Dodd Time?

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 15:59


Chris Dodd has put together an impressive list of accomplishments and issue positions during the past year. Here are some of them:

So, why not Dodd? He certainly seems to have an impressive list of taking leadership on important issues in this campaign. I've said in the past that I'm not too keen on supporting someone who can't get traction either nationally or in early states. The way I figure it, there are lots of other things to do in politics than to spend time working for someone who can't register above 3% in pretty much any poll. That may seem like a contradiction coming from an old Deaniac like myself, but remember that Dean was running in a mid and high teens in New Hampshire back in winter of 2003, even before the movement behind him really took off. Every poll from February and March of 2003 already had Dean in 2nd or 3rd place in New Hampshire, and always with double-digit support. Dean didn't exactly come from nowhere: his starting position was much better than Dodd's current position, and even better than Richardson's current position.

But, besides that, why not Dodd? He is looking pretty good these days. I'd like to hear some arguments on this, both in favor and against.
Chris Bowers :: Dodd Time?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Dodd Time? | 48 comments
why not dodd (4.00 / 1)
is a question that i ask my fellow dems every day.
He got me. (4.00 / 4)
Well, he just made a believer out of me. We've all been screaming for somebody willing to replace vague rhetoric with concrete action, and Dodd seems to fit that picture. I've been trying to hold out some hope for Obama, but once again he's too busy reaching out to neo-fascists to actually take a stand.

I don't much believe in poll-driven support. What the Dem party needs most long-term is voices that do more than triangulate and capitulate. Contrary to professional-players-with-balls, winning isn't everything. Sometimes setting an example matters much more. I still love Edwards's rhetoric, but his record of actual leadership is kind of shaky. For me, Dodd is the one who has really stepped out of the crowd of disgraceful Feinstein clones.

Well ... you should understand .. (0.00 / 0)
why lots of people in the lefty blogosphere like Feingold
[ Parent ]
From a practical standpoint (0.00 / 0)
That is, addressing why he isn't more than a blip, seems to me it's because he doesn't have a natural constituency.  In addition, the netroots doesn't yet see itself as a constituency (and probably isn't one) at the presidential level.  That is, Dodd's been very good about engaging the netroots but there just isn't any way to get "the netroots" behind anyone in a national primary.  Everywhere else you mitigate by local conditions (i.e. electability on some level) but nationally, everyone is demanding exactly what they want personally.

As to why not Dodd, I think there's legitimately something to be said for the apparent fact (lamentable though it may be) that he has no particular clout in general.  I love him as an idea (not just that, but still), but he has no ability to bring pressure to bear when he stakes out a good position.  For someone who's been in politics for this long with committee clout, it's a question mark- why doesn't he have more behind him to start with?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

I swear (4.00 / 1)
I have been saying for MONTHS, only half-jokingly, that Dodd's campaign slogan should be Why Not Dodd?
Re: (0.00 / 0)
He certainly seems like the best candidate to me. The problem is that there's only a very limited amount of excitement around this cycle, which Clinton, Obama and Edwards have more or less monopolised. An entrenched old-school northeastern liberal, no matter how good his policies, is just not going to find it so easy to progress, particularly after Kerry's loss.

He really should have run in 1992.

But as to why you should support him, I can't say much. I think you're right that he just won't get that traction, rendering the work pointless.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Dodd may have (0.00 / 0)
just passed Edwards in Iowa with this move. If not he gained quite a few points and is breathing down his neck. Same for Obama - Dodd just gained on him too.

I think this just gave Clinton more of a lead because to follow the polls the second three, Edwards, Obama, and Dodd are competing for the same votes - and they aren't Clinton's. So every vote that Dodd can take for the other two is a win for Clinton.

