ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



And here comes Dodd's memo

Posted: Friday, October 26, 2007 12:30 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray
Every Democratic presidential campaign now seems to be releasing a memo. Just a few minutes ago, Dodd communications director Hari Sevugan sent a missive to the press -- but it has nothing to do with Iran or Kyl-Lieberman. Instead, it's about Dodd's work to deny amnesty to telecom companies who might be engaged in the Administration's domestic surveillance program, and how Clinton and Obama are now following Dodd's lead on the issue.

"[T]his 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."

Sevugan continues, "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."

See below for the whole memo...

 

Memorandum

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]

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Dodd, give it us and get out of the race, only Hillary can carry us thru to victory ALL the news media id for her and with good reason. Katie Couric gave her raving reviews last night. The NYT Loves her, so get on board or be left behind, There is no more debate here, its over
Ditto Hillary4prez!
Us to.  We wood rike Hirrary to be the precident.
The media is with her, because they know she will be the most entertaining in the general election (a.k.a most polarizing)
Hillary4prez for all America / 'The NYT Loves her, so get on board or be left behind, There is no more debate here, its over'

 I dare say it is not over until the votes are counted dear, if you venture out of the big apple you might find that hillary's criminal activities and most recently her vote to bomb iran may not be playing so well, but your enthusiasm is surely worth whatever the clinton machine is paying you, by the way vote for a change for the better, edwards 08
When reading this or other blogs, it's important to know that Mark Penn, Clinton's campaign manager is the invent of 'astro-turf'.

'astro-turf' is fake grass roots.
It's a strategy to make it appear that real people are in favor of his clients, when he's really manufacturing phoney public opinion.

This makes it appear that there's a groundswell of public opinion in favor of his clients (here, Hillary Clinton).
He hires people to pose as average people in favor of the tobacco companies or the oil companies.

Are all these pro-Clinton bloggers real ?
Or are they paid operatives ?
Do you know anyone who would post as 'Students at UNF' ? as 'Hillary4prez for all America' ?
It's all a smokescreen by Mark Penn.
How many of these 'people' are real ?
You be the judge....
I couldn't agree less. The election is far from over, and I for one have not made up my mind. Who the hell cares what Katie Couric thinks? Please! Hillary did not impress me at all with her last vote on Iran. It really depresses me to think we are going to get more of the same from a Bush/CLinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty.
No offense, but being first lady DOESN'T COUNT as foreign policy experience.
I think Dodd is doing the right thing, and am ashamed of any democrat who does not see it, regardless of who you support for president.
'...to deny amnesty to telecom companies who might be engaged in the Administration's domestic surveillance program...'

Good for you, Chris !
Let's let the courts decide if the telephone companies violated our privacy!
Why should politicians decide ?
If the phone companies did the wrong thing:
LET THEM PAY !!

There is usefulness in your campaign.
Keep finding good issues and keep pushing them.

...and thanks for voting NO to WAR WITH IRAN !!

It's a pity that Kucinich and Gravel aren't allowed to play similar roles in the debates.
Unfortunately (I think) Kucinich is a little to far out there and a little too impractical.
Democrats are great at memos.  Too bad they suck at everything else.
Sierra - That is definately how she works.  Watch here campaign censor supporters of a different candidate here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa30AgNzkM0
Jump on Hillary's wagon... and ride it to defeat.
Dodd is full of it, and sadly desperate!  Not only did he originally claim that it was "unknown" whether Joe Biden supported or opposed telecom amnesty, despite Biden having already publicly stated he was against amnesty for telcom companies.

Now Dodd takes credit for Clinton and Obama's vote in May against the war supplemental, and criticizes Biden for voting to "to give Bush what he wanted." Whether Dodd pressured Obama and Clinton in May is their respective problem, but Biden was the only Democratic Senator running for President who showed courage and leadership in his war supplemental vote. The other three should be ashamed of themselves!

