Friday, November 10, 2006

Chris Dodd on ABC's 20/20 Tonight

He'll be talking about "the challenges facing women and families in the 21st century as well as the impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which he authored." But will he talk about the aftermath of the elections as well?

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dodd would make a great President

Anonymous said...

A...Who cares

Anonymous said...

Like Kennedy would make a great president. Never will happen.

Anonymous said...

Simple questions.....Why would Dodd make a great President? Has he been that great a senator??

Honest questions.

Anonymous said...

Kennedy as a great president?

You jest.

Anonymous said...

By today's standards I say Kennedy was certainly a great president.

For me, the work he and the team he hastily put together during the Cuban Missile Crisis should forever mark him as one of the greatest presidents of all time.

That was no game of partisan party politics, that was a situation the outcome of which could determine the rest of human history, or even if there was going to be any further human history.

And some actually compare Dodd to him???? Maybe they are thinking of his brother, Teddy??

Anonymous said...

By today's standards I say Kennedy was certainly a great president.

For me, just the work he, and the team he hastily put together did, during the Cuban Missile Crisis should forever mark him as one of the greatest presidents of all time.

That was no game of partisan party politics, that was a world situation the outcome of which could determine the rest of human history, or even if there was going to any further human history.

And some actually compare Dodd to JFK? Maybe they are thinking of his brother Teddy?

Shadow said...

As I'm sure do the majority of Americans who agree.

bluecoat said...

Castro inviting Kruschev to build missile bases on his Island 90 miles south of Florida had absolutley nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs fiasco that Kennedy pinned on CIA Director Dulles. And Kennedy's subsequletly stepping up ops in VietNam had nothing to do with the furher agression by Russia either. Give me a break. Eisenhower gave the Kennedy Team the best advice during the missile crisis on what to do because he had a decent idea what Kruschev would do and not do as well as what he wanted. The Team breahted a sigh of relief when Krushev turned his ships around - they didn't jump up an down like in the movie according to the account I heard Dean Rusk give many years later. Kennedy was a terible President who made a big deal out of his PT 109 crash; he'd be called a neo-con if he were in power today.

Shadow said...

(My comment was in response to the "you jest" comment)

Don Pesci said...

Bluecoat – “Castro inviting Kruschev to build missile bases on his Island 90 miles south of Florida had absolutley nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs fiasco that Kennedy pinned on CIA Director Dulles.”


Is Wikipedia wrong again? -- “It is the site of the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion during John F. Kennedy's presidency, a 1961 US-backed invasion by Cuban exiles intent on overthrowing Fidel Castro. The invasion took place at a beach called Playa GirĂ³n. The Kennedy Administration had banked on the Cuban population rising up to help the American fighters take down Castro; but when they received no such help, the mission became a horrible failure. The incident may have been a driving force behind the Cuban Missile Crisis that took place the following year between Kennedy and Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev.”

What has any of this to do with Dodd?

Anonymous said...

What has any of this to do with Dodd?

Not really a whole lot..... So I'll ask my question again..... What has Chris Dodd done in his 26 years or so in the Senate that would lead anyone to believe he would be a great President?

If he is going to get elected someone has to answer that question.

bluecoat said...

Pesci: try reading what I wrote in context of the thread and maybe you might just get it!!!!!!The thread turned to praising Kennedy. Glad to see Wikipedia, the definitive source for American historians, sees it my way.

bluecoat said...

12:08; the JFK discussion has a lot to do with Dodd running for the top office. What did Kennedy ever do to make him qualified to run? Now, beyond that there is an age and era difference btween JFK then and Dodd now..

Anonymous said...

Bluecoat, I believe any American who is over age 35 is qualified to run for president. My question was what makes anyone think Dodd based on his 26 years in the Senate would be a great president?

Still no answers to my question.....

Is he qualified? Yes, it would seem he is qualified. Would he be great as was stated here by someone here? I don't know, has he been a great senator?

Don Pesci said...

Dodd has many positive qualities that fit him for the presidency: his wide experience in foreign policy; his many years experience in the senate; his comfort in mingling with the common herd; his qualities as a debater and stump speaker – and others too numerous to mention.

There are some issues that likely will arise if Dodd’s presidential exploration gets beyond the incubation stage. I make no attempt here to settle these issues, or even to discuss them sufficiently (Bluecoat please take note)\.

While John Kerry was slogging through the rice patties of Vietnam, accumulating war metals he later symbolically tossed over the White House fence in protest against the war, Dodd found a berth in the Dominican Republic as a Peace Corps worker. Did his daddy, then Senator Tom Dodd, pull some strings for his son?

During the Sandinista-Contra war in Nicaragua, Dodd traveled to Nicaragua to parley with Daniel Ortega and his brother. The press was not present and no record of his conversations with the communist leader of the Sandinistas – recently elected president – was presented to his constituents. What did Dodd and Ortega say?

Dodd vigorously opposed the appointment of Otto Reich as an ambassador in Latin America, and he has as vigorously opposed the nomination of John Bolton as US delegate to the United Nations. One on Bolton’s recent successes lay in persuading the Chinese to take a stronger hand in controlling their puppet master Kim Jong Il in Korea, apparently successfully. So what’s up with Dodd’s opposition to qualified ambassadors and UN delegates?