Not so sure. (0.00 / 0)
I think he's now in a position to put Clinton's feet to the fire on FISA. He acted. She waited to see which way the wind was blowing as usual. Maybe I'm just a cockeyed optimist, but a bunch of people have woken up to Bush's real worth. Maybe they'll do the same with Clinton before it's too late.
[ Parent ]
Dodd Slogan (0.00 / 0)
My husband has been saying for a while that Dodd's slogan should be "In Dodd We Trust".
I heard a rumour (0.00 / 0)
from a Dodd staffer in Iowa that that is what they jokingly say to each other.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama
[ Parent ]
That's what Jane over at FDL .. (0.00 / 0)
titled her post on this issue today.
[ Parent ]
Why support Dodd? (0.00 / 0)
How about this: the principle.

I know that sounds terribly unserious, but isn't it exactly what we expected of him, in placing this hold?

Banging my head against wall...again and again... (4.00 / 1)
Cannot. Seem. To. Get.Through.

John Edwards has said, and it's on his campaign website, that he will bring home all combat troops in Iraq withing 10 months of his taking office.

The only troops he would leave in Iraq are security for our embassy. Which I do think all reasonable folks would agree we would need. I sure as hell wouldn't serve in that embassy without some American security guarding me....and no, no Blackwater thanks.

Again:

John Edwards stated policy is to bring all combat troops in Iraq home within 10 months of his taking office.

Period.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

This is not meant (0.00 / 0)
as an attack on the candidate I am most likely to support -but why didn't commit to getting troops out by 2013 in the debate.

I don't understand it.

[ Parent ]
But (0.00 / 0)
Then he says that he would have troops there to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred to protect humanitarian workers. Presumably those few hundred would be involved in combat.  So possibly it's not all.  I'm not arguing the merits of his plan, but there's certainly some fuzzy edges.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
To you and the commenter above.... (0.00 / 0)
Edwards has changed his stance on this. What I said is the most recent policy statement he's made and is not much more than a week old.

No security for humanitarian workers as they say they don't want that and he responded by dropping that part of his policy.

I see this as a good response on his part. Hillary refuses to admit that her vote to support Mr. Decider's war was a mistake.

Edwards listens and modifies his position where he feels he should.

That's what I want in a progressive politician.

How about you?

Note: He has not backed down on his statement that health 'insurance' companies don't deserve 'a seat at the table...'. So, he ain't no flip flopper.

Stupid concept that was from a cabal of vile scum. Another example of how BushCo had moved the Overton Window.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
If he's changed it (0.00 / 0)
He might want to update his website, since that's where I got that information in real time yesterday.  Two conflicting policy statements also leads to a bit of fuzziness around the edges, to say the least.

And again, I was not and continue to not argue the pros or cons of his position, but rather provide some context.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
I agree that Edwards anti-war position is clear. (4.00 / 1)
That is insufficient, mainly because when it comes down to it, I just don't believe any of them will be able to work any faster than the other. This isn't a slam on Edwards, as he is my favorite, primarily because he is willing to put himself on the line with a specific populist economic proposals, and because his health care proposal is a more fundamental change.

On Iraq, Edwards takes a pretty strong position, which is great, but what I really want to know is whether the new president will change US foreign policy away from the world-domination theme of George Bush and the neo-liebermans. Promises, even good promises, don't demonstrate that.

The right-wing of the Democratic Party can be defined in a couple of ways, but for me I want some kind of evidence that my presidential candidate isn't aligned with the pro-war democrats, who I believe have done as much to promote US empire building as the Republican Party.

Edwards' difficulty is that he isn't in Congress to prove anything by his votes. Or, given the present example, take a forcefull stand the way Dodd has done.

[ Parent ]
Good points all... (4.00 / 1)
so why not elect the guy and then he can 'create a record...'  heh...

Seriously, Edwards has a shot and it's mystifying to me why the netroots aren't pushing his candidacy more.

Yeah, Howard Dean....blah, blah, yadda....

Howard didn't win because we in the netroots didn't quite know how to fight the DLC and corporatist Dem infrastructure.

