Dodd and the Netroots

Why is everything about Joe? (3.00 / 2)

Seriously, can't the netroots do anything without it being about Lieberman somehow? The more you obsess over Lieberman, the more power he has over you.

---

by: genghis conn @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:32:10 AM CST

Joe epitimizes Everything wrong in this country, (0.00 / 0)

Every thing Joe stands for, is what the Dem Party is against.  There was no image greater than THE KISS, to project exactly what Joe Lieberman is all about.  It is not an obsession over Lieberman to want to limit that power he thinks he now has, sitting in between both parties, playing them off against each other.  I cannot wait until November 2008, when more Dem Senators will be chosen, and Joe will be the Nothing he really is.

---

by: PamB @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:47:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seriously? (4.00 / 2)

You can't be the progressive candidate and still beg for Lieberman's endorsement.  It just isn't going to work.  If Dodd is serious about winning netroots support, he has to drop Joe like a bad habit.  Now.

---

by: CGG @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:51:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In every interview (0.00 / 0)

Dodd wastes time talking about Joe, because he refuses to just say "Lieberman is not a central consideration for me, in my campaign or in the Senate." That attitude is not the stuff presidential campaigns and movement leaders are made of.

Also, as to "why Lieberman" generally, there are a few reasons -- many of us are oriented towards reforming the party, and it's a good shorthand for identifying counter-reform attitudes among Democratic politicians; the campaign for Joe's Senate seat in 2012 is already on; and because it's important to a lot of MLN readers.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:57:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually (4.00 / 2)

His online efforts have been great so far - from liveblogging to his Senate initiatives on credit cards, lending, Iraq, and Habeas.

If you are seriously asking why the Lieberman issue is important to the netroots, well, I guess you somehow missed the last thirteen months.

And it's not like this is only coming from the blogs - it's the traditional media who keeps asking him about it in TV interviews and writing about it in articles like this one in last week's New Yorker.

Nevermind the fact that the only thing that would be worse for his primary candidacy than continuing to act like he wants Lieberman's endorsement would be actually getting it.

---

by: tparty @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:11:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Joe and Chris (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget that these men are, or were, great friends. Still, Dodd supported Lamont over Lieberman, despite what it cost him personally. Lieberman won't ever forgive him for it, but I don't blame Dodd for wanting the approval of (or at least not shitting all over) the man he once called his best friend in the Senate.

It's asking a lot of him. He'll probably get there, eventually, but it won't be easy for him. The progressive netroots loses sight of this.

---

by: genghis conn @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:42:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Observed (0.00 / 0)

a) Winning Joe's approval all but assures he will have zero chance of winning any meaningul support in any Democratic primary... even (or perhaps especially) Connecticut's.

b) There are many options that exist between "wanting [his] approval" and "shitting all over [him]." And I clearly was not calling for the latter. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

---

by: tparty @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 13:08:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Observed (0.00 / 0)

Genghis is a chickenshit and chose to run over to his little blog and accuse tparty of "attacking" Dodd instead of continuing this here.

  When called on it he went into hiding as usual

HOW PATHETIC.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 18:37:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Keith... (0.00 / 0)

Do grow up. What you say about me is often a lot worse than whatever offense you've imagined I've committed this week.

---

by: genghis conn @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 19:38:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

SOP (0.00 / 0)

You basically never respond when you're called out for uncritically spouting B.S. talking points. You might not like Keith's tone, but he's not the only one making that criticism.

And you talking about the "progressive netroots" is about as ludicrous as my grandmother talking about gangsta rap. Please stop.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 20:20:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a pattern (0.00 / 0)

Its as if you were trained to Blog by Fox News.

There was absolutely no "Attack"n Dodd in this diary. The most you could say is there was Disapointment yet even when you agreed to change the wording you chose "taken to task" which is still wrong, wrong, wrong.

When you "take someone to task" you don't Heap Praise on them for 80% of a diary.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 21:04:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not so fucking difficult (0.00 / 0)

..to comprehend.

For all intents and purposes, Joe Lieberman IS the Iraq War-- and whatever else comes next in the Middle East. Yet Chris Dodd continues to play nice with Lieberman, I expect for fear of ruffling feathers and disturbing the tranquility of the Senate. Chris Dodd doesn't yet understand he's entered a new arena of politics with a far harsher spotlight, continuing to play by the same old rules. That's a mistake.

Similarly, the lack of endorsement from Lieberman--someone allegedly caucusing with the Democrats-- and Dodd's continued insistence that having such an endorsement is worthwhile both hurt Dodd's chances. He doesn't understand that either.

These questions are going to haunt Chris Dodd as long as he continues to insist he has presidential ambitions. A more convincing response is needed from the man.

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 13:13:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And as tparty writes above... (0.00 / 0)

Dodd is free to voice his displeasure at Lieberman's antics with as measured a tone as he feels appropriate, not with the intemperate comments some anonymous bloggers would make.

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 13:16:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

iraq vote (0.00 / 0)

I actually didn't know Dodd had officially disavowed his Iraq war vote. That's great to know and I like his candor on it, it sounds a lot like John Edwards'.

http://holdfastblog.com

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:53:50 AM CST

He's been very good on Iraq (0.00 / 0)

and better than most on Iran (from Blitzer yesterday):

That sort of drumbeat, putting out information to start to build the case, we've been down that road in the past. We learned just last week from the inspector general at the Pentagon that Doug Feith and others there were cooking the books, making up this stuff to create a case for that resolution that was adopted five years ago.