Dodd, Clinton and Obama showed that politically calculated votes (that they knew would not end the war one day sooner) take priority over the lives of soldiers.

If voting in May against the supplemental would have ended the war one day sooner, I'm sure that Biden, the only Democratic Presidential candidate with a son heading off to Iraq in 2008, would have voted against the funding. What father wouldn't, especially one who still lives with the pain of his daughters death. All voting against the supplemental accomplishes is delaying funding for troop protection. Nothing more!

If Clinton, Dodd and Obama's politically motivated, but cowardly, vote really would have any effect ending the war, why did only 5 of the 21 Democratic Senator's who voted against the 10/11/02 authorization also vote against the May supplemental?

Did Senator's Akaka, Bingaman, Byrd, Conrad, Durbin,  Inouye, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, (Jack) Reed, and Stabenow who all voted against the Oct. 11, 2002 authorization in the Senate, and Senator's Sherrod Brown, Ben Cardin and Robert Menéndez who all voted against the Iraq authorization on October 10, 2002 as members of congress, have a change of heart and now when it's obvious to everyone that Iraq's a mess, these Senator's who opposed the Iraq resolution in the Senate (or House)in 2002 now support staying in Iraq? Of course not! They voted in favor of the supplemental because despite their opposition to the war, they will not allow those views to stand in the way of protecting American soldiers.

What Dodd fails to mention when he claims "Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, voted to give Bush what he wanted" is that Senator Biden didn't  vote to give Bush what he wanted, but voted to protect the Sons, Daughters, Brothers and Sisters, Dads and Mothers, of many Americans, instead playing politics with real lives!

Biden was able to insist the supplemental include immediate funding for 18,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, which reduce IED deaths by 80%.

Biden had been trying, without success, to get funding for these vehicles for several years, after he learned during a trip to Iraq of their effectiveness in saving lives from IED blasts, which is the leading cause of American deaths in Iraq. For reasons I'll never understand the WH and DOD didn't consider funding these vehicles a priority.  

Due to Biden’s leadership and insistence on immediate funding for the MRAP vehicles in the May supplemental    four Iowa based guardsman are alive today! Last week these young men were in one of the MRAP vehicles produced as a result of the May supplemental, when an IED went off.  

According to the Iowa National Guard spokesman, if they had been in the regular Humvee, and not in one of the new MRAP vehicles that Biden was able to get to Iraq, they would have died. The only reason these four young men weren't in a regular Humvee last week is because of Senator Biden's efforts and insistence that the supplemental include immediate funding for these vehicles.

I'm sure if voting against funding could actually bring troops home sooner, you could make an argument that these 4 lives would be worth losing in exchange for the lives that would be saved by getting out sooner. But because voting against the supplemental will not end the war one day sooner, voting against funding intended to protect lives is immoral!

No one from my family has served, nor are any of them likely to ever serve in Iraq, but an employee of mine, who joined the Guard for college money spent a year over there, and another employee's son is there right now. These are real people, with real families, it isn't a game.  Just because Bush is bull headed and irrational, does not excuse candidates for President  casting politically motivated votes in order to gain electoral support, when these votes jeopardize lives.

Fortunately Biden isn't like Clinton, Dodd and Obama.  As Biden's said many times, "there are some things worth losing elections over." I'm sure four Iowa families appreciate Biden's effort in securing immediate funding and deployment to of these MRAP vehicles to Iraq.
Sara:  

You're clearly very passionte about this, but you're wrong to state that "Dodd is full of it and clearly desperate".  Dodd is taking a principled stand against this bullsh**t war.  Stop the funding and bring them home. PERIOD.  There is NO WAY that we can win this -- it is UNWINABLE -- IT IS A GOAT RODEO.  

Will giving money for better equipment save four lives?  Yep -- and that's a nice, little miopic view of things.  Hitting the administration in the pocketbook and stopping these blank checks to Bush will be more effective in the long run.  

