Chris Dodd For Senate Majority Leader

partial agreement (4.00 / 2)

I don't believe that two or three of the Dems in the current race will be there after NH.

If Al decides to play, I suspect that to be 4-5. If Al decides to not play and endorse I suspect that 4-5 will drop.

Please remember that Al does endorse. He did in 2004 (Dr. Dean) and he was not as popular then as he is now. I believe that he will not endorse either of the TWO front runners if he does endorse rather than getting into the game (Yes, I am implying who I believe he would endorse, because they have more in common with that candidate than Al has with any of the others).

That said, I do feel Dodd would make a fantastic majority leader if he would be able to do one small thing. Divorce his "friendship" for he-who-can-not-be-named from the "politician" and boot that persons ass out to the party he really belongs to (the one that doesn't start with "D").

As for "cleaning house" - we have to do that ASAP. That is best done by primary-ing against every member of the DTC and the Blue Dogs. Which is why I started electrealdemocrats.com and why I will continue the effort.

I agree that the "leadership" has failed to lead. Reid being the worst of all, but Pelosi and Hoyer are no better. Impeachment should never have been "off the table". There should have been no negotiating with the GOP. The rules committee of both the House and Senate should have re-started at once. Waxman may be an ass (I disagree with him 100% on his anti-smoking rhetoric), but his committee has show time and again that there are many offenses that must be followed up on, even if it means holding the House open 12 hour days 7 days a week.

More and more people I talk to speak about the ineffectual wimps that got elected and did nothing. That's my party they are talking about. I have explained that just taking the majority doesn't mean that we have control, and use the DLC and Blue Dogs to explain that only by electing progressives can we take control. That the "D" doesn't mean much if they are corporatists.

And I'm not the only one who sees the problem.

"Do you want to trade a crowd of corporate Republicans that are running this country now for a crowd of corporate Democrats?" he asked. "That's not us."

Me? No. The "he" in that was John Edwards on Saturday in Nevada.

I may not love Edwards, he has made some mis-steps. But, he does know the stakes and what they really are. My greatest fear is that Hil will be the standard bearer and that would kill progressives that are down ticket.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 00:27:15 AM UTC

by and large I agree (0.00 / 0)

I don't believe in purity and there are no 2 people at this site who agree 100% of the time but we have to insist on Democrats who stand firm on core issues such as middle class economic policies and protection of our privacy.

These "corporatist" issues we are on the side of the supermajority of Americans.  Granted it is more personally profitable to sell out to these interests but country comes first.

Joe Lieberman and George Bush believe that our govt should cut and run on capturing Osama Bin Laden so that Bush and the neocons could invade Iraq. Despite no Wmds and no links to 9/11, Lieberman supports that decision.

---

by: bigdavefromqueens @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 02:49:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why Not Russ Feingold? (4.00 / 1)

Dodd has been great on the issues lately, but the best person in the Senate without question has been Russ Feingold.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:54:32 AM UTC

Dodd or Feingold (0.00 / 0)

Both of these Senators have shown some spine. Either would be a HUGE improvement over the current head (I can't bring myself to call Reid our "leader").

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 13:36:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not Feingold? (4.00 / 1)

Beacuse he's built his entire career on being 1 vs. 99, the exact opposite of what is needed in a leader.

Dodd, on the other hand, could have been minority leader in 1994 - he lost by 1 vote to Daschle - and sought the position again briefly in 2004 following Daschle's loss.

Given Reid's anemic approval numbers in Nevada, it may indeed be time for a change, whether that's Durbin, Dodd, Schumer or someone else.

---

by: tparty @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 15:58:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Optimistic? (0.00 / 0)

First off, Dodd could be a great choice as Majority Leader.

But I think your Senate win projections for '08 are way too optimistic.

Among your likely pickups, I don't think Oregon should be included, and Colorado is becoming more competitive in recent polling (Hillary could also hurt down-ticket candidates in the Mountain states).

