The media is about to wake up to a basic fact about the Democratic campaign -- that the two frontrunners are actually sitting senators. Meaning that (unlike the retired politicians in the race) they can actually still get something done during their campaign. But the issue that will bring this to the fore, while important, may overshadow an even better chance to show some real leadership.

Maybe there is a reason why sitting senators almost never go on to become president. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama certainly haven't made an enormous name for themselves in the Senate so far. Can anyone name a piece of legislation that carried their name on it, or that they championed? John McCain has one (McCain/Feingold) that he's actually been trying to live down ever since in the GOP; but where is the corresponding "Clinton/Specter" law, or the "Obama/Snowe" act? I should also point out, to be fair, that former Senator Edwards is in the same boat, even though he's not in the Senate any more.

The only piece of legislation that I can even remember is not exactly a positive -- Hillary Clinton's co-sponsorship of a flag burning amendment. Even after they announced their candidacies, Senators Clinton and Obama have made the news more for slinking in at the last minute to cast a "safe" vote, or (in Obama's case) not being present to vote on something because they're out on the campaign trail, or voting (in Clinton's case) for a belligerent stance against Iran.

All that's about to change, and the Senate is going to become a battleground in the race for the nomination, as both Obama and Clinton now have competing stimulus plans for the economy. The media may even pay attention to this showdown.

Now, economic stimulus is an important subject, but Clinton and Obama aren't that far apart on what they'd do about it, and a compromise can easily be reached between the two. Which is why I say that while this is important to get done, it's not the fight we should be focusing on, because it's not a fight over core principles.

I speak instead of Chris Dodd's fight against Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller, IV, over giving immunity to giant telecommunications companies for illegally wiretapping Americans.

If you haven't been following the story, here's a summary: wiretapping Americans is covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The Bush administration has ignored this law. In doing so, they went to telecommunications companies and asked to wiretap at will, without providing the legally-necessary warrant to the telecoms. One company, Qwest, refused; but all the others went along with the idea. Now they (the telecoms who participated) are being sued. Last summer, the FISA law was up for revision. Instead of fighting Bush on it, the Democratic Congress gave him everything he asked for and more, so that they didn't have to cut their monthlong summer vacation short by a few days. But they only passed a six-month extension. Which runs out in early February. Which means that the whole subject is up for debate again in Congress. But this time, since the lawsuits are actually moving forward, the White House is demanding retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies who broke the FISA law as part of the new law. This will get all the lawsuits conveniently thrown out of court, and the public will likely never find out exactly what happened.

That's it in a nutshell. The current round of updating the FISA law has hit a roadblock, though. His name is Senator Chris Dodd. So far, the House has passed a version of a new FISA law that does not include any immunity for the telecoms. The Senate had two laws to consider. The first came out of Jay Rockefeller's Senate Intelligence Committee, and has telecom immunity in it. The second came out of Patrick Leahy's Senate Judiciary Committee, and does not have telecom immunity. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to move the Rockefeller bill to the floor instead of the Leahy bill. He tried to hustle through a vote on this, but Chris Dodd returned from the campaign trail (he was still running for president at the time) and promised to filibuster the bill to prevent it from coming to the floor. Reid had to back down, and postpone action on the bill until January.

The Senate is back. It's time to revisit the issue. Chris Dodd isn't even running for president anymore, which precludes calling this a gimmick from the election trail. And Dodd is just as adamant as he was back in December to stop telecom immunity. He has sworn that he's going to really filibuster the Rockefeller bill (instead of the sham "cloture vote" that passes for "filibustering" these days) to stop it from going forward.

So. The question is: will Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama stand up for Dodd? Will they filibuster right alongside him? Will they show leadership within their own party (all the players except Bush in this fight are Democrats)? Or will they wait until they see which way the political winds are blowing and sneak in during the last minutes of a roll call to cast a "safe" vote? Hillary? Do you support telecom immunity for illegally wiretapping American citizens? How about you, Barack? Do you support this? You are both still in the Senate.

I would be a lot more willing to vote for either one of you as presidential candidates if you got out in front of this issue, took a stand, and defended it to the public. Which means -- if you choose -- you could show all of us your leadership skills. And challenge Bush administration policies at the same time. Isn't that what you're trying to convince us that you would do as president? So why not start now?

-- Chris Weigant