He is a brilliant speaker. I’m not comfortable with all of his policy stances, but I’m leaning toward voting for him come the CT primary now that Dodd is out. I strongly disagree with his choice to hold a SC campaign event with McClurkin. I have some concerns that he’s bringing up Social Security without being completely up front about what is and isn’t a problem with it. I also hate that his popularity is driven in large part because of his presence and intangibles rather than policy substance.

Then, I listen to him talk and I know that, at this time, with the world the way it is, with America the way it is, that he can lead people. He may be the best candidate of the remaining field for the time we’re in. Perhaps settling for policies that are “good enough” is worth the tradeoff for a candidate who can get people to tune in for the State of the Union. Imagine him at that podium. I think it would be incredible.

So, even with my original reservations, I’m leaning his way now*. If he becomes President, I believe he’ll run an administration that will listen to facts and reason and will balance that with political realities well. So, if he puts forth a healthcare plan I don’t like, for example, I believe he’ll listen.

* OK, so being “done with him” lasted until Dodd dropped out… I admit that maybe I was harsh on him, but I do still think that his campaign staff is not my favorite. This change is about him and his stated policies rather than the nuances of the campaign.

I can’t write anything about this now, but I would be remiss if I didn’t note that Sen. Chris Dodd has dropped out of the race based on his poor showing in Iowa. Here’s the letter he sent out to his email list:

Dear Friend,

I count the past year of campaigning for the presidency as one of the most rewarding in a career of public service.

Unfortunately, I am withdrawing from that campaign tonight.

But there is no reason to hang our heads this evening — only the opportunity to look towards a continuation of the work we started last January: ending the Iraq War, restoring the Constitution, and putting a Democrat in the White House.

I know a lot of you came to this email list through a shared desire to return our nation to one that respects the rule of law, and I want to make one thing clear to all of you:

The fight to restore the Constitution and stop retroactive immunity does not end with my Presidential campaign. FISA will come back in a few weeks and my pledge to filibuster ANY bill that includes retroactive immunity remains operative.

You’ve been an invaluable ally in the battle, and I’ll need you to stick by my side despite tonight’s caucus results.

So, one more time, thank you for all of your efforts throughout the course of this entire Presidential campaign.

We made a real difference in shaping the debate, and we’ll continue to do so in the coming days, weeks and years.

I’ll never forget you, and what we’ve fought for, together, over the past year.

Chris Dodd

He was the best candidate, but I really hope there’s a push to put him in a leadership position in the Senate. I’m not happy with Reid, that’s for sure.

Explaining the situation with the FISA filibuster on Countdown. He’s a good man, and I’m happy he stood up for this. The question at the end there, about whether he would better serve CT and the American people by taking a more visible role in the Senate, is on all of our minds. I know CT Republicans are taking issue with the time he’s spending on the campaign trail on what seems to be insurmountable odds to capture the nomination. At the same time, he’s keeping these issues on the front burner in our national discourse and sometimes you need a candidate to be in the race to fill that role.

Also, Dodd was rather forgiving of Reid’s actions here. This is the best explanation for Reid’s behavior I’ve heard so far. It seems ironic that it had to come to the guy who was pushing back against Reid’s agenda for this week.

(video found via My Left Nutmeg, which has more on the Dodd Majority Leader chatter)

Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold have managed to get the FISA bill pulled until after January even though Harry Reid tried to get a vote on the bill today. Harry Reid has been a disappointment, and this Congress has been awful all around, both parties. Of two bills that strengthened FISA protections, Reid chose the bill that contained retroactive immunity and fewer safeguards for our privacy and against executive abuse. This even though Dodd had put a hold on the bill, which Reid has honored from Republican senators time and time again. There is no explanation for this.

Here is Sen. Dodd explaining why he held the floor for hours today and was prepared to go 30 hours if necessary.

I also should point out that he is still campaigning hard in Iowa. He isn’t the sexy choice, but he showed real leadership today, giving up the chance to campaign to come back to Washington and fight for an issue he truly cares about. The other candidates, who supposedly supported Dodd and the filibuster, couldn’t be bothered to leave their campaigns behind. That’s disappointing. It’s also why, even given the historic opportunity to elect the first minority or first female President, I will be voting for Dodd.

This fight isn’t finished, and Dodd and Feingold will need your support in January as this bill comes up again. Follow the news and contact your Senators and Congressmen about this issue. It’s important because in our system of government is built on checks and balances. Retroactive immunity is an additional insult in this bill. These companies could’ve done what others did, and refused to cooperate without a court order.

But the most damning reason to kill this provision: The New York Times reported this weekend that these surveillance programs were started before 9/11. These programs weren’t about terrorism, they weren’t a tradeoff made because of 9/11. They were part of a larger plan by Bush and Cheney about a powerful executive branch with limited interference from Congress.

