the support of most of the Democratic senators who are seeking the presidency. But don’t think that the front-runners, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, came willingly.

“Clinton and Obama sent decidedly mixed signals early on.

“Then Chris Dodd YouTubed them. Using new technologies to produce and distribute video messages that left no space for the leaders in the race to dance around the debate on forcing Bush to bring troops home from Iraq, Dodd forced Clinton and Obama to do the right thing.

“Dodd, the Connecticut senator who is a long-shot contender for the party’s nod in 2008, used a YouTube video early in May to highlight his support for Feingold’s plan to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days. That video, and associated TV ads in early caucus and primary states, led Clinton and Obama, who had been wavering, to join 27 other Democrats who voted to advance Feingold’s exit strategy.

“Then, when the Senate was poised last week to vote on a “blank check” supplemental spending bill that was written to give Bush more money than he has asked for to maintain the occupation - with no timeline for withdrawal and only inconsequential “benchmarks” attached - Dodd broadcast his opposition to the measure.

“Speaking in his video of his support for extracting troops from Iraq, Dodd argues: “We need clarity. We need bold decisions here. It’s time that we say that we are going to complete that redeployment process within the year. And I’m urging my colleagues and others who are running for president to join me in this move. We need to send a very clear message that the time to redeploy begins now and ends within the year.”

“At a time when MoveOn.org was telling its members, “This is a key test vote on whether your representative is serious about ending the war,” Dodd made it the essential test for Clinton and Obama, both of whom were still refusing on the eve of Thursday’s Senate session to say how they would vote.

“And it worked. Clinton and Obama joined Dodd, Feingold and a handful of other senators in refusing to agree to the capitulation of Congress and the issuance of the blank check for perpetual war. (The fourth Democratic senator who is seeking the presidency, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, voted to give Bush what he wanted.) Because Clinton and Obama voted no, Dodd is unlikely to benefit from his stance. And even if voters do grow frustrated with the failure of Clinton and Obama to lead on these issues, that does not necessarily mean that early primary and caucus voters will turn to Dodd as their champion. The most likely beneficiary is still former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a top-tier candidate who has said, “The so-called compromise under discussion in Congress that would give the president another blank check to continue his failed war is a serious mistake. Full funding is full funding, no matter what you call it. Every member of Congress who wants to support our troops and end the war should oppose this proposal.” And there is plenty of competition from other anti-war candidates, including Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

“But Dodd has again played a critical role in this campaign - that of the senior senator who is saying no to the president. In the whole ugly process that, ultimately, gave Bush what he wanted, there were few heroes. But grass-roots Democrats who oppose the war ought to appreciate that it is Dodd who has been working with Feingold to turn the Senate - and the Democratic Party - in an anti-war direction.”

[The Capital Times, May 31 2007]