Sen. Dodd on Daily Show w/Backstage Pass

Pathetic showing... (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry. I've honestly tried to be open to a Dodd candidacy. But Chris lost me just 30 seconds into his Daily Show spot.

Jon Stewart gave Dodd a hell of a lead-off softball. "What do you think about the cancellation of the FoxSpews sponsored Nevada debate?"

And Dodd responds in DLC fashion, "I would have liked to debated..."

Cullen and Tagaris are awesome bloggers. But I can't lend an ear to any "Democrat" who can't take a stand against Rupert Murdoch's propaganda outlet.

The only thing left is to figure out whether I trust Obama to be in it to win it, or if I embrace John Edwards who has shown some real flashes of brilliance.

---

by: TrueBlueCT @ Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 22:39:00 PM CDT

The race (0.00 / 0)

has not even begun.

Right now it's all about moeny and cutting off the "other guy" from funding. If you can't get the money, then you aren't the "real deal".

Look for two people from "the outside" (not in the race now) to show up at both parties final showing.

Dem: Al Gore (last elected President when all votes were conted)
GOP: Fred Thompson (former Senator and actor)

And if you don't think that's an interesting pairing of yet unnamed combatants, well then you are missing it.


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 @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 00:18:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Money makes the world go round (0.00 / 0)

And as goes the money, so go the frontrunners.  The corporate carousel is spinning, in more ways than one.

Is anyone (organization/website) tracking who is getting money from whom at this stage?  Candidates as pie charts -- who's paying for whom?  Twould be most interesting to continue to highlight this aspect of the "lurch for the purse."

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:35:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Newt Gingrich (0.00 / 0)

I'd added that Newt is the real guy waiting in the wings for the Republicans. Thompson? Meh, he might have some support, but I don't see him standing out above the Gilmore/Tommy Thompson level other than the fact that he has not yet entered the race.

http://holdfastblog.com

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:35:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

When I read that Harry Reid dissed Fox I thought it was a joke (0.00 / 0)

I NEVER thought I'd see Harry Reid take a stand like that.  Look, the Lamont/Lieberman debates made it clear that the "debate format" is far too often used as street theatre -- Lieberman's talking over his limit and blaming the LaRouchies on Lamont supporters, the piss poor "moderation," and Snark Davis (Don't have my glasses on -- did I hit the "M"?) made it clear to me that having parameters about when you will and won't debate, and under what conditions you'll debate, is only sane.

I'm sorry that Dodd made this comment; it was a great opportunity to support something right that Harry Reid did and he missed it.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:30:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kucinich (0.00 / 0)

would have answered the same way as Dodd to the question about the debate in Nevada.

Really think there's such really important things to be taking our time and energy with and this seems so damn trivial. This is not a progressive issue for me it's a petty one because of some ass's (Roger Aile) comment.

Meanwhile the war machine marches on - hope all will be at the March 17 rally!

---

by: FairTrade @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:41:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not that trivial (0.00 / 0)

The comment gave everyone a nice out, but the issue is that FOX will never give Dems a fair shake.  And to volunteer for abuse is a show of weakness.  A lot of people were impressed that Obama froze FOX out.  It's not a progressive thing, it's a FOX thing.

---

by: drowsy @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:00:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point is hammering Dodd (0.00 / 0)

because he wants to debate regardless of who is sponsoring it.

I don't think the blogs (like Kos - who I generally agree with) care so much about Obama as they do their nemesis - Fox "news". So, as long as this is a political media spat that has nothing to do with real issues - I think it's mighty disingenuous to "bash" Dodd for his Daily performance because he wants to debate the issues - and get it off the "American Idol" mode it's in now with Obama, et al. Kucinich also sees the need to get this beyond Obama, Hillary "star power" and into the real stuff - like universal health care, ending the war and a host of other really critical issues.

While I agree that this was not a great interview - few, if any really are, particularly when the guest is a pol. Nevertheless, Dodd faired well, but really needs to be sized in a real debate not one-off talk shows. A little substance, please.

---

by: FairTrade @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:41:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was similarly disappointed (0.00 / 0)

Dodd had a great opportunity to slam the hell out of Fox and he blew it.  That soured the entire interview in my opinion. Plus, his remark "I would have liked to debate" seems to imply that he won't be in the race long enough to get to any other debates that might be set up.

But Dodd looked relaxed and appeared to enjoy himself.  I don't know if that'll translate to widespread support, but it was nice to see he did fairly well other than the Fox miscue.

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:17:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The interview was destined to fail. (0.00 / 0)

First, Stewart is a genius talking to the camera, but for me only two or three interviews a year are worth sitting through.  He is an awful interviewer.  His old interview with HRC was a good one, years ago.

In this case, it was pretty crappy.  The whole interview was set up as 'Dodd how do you feel about those guys who will make it to the end'  and 'When you drop out..'  It was like a car crash in slo-mo.  Maybe Stewart has contempt for him, because the joke was never delivered,  it really was as if Stewart was pronouncing Dodd as DOA.  When Stewart was trying to be nice, it was like 'Gee you are certainly very qualified and accomplished, too bad that doesn't mean anything - guys like you don't get elected.'

FOX:  Dodd's desparate for attention, and he's getting ribbed that he's not even running, and he had the most to gain from staying in that debate.  Not too hard to fathom.  And maybe he'd have been great in that gauntlet. 

But maybe his attitude is a primary-killer.  It did appear as if he's out of the loop on that issue.  No one wants to hear any gee-whiz about FOX on the Daily Show.  Not recognizing that makes him seem tin-eared.

---

by: drowsy @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:48:40 AM CDT

The Problem with Dodd (4.00 / 1)

It's obvious that Dodd went on the show, as all politicians do, to create a buzz around his campaign. Stewart knew this, but he wouldn't let himself be used -- Stewart came down hard on Dodd and made him look like the punchline to a joke.

The problem with Dodd is that he sits there and allows this to happen. When Stewart asked the Faux News question, Dodd gave the wrong answer. When Stewart pretended that Dodd was not one of the candidates running for office, Dodd went along with the joke, until Stewart himself let the audience in on it. When Stewart said, I hope you come back on my show after you drop out, Dodd says "OK" (instead of something like, "you mean, after I prove you wrong!").

And it's not just Dodd's Daily Show performance that leaves you shaking your head. When Dodd gets dumped on by Lieberman, Dodd just takes it. Is Dodd the guy you want negotiating with Russia, China and Iran over nuclear weapons, trade agreements, etc.? I don't think so.

Dodd has been a friend of the insurance companies and financial services companies for many years, just like Joe has. Dodd voted in favor of No Child Left Behind, just like Joe did. Dodd is NOT Joe Lieberman by any stretch of the imagination. Dodd has introduced good legislation over the years. He has made some great campaign speeches, and he seems like a real nice guy. But he's not the person I want leading the charge for the middle class and the progressive movement.

When my ideals are getting trashed by the talking heads on TV, I want my Senator, or President, to stand up for them, not laugh.

 

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:14:27 AM CDT

didn't I read this response already? (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

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 @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 13:07:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]