Chris Dodd for President

Good post (0.00 / 0)

Very thoughtful.  Chris Dodd is lucky to have your support! 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 21:23:04 PM CDT

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

But I have a feeling he is much luckier to have the firefighters' support.

As a Dean supporter, that critical endorsement to Kerry, just when he needed it most, drove me nuts!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 21:28:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your support Dean (0.00 / 0)

This is an incredibly thoughtful post and I and everyone else on the Dodd campaign appreciate you taking the time to write such a thorough explanation of why you're endorsing Chris Dodd for President.

.::Hold Fast::.

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 21:30:06 PM CDT

Thanks go to you. (4.00 / 2)

Your persistent attention to BH on all things Dodd made it easy for me to learn a lot more about the Senator than I might have otherwise.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 21:37:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think most people know I lean heavily towards Dodd myself (0.00 / 0)

But congrats on taking the big committal step. And what a great post.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 22:29:31 PM CDT

Well argued, Dean (0.00 / 0)

I may have to declare soon, family matters moving my calendar faster than I want it to move.

Good for you for disregarding poll numbers. As a longtime activist I inevitably look at electability, unless I have a personal connection to the candidate -- working on a campaign you know won't win is just a bummer.  Then again, at the presidential level, we truly don't know at this point.

This campaign season has been more fun because, for the first time since 1984, we don't have a candidate from Massachusetts. And damn it, I'm rusty, I can't make up my mind.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 22:31:00 PM CDT

Sorry, 2000 too (0.00 / 0)

But there was considerable Gore pressure in 2000. OK don't mind me. End of hijacking.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:11:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So (0.00 / 0)

How does this effect me? That's what I really want to know. Kidding...

I'm glad you've declared and I agree that this is coming down to crunch time. I was going to do all this stuff up there to really tell the story of the grassroots, but I just don't have the time and things are getting tight now.

---

by: mbair @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:28:59 AM CDT

Why Not Dodd? (4.00 / 1)

Good post, Dean.

I have tremendous respect for Senator Dodd -- both for his years of service as well as his commitment to progressive reform.  I don't doubt that he would make an excellent President.  Furthermore, I may end up supporting him, as I have concerns about every candidate and am trying to determine which ones are most surmountable in a general election. . . . Regarding Senator Dodd, he must prove the following to me:

This history of Democratic candidates from the Northeast with formal public demeanors is not a good one (see:  Dukakis, Kerry, etc.).  These candidates were strong progressives, and didn't get stumped in debates, but they were perceived by the American people as stiff and uninspiring.  Voters didn't *like* them, nor did they trust their values.  This enabled spurious GOP attacks to stick to them like white on rice.

Dodd is a leader on policy, but our mission is not to pick the most progressive candidate.  (No Liebermans in this race -- all would be immeasurable improvements over the moron-in-chief.)  Rather, we need to get the guy (or gal) who can reach the American people at a gut level, the candidate who can speak in such a way as to inspire people to listen. Not all general election voters will parse the candidates' positions on constitutional reform, but all will make rapid judgments about their warmth, values, and presence.  That is why Bill Clinton was elected President, and not Dukakis and Kerry -- people liked him, and wanted to believe in him.

Dodd needs to prove to me that he can overcome this hurdle.  He is smart and talented, and that comes across in person, but most Americans still obtain their candidate information from television.  That's not where Dodd does his best work.  In my opinion, he comes across as excessively senatorial. . . . If he gets my vote, it will be because he passes the "Bill Clinton" test.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:23:29 AM CDT

A manipulator. (0.00 / 0)

That's what you're asking for--someone who can manipulate the American people and make them like him.
While it was oft repeated by the pundits, AFTER the 2000 election which Bush Two's minion actually stole, that the American people voted for the guy they wanted to have a beer with, that assessment didn't comport with the fact that much of his "religious" base is actually abstemious.  Not to mention the fact that Bush Two is a recovering alcoholic and having beer with him would probably not be much fun.
Why don't we change the requirement just a little this time?  How about voting for someone we can trust to keep his word and basing it on whether or not there's evidence in her record to that effect?
Lord only knows why Bill Clinton got the most votes in 1992?  What we do know is that the Perot candidacy took a chunk of votes that didn't go to either Bush One or Clinton.  And we do know that the fellow who used to provide seed money for Bush campaigns came through for the Clintons after the New Hampshire primary put him in the dumps.  We also know that while the American people didn't get a revamped health care system during Clinton's two terms, the traders got NAFTA, the people on welfare got the shafta, the Energy Department handed nuclear fuel production to the private sector (and kept the liabilities associated with production and storage for us), and millions of children in Iraq were deprived of adequate nutrition and medical attention by an embargo that was supposed to make Saddam Hussein give the U.S. basing rights.
Oh, yes, and we do know from the testimony of former agents that the CIA was providing technology and materials to Ayad Allawi to assist in the making of car bombs for the purpose of "destabilizing" the Saddam Hussein regime, or bring him 'round to our way of thinking.  Now, maybe the CIA was doing all this behind Clinton's back with a stash of money they'd squirreled away during the Reagan/Bush years when they were providing assistance to the Afghanistani terrorists.  But, if that's the case, then why haven't the American people been provided with an explanation and an apology for having overlooked this gross malfeasance?