Your anger is misplaced.  Try aiming it at the real culprit -- George Bush and Dick Cheney -- the two morons that got us into this mess in the first place.  
"Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 4:10 PM)"

You make some very good points, which few Democrats choose to recognize.
Pulling Funding does not "Stop the War", nor would pulling all US troops out of Iraq "Stop the War", its just not that simple.



Patricia, Fairfax, VA :

My anger is not misplaced. I am not angry at Dodd for his IWR vote, and he's entitled to vote against funding, I think it was wrong, but didn't criticize it until he tried to make it a false political issue.

However I do not appreciate Dodd claiming on his website that Biden's view on telcom amnesty is "unknown", when Biden had come out against telecom amnesty long before Dodd put that claim on his website. Maybe Dodd was completely unaware that his campaign claimed that Biden's views were unknown, or maybe his campaign didn't bother to check to see if Biden's views were known, before claiming they were unknown, although as I recall both Dodd and Biden showed up to a forum in Waterloo Iowa, and that was a question, and both opposed telcom amnesty, so Dodd personally was aware of Biden's position. To Dodd's campaigns credit, they did correct that portion of their website after Biden's staff alerted them to the falsity of their claim. I don't believe its appropriate to make false accusations against other candidates, whether intentionally, or because of lack of research.

I do think Dodd is full of it, because I believe from watching Dodd over the years he knows full well that there are not the votes to end the war, the reality is that the next President will inherit W's mess. He has said so many times during the campaign. It sucks, but it's reality. Dodd knows this, and I assume you realize this also. As I said if stopping the funding would bring the troops home one day sooner you could justify cutting off funding. Basically sacrificing the lives of soldiers now to save more in the future. But that is a false argument. 1. There is already enough money in the pipeline to keep the war going through 1/20/09 when the next President is sworn in. 2. There are not the votes in the Senate to stop the funding, all you can do is delay funding. There may be the votes in January 09, but there are not now.

Of course the war is the responsibility of Bush and company. And I was against it from the start. And I don't think the war, a civil war, is winnable? I don't even know how you define winning, or victory.


You may think it's myopic to believe it's our moral obligation to fund the troops because it saved four lives, but actually that was not what I said. I have no clue how many lives have, or will be saved because Sen. Biden insisted on funding for the MRAP vehicles. I know about the four young kids from an Ottumwa Iowa Guard unit, because it was reported locally. How many more have already been saved, and many more will be saved between now and the eventual end to this madness will probably never be known. But I do believe that as a country when we send kids to fight a war, whether a just one like WWII, or this insane action, we have a MORAL obligation to do everything possible to protect these soldiers. These young kids aren't the ones who picked this fight. Most of the people in guard units join to help pay for college. I was fortunate and had parents willing and able to pay for college, but for too many this is their only way to receive a higher education. My children are fortunate and won't be forced to join the Guard to pay for college. It's a pretty sad situation that you have to potentially sacrifice your life in order to go to college, but it becomes  tragic if the government won't do everything to protect you after sending you off to fight.


I have to assume that anyone who supports cutting off funding, (and I'm not supporting rubber stamping Bush's requests, there is funding in W's latest supplemental that need to be taken out) does not have a loved one in Iraq, or know some one who does. When you hear a secretary (whose son is in Iraq) break down in uncontrollable sobs after taking a phone call (someone you've known for over a decade and never seen close to tears)your heart sinks. When you find out her son's fine, its just his best friend since basic training who died in an IED attack, and the call was from her son whose shaken up and upset over the loss of his friend. You're relieved that she didn't loss her son, and feel a little guilty that your happy it was some young man from Indiana.

The only thing more immoral to deny funding for these MRAP's in the May supplemental, was the failure of the WH and DOD to have included these vehicles in prior funding requests. Thank God Biden cared enough about these young kids to insist on immediate funding for these MRAP's, but why didn't the WH do this long ago?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=432924

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google