Dodd presidency is guaranteed bad with a Democratic congress... no offense to dems, but Repubs just proved that divided gov't is not only good... it's necessary.
He's better than the rest of the Democratic field..
And certainly would be an upgrade from Kerry/Edwards.
I think both sides are going to produce someone with experience this time out, and Dodd is certainly that. The being a senator issue is moot, because most likely both sides will produce a senator (Dems only have Vilsack as a governor) and neither of the Republican governors (Huckabee, Romney) are going to get out of the primary.
He's pretty popular, decent speaker, and he knows how to truly act in a bipartisan manner.
I think he would make a good President. I think he's a terrible candidate.
Dodd can come across as harsh and cold at times. He's a "New England liberal." Not so bad for a president, but makes for a weak candidate. The one in the field who would be a formidable candidate and a great president is Senator Evan Bayh. I truly think he is the next POTUS.
Actually,watch Romney. He has the social conservatives that would have gone to Allen (and won't go to McCain or Guiliani). Plus, he has the perception of being a moderate.
Better than the rest of the field? Bill Richardson is THE most qualified candidate for President that we have seen in years.
Bill's executive experience as Governor of New Mexico, his understanding of world affairs (he has negotiated hostage releases from Iraq, N. Korea, etc) and was the UN Ambassador & Bill's work as Energy Secretary all speek to his high qualifications.
Dodd has been Senator. Don't get me wrong, I like him, just not as a Presidential Nominee.
And just because we live in the real world where candidates have to get elected, I'd rather have my nominee come from the Interior West (where we haven't won so many electoral votes recently) than New England where ANY Democratic Nominee gets the nod.
So please, don't think that the democratic bench is weak. Our Senate condendors (who get all the attention) are weak. Our actual bench is quite strong.
Dodd being president is just a joke. But for all the liberals out there, at least he couldn't pick Lieberman as his running mate (since Pres and VP must be from separate states, or at least Connecticut's electoral votes could not be awarded to both Dodd for Pres and Lieberman for Veep).
Seriously, why does anyone thing this guy would make a good Presidential candidate. First, he's a Senator. Senators don't get elected. They vote for things before they vote against them (and I don't mean this as a dig on Kerry: all Senators are like that). Dodd just doesn't look Presidential. Also, he's more liberal than the country as a while is.
Now, let me pose another question: what state would Dodd carry that another Democratic presidential candidate would not carry?
I agree on Romney but not on Dodd; his bill will help him in the general if he explains it as well as he has been. When people realize how many terrorists have not been tried due to bad laws over the last few years, they will realize the common sense of Dodd's bill. That's the kind of national security common sense that appeals to all Americans.
I also disagree with the characterization of Dodd as a typical New England liberal. Kerry fit that stereotype. Dukakis fit that stereotype. Dodd doesn't. His affect appeals to conservatives, if not his voting record. If nominated, the guy would be the first Democratic Presidential candidate in my lifetime to have the combination of gravitas and likeability.
However, the chances of Dodd getting the nomination are extremely uphill. First of all, his yes vote on Iraq. Second of all, as noted, there are a wild field of contenders who are already ahead of the game, including Richardson, Obama, Edwards, Clark, and Clinton.
no one from the NE will be a viable candidate. Romney has the Mormon thing going against him (I'm being realistic, I don't like him for a host of OTHER reasons other than what god he worships). I don't think Guiliani will get anywhere, his career was in the toilet pre 9-11, and NYC has not fogotten that. WAY too many skeletons in that closet (see Bernie Kerik - tip of the iceberg!)
I agree with the above comment, Dodd would make a good president, bad candidate (just like Hillary). It's unfortunate but true. Richardson, in the other hand, would be a fantastic candidate with good appeal. Ironic thing is, I've heard he's a decendent of Brigham Young. But I don't hear him mentioning he's a practicing mormon (his mom was Mexican, so I'm assuming he's of some Christian persuasion.)
Souce for geneology : http://www.wargs.com/political/richardson.html
Plus he's a career politician with no real life experience and that can't be good for anyone. Excuse me? Bush's life experience was a barometer for his presidency.. one disaster after another.His live experience didn't help us OR the Texas Rangers, or Arbusto Energy Good managers can function in many arenas, including politics.
PS Richardson would probably be able to point out that ARBUSTO does NOT mean Bush in Spanish, as Shrubya thought. It means SHRUB. Ironic, no?
Dodd has been in the Senate (both majority and minority) for a lifetime ... somebody tell me what his legislative accomplishments are? I mean stuff he's actually conceived and sponsored, I don't think "fought for passage of Kennedy-Kassebaum" really qualifies.
And to Anonymous who said he's bipartisan: can you provide any examples? Dodd's a good guy, but the fact is he's a always been strictly party-line.
I think Mitt would be a great candidate. He's accomplished a lot. Valedictorian, BYU. Harvard Law school degree and Harvard Business School degree, both with honors. Bain Consulting turnaround. Bain Capital founding: funded Staples, Brookstone, Dominos, Sealy. Salt Lake City Olympics turnaround. Elected Mass Governor. Balanced the budget, got the insurance reform through.
Yeah, he's mormon. I don't think that'll be a huge factor, especially if the Democrats pick Hillary. Hillary is the best GOTV for the Republicans there could possibly be.