Even if 9/11 were the impetus for the bill, there were better ways to do this. Here’s Kevin Drum:

But it’s still worth noting that it didn’t have to be this way. After all, hardly anyone, either liberal or conservative, would have objected if the Bush administration had gotten telecoms cooperation as a genuine emergency measure following 9/11. As Ron Suskind reminds us in The One Percent Doctrine, this was the situation at the time: Al-Qaeda terrorists had just attacked the country; further attacks seemed highly likely; our intelligence network was scrambling and nearly blind; we had good reason to believe that Osama bin Laden might be negotiating with Pakistani radicals to obtain a nuclear weapon; and credible reports suggested that al-Qaeda might also be on the road to manufacturing weaponized anthrax. Under the circumstances, asking telecoms companies to cooperate on an interim basis even in the absence of legal approval would hardly have been inappropriate.

But that’s not what happened. As Suskind also reminded us, instead of requesting temporary cooperation and then asking Congress for the implementing legislation within a few months, the Bush administration insisted on going it alone. Dick Cheney had long been obsessed with reasserting the power of the executive branch, and Bush himself was obviously smitten with the idea of being a “wartime president.” It was a toxic combination. As a result, instead of calming down after the initial panic and getting Congress fully involved, Bush and Cheney insisted on moving ahead for years in a legal gray zone.

So now we end up where we are today. Instead of an emergency request that was quickly put on a firm legislative foundation, we have a legal quagmire. And because Congress — Republicans and Democrats alike — went along with this even after we had gotten our bearings and had no excuse for continuing to operate on an emergency basis, they’re just as happy as anyone to put this whole episode behind them and cave in on the retroactive immunity issue.

And what happens the next time a president demands telecoms cooperation for years on end without legal justification? Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it?

That is the problem. As Dodd says in the above video, we learned these lessons during Watergate and the Nixon administration where the Church Committee recommended what became the FISA law. History is bound to repeat itself unless we learn from it.

I’m proud that Chris Dodd is my Senator. He understands the essence of what has been wrong about the Bush years and is fighting to bring us back to a more sane balance.

Just read this on Balloon Juice, a conservative blog, from it’s primary author:

I had intended to register independent, but when I got there to do it, I had a moment of clarity- there seemed to be no point leaving the Republican party in protest and joining the unwashed masses. If I really was going to protest, it made no sense to not commit to the opposition party. Besides, as a Republican all these years, I never had any problem voting for libertarians, Democrats, etc., I don’t see why being a Democrat will change anything. And, the 2008 election really is the most important election of my lifetime- the basic foundation of our country has been under assault for a while, now, and I want to vote in the Democratic primary as a Democrat, not as someone with no party affiliation. I want to send a message, and as small as this gesture (which should appropriately be interpreted as a middle finger to the GOP and not as a sloppy wet kiss to Nancy Pelosi) is, I want it to mean as much as possible. There is now one less Republican in WV, and one more Democrat.

It makes me happy to see that people recognize where we’re at in the country right now. Change is critical, and a restoration of the rule of law paramount. I was pleasantly surprised he’s leaning Dodd right now. Each new person hopefully will shift those poll numbers, and there’s still time to get those numbers up.

Of course, I did like how he ended the post:

Now send me my check from Soros and the 40 virgins.

Wait, there’s a check??

He’s consistent on this and it’s clear that he cares. This is the most consistent, least triangulated candidate in the race.

Not a video this time. The image above shows the current vote commitments on a FISA bill that includes telecom amnesty. This is not a partisan issue but one of the basic rule of law. As I read somewhere online today, this isn’t a liberal or progressive issue, it’s a basic Constitutional issue.

Click on the image to see a list of Senators on the Committee. I know some of our readers have Senators from their home states on the Committee (NY, PA, AZ, and CA come to mind). Call them. Get them to commit to a Nay vote on this bill if it includes an amnesty provision.

(PS. This is a great use of simple technology to build a better platform. Donate to Chris Dodd and reward good leadership!)

Update: Please sign this petition to Harry Reid asking him to back this effort. Immunity shouldn’t be enshrined into law.

