I endorsed Chris Dodd for president last week. Mike Caulfield at Blue Hampshire did the same this week in one of the best endorsements of any candidate seen anywhere this campaign season. Why is it so good? Because it reaches back to news articles from 1981 onward and lets Dodd’s actions speak for him. For many years, when the going has been tough and the stakes have been high, Dodd has been there on the side of the good guys.
The list of issues that Caulfield dug up is impressive. El Salvador. The MX Missile. Family and Medical Leave. Iran-Contra. Nicaragua. Head Start. Northern Ireland. And, oddly, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which according to a 2001 New Haven Register article was largely Dodd’s responsibility in the rough going that preceded its passage. And here’s what Caulfield takes it all to mean:
There is a recent bit of analysis out that says the election is boiling down not to policy difference, but to different theories of change. Under this analysis, Hillary believes you use corporations and the establishment to leverage change while building in protections for the little guy. Obama believes that you find hidden middle ground, and discover a consensus out of supposedly competing interests. Edwards believes you apply force and pressure to the system, until the system is ready to compromise.
I completely agree with the analysis, but I find the more interesting division is between those that are theorizing and those that are doing.
When you have a proven history of change, the theory is a footnote.
Dodd entered the Senate the very year the conservative movement arrived to dismantle the the progressive dream wholesale. Yet in that environment, in the 25 year period that will go down as the Conservative Era, he found ways to expand and extend that progressive dream….
I believe we are at a 1932 moment in history. The last gasp of the Reaganism that tainted even the Clinton administration is being played out on that Republican debate stage. After November, they will sweep the remains of that grand movement into the dustbin of history.
You could choose those that stood back, and waited until history was on their side before they moved bold agendas forward. You could hope that their theories of change were correct.
Or you could choose the person, who, against all odds, advanced the progressive agenda through every means at his disposal.
I’ve seen Dodd sailing against the wind and been amazed. I can only imagine what he will do with the wind at his back.
Read the whole thing — it’s well worth your time to do so. And then, if you’re thinking of voting for someone else, consider for a moment whether you shouldn’t instead be voting for someone who may not be a media-anointed “frontrunner,” but who has for over 20 years been delivering exactly the kind of “change” that progressives say they want in Washington.
In other words, the wind is at Chris Dodd’s back right now. And he’s not going anywhere.
<
p>Why? There could be plenty of reasons.
<
p>Perhaps he’s a good underdog but not a good top dog. Like Harry Reid.
<
p>Perhaps he’s good at politicking but not good at campaigning. But that shoe doesn’t fit, given his long career in the Senate. He should have learned the ropes by now.
<
p>Perhaps he’s peaked. A real possibility, imho. But not a good fit for President.
<
p>Perhaps he doesn’t want the job, and he’s just running to bring attention to the issues. Or for glory.
<
p>Whatever his problem is, he doesn’t have my vote. I’m tired of bloggers talking about how great Chris Dodd is. I want Chris Dodd to show me how good he is, by running a competitive campaign.
<
p>Otherwise it’s like hiring the guy who had a great resume but bombed his interview. You sit back and say, “But he must be good, right?” and close your eyes to the fact that something, somewhere, is not right.
<
p>I’m not going to take that risk.
The risk that a seasoned and proven pol didn’t put together what you consider to be a “competitive campaign,” despite the presence of several candidates with ready-made national profiles (former First Lady, former VP candidate, media-anointed rock star following the DNC speech), plus the added “make history” bonus for nominating Clinton, Obama, or Richardson.
<
p>Or the risk that a rookie takes over the U.S. government at a time when, perhaps, a rookie is not what we need.
<
p>Your call.
It’s a good point about the national profiles, but at the end of the day it proves mine. Dodd could have had his own national profile by now – had he wanted it. No one said running for Pres was supposed to be easy, or something you wake up and decide over breakfast.
<
p>Every candidate who wants the job has a campaign plan that reads like this: “If I do X, Y and Z, I’ve got a decent shot at winning this thing.” And if at any moment that stops being true, they change the plan.
<
p>Somewhere in Dodd’s campaign plan, there’s this line: “And then an act of divine grace occurs, and my numbers triple. Til then, I keep plugging.” Not a winning attitude.
<
p>I could be wrong. For all I know, Dodd could be sweating his butt off in Iowa right now, and waiting for his Hail Mary plan to kick in. But I don’t see it. Generally, if you want to be competitive, than you are. And if you don’t, then you’re not. Witness Fred Thompson.