Richardson could be a very formidable candidate. Governor, foreign policy experience, lowered taxes in NM (so it'll be hard to paint him as a tax raiser). Hispanic. Would help the Democrats in the Southwest: probably swings NM and AZ and maybe CO as well. Of course, McCain vs. Richardson would mean that McCain would take AZ. Romney - McCain against Richardson - ? would be a very interesting race.
Dodd is just as liberal as Dukakis and Kerry. The difference is that when Mike Dukakis and John Kerry would try to calmly discuss issues with people who disagree with them, Dodd would punch them in the face and then go flirt with their wives at DC bars.
justinh is exactly right about Romney -- he played his governorship perfectly, taking extreme-rightist positions on social issues, knowing the legislature would just override whatever he did.
Dodd would make a good president -- he's knowledglable about foreign affairs (gee, wouldn't that be a nice switch from today?), cares about the disenfranchised, but isn't a wild anti-business lefty.
But I doubt he can get elected. He has a tendency to sound stuffy and too senatorial. Plus, there's the "northeast liberal" tag.
And he's unknown...and Hillary's sewn up much of the political muscle...and Edwards will run strong on the populist platform...and Richardson will get Latino support. I'm not sure where Dodd gets his.
Putting aside everything else for a moment, Dodd is likeable. When is the last time the Democrats selected a candidate for President who is likeable? Kerry, Gore, Dukakis - were not likeable in the eyes of the electorate. Kerry typified the elitist, arrogant Democrat; Gore was uptight and condescending; Dukakis was self-righteous and condescending. So history suggests the Democrats will pick Hillary who is the complete package when it comes to all these qualities. Meanwhile, the Republicans, following history, will pick someone who is likeable. And the Republicans will win again despite Iraq, energy, economic problems for all but the upper class, the failure to confront and find Bin Laden, etc. For Democrats, winning isn't the only thing, it's just something that seldom happens.
I think Barack Obama or Evan Bayh will be the 2008 Presidential Candidate.
I think Chris Dodd will fade early in 2008 Primary season I think people will want a fresh face and not Kerry II, Hillary Clinton or Al Gore their time has passed.
1. Mccain 2. Mr. Rudi nyc mayor 3. Mitt Romney 4. Bill Frist 5. Macaca (he blew his chance) 5-ect..whatever crazy conservative who runs I can't tell you
Concerned Democrat - You are absolutely right. Democrats need to stop electing people that aren't likeable and running them against Republicans who are. Instead of picking unlikeable people like Gore, Kerry, and to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, Democrats are much better off running candidates like Obama, Dodd, and Edwards (provided that it's Edwards at his most intelligent and charming, and not the hologram that ran for Vice President in 2004 to prevent overshadowing Kerry).
Dodd is the Dark Horse in this election. I would not count him out. All the other candidates have for the most part only star power, with a few exceptions like Obama and Edwards who have brains and star power.
Dodd is pure competence. In post 9/11 that is what may give him an advantage.
Dodd for president?? That would be fun- first Daddy caught stuffing campaign funds in his pockets - then sonny's big contributions are hanging out with a drunken Kennedy- in a famous incident almost roggering a waitress in a DC restaurant in public, giving cover to communists and their ilk in South America - Dodd spent time there in the "Peace Corp" - a comfortable alternative to military service and doing little else for Conn or the US during his time in in Washington. This candidate would be chewed to pieces.
You guys ran a former cokehead with a record of consistent business failures who never set foot on foreign soil and had less intellectual curiosity than a chimpanzee, and he wasn't chewed to pieces before he was elected to two terms.
I really think Chris Dodd had a chance to navigate the Lamnot Lieberman primary mess far better than he did.
He could have at least stayed neutral, siting his comments supporting Lieberman before the primary, as well as their long time relationship in the senate. That should have appeased Lieberman who also should have been man enough to appreciate that. The result at least a Joe Lieberman who isn't looking to settle scores.
Instead Dodd threw is own words, as well as friend away to blindly follow party politics. Now we have a victorious Sentor Lieberman himself fully empowered to follow any path he chooses without concern to follow any Democratic party issue. Senator Dodd played more than a small role in that.
If Dodd with all his years of experience could see not past the first two moves in that political chess game, honestly how could he really be a good president?
> If Dodd with all his years of experience could see not past the first two moves in that > political chess game, honestly how could he really be a good president?
Dodd saw way past the first two moves. There was a pre-election concern among most Democrats behind the scenes and on the blogs that if Lieberman were to win and Democrats held the Senate by one seat, he would become the most powerful man there. This was, in fact, a gross miscalculation.
Lieberman can sit there and leave open the possibility of switching parties as some attempt at a power play, but Reid and the Democratic leadership would be fools to listen to him. If he switches to Republican, he would be diminishing his own power by leaving the majority party to join a party with shared power in the Senate.
If the Republicans had a good shot at taking back the Senate in 2008, Lieberman might have actually switched, but that's not going to happen (barring any totally unfoseen sea change). The 2006 Senate map was actually very tough for Democrats, because they were defending more of their seats; in 2008, far more Republican seats are up for grabs, some open and some in vulnerable areas for R's, and statistically the Democrats have a very good chance of PICKING UP Senate seats in 2008. So if Lieberman doesn't start appeasing the Democratic leadership in the Senate, he's going to end up irrelevant in two years among a 52-seat plus Democratic majority - or he can actually go ahead and switch to Republican (which would mean leaving the majority party to be a member of a divided Senate for two years, and a member of the minority party for most likely the rest of his term).
