I think I've found my candidate! .... DODD!!!

He sounded great in the last debate, so I started researching him. A Peace Corps Volunteer! Favors decriminalizing marijuana. Wants to tighten H-1B abuses. What's not to like?

What does everyone else think about Dodd?

could get a word in edgewise, get some traction, make Hillary go away. I'd vote for Dodd, no problem.

were more evenly distributed to candidates outside of the top three. But one can hardly blame Hillary for Russert's obsession with her and his constantly asking Obama and then John what they thought of an answer she just gave.

he -- and Biden -- managed to convey substantive statements, showing their expertise and experience.

I particularly like that his pedigree. His father prosecuted the Nuremburg War Crimes. Imagine growing up with that kind of mindset in the house. It's the kind we need rather desperately in this era.

Breaks my heart that he and Biden are so far back in the pack. I wish BOTH of them, AND Kucinich, would move up. Then again, I wish Gore would get in, too.

:thumbsup:

I wouldn't be totally jazzed to have as President.

what I like about both of those gentlemen is that they are authentic.

They have solid Dem credentials (Dodd being a bit more Left) but they are NOT pretending to be anything they aren't.

edit to add...

But Dodd voted No on Bankruptcy reform. I thought they should have lowered the "usury limit" on interest rates before they did bankruptcy reform. 30% interest on credit cards seems immoral to me.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Chris_Dodd.htm

Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015
(commentary by someone with very negative opinions of the Democrats who voted for the bill)

03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 31
Dayton Amdt. No. 31.; To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent.

REJECTED

While reasonable sounding, 19 Democrats voted against this amendment; we will be charitable and assume the amendment was poorly written. There was some concern that the amendment would supercede any State usury laws. Sen. Kerry was among those voting against it.

We had the same problem recently in Canada -- in efforts to pass legislation to deal with "payday loan" operators. Their predatory practices have been matters of considerable concern here.

However, some provinces squawked that anything other the Criminal Code (federal) rules on usurious interest rates fell under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction as consumer protection legislation.

The situation is rather the reverse in the US in this case, it seems, with bankruptcy being federal and criminal interest being state jurisdictions.

If the criticism of the attempt to limit interest was valid, however, then so were the votes against the amendment. It is very bad practice to enact legislation that is outside the authority of the legislative body that does it, since it will almost inevitably lead to lengthy and pointless court challenges of the legislation on constitutional grounds, and to having the legislation struck down if it infringes on the other government's jurisdiction.

I don't have any authoritative opinion on the question, but I would think that the number of votes against that amendment might reflect a broad opinion that it was outside federal jurisdiction.

I note that Obama also voted Nay on that amendment:
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/109/index.cfm?start=626

(I assure everyone I was not looking to single out any other candidate -- I googled "Amendment S.Amdt. 31" bankruptcy and that was the first thing up!)

I am almost even between Dodd and Biden, but I think that Biden may have a slightly better chance of breaking through the wall of the "nothing but the top three, all the time". He can be great with quotable one liners that stick in people's minds, has a great sense of humor, and a winning smile. All qualities that should not matter in deciding about a president, but unfortunately do.

He is experienced and well learned and articulate with passion for making change.

I certainly favor decriminalizing marijuana, but that's not an electable position in a general election.

Consider popular two-term Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, and the fact that a vast majority of Americans want to see herb decriminalized if not entirely legal.

Phillip Morris will come up with some super-duper GMO strain of marijuana, advertise heavily during Saturday morning cartoons with a great campaign featuring a cartoon Rastafarian singing a catchy reggae tune........don't think that would be good at all.

But, I think people should be able to grow their own and take it for medical reasons. And I don't think it's a good reason to throw people in prison. I also saw a poll where a majority of Americans favored decriminalizing it.

"Phillip Morris will come up with some super-duper GMO strain of marijuana, advertise heavily during Saturday morning cartoons with a great campaign featuring a cartoon Rastafarian singing a catchy reggae tune........don't think that would be good at all."

Not if it was legal to grow as well. Don't want Morris or Reynolds? Grow your own. Plus, there are restrictions on advertising for alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco TV advertisements are simply not allowed any more. Restrictions could be placed on marijuana advertisements just as easily.

"But, I think people should be able to grow their own and take it for medical reasons."

With or without a doctor's prescription?

"And I don't think it's a good reason to throw people in prison."

I don't either. But if you want the government to start making money off weed and simultaneously get rid of the drug dealers, legalization is the only way.

"I also saw a poll where a majority of Americans favored decriminalizing it."

I take heart in the fact that all of our Democratic presidential contenders except Biden are either in favor of medical MJ, decriminalizing MJ, or outright legalizing it.

and if the fools higher up the political food chain here in MI insist on going with the early primary (the situation that gives Clinton a ridiculous advantage) I'll be voting for Dodd.

The only other one on the ballot is Kucinich and that's just because his campaign was so incompetent that they screwed up on their efforts to withdraw his name. Yeah, that's who I want running the country. Not.

So, by default, Dodd may very well pick up a great many votes in MI. I know a lot of Dems who don't like the notion of Granholm & Co. ramming their girl Hillary down the party's collective throat. They'll vote Dodd to make it clear how much they don't appreciate that tactic.

MI Dems have had enough of that sort of thing. Witness last year's state convention where the weaker candidate was chosen to run for state AG. Many were convinced there was a golden boy chosen while their views were blatantly disregarded (again). They came to convention and dealt out a mighty Fuck You to the machine, knowing full well it likely meant not winning the AG.

Apparently this was lost on those who steer the machine, judging by the recent maneuvers. Damn DLCers, no regard for the base. None.

Julie

Nevermind the pressure tactics applied by the whiney "first states". Oy.