Also, hate to say it, but many of the states in your "possible" category are pipe dreams. There are a couple notable exceptions: NE (if Kerrey finally enters) and AK (with all the corruption scandal going on there - even though this would still be an uphill battle for us).

I think we're looking at +3-4, tops.

---

by: itskevin @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 17:30:44 PM UTC

kos poll ... 82% disapprove of Reid (0.00 / 0)

Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:28:57 AM PDT

Poll
Do you approve of the way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing his job?

Yes 9% 223 votes
No 82% 1951 votes
Undecided 8% 197 votes

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 17:38:08 PM UTC

Harry Reid DKos poll results (0.00 / 0)

Not so great.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 17:58:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dodd Not Running in 2010 (0.00 / 0)

Not the basis for a nod for Majority Leader if he will only serve for 2 more years.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 17:59:31 PM UTC

Where did you get that? (0.00 / 0)

Not true:

We continued our series on the presidential candidates' first campaigns last week with a piece on Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd. We reported - accurately - that Dodd told the Federal Election Commission he will not seek re-election for his Senate seat in 2010. But his campaign wrote us to say that while Dodd is currently focused on his White House run, he will "cross that bridge to his Senate run if he gets to it."

---

by: tparty @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 19:38:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wikipedia (0.00 / 0)

"Dodd told the Federal Election Commission he will not seek re-election for his Senate seat in 2010."

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 20:46:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We covered this 10 months ago (0.00 / 0)

Here and at Hotline.

http://hotlineblog.n...

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 21:20:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, I Missed That, Sorry (0.00 / 0)

I thought he really meant what he said.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:46:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He had to do that to use his Senate fundraising money for the primaries (0.00 / 0)

Chair, Stratford DTC

---

by: Dave Mooney @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:00:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Understand Now (0.00 / 0)

But does that make it right?

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:31:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dodd at 23% at Daily Kos (0.00 / 0)

http://www.dailykos....

A couple of months ago he wasn't on the radar screen, sitting at 0%. A bit of the lemming factor at Daily Kos for sure, but mostly due to Chris Dodd, and his staff.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 18:01:49 PM UTC

7% in <i>Connecticut</i> (0.00 / 0)

According to Q poll. and less than 1% on DFA poll, behind everybody,

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 18:53:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We know. Thanks anyway, (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 19:16:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was pre-FISA hold (0.00 / 0)

The Q poll was taken between October 9-15, and Dodd announced the FISA hold around the 17th.

Dodd was around 7% in Sepember on the Kos poll, but he shot up to 23% after the FISA hold.

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 19:23:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sen. Dodd for Majority Leader (0.00 / 0)

Dodd is in the Senate?  Representing who?  Not the people of CT, surely.  Where I work, I think it really sucks when people come back from a leave of absence to a promotion.  His mid-life chase-your-dreams fantasy romp across America has only left CT with NO representation in the Senate.

---

by: joemustgo @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:20:31 AM UTC

Lieberman's committee chairs (0.00 / 0)

Just a thought .... Do you think if Dodd were the Senate Majority Leader he would strip Joe Lieberman of his committee chairmanships?

My guess is no. But neither would Harry Reid. I wonder if Russ Feingold would.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 23:51:19 PM UTC

That's my big concern!! (0.00 / 0)

If the Dems pick up another three or four seats, they most definitely should dump Lieberman from his committee post- and as unceremoniously as they possibly can.  The big problem of Congressional Democrats has been their lack of spine, their abject inability to fight back.  They need to show they can throw a punch, and they should definitely land a haymaker on the end of Joe Lieberman's nose in January of '09 by stripping him of his seniority. 

Ned Lamont has worked hard for Dodd, and Dodd, were he to remain in the Senate and ascend to the majority leader's position, would be honor-bound to finally cut his ties to Lieberman and reward Lamont- the true Democrat- by slamming Lieberman hard. 

If he can't bring himself to do that, he has no business in a leadership post.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 15:23:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]