Maybe we still don't quite know but one thing is for sure. If we don't get in and mix it up....

Hillary will win it.

And that's a national disaster.

And if we do and she wins....well, we'll know more about how to push the progressive agenda into the political center ring. Something we won't get if we continue to sit on our hands.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
If the netroots swing behind Dodd (4.00 / 3)
even just somewhat, it would certainly generate some publicity, even if just on DC talkshows like Hardball and crap.  And then the question they'd have to ask is "why do they like Dodd" and the answer would involve talking about all his great policy positions: the carbon tax, the public financing, the habeas corpus, FISA -- as well as his leadership on Reid-Feingold and with this hold.  A noticeable sign of support for him would draw attention to these issues that he has chosen and that we very much like, and attention being drawn to those issues and our support for them is a very good thing.

Incidentally, I've long thought that Dodd was the best possible VP for Obama, not that that is likely to matter anymore.  Anyway, he is a good guy and he deserves more recognition than he's getting, not to mention that if he got that recognition it would help advance our issues.

Does anyone know Dodd's stance on .. (0.00 / 0)
health care? .. and the bankruptcy bill? ... I know CT is home to a lot of insurance companies/banking industry .. so he's kinda like Biden in that regard .. but not the blowhard camera whore that Biden is .. but that said .. Dodd is my third choice right now .. after Edwards and Obama
[ Parent ]
Bankruptcy Bill Senate Roll Call (4.00 / 1)
In the vote for S.256 (the "Bankruptcy Bill"), the correct vote was "Nay" (opposing the credit card companies). Here are some key votes:

Dodd: Nay
Biden: Yea
Clinton: Not Voting
Obama: Nay

[ Parent ]
Thanks for posting this n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Cloture vote roll call? (0.00 / 0)
If memory serves correctly, it wasn't how they voted on the Bankruptcy Bill, but on the cloture vote.
[ Parent ]
Cloture Vote (4.00 / 1)
OK, here are the cloture vote results. Nay is the correct vote (against the credit card companies):

Dodd: Nay
Biden: Yea
Clinton: Nay
Obama: Nay

[ Parent ]
Why Not Dodd (4.00 / 2)
I am currently in the "No Freakin' Clue" category, but Chris Dodd is definitely getting my attention. One of my relatives used to work for him and still raves about the experience.

Surprisingly, in some polling, Connecticut is a swing state if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee. Commuters into New York City seem to remember his tenure fondly, and the same people don't have such a strong connection to Hillary Clinton. Dodd would eliminate that particular electoral risk and even probably tip the scales in favor of evicting the last New England Republican (Chris Shays) from Congress.

OK, there's one thing that's a wrinkle: if Dodd leaves the Senate, would Jodi Rell (a Republican) get to name his replacement? I seem to remember at least some talk that that problem has either been taken care of or will be by changing how vacancies are filled, but I don't know what the current situation is.

We should all recall that Dodd (unlike some other presidential candidates, ahem) actually went out of his way to visibly support our Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, in his race against Joe Lieberman. That includes a very high profile television ad that Dodd cut together with Lamont ("I'm Ned Lamont and I approve this message," Dodd: "And so do I!")

So assuming the replacement risk is out of play, what's not to like?

I think there are two arguments for Dodd (4.00 / 1)
There are two pretty solid arguments for him:
1. Experience.  This is a significant source of strength for Hillary, and a problem for both Edwards and Obama.  Dodd's tenure in the Senate neutralizes this advantage for Hillary.  I think his experience has shown in the debates, btw.
2. Issues - On a number of issues I like where Dodd is (Iraq, privacy, global warming). 

There are two arguments against him
1. He voted for the AUMF.

I have admired Dodd since he lead the fight against the Contras in the mid-80's.  When it was tough to do so, he opposed key elements of the Reagan defense buildup and stood up against the right wing attacks support for intervention in Latin America. (Bill Clinton was for the contras, btw)

Before the vote for the AUMF I would have put him in the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party.