If Dodd, with his years of experience in the Senate was able to forsee all of that (things you or I hadn't even considered before the election), that's a great leadership quality. We've had enough representative government where the representatives are less informed than many of the voters, so I would give Dodd great credit as a leader for being more informed than I was on this issue (unlike on the Iraq war authorization vote, where he was less somehow less informed than I was).
The issue is not if Dodd is to be the candidate - One has to look at the alternatives - now and when the time comes. Dodd is just one aspiring rose, albeit a faded one. Hilary, McClain, etc etc are all well know now and all have serious baggage - either too much or too little. What is interesting is that the last twenty or so years have seen less of a "development process" where certain people are identified years before as candidates and virtually groomed -- Eisenhower, Truman, Hoover, Nixom - even Kennedy. Now it is more of a wierd reality show with a short lease.
Hi Shadow, I appreciate your comments regarding my Dodd chess game logic. While I do agree with some of your logic there is a point of departure for me.
I agree Lieberman would be foolish to join the Republican party at this time for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I sure he knows he will actually be far more personally influential simply by making those in his own party kiss up to him for his vote.
Unless Dodd honestly thought that Lamont would actually win that election he should have understood the Democrtaic party would have to deal with a very vengeful Lieberman after the election.
But Dodd so blinded by party politics actually switched his support from Lieberman to Lamont virtually overnight. In doing so he helped make the work of the senate Democrats that much more difficult by giving Lieberman the perfect excuse look past party interest and to vote as he sees fit.
I am simply suggesting Dodd would have been far smarter to stay neutral after being so clear he supported Lieberman until the primary loss. His neutrality would have made it far harder for Lieberman to now play his game and would have been far better for the Democrats.
I should add maybe I am wrong in thinking that what I am pointing out should be used when considering if Dodd would make a good President. I do think it should at least be used when wondering just how good a thinker he is however.
Actually, I don't think that's where you went wrong at all. It's only smart and sensible to want a good thinker to be President, and there's no reason to back off on that one bit; after all, just look no further than what the last six years have taught us.
But I would say that Democrats who stayed neutral after endorsing Lieberman in the primary (like Joe Biden) have a lot more explaining to do than Chris Dodd. Both Biden and Dodd were closer to Lamont's position on the major issue of the election than they were to Lieberman's, and they both were protected by the excuse of being Democrats who were honoring the most recently elected Democratic nominee (who until August 8 of this year was Joe Lieberman); once Lamont won the primary though, HE was the standing Democratic nominee, so to not support him after hiding behind that earlier argument was hypocrisy. Therefore, Biden was the hypocrite, not Dodd.
And you're still using words like "a very vengeful Lieberman", as if Democrats in the Senate should actually be afraid of his empty threats. Lieberman is out for himself, and will not switch parties if it puts him in a weaker position.
The only two incentives Lieberman would EVER have to actually switch to Republican are either a sudden and unexpected possibility of Republicans taking the majority in the Senate in two or four years (unlikely), or a decision years down the road to run for re-election in 2012 (Lieberman won't be able to run as a D and make that work after this year's election, and the Republicans will actually support their candidate next time, so Joe running as an I would virtually guarantee victory for the Democratic candidate given Connecticut's political landscape; Lieberman's only remote shot at re-election in 2012 would be as a Republican in a two-way race, and the party breakdowns of his voters this year make that conclusion inescapable).
Shadow first let me say I do appreciate this debate with you.... But I still somewhat disagree with you.
You say: Both Biden and Dodd were closer to Lamont's position on the major issue of the election than they were to Lieberman's
Actually once again I agree with you with your comment. So why then didn't Dodd simply support Lamont from the start? Why tell us one day that Joe was the best guy for the job and a day later after only 20% of the voters in the state voted their disagreement with him, did he then switch sides?
Simply put he can't be right both ways. To me this was not some highly complex issue. Rather a fairly simple issue the outcome and the fallout of which should have been clear to some one with over 24 years in the senate.
Maybe I am simply thinking like this: If Dodd realized that Lamont's position was closer to his own right along, why would he ever have supported someone who's position was clearly different to begin with? How can anyone be consider good for a job if he can't see who are the right people to be surrounded with from the start?
By the way I use the term vengeful when speaking about Lieberman because that is exactly how I see him. For me to go on and to explain why I feel that way would only cause us to digress from the subject of this thread. However it would appear that you and I see eye to eye concerning him. For me 18 years of Joe Lieberman as our senator are about 17 too many already. Al
anonymous - I appreciate having this debate with you as well. Let me start off by saying I erred when I only quoted you as saying "a very vengeful Lieberman" and stopped there in order to take issue with it; you are absolutely correct that those four words are a characterization on which we both agree. Had I spent a little more time and payed a bit more attention, I would have quoted your full statement as I should have: "(Dodd) should have understood the Democratic party would have to deal with a very vengeful Lieberman after the election." That's the part I was debating, not the characterization of Lieberman being vengeful, but the fact that the power of his empty threat was being oversold through the implication that he's a serious problem Democrats will have to deal with. Sorry if I made this unclear before.
As to your point that Dodd would have been even more credible had he endorsed Lamont to begin with, I agree that I was disappointed when Dodd said he was backing Lieberman at first.