Julie

the whole Spitzer thing came up and he pounced on Hillary rather than outline some of his thinking on immigration reform. That was disgraceful of him.

Glad you like him. On other issues of concern to me, he is good and I don't mean to undermine those. But he could have risen to the occasion the other night and not fall low with his petty attack.

I'm not thrilled with Edwards' response either. As I recall, Bidendidn't jump in. That's in his favor with me as I have been supporting edwards and leaning also to Biden, at this point.

He's on my short list. He will restore the constitution when he takes office.

He probably won't be in the lineup by the time my state gets to the primary in March.

If he were to get the nomination, he would probably not win the G.E. Americans rarely elect senators who have years of voting records that are just waiting to be attacked (the "Kerry lesson").

he's endorsed by the fire fighters union, and they have a record of backing the winner. they were one of the onLy unions to back kerry and they went out and canvassed hard for him, especiaLLy in iowa.

The country simply hasn't elected a long-time senators .... well, longer ago than 50 years. I don't know if it ever has, actually.

Those are the cold, hard facts. Sad, but true.

He would make a good President, though. If a long-term senator were going to get the nomination, though, I think Biden would be the best. But he wouldn't win the G.E., either...based on the country's history of who they select for President.

senator kerry. sad, but true.

i can't say what happens in the GE, but i stand by my statement, that don't be fooLed that dodd puLLs off the nom.

My guess is that you won't like it as much as you do his current rhetoric.
He's very similar to Biden and Edwards in that regard.
They'll move far to the left when running in the Democratic primary, but when they're actually in the Senate, they're solidly centrist.

Of voting NO on the Bankruptcy Bill that Biden supported?

Of supporting filibusters for both Roberts and Alito?

Yeah, that Dodd's a real centrist, all right. :eyes:

He received a Golden Leash award for his tort reform bill that benefited large corporations. He worked to over ride Clinton's veto of it and he received tons of cash for his Senate campaign from the accounting industry including Author Anderson. He also supported legislation that further limited investor lawsuits in the 90s.

He's received the greatest percentage of campaign cash from security firms and related industries. It has kept his campaign alive despite his low poll numbers. He was criticized for being slow in addressing the mortgage meltdown while receiving large donations from the affected corporations. He, like Richardson and Biden, was a big proponent of free trade in the nineties but, like the others, now supports clauses protecting labor and the environment. He's now strong on civil liberties and the environment but has the second lowest lifetime ratings by the ACLU and LCV of all our candidates.

On the plus side, he has the strongest labor record of any of the candidates. He also has shown some backbone on issues that others are cautious to support. I'm not considering him but, even with his past flaws, he's still heads above any of the Repugs.

is a mystery to me. Both of them have taken brave stands against Bushco recently. Meanwhile, the big three (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) are attacking each other and becoming overexposed). I'm beginning to hope that in the nine months we have until the convention, both Dodd and Biden will become top contenders.

he may the candidate to coaLesce behind so we don't fracture with the current top tier.

k&r

a LOT

I wish he'd work on one-liners like Biden is apparently doing. He's got lots of experience and a pretty good voting record in the US Senate.

Plus, after Lamont beat Lieberman in the Democratic primary, he supported Lamont.

do that (I'm torn between voting for Kucinich on principle and voting for Edwards or Obama as the most progressive electable candidate).

I think he could easily win. I don't trust the current situation, how the current front-runners, all somewhat weak compared to Dodd, imo, are being shoved down our throats by the media and party, both party's, insiders.

If one of the others has any chance at all, I'd say Biden and Richardson are in a better position to raise their chances from zero to tiny.

Dodd is great on paper. He's a great Senator with an honorable history of service: Dodd is Biden but more liberal, less hubris, fewer skeletons in his background, less long-winded, no indebtedness to the credit card industry, and no history of throwing middle class families under the bankruptcy bus.

I'm not sure why Dodd hasn't caught on, but he hasn't, and it's now too late for him to move into contention. That's a shame, but it's the truth.

In fact I suspect if any of the second-tier candidates perform better than expected, it will be Dodd, due to his foreign-policy experience, refusal to attack the other candidates and his recent move to put a hold on the FISA bill.

Hillary and whoever wins Iowa (Hillary will be unstoppable if she wins Iowa).

If Dodd (or Biden or Richardson) hits an unbelievable homerun in Iowa, the best they possibly do is third place barring more than one of the top tier candidates' collapsing in an historic manner.

Third in Iowa isn't good enough. Hell, SECOND in Iowa isn't good enough.

Support Dodd if you like him, but what's the likelihood of him winning? One in 100? One in 20? I think 1 in 100 is more realistic, but even 1 in 20 is a bet no serious gambler in Vegas would take.

Anything can happen...

mind.

...sorry, I had to be a smart-ass here. couldn't resist.

:toast:

Good choice! Congrats! :headbang:

serious man-crush... hmmm...

after Gore.

He turned me off in one of the early debates, when he went on a pro-NCLB rant. I'm a teacher. That's not going to put him high up on my list.

For the rest, I think he's ok.

I agree that he did well in the recent debate, and I love his "talk clock!"

The Constitution and the rule of law are the centerpiece of his campaign, as they should be. He has been clear as a bell about filibustering the FISA act if it gets to the Senate floor. He has started a campaign on his website to call the members of the judiciary committee and badger them to vote against Mukasey. (BTW, he's the only candidate who's stated TWO reasons for opposing him: not just the waterboarding issue, but also the fact that he's comfortable with letting the president skirt the law in the interests of national security). He has a good carbon-cap proposal, a good health care plan, and fresh, interesting ideas for national public service. And God knows he has decades of senate and foreign policy experience. (Plus, he speaks Spanish!) . I haven't made any firm decision about whom to vote for, but he's the only one I've given money to so far. He deserves to be listened to.