All of this makes the vote for the War even harder to understand.

2.  He has shown no ability to even register in Iowa or New Hampshire.  Were are no more than 9 weeks from Iowa. 
I know a little about primary history and by this point every dark horse candidate who amounted to something had already made some kind of move:

*In '72 McGovern had already built an organization
*Ditto for Carter, particularly in Iowa
*In 1980 Bush had already broken into double digits in Iowa.
*In 1984 Hart's organizational strength was acknowledged in both Iowa and NH.  Hart was in the high single digits in NH.
*In '92 Tsongas was well over 15 in NH

I believe the blogsphere needs to come to a consensus about the candidate to support.  We could do far worse than Dodd. 

But it is a little late in the game to come behind someone who isn't even on the map.  This discussion should have happened 6 months ago.

Dodd's Iraq Vote (4.00 / 1)
1. Yes, the AUMF vote was a stupid one. Fortunately, like Edwards, and unlike Clinton, Dodd recognizes it was.

2. All of your examples are pre-Internet (and I think misread at least couple). I went back and looked at the Iowa polls in October, 2003. Gephardt led every poll but ended up a distant fourth place in the January caucuses. Dean was a close second in the polls but finished a disappointing third place. Kerry was way back in third in the polls but won strongly. Edwards was a distant fourth in the polls but finished strongly in second.

It appears public opinion in Iowa is extremely fluid, at least given the right circumstances.

[ Parent ]
And by the way.... (0.00 / 0)
If Dodd came in second in Iowa that would guarantee him a huge shot at winning it all. All you need to do is surprise.
[ Parent ]
an interesting point in passing (0.00 / 0)

I believe the blogsphere needs to come to a consensus about the candidate to support.

How would this come about?  I'm not trying to throw cold water.  It raises intriguing issues.  All power to the soviets?

[ Parent ]
Acting presidential leads to being viewed as presidential (0.00 / 0)
What a concept!

Democratic voters are dissatisfied with the Democratic Congress because they (we) feel it has been spineless and unwilling to confront George Bush. Now Dodd confronts Bush by first taking on the Democrats who are caving on an important issue like the Constitution. That's two, two memes in one.

The CW is that it is hard to run for president from the Senate. Too many votes, too little executive role-playing, and both too many as well as too few opportunities to position yourself. By taking a strong, visible, even confrontational position on an issue of importance, Dodd has suddenly created a narrative of being a leader. I'll bet the more he pours on the obstinance, the more he demands accountability from the Democratic Leadership, the more he will be viewed as a strong leader, kind of a reverse George Bush.

Now, if he wanted to double-down, he could demand the House Democrats negotiate with him as well. Being confrontational when you are also right, makes you look presidential. That would get a ton of publicity. Imagine: the Senate, the House and the Presidency held hostage to protect the constitution! Wow, look at how much free advertising that would be.

Let's then see whether Obama and Clinton respond by acting presidential on an issue of importance as well.

Well, he's actually supporting the House Democrats (0.00 / 0)
The point of the Republican maneuver in the House, I think, was to delay passage until the Senate bill had been passed, because House GOP likes the Senate compromise better.

By delaying the Senate bill, Dodd has kicked the can back over to the House and given them another shot at producing a bill.  If they can get one through, the good guys in the Senate can push hard for that one in their chamber, or at least use it as ground to negotiate against.

That's why this is brilliant.  Dodd is the anti-Eric-Cantor, in this case.