I was only rebutting your point that Dodd would have been better off staying off neutral after the primary, and I think I articulated well in my last post why that point is absolutely incorrect; almost all Democrats were siding with Lamont's view on the biggest issue in the country by summertime, and they only were able to justify supporting Lieberman based on the excuse of supporting their party's nominee. Once Lamont won the primary, staying consistent with that logic meant supporting Lamont, period; a refusal to stick with Lamont was utter hypocrisy, and showed that the original excuse used to support Lieberman was a bold-faced lie.
It's one thing to say it's more ideal for elected officials to endorse candidates on individual merits than party affiliation; however, when people decide on a set of endorsement criteria that I don't consider ideal (such as deciding based on party affiliation), inconsistencies in maintaining that criteria are FAR more telling to me about someone's credibility than the fact that I don't find that criteria ideal.
Furthermore, it's also important to remember that identifying true selflessness in a politician is an elusive goal, even in the rare instances where it's present, because each politician is constantly at the mercy of countless different variables exclusive to their political position and career. I'll explain: some Lamont supporters in particular have gone as far as to already refuse Presidential support to people that didn't come in to support Lamont from the beginning. The only people that came in early and consistently, they say, are Clark, Kerry, and Kennedy; therefore, these men are of principle and all other Democrats are not.
Yeah, right.
Wesley Clark is not currently in any office, does not have to work side by side with any other party members, and does not have to worry about re-election in any particular district; his only political aspiration being the Presidency, he feels he has to be clear and consistent in his message about Iraq, and has no mitigating factors that stop him (aside from not currently being in office, he's a former top level general, so he doesn't have to worry about planning pre-emptively against cries of "weak on defense" in 2008).
John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, meanwhile, have lifelong Senate seats in Massachussetts that they could never, ever lose, so they don't worry about re-election as far as their own seats; both also have no chance at getting the Democratic nomination for President any time in the future, so they don't have to worry about the "weak on defense" propoganda from the '08 chickenhawks either.
By the way, I am not at all trying to question the credibility of Clark, Kerry, or Kennedy, but rather pointing out if your trying to determine honesty, that every politician's judgement should be taken into context with the nuances of their respective political situations. If you fail to do that, it is inevitable that some men will be overly praised while others will get overly chastised, and the pursuit for true credibility will get lost in the balance.
Shadow... Great comments and once again I find myself agreeing with most of your logic. I suspect if you and I had a chance talk politics over a few beers we would find we agree on most things.
To try and be as clear as possible and cut to the chase I will simply say this. Over the years we have had our fill of elected officials who specialize with the skill of talking out of both sides of their mouths while making us think the problem is with our ears.
I'll admit that I am no fan of Chris Dodd, however next to Joe Lieberman I see Dodd as a great elected official however, everything is relative.
The question was would Dodd make a good president? I am simply using his flip flop in this election season as a simple gauge. Good presidents must make not just courageous decisions, but good ones as well.
Clearly while the loyal big name Democrats ( Dodd being one of them), lined up for pictures with Lamont after the primary victory they did little else. If they didn't have the courage to really support their candidate, then they must only have "supported" him because they put party loyalty ahead of what was best for the state, and country.
In my mind that is not in anyway a mark of greatness, it's clearly a mark of something else. I want my president making decisions that are first based on what is best for the country, not based on party politics.
Naive?? Probably but at some point we need to demand this from all our elected officials, or this country is on life support.
I understand this is a point you and I may not see eye to eye on, but our discussion is at least valuable to me as I test my thinking in this regard... Al
Al - We agree that Presidents should put the country before parties.
I'm certainly not endorsing Dodd (or anyone just yet), as he will have problems getting the nomination with his Iraq vote and a crowded field of strong Democratic challengers. However, I do think from observing him that he's a good man and a smart guy, and (sadly) that's more than I can say about most elected officials. I remember thinking in 2000, LONG before this year's Senate race and Lieberman's post 9/11 embrace of neoconservatism: WHY is Joe Lieberman being considered as Gore's running mate? If we were going to send a Senator from our state, why Lieberman over Dodd? Dodd seemed better than Lieberman in literally every regard, even back then, and the choice by Gore and the Democrats in 2000 was quite baffling.
Hi Shadow, Why did Gore chose Lieberman over Dodd for his VP?? Good question.... And if only Gore could have won his own state we here in CT would at least be rid of Lieberman.
When you think of it had he chosen Dodd maybe he would have won his own state or maybe just one more someplace else.... I cannot imagine Lieberman got him any state that Dodd would not have.
In any case I have enjoyed our debate here and I think we have kicked this topic around fairly well. I am new to bloging on this site and up to now have been a bit timid to post my thinking.
I am very anti partisan party politics and very much solution driven. No matter where that solution comes from. This discussion has given me the feeling there are people out there that may at least partially share that thinking.
I'll look for your posts in other threads..........Happy Thanksgiving... Al
40 comments:
This is a trick question, he wouldn't.
Umm.............
Dodd presidency is guaranteed bad with a Democratic congress... no offense to dems, but Repubs just proved that divided gov't is not only good... it's necessary.
If the measuring stick was Dubya?
He would be a great President.
Measuring him against the great Presidents?
He would pale greatly.
A lukewarm mediocre choice. Way better than Lieberman, who would be close to the bush level, but mediocre nontheless...
He's better than the rest of the Democratic field..
And certainly would be an upgrade from Kerry/Edwards.
I think both sides are going to produce someone with experience this time out, and Dodd is certainly that. The being a senator issue is moot, because most likely both sides will produce a senator (Dems only have Vilsack as a governor) and neither of the Republican governors (Huckabee, Romney) are going to get out of the primary.