---

by: hannah @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:06:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A few points in response. . . . (0.00 / 0)

* Bill Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 elections fair and square.  In '92, poll after poll showed Perot taking votes equally from both major candidates; and in '96, he beat Dole 49%-40%.  In both elections, surveys conducted prior to Perot's entry showed Clinton with a substantial lead. . . .Don't buy the right-wing myth that Bill Clinton was an accidental president.

* If you don't see a monumental difference between the way Clinton and Bush have run America, then I can't help you.  Personally, I enjoyed having a President who engaged the world community, expanded health care access to millions of poor children, enhanced environmental protections, passed Family and Medical Leave, stopped Slobodan Milosevic, banned assault weapons, negotiated peace in Northern Ireland, and balanced the budget on the backs of those most able to shoulder the burden.  We should be so lucky again. . . . There is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats.  That's why we need to make sure we nominate a candidate equipped to win a general election, whether that be Dodd or another.

* I'm all for "voting for someone we can trust to keep his word and basing it on whether or not there's evidence in her record to that effect."  But most voters aren't going to read the footnotes of Bill Richardson's health care plan, or examine Joe Biden's votes on environmental protection from the late '70s.  Rather, they will make rapid-fire *personal* judgments about the candidates based on incomplete information.  We can ignore that fact (as you want to do), or we can find a progressive candidate who can actually win.

* Think about this:  The GOP attack machine dumped tens of millions of dollars on Bill Clinton's head.  He was a thief, a liar, a draft dodger, a murderer, a drug pusher, and a conman -- yet the American people discarded these slanders and elected him twice.  In contrast, Dukakis was shattered by a simple image of him in a tank, and Kerry was undone by attacks on his war record from an illiterate draft dodger.  Why the contrast?  Because mainstream American liked Bill Clinton, while the slanders on Duke and Kerry fed into its personal skepticism of the men.

We should not sacrifice principle for a glossy veneer.  At the same time, we also must be conscious of the need to convey those principles effectively to voters - voters who don't spend their time blogging about Chris Dodd's position on constitutional protection. 

It's not about manipulation.  It's about effective leadership. 

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:09:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you to an extent -- that how people feel about a candidate matters.

I also don't think Chris Dodd is a generic stodgy candidate from "New England". There's more to our region than just Massachusetts, where the candidates you criticize, Kerry and Dukakis, come from.

Who do you think can do a better job with the voters?

Chris Dodd is very personable, and more approachable than the other candidates I've seen. He talks to you like a normal human being, he thinks before he speaks, and, yeah, he would probably be a good guy to go and have a beer with too.

I think you're too ready to dismiss him because of where he lives without really getting a sense of the guy's personality. Which other candidate, do you think, would be easier for the American people to relate to? I don't think it's fair at all to suggest Dodd is "stiff" in the way many perceived Kerry to be "stiff" at all.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:02:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair Point (4.00 / 1)

Let me just say that I have *not* dismissed Chris Dodd.  In my opinion, all contenders have issues that they must address in order to be effective general election candidates.  His, in my opinion, is his ability to effectively present himself to a wider general election audience via mass media. . . . Am hoping he proves me wrong.

I tried to phrase my remarks to show that I am legitimately undecided, and to express what I need to see from the Senator in order to sway me.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:24:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A prediction about how other people (0.00 / 0)

will behave in the future is not a fact; it is speculation.  It may be speculation informed by past experience, but it's still speculation.
That said, it's because most voters make decisions on the basis of incomplete information that it's important to provide them with the most competent and trustworthy candidates.  If they all share those basic ingredients, then it doesn't make any difference which one gets chosen for superficial reasons.
Dukakis had a lousy campaign.  The organization of his non-campaign put the lie to the claims about the Massachusetts miracle.  It was the very model of the top-down operation which hadn't a clue what it was doing--at least not down in Florida.
What Kerry demonstrated in his response to the Swifties and his position on the re-iteration of Viet Nam in Iraq was ambivalence and the voters caught on.  What kind of message is it to say "this war is wrong, but I can do it better"?  Everybody knows in his gut that the better of "wrong," like the better of "bad" is worse.  Why would any sane person buy into that?  Even Kerry didn't.  That's why he was ambivalent.
And then there was the very rational calculation that those who made the mess should clean it up.  Besides, with a Republican House and Senate, what was a Democrat in the White House going to achieve?