<
p>And I won’t vote for someone who doesn’t want it. Just ain’t right.
a few months ago to campaign there full-time. He was the only candidate campaigning on Christmas eve day. He wants it.
…he’s still losing.
<
p>And as condescending as it probably sounds, that ends the evaluation for me at this point. There is nothing miraculous about what Obama, Clinton, or Edwards is doing that Dodd can not do. He’s just not campaigning well enough.
<
p>I’ll admit, I voted Dean in 04 even though he was doomed. On the one hand, I was more sentimental then. But on the other, at least Dean went out with a bang.
<
p>Dodd doesn’t have enough smarts to be the front runner, and he doesn’t have enough flair to be the maverick. He’s caught in the middle of the pack in more ways than one, and he can’t — won’t — hasn’t chosen to — break out.
<
p>Anyways, thank you for sticking with the discussion. I feel like an a-hole for hammering on Dodd so much, but I’m just trying to get my point across that it’s a little late in the game to be noticing how good somebody’s resume is.
That’s just patently not true. Not all candidates start the race from the same position. And that help explains why Dodd never really got off the ground.
<
p>Look at John Edwards for instance. In any other year, the previous cycle’s VP choice would be automatically in first place to begin the campaign. Instead, because of Obama’s fame after the 2004 speech, and well, Clinton having the last name Clinton, Edwards is automatically bumped to third place right out of the gate. Okay, so why isn’t Dodd in 4th? Well, I don’t think he had the cachet that Richardson does. Richardson is a governor – Dodd is yet another Senator. Richardson has a ridiculously diverse resume (Congressman, diplomat, Governor, etc.), whereas Dodd’s story is, well, more boring. Biden and Dodd out of the gate were about tied at 1 or 2% a year ago. So that’s where Dodd started.
<
p>Add to that a media which doesn’t pay attention to anybody not polling above 10%. Add to that the fact that Biden and Dodd got hardly any time to speak relative to the other candidates, and perhaps it becomes more understandable. My point is: Dodd simply started out in last. Obama and Clinton have run fantastic campaigns, Edwards has run a solid campaign as well… I don’t really see how Dodd could have hoped to compete just by sheer willpower.
<
p>Instead, what’s impressed me is how Dodd has been able to change the debate on issues like FISA from a position of 1%. Whereas Kucinich, who runs to bring up issues other candidates won’t pay attention to, can’t seem to change the debate on much of anything.
All of the candidates for the Democratic nomination are amply qualified to be President. It’s not as though being a Senator for a long time is in itself comparable to being the Chief Executive. Indeed, one of our greatest Presidents ever, the man who led the United States during the greatest crisis in our history, Abraham Lincoln, served only a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives before he became President. Chris Dodd is an excellent chap, but experience is hardly his strongest calling card.
<
p>Now, speaking of great Presidents from Illinois — their strength, in part, based perhaps on only a few years of Congressional experience — maybe I can draw your attention to a fine young lawyer from Illinois, and mention the importance of a consensus between Red States and Blue States if this country is to move forward as it should.
<
p>Oops, do I hear the sound of a bell ringing? I think that is my call.
Given the proper situation I get psychic impressions from pictures and Chris Dodd does in fact give me a most positive impression.
<
p>My highly negatives have been, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Leo Strauss, Condo-lizard Rice and most recenly Rupert Murdoch(I don’t think THAT is even human).
<
p>Myriad are the reasons good and true people are not chosen to lead.
If you are going to pick someone who is polling at a fraction of the margin of error in all polls, then electability is clearly out the window. Why not go with the most progressive guy in the race? Forget the UFO’s, this guy has your laundry list tacked to his front door. He’s your man.
<
p>BTW how did you feel about Nader 2000 – good call or spoilsport spoiler?
<
p>
against Gore and Bradley. But seriously, fuck him for giving us eight years of Bush, and everything that comes with.
Sorry Dave, but I have to call B.S. on this nonsense. What about the 250,000 Dems in Florida who voted for Bush? What about the fact that Gore couldn’t even carry his home state?
I side with Dave on this one. Ralph Nader started out doing some great things:
He created strong environmental protection laws, which have been gutted by the
G. W. Bush Administration, and, the fact that far better, safer cars are now being manufactured owes more than just a wee bit to Ralph Nader. Can’t take that away from him.
<
p>However, Nader eventually changed, and became rather arrogant and self-serving. Ralph Nader had just as much of a right to run for President as anybody else, but his candidacy was an unmitigated disaster, because it really did push G. W. Bush over the top–and into the White House.