He's pretty popular, decent speaker, and he knows how to truly act in a bipartisan manner.
I think he would make a good President. I think he's a terrible candidate.
Dodd can come across as harsh and cold at times. He's a "New England liberal." Not so bad for a president, but makes for a weak candidate. The one in the field who would be a formidable candidate and a great president is Senator Evan Bayh. I truly think he is the next POTUS.
think the folks around the Rotary Club in Sioux City want a lecture about daddy prosecuting defeated Nazis 60 years ago....
yep, you don't think so either
Actually,watch Romney. He has the social conservatives that would have gone to Allen (and won't go to McCain or Guiliani). Plus, he has the perception of being a moderate.
Better than the rest of the field? Bill Richardson is THE most qualified candidate for President that we have seen in years.
Bill's executive experience as Governor of New Mexico, his understanding of world affairs (he has negotiated hostage releases from Iraq, N. Korea, etc) and was the UN Ambassador & Bill's work as Energy Secretary all speek to his high qualifications.
Dodd has been Senator. Don't get me wrong, I like him, just not as a Presidential Nominee.
And just because we live in the real world where candidates have to get elected, I'd rather have my nominee come from the Interior West (where we haven't won so many electoral votes recently) than New England where ANY Democratic Nominee gets the nod.
So please, don't think that the democratic bench is weak. Our Senate condendors (who get all the attention) are weak. Our actual bench is quite strong.
He has good presidential hair.
Dodd being president is just a joke. But for all the liberals out there, at least he couldn't pick Lieberman as his running mate (since Pres and VP must be from separate states, or at least Connecticut's electoral votes could not be awarded to both Dodd for Pres and Lieberman for Veep).
Seriously, why does anyone thing this guy would make a good Presidential candidate. First, he's a Senator. Senators don't get elected. They vote for things before they vote against them (and I don't mean this as a dig on Kerry: all Senators are like that). Dodd just doesn't look Presidential. Also, he's more liberal than the country as a while is.
Now, let me pose another question: what state would Dodd carry that another Democratic presidential candidate would not carry?
I agree on Romney but not on Dodd; his bill will help him in the general if he explains it as well as he has been. When people realize how many terrorists have not been tried due to bad laws over the last few years, they will realize the common sense of Dodd's bill. That's the kind of national security common sense that appeals to all Americans.
I also disagree with the characterization of Dodd as a typical New England liberal. Kerry fit that stereotype. Dukakis fit that stereotype. Dodd doesn't. His affect appeals to conservatives, if not his voting record. If nominated, the guy would be the first Democratic Presidential candidate in my lifetime to have the combination of gravitas and likeability.
However, the chances of Dodd getting the nomination are extremely uphill. First of all, his yes vote on Iraq. Second of all, as noted, there are a wild field of contenders who are already ahead of the game, including Richardson, Obama, Edwards, Clark, and Clinton.
no one from the NE will be a viable candidate. Romney has the Mormon thing going against him (I'm being realistic, I don't like him for a host of OTHER reasons other than what god he worships). I don't think Guiliani will get anywhere, his career was in the toilet pre 9-11, and NYC has not fogotten that. WAY too many skeletons in that closet (see Bernie Kerik - tip of the iceberg!)
I agree with the above comment, Dodd would make a good president, bad candidate (just like Hillary). It's unfortunate but true. Richardson, in the other hand, would be a fantastic candidate with good appeal. Ironic thing is, I've heard he's a decendent of Brigham Young. But I don't hear him mentioning he's a practicing mormon (his mom was Mexican, so I'm assuming he's of some Christian persuasion.)
Souce for geneology : http://www.wargs.com/political/richardson.html
Plus he's a career politician with no real life experience and that can't be good for anyone. Excuse me? Bush's life experience was a barometer for his presidency.. one disaster after another.His live experience didn't help us OR the Texas Rangers, or Arbusto Energy Good managers can function in many arenas, including politics.
PS Richardson would probably be able to point out that ARBUSTO does NOT mean Bush in Spanish, as Shrubya thought. It means SHRUB. Ironic, no?
:)
Dodd has been in the Senate (both majority and minority) for a lifetime ... somebody tell me what his legislative accomplishments are? I mean stuff he's actually conceived and sponsored, I don't think "fought for passage of Kennedy-Kassebaum" really qualifies.
And to Anonymous who said he's bipartisan: can you provide any examples? Dodd's a good guy, but the fact is he's a always been strictly party-line.
I think Mitt would be a great candidate. He's accomplished a lot. Valedictorian, BYU. Harvard Law school degree and Harvard Business School degree, both with honors. Bain Consulting turnaround. Bain Capital founding: funded Staples, Brookstone, Dominos, Sealy. Salt Lake City Olympics turnaround. Elected Mass Governor. Balanced the budget, got the insurance reform through.
Yeah, he's mormon. I don't think that'll be a huge factor, especially if the Democrats pick Hillary. Hillary is the best GOTV for the Republicans there could possibly be.
Richardson could be a very formidable candidate. Governor, foreign policy experience, lowered taxes in NM (so it'll be hard to paint him as a tax raiser). Hispanic. Would help the Democrats in the Southwest: probably swings NM and AZ and maybe CO as well. Of course, McCain vs. Richardson would mean that McCain would take AZ. Romney - McCain against Richardson - ? would be a very interesting race.
