How Chris Dodd Won My Support: By Leading On the Issues Now

I never expected to be supporting any of our fine Democratic candidates for President at this point, much less Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT). I was not shopping for candidates. Indeed, I insisted (insist?) that the Netroots has spent 2007 too focused on the 2008 horserace instead of being focused on the pressing issues of today, especially the Iraq issue.

But that actually explains how Chris Dodd won my support. Chris Dodd is leading on the issues of today as well as discussing his vision for the issues of tomorrow. Take Iraq for instance. While Dodd thoroughly explains his views on what he will do about Iraq as President, he has spent just as much time explaining and stressing the critical importance of Democrats doing all they can now to end the Iraq Debacle. This is not an issue that can wait 18 months. Thus Dodd argues that we must:

End the War in Iraq Decisively. Chris Dodd understands that ending the war in Iraq makes America safer. He strongly supports the Feingold-Reid proposal - the only responsible measure in Congress that sets a timetable to end the war in Iraq by March 31, 2008 - and he has urged all the candidates in the presidential race to join him. It is time to stand up to the President's misguided Iraq policy.

(Emphasis supplied.) More than anything else, this position won my support. Instead of introducing a "Dodd plan" for getting us out of Iraq, to buttress a stump speech, Chris Dodd put the issue first, he put the nation first, and he argued for what Democrats (and any Republicans with wisdom and courage) should be doing NOW, not in January 2009, to end the Iraq Debacle. With this one act, Chris Dodd demonstrated the type of leadership, political courage, selflessness and wisdom that we need from our future President.


Similarly, on the restoration of habeas corpus, Chris Dodd has not been making stump speeches, he has been leading:

February 13, 2007

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today introduced his bill making important changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which in its current form, does not provide a credible process for bringing suspected terrorists to justice . . . The "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007" restores Habeas Corpus rights, bars evidence gained through torture or coercion and reinstates U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the nation's military personnel abroad.

Chris Dodd is leading on the important issues now. He is not just promising to lead starting in January 2009.

Chris Dodd is also leading in understanding what a radically extreme and dangerous Administration is currently in office. For example, on the assault on the Constitution carried out by the Bush Administration, Dodd said in an interview with Glenn Greenwald:

GG: One of the things that I think could be invigorating about your campaign is that you are making these constitutional issues the centerpiece of your campaign. You said in the debate that one of the most critical issues we face is the assault on our constitution, which you indicated was unprecedented. Can you talk about why this assault on the constitution is so fundamentally different than anything that has come before it? . . .

CD: Well, it's so pervasive. I mean, its domestic. It's foreign. And it is has been so calculated on so many levels. . . . But here -- winning elections. And pursuing people or not pursuing people. That takes it to a whole new level. The power of the U.S. attorney is real power. Power. The power to prosecute people is enormous. It saddens me that it even has to be an issue -- the fact that "defending the Constitution" even has to be an issue in the presidential race. . . .

A campaign for president allows you to have a megaphone here on a national scale to talk about these things, at a time when this crowd, if it continues, can enable you to stop them, do even more than raise the issues. But secondly, if I don't win this thing, I want everyone else to be talking about these issues.

Chris Dodd is leading NOW on the issues that matter today. He understands that we must fight the Bush Administration and the radical and extreme Republican Party now, not starting in January 2009. On FISA, Dodd said:

GG: Can you describe what you think it is that motivated 16 of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus to vote in favor of this [FISA] bill?

CD: No, I really can't . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn't know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.

. . . In fact, even during the vote, Carl Levin was sitting there, and Carl said: "look, I want everyone to read this" . . . . Most people know about the Gonzales references and the 180 days -- there is also a section, as Carl pointed out, that basically says that if they can prove reasonably that you're out of the country -- not that you're not a citizen, just out of the country [then they can eavesdrop on you] . . . .

GG: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant -- so why not just say "OK, we fixed this gap and here's our bill and if you veto it, and there's a terrorist attack, then it's your responsibility"?

CD: Hello? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But part of what this comes down to is that too many people in public life are not secure enough in their own beliefs -- feel vulnerable to attacks by people who will attack you -- and feel unwilling or unable to respond to them with clarity and conviction. And if you lack that clarity and conviction, and if you haven't been through this in the past, then you're likely to be a little weaker in the legs.

Clarity and conviction. Leadership. Today. Not a promise of leadership starting in January 2009. That is how Chris Dodd won my support. Sure, Dodd has all the 16 point plans on health care and education and the like. You can go to his website if you wish to see them. But Chris Dodd has demonstrated leadership, clarity and conviction now on the issues that matter now.

And that wins me over every time over promises of leadership to come in January 2009.

< Late Night: Lives in the Balance | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is a crosspost (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:05:35 AM EST
    from a FP guest post at MYDD.

    But (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by taylormattd on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    he's not as cute as Obama.

    He's sort of old too (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    He just doesn't look as clean, or fresh ;)

    You don't automatically believe a (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    candidate sporting such a full head of white hair?

    A surgical procedure? ;) (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    Hairclub for men?  Rogaine? Something suspect here.  Was his mother's father hairy?  HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO CUT ALL THAT HAIR REGULARLY?

    Handsome father: (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    Thomas Joseph Dodd looks (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    very fresh and clean too.  He is balding though.  Thomas Joseph's wife had some good hair genes.

    You guys are cracking me up (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 04:13:34 PM EST
    We haven't run off the right side of the page. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    While Dodd's (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    health care plan as laid out is somewhat better than those of the three front-runners, it can't hold a candle to the universal single payer nonprofit approach being promoted by Kucinich - the only candidate promising to provide the kind of health care policy people by overwhelming majorities say they want.

    But on Iraq, habeas, FISA Dodd's been very very good. Now if only some of that forthrightness available to the dark horses would rub off on one of those who actually has a chance to win the nomination.

    Could you provide a source for your (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    comment that most in the U.S. have expressed a preference for single payer health care plan?  Thanks.

    Sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:45:32 PM EST

    CNN - May 4-6, 2007
    1,028 adults nationwide.  MoE ±  3

    "Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"

    Yes 64%
    No 35%
    Unsure 2%

    "Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all children under the age of 18, even if this would require higher taxes?"

    Yes 73%
    No 25%
    Unsure 2%

    Not to hijack (none / 0) (#57)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:51:15 PM EST
    the topic onto health care, but here are links to comparisons of Dodd's plan with others' and to Kucinich's plan for those who are interested.

    Nothing about single payer there. (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    Issue is interesting because my state's single payer health care system for inmates is currently being run by a trustee appointed by the federal district court.  I recently talked to a friend whose mother is on the waiting list in Canada for surgery as she is immobile for months.  Not sure the U.S. public really wants single payer if that means the U.S. government is running the health care system, although that's probably the only solution that will really work to provide universal coverage.  

    Hmm (none / 0) (#59)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:00:24 PM EST
    I take "a national health insurance program" to be single payer, but you're right that the words don't appear there.

    I find Americans who haven't been exposed to Canadian or European health insurance always seem to think that the government will end up running health care under a program like this. Not true, and I'm sure it would be a bad idea as well. All they're doing is providing (and subsidizing) the insurance, not the health care itself.


    Eh. He's taking some nice stands now, but (none / 0) (#2)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:55:41 AM EST
    he didn't exactly set the world on fire before running for President.  He was more known shilling for the securities and accounting industries than anything else.

    Eh (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:11:46 AM EST
    I think you weren't paying attention to him before.

    Truth be told, neither was I.

    But I have to ask why Obama is not leading now that he is running for President?


    Leading is not giving speeches in front (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:23:29 AM EST
    of cameras to impress primary voters.

    He hasn't taken an aggressive stand in favor of the defunding approach, but Russ Feingold has praised his work on the Iraq war.

    The Democrats have a 'leader' in the Senate when it comes to the Iraq war.  Unfortunately, his name is Harry Reid.

    I know that Dodd was known for (A) pushing for laws that benefited the securities and accounting industries and (B) getting a ton of money from them in campaign contributions.  So much so that he earned the prestigious "Golden Leash" award.  


    See (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:27:02 AM EST
    I find that answer ridiculous quite frankly.

    Was Feingold praising him when he was basically getting punked by Bush on the Iraq Supplelmental? Playing "chicken?"

    And let's be clear, if speeches do not matter, as you now assert, then why in the heck do you and all Obama supporters tell us all about Obama's?

    HE has utterly failed to lead on Iraq. Utterly.

    He has not led in the fight against Bush.

    HE has not led in the fight against Media incompetence and bias.

    He has not led on anything.

    Obama's past 2 years have been marked by a complete absence of leadership.

    The same is true for Hillary.


    Obama has led on issues like transparency in (none / 0) (#6)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:48:12 AM EST
    government, reforming elections, and nuclear deproliferation.

    And, again, Feingold has explicitly disgreed with your assertion that Obama has utterly failed to lead on Iraq during his entire term in the Senate.

    The Netroots has this notion that "leadership is saying forcefully stuff I agree with."  I can't say I agree.


    What exactly did Feingold say? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:59:50 AM EST
    That Obama's chicken comments were helpful?

    Feingold quote for you: (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    "I regard him as clearly stronger [on Iraq] than Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton, indeed than [former] Sen. [John] Edwards," Feingold said. "Of all the people I've worked with that are running for president, I think Sen. Obama probably made the proposal that was most helpful in moving the [Senate Democratic] Caucus in the direction I would like to see it go."

    Again, Obama has led on issues.  They're just not your favorite issues.  It's fine to say he hasn't led on the issues you want him to lead on.  But it's inaccurate to say he hasn't led at all on anything.


    I remember that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:23:01 AM EST
    Feingold has a bug up his butt against Edwards it is clear.

    Edwards publicly endorsed Feingold's bill.

    Obama did not.

    It makes no freaking sense.


    Feingold has worked with both of them (none / 0) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:24:39 AM EST
    behind the scenes.  

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    so what? Are you saying Obama's non-support publically was cancelled by alleged strong lobbying for Reid-Feingold behind the scenes?

    Unlike too many in the Netroots, I am no hero worshipper.

    Feingold's statement does not make a lick of sense.


    Feingold knows what goes on inside (none / 0) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:05:00 AM EST
    the Democratic caucus.  We don't.

    That statement was before Feingold-Dodd came out, and Feingold has since then stressed that all the candidates who voted for it deserved credit.

    The point was that your statement that "Obama has not lead on anything in two years" was absurd, facially inaccurate hyperbole.


    I do not see how it is (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    inaccurate at all.

    As I said, I worship no man or woman, even Russ Feingold.


    They are senators, why don't they introduce bills? (none / 0) (#23)
    by jerry on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:31:26 AM EST
    I do wonder why Senators feel some need to become President before they introduce their n-point plans.

    Congratulations to Dodd for being the leader his constituents voted for.  And thanks to you for pointing this out.

    And I also wanted to see if I could make this post get any skinnier.


    Well, if you define "leading" as (none / 0) (#24)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:32:46 AM EST
    "saying what I want to hear the way I want it said" then sure your statement holds up.

    But, Obama has led on ethics and transparency issues in the Senate.  And he did take actions that moved the caucus along on Iraq.

    So, it's plainly false that he hasn't led on anything in two years.  


    hmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:10:25 AM EST
    The Netroots has this notion that "leadership is saying forcefully stuff I agree with."  I can't say I agree.
    Imagine that, a politician trying to get my support by championing the ideas and policies I like.

    Sure, but trying to get votes isn't leadership. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    Leadership is getting things done and making a difference.  

    And how on earth (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    can you expect to get anything done without championing it forcefully and rallying your allies?

    The only people who were ever able to work that way were Dixiecrats in the Senate. Surely that's not a model for any President to follow.


    Do you think Senators are really moved (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    by each other's press conferences?

    No, they're not.

    Posturing in front of tee-vee cameras doesn't move votes in the Senate.  It's done in meetings away from the cameras, often one-on-one.

    There's an adage that the quickest way to kill an effort in the Senate is to expose it to premature publicity.


    Obama is running for President (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    Sure, then it's ineffective vote-getting, not (none / 0) (#25)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    necessarily a lack of leadership.

    Pandering and leadership are not generally considered the same thing outside of Netroots land.


    You've found a name, "pandering," (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    and so now you can dismiss the entire practice of politics.

    The point is that making statements (none / 0) (#28)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    to attract voters is not the same thing as demonstrating leadership.

    Not even the same zip code.


    Leadership (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    is knowing how to be most effective in your current environment. In politics, a substantial amount of pandering is required.

    How effective is posturing for the tee-vee (none / 0) (#31)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:41:29 AM EST

    This is a curious argument you're making (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    You really don't think that things said in public won't change opinions?

    No, they don't. Chris Dodd isn't going to (none / 0) (#34)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    change any minds by appearing on the tee-vee.

    Certainly not inside Congress.


    Do I need to dig up what you wrote (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    about the veto proof majority?

    Sure, if you can MOVE public opinion (none / 0) (#36)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:48:35 PM EST
    that's one thing.

    Or if you can mobilize it, that's leadership.

    When you're just issuing press releases and making television appearances, you're not mobilizing public opinion.  


    Ok, this is going nowhere (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    you're just moving the goal posts.

    No, leading means interacting with (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    people and moving them to take action.

    I am falling!!! (none / 0) (#45)
    by jerry on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:17:19 PM EST







    Rightwing post. ;0 eom (none / 0) (#52)
    by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:08:54 PM EST
    How far over will this go? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    Margin Race! (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:12:15 PM EST
    I miss these.

    Premature publicity? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:33:49 AM EST

    BTD (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    Didn't you and I just have an interesting discussion about whether Democrats were dishonestly claiming to try to end the war?  Your first quote from Dodd's site seems to support my interpretation, his campaign claims that Feingold-Reid "sets a timetable to end the war in Iraq by March 31, 2008" when in fact it aims to merely reduce the scale and change the goals of the war.

    If he wants to lead on the issues, great, but he should do so honestly.

    March 31, 2008 (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    No more money for combat operations.  The military starts redeployment.  Redeployment is no small mission.  It will take around a year for our military to safely pack up and head to Kuwait where it will board huge ships and sail at least 45 days back to the USA, those convoys will have to be very protected too.  It will take time, money, and skill to leave Iraq responsibly and Dodd is intelligent enough and adult enough to understand that fact right now and not later on when he's President.  There is a HUGE difference between a military with combat operation orders and one with redeployment orders.  The military is a large mindless beast in ways, it can be difficult to change its momentum and focus but once that has been accomplished it is just as hard to change its momentum and focus back to combat operations again.  

    One of us doesn't understand the proposal (none / 0) (#33)
    by roy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    And of course it could be me, you've managed to correct me in the past and might well do it again.

    I think it would be perfectly fair to call a complete, but slow, withdrawal an "end" to the war.  But from what I've read, the mission after March 31 would not be just redeployment:


    (b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.


    (d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition [on use of funds] under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

    (1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.


    Isn't that still funding for combat operations?  Isn't that still war?


    Subsection (d) is imo CYA (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    for the risk that Iraq does bear to possibly  becoming a haven for a true international terrorist organization(s).  I don't think anyone desiring to be POTUS can turn their back on the actual existence of such people and orgs and be taken seriously by enough of the masses to get elected and I don't think I want that person for our next POTUS myself.  I know that it is hard for most people to trust that Subsection (d) doesn't work harder for ending the Iraq War than it does for prolonging it.  It does imo though because it ends the debate that we can't redepoly out of Iraq because they'll follow us home.  Not true Bushies cuz we have that covered right here in this little subsection (d).  Go ahead and start redeployment and if Osama and friends show up you have all the money and support from us you need to take care of it.  And it also opens up an avenue of debate as to what would constitute a real terrorist that we need to provide combat funds for.  To my still existing horror, three years ago the Bush administration defined anyone who lived in the Sunni triangle or who was a registered Baathist a terrorist.  Some Congressional oversight, Congressional hearings and testimony, Congressional debate is sorely needed in the defining terrorist department......defining what constitutes a real terrorist and not just a no oversight Rovian boogieman can only help out our foreign policy and Iraq at this point too.  If you just find yourself totally unable to trust that any of this won't be exploited by evil people you can trust in this one fact that I will swear on a stack of Bibles to experiencing in some form every single day, your military is broken, without a draft this Iraq debacle is already finished because nothing that is taking place right now can be maintained.  Wes Clark has said that two brigades need to be redeployed out of Iraq no later than December because we are over committed and honey he isn't just kidding.  If this happens the military is still running that last lap home on gas tank fumes.  The only thing left is find the end to this that gets the least amount of people on all sides killed and to get on that ASAP.  I'm not sure about the American people but if someone tried to draft them into this war I think this country would explode right now and that is the only thing left to replenish what Bush broke all to hell.  The Bush opera goes on but the main aria has happened, the fat lady sang.

    The reason it wouldn't end the war (none / 0) (#43)
    by roy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    Thank you for the thoughtful response, but while Osama may not show up, his buddies already have.  Al Queda operates in Iraq.  That's key to one of the big criticisms of Bush's handling of international terrorism: he turned Iraq into a recruiting and training ground for them.

    That's not to dispute that Feingold-Reid is a major reduction of the war (it is) or a good idea (it probably is).  But on April 1, some American troops will still be fighting a fully-funded war against terrorists in Iraq with no definite end in sight, and Feingold-Reid wouldn't change that.

    But as I mull this over, I wonder about "limited in duration and scope".  Maybe this would force Bush to commit to binding timetables or milestones.  Or maybe it would be "limited" like copyrights, with limits extended every time they're about to expire.

    Setting aside the effectiveness of Feingold-Reid, I'd like your opinion on the issue I raised to BTD: do you think Congressional Dems have represented themselves to the public as trying to end the war in Iraq?


    I think the Congressional Dems were (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 04:23:29 PM EST
    presenting a much firmer resolve to end the war in Iraq this past spring, they have now succumbed to the September report mentality and decided it isn't a fight worth fighting right now.  I don't think it is helping that their campaign war chests are bulging as well.  They don't feel the need to take extra risks to ensure the people feel supported by them.  They seem confident Dems will win abundantly in 08.  In this summer time frame Dodd is the only one stepping up to the hot plate and I'm more than a little sad about that.  I'm hell bent on getting elected a president that will end this insanity, having only Dodd step up is going to clear the field early for me.  One is a lonely number though when it comes to ending the worst military blunder in America's history and I don't feel there is any reason to not do everything in our power to end it before a new president in 2009.  It really is the only decent thing we can do as human beings and just ignoring the situation speaks volumes about the character those who are ignoring it lack.  Dodd may bolt out of the pack by presenting solid leadership and rock solid arguments where needed when the September report is unveiled.  America wants out of Iraq and they have been crystal clear about that!  He seems to be readying himself to do this and so be it, may the best candidate win.  For single issue Tracy the best candidate is who cleans up this Iraq mess starting today and lately the Congressional Dems have fallen asleep on Iraq imo.

    I'm not confident that Al Qaeda in Iraq (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    will survive our leaving Iraq.  As many military leaders have admitted America invading Iraq has made the words Al Qaeda a franchise.  That is where REAL intel would help us in assessing how Osama style Al Qaeda this Iraq branch is and how much of it is just Hate America Get Out of Our Country?  Bad thing imo, the longer we stay in Iraq the more I fear we transform Al Qaeda in Iraq into an indoctrinated Osama Al Qaeda branch.

    We'll never find a 'PERFECT' candidate (none / 0) (#20)
    by SiAtta5 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    Someone could be 'right' on all the issues of concern to you but so what? if they never get into position to implement them?.  Just look at what has happened so far:  congress passes a bill that is supported by the majority of the Americans and it gets vetoed.  

    And oftentimes, we look to ONE person to solve all the country's problems when the system is really not set up for one person to do it all.  It would be helpful if we all pretended to be a candidate ourselves and see what kind of platforms we all come up with to get elected in this system of choosing officials.

    And it seems there have been much discussion of what to do with Osama Bin Laden. Do we know for a fact that he is still alive?  How do we know that he has not been killed some time ago but it was to the advantage of the present adm. to 'keep the notion of Bin laden alive' for political reasons.  Who know that the intention was to trot out his corpse at some opportune time, but that the secret was kept so long that now they can no longer display it without the buddies of Bin laden disclosing the fact that he was killed a long time ago?  Who knows that it might actually have been the reason for distracting us with Iraq because if Bin laden died in afghanistan, then basically the fight on terrorism could have been declared over, but the war was needed to get Bush reelected.

    I apologize for seeing the 'vast conspiracy'; it is not the right-wing, but more the iinvisible puppeteers that seem to actually run the world.  It is the only way I could explain our predicament in this world.

    Having said those, I also say, Hillary may be flawed, but I think she stands to deliver 'some' of our aspirations though not necessarily all.  But who can?

    Complaining not long ago (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    that if you don't lay off the partisan stuff I'm going to have to go register Democrat just to be able to look at myself.  You make it very hard for me to continue to favor Edwards now.  The length and width of these new premaries has startled me, I guess that is how the majority of the nation is surviving the rest of the dugin and bunkered GWB presidency hell bent on destroying what is left of Iraq and the military and the judicial system and the cohesiveness of Christians and nonChristians.

    Well done (none / 0) (#30)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    and nice to see you on a front page somewhere again.

    I was impressed with Dodd in Chicago. I find myself closest to Dodd and Edwards on the issues. Still undecided though.

    Well-written quasi endorsement. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    Just hoping the Dodd campaign doesn't persuade BTD to join them.  

    If only Hillary Clinton would lead on defunding, maybe she'd get this kind of post also.  

    The real chris dodd (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve Jacobs on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:20:00 AM EST

    chris dodd overturns president clintons veto to help the enron scandal take  place..