Other issues will surface along the way.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and Bush 41 sent James Baker to talk with Syria gazillions of times and it worked. Bombs away is about defense not lasting peace.

Anonymous said...

If one has been a great senator for 26 years I would think a track record would exist that most people would be very satisfied with. I do realize that Dodd has probably accomplished more in his 26 years in the senate,than most other people who have run for president have accomplished.

In my mind however what really marks someone as having the potential to be a great president is among other things, the ability to put party interests behind what's best for the country.

It was not lost on me that on the Monday before the Democratic primary Dodd told us we should support Lieberman because he was the best qualified man for the job. Then just two days latter he was telling us to support Lamnot because he had won the Democratic primary. So which of the two was really the right man for the job in this case? The best qualified for the job according to Dodd, or the party canidate according to Dodd?

Party interests were put first. I realize he was in a tough spot, but it is in those times we learn the most about our leaders. As president surely he will be in tougher spots.

To me this is not the mark of a great leader, but the mark of a party politician. That does not mean Dodd is not well qualified to be President. For me it makes it very suspect he would be a great president.... But hey that's only my opinion, which I am sure many will disagree with.

Don Pesci said...

And then of course there's this.

Shadow said...

I don't think Dodd voting against Bolton is his problem; in fact, if he had voted FOR Bolton, there's no way he'd ever have a shot at his party's nomination. He might as well ask Rumsfeld to come back.

I also think he is getting way too much unfair criticism from BOTH sides about his endorsements in this year's Senate race. Dodd's Iraq position was much closer to Lamont's than Lieberman's in the primary, but Dodd honored the fact that Lieberman had been the elected representative of his party for three elections, and I as a Lamont voter respected that, even if I was a bit disappointed. But once Lamont won the primary fair and square, Dodd wasn't going to put a personal relationship or his own best interests ahead of honoring the wishes of CT Democrats, who had clearly spoken; had Dodd stuck with Lieberman anyway after that, I would have lost all respect for him. It's a great thing for Senators to endorse independents, and not be bound to endorse a member of their own party; however, anyone who endorses the LOSER of a primary has no respect for the primary process or their own party's voters. All the Democratic lawmakers who stayed loyal to Lieberman in the general due to buddy-buddy reasons or to make their own lives easier are the ones who will have to answer for it, not Chris Dodd.

Dodd is in fact a thoughtful and well-respected Senator who is actually quite well positioned as far as his record, with one glaring Achilles' heel: he voted for the Iraq War resolution. Despite the fact that he recanted soon after, and honestly trusted the President to use discretion, knowing when and when not to trust people is an important part of being a leader. Dodd, like many Democrats at the time, could have taken the effort to do a little research on the PNAC writings that were out for years, which had been plotting regime change in Iraq since the 90's; instead, he trusted the President's discretion without suspicion.

It is currently the conventional wisdom that any Democrat who has a shot of taking down Hillary in '08 needs a no vote on the war. It's a shame for Dodd, really, as this one vote mars the record of an honorable and experienced senator who would otherwise be very well positioned idealogically to make a run; he has a combination of gravitas AND likeability unlike any Democratic Presidential candidate in recent memory, and unlike any Republican in recent memory aside from John McCain and Ronald Reagan. Yet due to his Iraq war vote, Dodd finds himself trailing far behind someone as young and new as Barack Obama, not only in terms of buzz and media attention, but in terms of an electable ideaology.

Anonymous said...

Hi Shadow,

I really enjoyed your very articulate post above but do respectfully disagree with you a bit.

I realize the incredibly difficult position Dodd found himself in regarding the Democratic primary and it's outcome. Especially since at that time he was already considering his own run at the presidency, and the impact party loyalty could have on it.

You say,

But once Lamont won the primary fair and square, Dodd wasn't going to put a personal relationship or his own best interests ahead of honoring the wishes of CT Democrats, who had clearly spoken.

I suggest it was at that exact moment when he did put his own best interests first. Had he not taken a position before the primary fine, but he had clearly taken a position and explained why, and after the Democrats who voted in the primary disagreed with him, he changed it.

Lieberman at that point looked to be in total disarray so switching sides to support the party candidate in a show or party loyalty then looked to be the smart thing to do. Obviously most other high ranking state and national Democrats felt the same way.

But as the campaign wore on it became clear that Lieberman, had turned the corner. It seemed to me that Lamont got less than enthusiastic support from many of the same people who had rushed on stage with him to be sure they got their picture taken with him on primary night, and the day after. What happened to all the party loyalty then?

By the way obviously much the same could be said for Rell, and the Republican party's non support for Schlesinger.

I myself would look past this game of party politics if Dodd had no intention to run for president. But since he at this point is considering that possibility I for one feel that it is fair for us voters to consider if any of this matters to us as we look for ways to measure if he is presidential material.

As I said before I realize many people will disagree with me on this. I also should add I am an independent voter and do find party politics to be at times unfortunate. Sometimes it seems to me, it helps define those who are leaders, and those who are followers. This to me is one of those times.