Dodd is just as liberal as Dukakis and Kerry. The difference is that when Mike Dukakis and John Kerry would try to calmly discuss issues with people who disagree with them, Dodd would punch them in the face and then go flirt with their wives at DC bars.
justinh is exactly right about Romney -- he played his governorship perfectly, taking extreme-rightist positions on social issues, knowing the legislature would just override whatever he did.
Dodd would make a good president -- he's knowledglable about foreign affairs (gee, wouldn't that be a nice switch from today?), cares about the disenfranchised, but isn't a wild anti-business lefty.
But I doubt he can get elected. He has a tendency to sound stuffy and too senatorial. Plus, there's the "northeast liberal" tag.
And he's unknown...and Hillary's sewn up much of the political muscle...and Edwards will run strong on the populist platform...and Richardson will get Latino support. I'm not sure where Dodd gets his.
Putting aside everything else for a moment, Dodd is likeable. When is the last time the Democrats selected a candidate for President who is likeable? Kerry, Gore, Dukakis - were not likeable in the eyes of the electorate. Kerry typified the elitist, arrogant Democrat; Gore was uptight and condescending; Dukakis was self-righteous and condescending. So history suggests the Democrats will pick Hillary who is the complete package when it comes to all these qualities. Meanwhile, the Republicans, following history, will pick someone who is likeable. And the Republicans will win again despite Iraq, energy, economic problems for all but the upper class, the failure to confront and find Bin Laden, etc. For Democrats, winning isn't the only thing, it's just something that seldom happens.
I think Barack Obama or Evan Bayh will be the 2008 Presidential Candidate.
I think Chris Dodd will fade early in 2008 Primary season I think people will want a fresh face and not Kerry II, Hillary Clinton or Al Gore their time has passed.
John Edwards might be a possibility as well.
I think dodd would be a solid candidate, but unfortunately is will not get the nomination for prez..
Here is my list ranking the candidates as most likely to get the presidential democratic nomination.
1. Hillary Clinton
2. John Edwards
3. Barack Obama
4. Al Gore
5. John Kerry
5. Howard Dean (won't run)
6. Wesely Clark/ Bill Richardson
My prediction/
Right now Hillary is the frontrunner...with the only real competition comming from John Edwards and Obama
If Hillary gets the nod than Obama or Richardson will be the VP choice.
CONTD
Republican frontrunners
1. Mccain
2. Mr. Rudi nyc mayor
3. Mitt Romney
4. Bill Frist
5. Macaca (he blew his chance)
5-ect..whatever crazy conservative who runs I can't tell you
Concerned Democrat - You are absolutely right. Democrats need to stop electing people that aren't likeable and running them against Republicans who are. Instead of picking unlikeable people like Gore, Kerry, and to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, Democrats are much better off running candidates like Obama, Dodd, and Edwards (provided that it's Edwards at his most intelligent and charming, and not the hologram that ran for Vice President in 2004 to prevent overshadowing Kerry).
>>Is there anyone on this thread who doesn't think a liberal would make a good (great?) President? Anyone?
[Waving hand in back of the room]
Me Me!
Anonymous said...
I think dodd would be a solid candidate, but unfortunately is will not get the nomination for prez..
Actually I agree with the 2nd part of that statement. It is indeed unfortunate that Dodd would probably not get the Democratic nomination.
That would make life on our side just too easy.
Dodd is the Dark Horse in this election. I would not count him out. All the other candidates have for the most part only star power, with a few exceptions like Obama and Edwards who have brains and star power.
Dodd is pure competence. In post 9/11 that is what may give him an advantage.
Dodd for president?? That would be fun- first Daddy caught stuffing campaign funds in his pockets - then sonny's big contributions are hanging out with a drunken Kennedy- in a famous incident almost roggering a waitress in a DC restaurant in public, giving cover to communists and their ilk in South America - Dodd spent time there in the "Peace Corp" - a comfortable alternative to military service and doing little else for Conn or the US during his time in in Washington. This candidate would be chewed to pieces.
You guys ran a former cokehead with a record of consistent business failures who never set foot on foreign soil and had less intellectual curiosity than a chimpanzee, and he wasn't chewed to pieces before he was elected to two terms.
I really think Chris Dodd had a chance to navigate the Lamnot Lieberman primary mess far better than he did.
He could have at least stayed neutral, siting his comments supporting Lieberman before the primary, as well as their long time relationship in the senate. That should have appeased Lieberman who also should have been man enough to appreciate that. The result at least a Joe Lieberman who isn't looking to settle scores.
Instead Dodd threw is own words, as well as friend away to blindly follow party politics. Now we have a victorious Sentor Lieberman himself fully empowered to follow any path he chooses without concern to follow any Democratic party issue. Senator Dodd played more than a small role in that.
If Dodd with all his years of experience could see not past the first two moves in that political chess game, honestly how could he really be a good president?
> If Dodd with all his years of experience could see not past the first two moves in that
> political chess game, honestly how could he really be a good president?
Dodd saw way past the first two moves. There was a pre-election concern among most Democrats behind the scenes and on the blogs that if Lieberman were to win and Democrats held the Senate by one seat, he would become the most powerful man there. This was, in fact, a gross miscalculation.
Lieberman can sit there and leave open the possibility of switching parties as some attempt at a power play, but Reid and the Democratic leadership would be fools to listen to him. If he switches to Republican, he would be diminishing his own power by leaving the majority party to join a party with shared power in the Senate.