---

by: hannah @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:08:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response to your questions (0.00 / 0)

* Bad candidates tend to run bad general election campaigns.  It's not a coincidence:  they have little margin for error with a public that doubts their human fiber.  Clinton, Truman, and Reagan were admired personally -- not just politically -- and this caused voters to overlook their deficiencies.  Dukakis and Kerry garnered no such feelings, rendering their campaigns vulnerable to unfair attacks.

* I believe that an effective Democratic President can make a difference, even with a Republican Congress.  Truman pushed through NATO and the Truman Doctrine, and issued an executive order integrating the armed forces under the reign of the "do nothing" GOP Congress.  And Bill Clinton balanced the budget, negotiated the Dayton Accords, increased the minimum wage, and stopped Republicans from destroying Medicare and Social Security -- AFTER 1994.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:40:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with this post, (4.00 / 1)

people outside the Northeast don't like to be preached to by our candidates. They all preach, but they don't like it in the mouth of a Northeast liberal. I don't get it, but it's almost universal in the Mid-West and not just the South.

I also think that Dodd is at a huge disadvantage in this race. It's a change election and he's a Senator with 20+ years in the business. That's a hard sell, my opinion, and it turns his greatest strength, his experience, into a major weakness. Clinton is in that boat as well.

---

by: mbair @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:31:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's changing is that people (4.00 / 1)

are taking their government back.  Who's most responsive is what's going to count.

Most people don't want to be told what to do; but they also don't want to have to tell people what they want done.  They want somebody who KNOWS what needs to be done and how to do it.

Just MHO.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:46:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is true (0.00 / 0)

but without that connection that voters need to make with a candidate they don't listen, really. You can be right all day long on every issue, no one hears you and you lose the ability to persuade. That's a pretty big obstacle to surmount in a political race.

---

by: mbair @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 13:21:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Funny, I didn't read it right away (0.00 / 0)

Thought it was a snark post.  And then, our DFA group decided at yesterday's meeting that it's too early to make a group endorsement, although some of our members have made up their minds. 
So, my attention was colored by my prejudice.  LOL

---

by: hannah @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:32:55 AM CDT

I applaud you (4.00 / 1)

I've been urging bloggers to endorse candidates, and it seems like you a made good decision based on the issues most important to you.

As an Edwards supporter, I've been hoping that Edwards would put the restoration of civil liberties front and center, but Dodd, I have to admit, has been stronger on these issues, especially Habeas Corpus.

I notice that nowhere in your post do the terms "poverty" or "income inequality" or "health care" or "union" appear. If they did, you'd have a hard time going with Dodd given his closeness to the banking industry and hedge funds. He couldn't even bring himself to support simple tax justice in the form of closing the tax fund loophole. In the class war, Dodd is mostly MIA.

And what makes you think a Senator from New England could win?

---

by: david mizner @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:36:43 AM CDT

Dodd is the author of FMLA (0.00 / 0)

which for this lower middle class blogger was a major benefit that would not have existed without him.  I know we still lag far behind other industrialized nations in terms of how we care for new families, but the Family Medical Leave Act was a huge step in the right direction that has impacted millions of everyday people in this country.

In terms of support for unions, I would simply point to the IAFF endorsement, which was based on a long career of supporting first responders.

It is clear that Edwards far and away owns the poverty issue.

As to the last question, I tend not to think in that electability paradigm, having seen Kerry's and Dean's fortunes change so quickly in NH the last time around.  Based on traditional presidential stereotypes, we should be shunning all the Senators and going for Richardson, the only one with real executive branch experience.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 20:48:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This post may be the (0.00 / 0)

new record holder for BlueHampshire recommends!  Congratulations to you and congratulations to Senator Dodd as well.  Grabbing the firefighters' endorsement was quite a coup for him, he does seem to be picking up some steam.

Where do we go from here?

---

by: Gavin @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:39:06 AM CDT

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman (0.00 / 0)

Dean: I see some things I want to comment on, but I don't want to hijack this diary. I wonder if we should move to the open thread, or is it OK to do it here?

And yes, I am being oversensitive on this, because it happens in EVERY diary on Blue Mass Group, and it drives me nuts and, in my view, hurts that site.

Please advise. Thanks.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:21:31 AM CDT

My take is (0.00 / 0)

if it grows organically out of the conversation happening here, go with it.  If it's your pet issue that you find yourself injecting into every discussion of everything, try to restrain yourself.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 13:14:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK thanks Laura (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: JimC @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 13:18:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I tend not to mind (0.00 / 0)

when threads go off on tangents, so perhaps I'm not the best person to get advice from.

Or in other words, go right ahead.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 20:50:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can I tout a new topic on Dodd? (0.00 / 0)

see

---

by: hannah @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 07:37:57 AM CDT

Another variation on a theme--or spin (0.00 / 0)

LINK

---

by: hannah @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 06:33:45 AM CDT