[ Parent ]
Insurance industry. (4.00 / 1)
I really like Dodd, and like the kind of campaign he's run. Winnability aside, I only have one big problem with him, but it is huge: being from CT, he is so closely tied to the insurance industry and has been his whole career. To me there are 3 major issues that matter above all others in the next President's tenure: climate change, Iraq, and health care. I fear what kind of bill he would propose on health care given his lifetime of loyalties to insurers.
Health Insurance? (0.00 / 0)
Connecticut has a lot of house and life insurance headquarters. Is it also a center of Health Insurance?
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Aetna is headquartered in Connecticut and is the state's second largest private employer (behind the Foxwoods Resort and Casino). It's Fortune #85, the third largest health insurance company, and the fourth largest company headquartered in Connecticut. There's also Anthem (Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut), although just about every state could say something similar.
[ Parent ]
Searching for Potential Negatives (4.00 / 2)
There aren't too many, really, but for the record here are some more:

1. He's a white guy. We've had 44 of them already, and some people want some variety (and others don't). There's always the VP slot, though. (Dodd-Obama?)

2. He's divorced. So was Ronald Reagan.

3. He married a Mormon the second time. (Not that any bigot who cares would have voted for him anyway.)

4. He didn't go to Vietnam, but he didn't dodge it either. (He served in the Peace Corps then the U.S. Army Reserve.)

5. He had a relatively privileged upbringing as the son of a senator. (So did Al Gore.)

6. He's Catholic. (So was John Kennedy.)

7. He voted for NAFTA. (I consider that the correct vote, but obviously other people disagree with me.)

8. He is highly critical of the embargo against Cuba. (Plus for me, but is that a problem in Florida? Maybe not: younger Cubans don't like the embargo either.)

9. He met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in January, 2005, in order to see if Venezuela and the U.S. could cooperate on fighting terrorism. Good for him, I say, but of course the Republicans will try to spin that.

10. Dodd favors mandatory community service for high school students. Libertarian types might not like that.

11. The gun lobby might not like his vote against the Vitter Amendment.

12. He's open to some degree of decriminalization of marijuana. (Good for him again, but obviously it's controversial.)

13. He supports "tort reform." (Boo, hiss.)

14. He has a history in the mid-1990s of weakening securities regulations, arguably leading to abuses such as Enron and Worldcom.

15. He hired Democratic consultant Jim Jordan, Kerry's first campaign manager. (Is Jordan a good guy?)

16. He announced his candidacy on Don Imus's radio show. (What's up with that? Imus had no ratings.)

OK, at least a few of these are really, really reaching. :-)

Dodd is wrong (0.00 / 0)
"13. He supports "tort reform." (Boo, hiss.)

14. He has a history in the mid-1990s of weakening securities regulations, arguably leading to abuses such as Enron and Worldcom."

Both are dead on accurate statements.

[ Parent ]
Tort Reform (0.00 / 0)
Really? All the CTLA (Connecticut Trial Lawyers) I know are quite fond of him.
[ Parent ]
Prove it (0.00 / 0)
Dodd was on the only major Dem Presidential candidate to not speak at the AAJ annual convention in Chicago this year.
[ Parent ]
actually (0.00 / 0)
This loops back to a diary Chris wrote a week or two ago about the importance of issues stances v. leadership/charisma/character in choosing a nominee.  And for those who are into "checklist politics," Dodd looks good right now.

But a nominee has to do more than believe the right things -- as Kerry's failure proved, you also have to be able to inspire and lead and campaign like a bad-ass.  Chris Dodd hasn't had to run in a contested election since his House runs in the 1970s -- if ever.  And prior to this year, I just can't think of an issue or a fight on which I've said, "Thank goodness we've got a leader like Chris Dodd on this issue."

[ Parent ]
HUGE reason... (0.00 / 0)
...he co-authored the Hack America Vote Act (HAVA) which was then used to support (mandatory) DRE electronic theft and myriad other shenanigans which cost the United States oh so dearly in 2004.

...Stands by his claim that there was no malfeasance to the vote hackery that thus ensued.

...Friends like this...we do not need.

Correct Vote (0.00 / 0)
I'm not in favor of Kucinich-style voting, where you vote against legislation because it's not "perfect." (WTF was Kucinich thinking in voting against SCHIP the first time, only to vote for the veto override the second time?) HAVA wasn't enough, but it was definitely better than the status quo. Dodd was correct.
[ Parent ]
Kucinich (0.00 / 0)
We can go round and round on HAVA (from my perspective, it's not perfect but that's not where the votes were stolen and it's not a dealbreaker,) but Kucinich's actions were actually logical.