If the Republicans had a good shot at taking back the Senate in 2008, Lieberman might have actually switched, but that's not going to happen (barring any totally unfoseen sea change). The 2006 Senate map was actually very tough for Democrats, because they were defending more of their seats; in 2008, far more Republican seats are up for grabs, some open and some in vulnerable areas for R's, and statistically the Democrats have a very good chance of PICKING UP Senate seats in 2008. So if Lieberman doesn't start appeasing the Democratic leadership in the Senate, he's going to end up irrelevant in two years among a 52-seat plus Democratic majority - or he can actually go ahead and switch to Republican (which would mean leaving the majority party to be a member of a divided Senate for two years, and a member of the minority party for most likely the rest of his term).
If Dodd, with his years of experience in the Senate was able to forsee all of that (things you or I hadn't even considered before the election), that's a great leadership quality. We've had enough representative government where the representatives are less informed than many of the voters, so I would give Dodd great credit as a leader for being more informed than I was on this issue (unlike on the Iraq war authorization vote, where he was less somehow less informed than I was).
The issue is not if Dodd is to be the candidate - One has to look at the alternatives - now and when the time comes. Dodd is just one aspiring rose, albeit a faded one. Hilary, McClain, etc etc are all well know now and all have serious baggage - either too much or too little. What is interesting is that the last twenty or so years have seen less of a "development process" where certain people are identified years before as candidates and virtually groomed -- Eisenhower, Truman, Hoover, Nixom - even Kennedy. Now it is more of a wierd reality show with a short lease.
Hi Shadow, I appreciate your comments regarding my Dodd chess game logic. While I do agree with some of your logic there is a point of departure for me.
I agree Lieberman would be foolish to join the Republican party at this time for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I sure he knows he will actually be far more personally influential simply by making those in his own party kiss up to him for his vote.
Unless Dodd honestly thought that Lamont would actually win that election he should have understood the Democrtaic party would have to deal with a very vengeful Lieberman after the election.
But Dodd so blinded by party politics actually switched his support from Lieberman to Lamont virtually overnight. In doing so he helped make the work of the senate Democrats that much more difficult by giving Lieberman the perfect excuse look past party interest and to vote as he sees fit.
I am simply suggesting Dodd would have been far smarter to stay neutral after being so clear he supported Lieberman until the primary loss. His neutrality would have made it far harder for Lieberman to now play his game and would have been far better for the Democrats.
I should add maybe I am wrong in thinking that what I am pointing out should be used when considering if Dodd would make a good President. I do think it should at least be used when wondering just how good a thinker he is however.
Actually, I don't think that's where you went wrong at all. It's only smart and sensible to want a good thinker to be President, and there's no reason to back off on that one bit; after all, just look no further than what the last six years have taught us.
But I would say that Democrats who stayed neutral after endorsing Lieberman in the primary (like Joe Biden) have a lot more explaining to do than Chris Dodd. Both Biden and Dodd were closer to Lamont's position on the major issue of the election than they were to Lieberman's, and they both were protected by the excuse of being Democrats who were honoring the most recently elected Democratic nominee (who until August 8 of this year was Joe Lieberman); once Lamont won the primary though, HE was the standing Democratic nominee, so to not support him after hiding behind that earlier argument was hypocrisy. Therefore, Biden was the hypocrite, not Dodd.
And you're still using words like "a very vengeful Lieberman", as if Democrats in the Senate should actually be afraid of his empty threats. Lieberman is out for himself, and will not switch parties if it puts him in a weaker position.
The only two incentives Lieberman would EVER have to actually switch to Republican are either a sudden and unexpected possibility of Republicans taking the majority in the Senate in two or four years (unlikely), or a decision years down the road to run for re-election in 2012 (Lieberman won't be able to run as a D and make that work after this year's election, and the Republicans will actually support their candidate next time, so Joe running as an I would virtually guarantee victory for the Democratic candidate given Connecticut's political landscape; Lieberman's only remote shot at re-election in 2012 would be as a Republican in a two-way race, and the party breakdowns of his voters this year make that conclusion inescapable).
Shadow first let me say I do appreciate this debate with you.... But I still somewhat disagree with you.
You say: Both Biden and Dodd were closer to Lamont's position on the major issue of the election than they were to Lieberman's
Actually once again I agree with you with your comment. So why then didn't Dodd simply support Lamont from the start? Why tell us one day that Joe was the best guy for the job and a day later after only 20% of the voters in the state voted their disagreement with him, did he then switch sides?
Simply put he can't be right both ways. To me this was not some highly complex issue. Rather a fairly simple issue the outcome and the fallout of which should have been clear to some one with over 24 years in the senate.
Maybe I am simply thinking like this: If Dodd realized that Lamont's position was closer to his own right along, why would he ever have supported someone who's position was clearly different to begin with? How can anyone be consider good for a job if he can't see who are the right people to be surrounded with from the start?
By the way I use the term vengeful when speaking about Lieberman because that is exactly how I see him. For me to go on and to explain why I feel that way would only cause us to digress from the subject of this thread. However it would appear that you and I see eye to eye concerning him. For me 18 years of Joe Lieberman as our senator are about 17 too many already. Al
President Dodd? Please give me a break…
anonymous - I appreciate having this debate with you as well. Let me start off by saying I erred when I only quoted you as saying "a very vengeful Lieberman" and stopped there in order to take issue with it; you are absolutely correct that those four words are a characterization on which we both agree. Had I spent a little more time and payed a bit more attention, I would have quoted your full statement as I should have: "(Dodd) should have understood the Democratic party would have to deal with a very vengeful Lieberman after the election." That's the part I was debating, not the characterization of Lieberman being vengeful, but the fact that the power of his empty threat was being oversold through the implication that he's a serious problem Democrats will have to deal with. Sorry if I made this unclear before.
As to your point that Dodd would have been even more credible had he endorsed Lamont to begin with, I agree that I was disappointed when Dodd said he was backing Lieberman at first.
I was only rebutting your point that Dodd would have been better off staying off neutral after the primary, and I think I articulated well in my last post why that point is absolutely incorrect; almost all Democrats were siding with Lamont's view on the biggest issue in the country by summertime, and they only were able to justify supporting Lieberman based on the excuse of supporting their party's nominee. Once Lamont won the primary, staying consistent with that logic meant supporting Lamont, period; a refusal to stick with Lamont was utter hypocrisy, and showed that the original excuse used to support Lieberman was a bold-faced lie.
It's one thing to say it's more ideal for elected officials to endorse candidates on individual merits than party affiliation; however, when people decide on a set of endorsement criteria that I don't consider ideal (such as deciding based on party affiliation), inconsistencies in maintaining that criteria are FAR more telling to me about someone's credibility than the fact that I don't find that criteria ideal.
Furthermore, it's also important to remember that identifying true selflessness in a politician is an elusive goal, even in the rare instances where it's present, because each politician is constantly at the mercy of countless different variables exclusive to their political position and career. I'll explain: some Lamont supporters in particular have gone as far as to already refuse Presidential support to people that didn't come in to support Lamont from the beginning. The only people that came in early and consistently, they say, are Clark, Kerry, and Kennedy; therefore, these men are of principle and all other Democrats are not.
Yeah, right.
Wesley Clark is not currently in any office, does not have to work side by side with any other party members, and does not have to worry about re-election in any particular district; his only political aspiration being the Presidency, he feels he has to be clear and consistent in his message about Iraq, and has no mitigating factors that stop him (aside from not currently being in office, he's a former top level general, so he doesn't have to worry about planning pre-emptively against cries of "weak on defense" in 2008).
John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, meanwhile, have lifelong Senate seats in Massachussetts that they could never, ever lose, so they don't worry about re-election as far as their own seats; both also have no chance at getting the Democratic nomination for President any time in the future, so they don't have to worry about the "weak on defense" propoganda from the '08 chickenhawks either.
By the way, I am not at all trying to question the credibility of Clark, Kerry, or Kennedy, but rather pointing out if your trying to determine honesty, that every politician's judgement should be taken into context with the nuances of their respective political situations. If you fail to do that, it is inevitable that some men will be overly praised while others will get overly chastised, and the pursuit for true credibility will get lost in the balance.
Shadow... Great comments and once again I find myself agreeing with most of your logic. I suspect if you and I had a chance talk politics over a few beers we would find we agree on most things.
To try and be as clear as possible and cut to the chase I will simply say this. Over the years we have had our fill of elected officials who specialize with the skill of talking out of both sides of their mouths while making us think the problem is with our ears.
I'll admit that I am no fan of Chris Dodd, however next to Joe Lieberman I see Dodd as a great elected official however, everything is relative.
The question was would Dodd make a good president? I am simply using his flip flop in this election season as a simple gauge. Good presidents must make not just courageous decisions, but good ones as well.
Clearly while the loyal big name Democrats ( Dodd being one of them), lined up for pictures with Lamont after the primary victory they did little else. If they didn't have the courage to really support their candidate, then they must only have "supported" him because they put party loyalty ahead of what was best for the state, and country.
In my mind that is not in anyway a mark of greatness, it's clearly a mark of something else. I want my president making decisions that are first based on what is best for the country, not based on party politics.
Naive?? Probably but at some point we need to demand this from all our elected officials, or this country is on life support.
I understand this is a point you and I may not see eye to eye on, but our discussion is at least valuable to me as I test my thinking in this regard... Al
Al - We agree that Presidents should put the country before parties.
I'm certainly not endorsing Dodd (or anyone just yet), as he will have problems getting the nomination with his Iraq vote and a crowded field of strong Democratic challengers. However, I do think from observing him that he's a good man and a smart guy, and (sadly) that's more than I can say about most elected officials. I remember thinking in 2000, LONG before this year's Senate race and Lieberman's post 9/11 embrace of neoconservatism: WHY is Joe Lieberman being considered as Gore's running mate? If we were going to send a Senator from our state, why Lieberman over Dodd? Dodd seemed better than Lieberman in literally every regard, even back then, and the choice by Gore and the Democrats in 2000 was quite baffling.
Hi Shadow, Why did Gore chose Lieberman over Dodd for his VP?? Good question.... And if only Gore could have won his own state we here in CT would at least be rid of Lieberman.
When you think of it had he chosen Dodd maybe he would have won his own state or maybe just one more someplace else.... I cannot imagine Lieberman got him any state that Dodd would not have.
In any case I have enjoyed our debate here and I think we have kicked this topic around fairly well. I am new to bloging on this site and up to now have been a bit timid to post my thinking.
I am very anti partisan party politics and very much solution driven. No matter where that solution comes from. This discussion has given me the feeling there are people out there that may at least partially share that thinking.
I'll look for your posts in other threads..........Happy Thanksgiving... Al
test
test
Post a Comment