<
p>Moreover, G. W. Bush had the Presidency handed to him..on a silver platter…twice. Not only was the recount in Florida deliberately stopped, but the computers were deliberately tampered with, syphoning Democratic votes to Dubya.
<
p>Also, the election was stolen from the Democrats in Ohio, although it was in a much more insidious way: Computers were also tampered with, republicans stood at voting polls, especially in minority districts, deliberately intimidating voters and creating long lines and delays, making it so that many people, weary of standing in long lines, and/or having to return to work, ended up not voting.
Also, machines were tampered with, syphoning off votes to Bush.
<
p>I must say–Dubya, or baby Bush, as he can be called, sure knows how to get what he wants, and his family, particularly his mother, Barbara Bush, made sure that he got it.
to get Bush elected?
<
p>I mean, it’s either Nader’s fault or not. If there are republican gimmicks at work, a republican-controlled company that makes the voting machines, Dubya’s brother controlling the outcome in Florida, voter intimidation, etc. – how is Nader’s candidacy “an unmitigated disaster, because it really did push G. W. Bush over the top”?
<
p>The stories about voting machines controlled by evil Rs in both 2000 and 2004 are just stories about inept Democrats who can think they can do nothing but utter empty slogans and get elected. I mean, if inaccuracies were known in 2000, why nothing was done in 4 years? If, FSM forbid, a Republican is going to win in 2008, are we going to hear the same stories about tampered machines and intimitaded minority voters? If minorities are so easily intimidated, why isn’t there a ton of democrat volunteers showing them where to vote? If evil republicans create long lines to the voting booths, why isn’t there a ton of democrat volunteers giving free candy, entertaining, etc. (whatever is legal)? No, it’s all Nader’s fault.
Ralph Nader didn’t have anything to do with the tampering, but he really did help push Bush over the top, because, like with a lot of these protest votes, it’s a gamble. When Perot ran as an independent back in 1992, the votes that Perot received got syphoned off to Clinton.
<
p>This time, however, the votes that Ralph Nader received back in 2000 got syphoned off to G. W. Bush.
<
p>The point is that the tampering, while not done by Nader, was done by Republicans, and it also kept minorities from voting.
1) The 250,000 FL Ds who voted for Bush are unimportant, because another nominee wouldn’t have done any better with those people. Like many southern states, Florida has thousands of people who are registered Democratic but who never, ever vote that way. It’s just a hold-over from the pre-LBJ time when Ds were more conservative in the South than Rs.
<
p>2)Here’s what is important: GWB won Florida, and thereby the Presidency, by 537 votes, while Nader, running as the Green party nominee, won 97,421 votes.
<
p>Are you going to claim with a straight face that if Nader had run, and lost, in the Democratic primary, and than endorsed the D nominee, he wouldn’t have brought even 600 of these 97,421 votes general election votes into the D column?
<
p>Let me rephrase this: If .005% of the people who ended up voting Nader in Florida in 2000 had instead voted for Gore, Gore would have won the election.
<
p>Adi, it’s going to take a damn strong argument to convince me that Nader would
NEVER have been able to get .005% of his FL supporters to vote for Gore, no matter how badly he wanted them too.
but just watch as “our media” pounds the crap out of Ron Paul with free Huckabee advertizing in the form of “news” articles about Huck’s statements on Bhutto.
…if Dodd were to be elected president, he would have to resign from the Senate. I don’t know what the appointment powers of the CT governor are, but the current governor, a Republican, probably could appoint a Republican replacement, at least until a special election could take place. In a closely divided Senate, probably not a good idea for the Democrats.
Dodd said something about not running for re-election again, whether he won or not. He seems to have backed down from that, happily.
<
p>In any case, should Governor Rell decide to run against Dodd, it would be a tight contest — I’ve seen rankings that give her the highest favorability ranking of any governor in the country.
Why promote someone who is doing such a great job?
<
p>I really like Dodd, more so now that he has taken a principled stand against the current maladministration as to its illegal spying. But Dodd could have done the same for all the other horrors that have visited us thanks to a compliant Senate.
<
p>As we saw with FISA, it takes one voice to make a difference.
<
p>Where was Dodd when all the other shit came down? For that matter, Hillary… Biden… Obama?
<
p>I agree with Mike Gravel on this one: none of them are qualified based on what they have failed to do.
…but the ratio of confusion to communication in your comment is undesirably high.