So I'm not the only one a little skeptical about this. No, I hear the administration, but you can't forgive me -- you can't blame me, rather, for being a little uneasy when I hear these drumbeats about Iran. ...

...who's putting out that information saying that this is a decision made at the highest authorities in Iran? I saw those -- those devices back in 2004, three years ago, at a full briefing in Baghdad by our military people. This is not news.

---

by: tparty @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:16:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who's his replacement? (0.00 / 0)

On the off chance, Dodd wins, who's going to replace him? Even if he's still our senator after November '08, he did say he wasn't running for re-election in '10. In less than 2 (or 4) years, we need to start grooming a progressive candidate for Senate. And, I don't think Ned would be interested.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:14:03 PM CST

That's not what he said (0.00 / 0)

He probably will be running for the Senate again in 2010. What he did was free up several millions for his presidential run. Dodd knows he'll win re-election in a walk anyway.

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:20:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nancy Johnson (0.00 / 0)

Or Rob Simmons. If Dodd wins in '08, or gets to be Secretary of the Treasury in a Clinton cabinet.

---

by: genghis conn @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:22:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what's the question? (0.00 / 0)

I see the answer - Simmons and Johnson.  What made you bring THEM up?

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:27:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rell would likely Appoint Them (0.00 / 0)

Which is what I think Genghis meant.

---

by: CGG @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:30:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reminds me (0.00 / 0)

What's up with that Senate Special Elections bill? Hmm.

No chance Nancy could hold the seat, and probably not Simmons either. Rell might, or potentially Shays... though it wouldn't be inconceivable that Rell might just appoint Ned should the seat open up...

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:38:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Senate Special Elections Bill HB 5034 (0.00 / 0)

Not much new, but there's a committee version of it to read.

CGA Bill Tracker (which I found via Greeenpeas, IIRC) link is right here

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:43:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Simmons could (0.00 / 0)

Simmons would have to have a very strong Dem opponent (read: not Blumenthal, Larson or DeLauro) in order to lose a Senate seat if he were already there.

Why would she appoint Ned?

---

by: genghis conn @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:46:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why would she raise taxes? (0.00 / 0)

heh


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 14:04:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Simmons and DeLauro (0.00 / 0)

I don't see either of them as candidates with a statewide appeal - both seem like solid candidates that came up through the ranks in their district... but I don't see Simmons appeal in New Haven or Fairfield County, and I don't see DeLauro appealing in NW or eastern Connecticut.

As for Ned, dunno, thinking maybe the democratic process might appeal to someone in the GOP, perhaps over partisan loyalty. Maybe that's not Rell, though.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 20:34:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, I see (0.00 / 0)

I took replacement to mean via vote, and GC took it to be the appointment.

I hope that by then, it is not an issue if and when that moment comes!

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 14:17:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Finally got around to uploading Dodd's interviews from yesterday (0.00 / 0)

Just posted these vids on my site.
Senator Dodd on Hardball:

Senator Dodd on the Situation Room:

---

by: ctblogger @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 20:29:12 PM CST

Lieberman issue (0.00 / 0)

is tiring. Yes. He's a putts and the represents the worst of the worst in American politics.

Still the Dodd/Lieberman thing is not so much - as I see it - aobut real friendship - friendship requires recipriocity and here there definitely is none. The fault is in part due to the interviewers' (Russert, Blitzer, et al) persistent question - usually the last - to Dodd about Lieberman. Dodd is trying to be gracious in spite of what he knows is more veneer than authenticity.

In the end, I give Dodd credit for much of what he's stepping up to, his clear position in complete opposition to everything that Lieberman has bet his political life on. I think that's pretty damning.

I also like Dodd's world view - particularly with regard to Latin America. I'd like to know more but I think his rather courageous stands with Cuba and the Haitians (perhaps less courageous but very attentive to human needs) is uniuqe and something that he can build on - perhaps even face off with the large corporate transnationals - something really important!

The Lieberman/Dodd issue is more a nuisance than a something really important.

---

by: FairTrade @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 00:58:20 AM CST

A nuisance that won't go away (0.00 / 0)

...anytime soon, no matter how much Chris Dodd would wish it were so.

Dodd is also in the unenviable position because of the lack of an endorsement from Lieberman. Chris Dodd has endorsements from the rest of the Connecticut contingent in Congress, and perhaps Ned Lamont as well (Chris Shays is behind the vile John McCain). So this is a natural question too, besides the supposed friendship issue.

Thus, Dodd's vigorous promoting and championing of Lieberman before the primary and then supporting Ned Lamont after, for, as Joe Lieberman would say, strictly partisan reasons finds himself in this Catch-22, or cyclical conundrum. It is not however a "no-win" situation though. Most of us here would say he could end this charade and lift himself out of this maelstrom with very little effort. Depending on your point of view, that he has so far refused to do so says something either about Chris Dodd's character [and in my view, Joe Lieberman's lack thereof] or that he lacks an essential instinct necessary to do well in the pressure-cooker of presidential politics.

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:56:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

do you think it's all about donors? (0.00 / 0)

Maybe he has to figure out how to deal with big donors who also donate to Lieberman?

While replacing them, not ticking them off?

Just a thought - I too often forget to consider the mechanics of the everpresent money angle, so thought I'd ask.

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:58:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That probably is an important consideration (0.00 / 0)

Any type of backlash would be a problem. In 2003 Howard Dean went from where Dodd is now to front-runner mainly by grassroots effort and a tremendous infusion of cash.

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:16:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]