He was, much like Dodd, taking a principled stand with his initial vote, since reauthorisation was sure to get a majority anyway. The caveat to that is that Kucinich's principles are much more to the left and that he just doesn't seem to understand how to create a narrative. His vote to override was an acceptance that some form of reauthorisation needed to be passed and that his vote was going to be necessary for an override.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Dodd - Aetna's Insurance Choice for President (0.00 / 0)
Do you want our next President to be the servant of the American insurance and accounting industries?  On issues of consumer protection, access to our civil justice system, shareholder rights Dodd has regularly sided with corporate America.

Then look at how he polls in Connecticut.  Among the voters that know him best, he can muster only 7% support for President.  That's barely above the margin of error.
http://www.realclear...

My head is with Dodd... (0.00 / 0)
This post could not have better summed up what I have been feeling for some time now, something that I have often described to other people by saying "My head is with Dodd, my heart with Obama."

Dodd first jumped out at me when he announced his national service plan, but I never seriously considered supporting him until a month ago, when he led the field on the Iraq supplemental and habeus. Then, in retrospect, I slowly realized he had led the field throughout the year, from carbon tax to federal recognition of civil unions.

Still, though, I was reluctant to outright support Dodd. Continually impressed with his record of leadership, I kept reminding myself that I had just one vote to give on February 5, and I was not sure I wanted to waste it on some one percenter. That part of me still tugged toward Obama, hoping against hope that he would loosen up, take the youth movement that had begun to form around him and finally live up to the JFK analogies. Here I sit, though, 10 months into the campaign, still disappointed.

Obama has proven himself incapable of leading. Throughout his first two years in office I shrugged off disappointment with "Oh, he is a freshman senator in a body of 100 big egos, I am expecting too much from him." This campaign, though, has provided him a once-in-a-lifetime chance to reshape a political party, and he has squandered it. He has proven himself to be a black, male version of Hillary Clinton, and while Hillary has a much more progressive record than she is given credit for and I will enthusiastically support her if she is our nominee, I am offended that Obama thinks me stupid enough to buy Hillary Clinton's record under the Barack Obama label as "real change."

This long, long primary campaign has really been to our benefit. Or, at least, to mine. It has allowed me the time to seriously consider these things and more, and it has brought me time and again to Chris Dodd. Real leadership deserves reward, so I have given Chris Dodd $10 and I will give him my vote on February 5. I am not going to ignore him just because he is the unpopular kid in class any longer.

Now, does anyone have any suggestions for getting that Obama bumper sticker off my car? I'm having a hell of a time.

Use a hair dryer (0.00 / 0)
n/t

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA
[ Parent ]
Kucinich vs. Dodd? (0.00 / 0)
Chris Dodd is a great Senator, especially on Latin American issues.  But he voted for the war, voted for most of the war funding bills, does not match either Kucinich or Richardson on getting the troops out quickly, voted for the Patriot Act, voted for NAFTA, and does not support single-payer health care.
In other words, Kucinich beats him on all these issues that OpenLefters say they care about.
And here's the punchline:  Kucinich polls higher.
I'll bite (0.00 / 0)
Let's put aside his vote in support of AUMF and all war funding since, and assume that these can be overlooked long enough to cast a vote for Mr. Dodd.

What has he to say on the issues of the Unitary Executive and the Bush Doctrine of Preemption?

Will he pledge to categorically reverse the trend to increase the power of the executive?

Will he publically renounce the Bush Doctrine?

Taking forceful, public and unequivocal stands on these issues can further differentiate Dodd (or any other candidate) from the rest of the pack - and in a very positive way (from my perspective).


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Dodd Time? | 48 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox