"Epistles To This Generation"

Senator Chris Dodd was interviewed by Keith Olbermann tonight and discussed his views on Iraq and his new book, Letters From Nuremberg, a collection of letters from his father, Senator Thomas Dodd, who worked with Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.

This is Senator Dodd at his finest. I strongly urge you to watch the interview. Of special interest is Dodd's discussion of his father's letters, which he describes as "epistles to this generation."

< Journalists Get First Tour of Supermax | Norman Hsu Transferred to Colo. Jail, Suicide Note Surfaces >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    To get a sense of Chris Dodd's background (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:42:24 PM EST
    and what kind of worldview he comes from, take a look at his father's Wiki entry:


    Of course, sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree, as in the case of Bush and his father. But in Dodd's case, it did not. His father, like his father's boss Robert Jackson, was one of the heros of the post-WWII era in the legal arena, and I hope that his son will carry on the legacy in an era that desperately needs such people again. We have some very serious messes to clean up.

    You've just got to love the symbolism.

    By the way (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    speaking of symbolism, Thomas Dodd was awarded the Medal of Freedom--back when it meant something.

    How low we have sunk...


    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kovie on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:49:59 PM EST
    and he also lost a senate race to Bush's grandfather, Prescott.

    A tale of two Connecticut families...


    EXACTLY (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:52:44 PM EST
    I didn't know this about Dodd until today. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:36:52 AM EST
    Chris's father [Thomas J. Dodd] was one of the lead prosecutors during the Nuremberg Nazi war crimes tribunals that set the standard for America's moral authority before he was elected to the United States Senate
    --About Chris Dodd

    I put Dodd's book on my fall reading list (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:00:18 PM EST
    This is when I usually stock up on fall reading. I definitely want this one at the top of the pile.

    Dodd came across great in the KO interview.


    I've seen my share of TV (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 11:24:59 PM EST
    interviews, and this one ranks up there.

    There's no doubt that Dodd has the right message. On Talk of the Nation this afternoon, one of the pollster guests made an interesting observation: Democrats who are very opposed to the war don't have significantly different primary preferences with those who have other priorities. If that can be changed, Dodd has a chance against Hillary, especially if he begins to cannibalize Obama's remaining support--which, with this message, I can imagine.  

    A commenter at DK today (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:35:44 AM EST
    wanted some help distinguishing Dodd from the front running Dems.  I supplied a link to BTD diary here.  I'm sure you could do a good job of answering the question:    

    I feel like the distinctions between
    Obama, Dodd, and Edwards are meaningless here, and the latter two are trying to carve out niches for themselves by acting like they are more meaningful.

    Is there any doubt that after Obama's speech and his prior vote in the spring that he is not going to give Bush a blank check without a timeline?

    Obama's timeline is to start pulling troops out now and end by 12/31/08.

    How could he be more clear on that?

    What is Dodd on about? What are Kos and McJoan on about?

    by CPDem81 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 01:56:23 PM PDT

    Here's the link to (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:43:30 AM EST
    mcjoan's diary in which the comment appears:mcjoan

    I think the answer is pretty obvious (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:20:14 AM EST
    It's all about how you achieve those goals. Do you do it legislatively, by the power of the purse, or do you prattle on about how you'll so change things as President? Dodd is for the former; Clinton and Obama are for the latter.

    I'm guessing most people have had their fill (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    "Personality politics", where one character's supposed to come in and save the day is fine in a movie. Who wouldn't want Mr (Jeff) Smith (going to Washington) on the case?

    Sadly, in real life, there's always the danger of all that power getting conferred on a pissy venal doofus who treats government like the family candy store when the 'rents are away. Honestly, I wonder why we haven't seen footage of the Overgrown Adolescent in Chief dancing around to crap rock in his tighty whities and tube socks, hiring hookers for his friends.

    Yeah yeah, I know he's done that; I just wonder why we haven't seen the footage on YouTube.


    Nuremburg doesn't apply to the U.S. (none / 0) (#3)
    by cmpnwtr on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:44:45 PM EST
    The people and the government of the U.S. don't believe that the Nuremberg principles apply to them. We haven't signed on to the International War Crimes Treaty and  we hold ourselves above international law. And I should say that isn't just the right wing. Remember Clinton did not support the protocol for an International Court for War crimes. And I will just bet that any public opinion survey would oppose it. We think we are better than the rest of the world and are free to torture, kill, and maim as we see fit. Bush, Cheney, and their lot should be in the dock. But we'll never see that day. So it may be fun to write books expound principles that Americans really don't accept, but for what?

    Presidential veto (none / 0) (#6)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:01:19 PM EST
    Senator Dodd here seems to be talking about legislation which is sure to be vetoed by President Bush.  Obviously, this is not your approach, BTD.

    Does Dodd consider this legislation to be a first step, with the second step being the attempt to rally the house or senate around your proposal.

    Dodd (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:07:04 PM EST
    is talking about committing to NOT funding.

    Check his site for more details.


    Link, please? (none / 0) (#9)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:34:12 PM EST
    Can you please provide a better link.  I had already looked around a little on his site but only saw him speaking of legislation or 'the Dodd ammendment'.  For example, this page seemed to be the most detailed discussion that was linked to the first page:

    "... Based on the amendment he offered in the Senate with Senators Reid and Feingold, Chris Dodd's plan would ... Link

    Is there a better explanation somewhere else on his site or elsewhere?  Or am I just not understanding his language of an amendment to legislation?  Quite possible!

    It seems he could also have been a little clearer on Olbermann tonight where he talks about his legislation, if passed, surely being vetoed by the president.


    It's right there on the site (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:48:37 PM EST
    The commentary on Clinton and Obama.

    Difference between Dodd's approach & BTD's? (none / 0) (#11)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 11:16:06 PM EST
    OK, I may be understanding this better now.  Please tell me if I got it right.

    Dodd is indeed talking on this page (correct?) about actual legislation, ie, opposing any "Iraq legislation that fails to include a firm, enforceable deadline for withdrawal tied to funding."

    So he is also anticipating that this legislation will surely be vetoed by the President.  But then is he counting on essentially the same legislation being passed over and over again assuming enough votes are never amassed to override a veto, with the President eventually blinking?  

    Is that about right?  Your approach is slightly different, yes?  Or have I completely misunderstood?



    Great interview (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:14:15 PM EST
    He comes across better in interviews than debates - no yelling.  He and Olbermann were in perfect sync on the power of the purse. It's nice when the interviewer sets you up for a good answer.

    I had no idea his father had been involved in Nuremberg.

    LOL (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:23:35 AM EST
    Saying the interview was collusion?  The MSM for ya.

    The disengenuity never ends (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    what Wile and his cohorts mean by "The MSM" is any mainstream outlet that isnt a complete right wing sounding board.

    Cuz yer either with us or agin' us.


    "MSM" is also (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:59:10 AM EST
    a backhanded acknowledgement that these Four-More-Wars lunatics are an increasingly marginalised minority and always have been.

    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    at least you are not disagreeing that it was collusion.  

    Collusion or preparation? (none / 0) (#23)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:04:29 PM EST
    Is there some kind of problem with an interviewer and interviewee going over ahead of time what they will be speaking about on national TV?  I would think that's just good preparation.

    Gotta (none / 0) (#24)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:23:12 PM EST
    get those softballs ready.  

    Can you think (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:42:30 PM EST
    of any examples in that format in which the kind of "collusion" you're talking about dosnt occur, Wile?

    I didnt think so.


    Softball Question? (none / 0) (#26)
    by robrecht on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:16:58 AM EST
    "What can you and your party do to stop this President at this point?"

    I wish this was a softball question!