While no candidate is perfect, Sen. Chris Dodd does the right thing more often than not. On the issue of enforcing the FISA regulations and balancing our rights protected under the Constitution with the need to fight terrorism, he has been in front of the issues. He’s going to fight the retroactive telecom amnesty provisions in this telecom bill, and has already taken action by requesting a hold on the legislation. Now, he’s committed to filibustering if his own majority leader takes the unusual step of ignoring the hold request:

That’s what I want from a candidate, someone who cares enough about these issues to actually do something about them. The crazy thing is that Dodd’s position isn’t that radical. Yet, for some reason, we have a Congress stumbling over themselves to absolve the telecoms for something they claim they haven’t done…

On a related note, I’m truly disappointed in Sen. Harry Reid. This is preposterous what he’s doing, and it’s amazing that the first actual filibuster will have to be initiated by a Democrat. If there’s one sign about how screwed up the Senate Dems are, this is it. The Republicans say they plan to filibuster just to obstruct any bills popular with Democrats so Reid puts up one cloture vote, and withdraws the bill. When a senator of his own party takes a stand on principle, asks for debate and votes to move a bill forward, he threatens to ignore him. What ever happened to fighting for what you believe in?

As Atrios says, reward good behavior: Donate to Chris Dodd’s campaign now. This country needs Chris Dodd running for President and needs Chris Dodd in the White House. I really mean this. He is a smart, honest, decent man with good credentials and good ideas. He doesn’t have the buzz of Hillary or Obama, but he definitely has the substance. Go Chris Dodd!

The anniversary just passed, and there’s a lot of coverage about the reconstruction. Hilzoy runs down the state of the reconstruction. It doesn’t look good. BTW, I just found out that Hilzoy is a professor at Johns Hopkins. I knew there was something about her I liked. Beyond the fact that she’s an excellent writer, I mean.

On top of that, Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed legislation to help close some of the funding and federal leadership issues with the reconstruction. Another reason to vote Dodd in 2008.

While our senior senator is showing leadership on this issue, our junior senator, Sen. Joe Lieberman, is, once again, going back on his word and abandoning the people in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Look, I can respect the desire to avoid a partisan blamefest. The problem here is that Lieberman is in charge of the committee that would investigate the matter. He sets the tone of the hearings and he is in a key position to lead the committee away from being a partisan hunt. That would be leadership, though, and that’s something that Joe Lieberman lacks. So, instead of having public hearings where we can shed some light onto what happened over those few days, and perhaps work out a better response system, we’re going to have to trust that FEMA and DHS have fixed things. Those hearings are also a way to learn from our mistakes.

After all, considering the track record of this administration on, well, anything, do you trust them to fix the FEMA issues without external guidance?

This is one of the best answers he gave in an interview with Glenn Greenwald for Salon.com. This is a major challenge we face as a nation with regard to terrorism, the balance between security and civil rights. His answer is the best one I’ve heard, period.

It saddens me that it even has to be an issue — the fact that “defending the Constitution” even has to be an issue in the presidential race.

But there is an audience for this. This is really important. This is not a narrow audience. This is a broad audience. This is an audience that will surprise you if articulated well. We can win on this.

A campaign for president allows you to have a megaphone here on a national scale to talk about these things, at a time when this crowd, if it continues, can enable you to stop them, do even more than raise the issues. But secondly, if I don’t win this thing, I want everyone else to be talking about these issues.

I think it reaches into a conservative constituency who ought to care about this as much, and does in many ways. So it gives us a chance to do that.

I carry every day, and have for 26 years, a copy of the U.S. Constitution given to me by Robert Byrd [takes Constitution out of his back pocket]. And to me, what could be more fundamental? With all due respect, I care about health care, education, global warming. But if you get this wrong — what do you got? A trade association. Who wants to be president of a trade association?

And this [holding the Constitution] is the spark, the illumination, it is, if I may so say, the envy of many around the world. We have been a guiding set of principles. What is going on with the rule of law isn’t just happening here. . . Other countries are saying, “We can do this, too.” So there has been an erosion in the world with the rule of the law. Having led the world in the rule of law in the post-World War II period, and having nations reluctantly moving in the direction we were moving in, and they now see the U.S. has retreated, and they are making a hasty retreat themselves.

Josh Tucker [of NYU] makes the point about the Soviet Union collapse — You can make the case that it was military, and that was part of it, but he believes and I believe that it was the rule of law. It was Eastern European countries recognizing that this was a total sham, beginning with the Prague Spring and 1956. The Soviet Union collapsed because it rotted from within, they just rotted without the rule of law. So in addition to the other factors, this has international reverberations, beyond just what happens in our own country.

GG: Well, it is good to see the real passion and conviction that you obviously have for these constitutional issues.

CD: I will never forget, it was a night in New Hampshire back last fall, and I’m talking about health care and talking about education and something else — and I said “I just want to share with you something I care about.” And I talked about this and the room exploded. And I was startled and I realized, “God, people really do care.” I thought I was the only one who did. You sound very arcane when you talk about the Military Commissions Act. But this really reasonates [sic. -- sujal].

The brackets above, except for the very last one, are in the original piece on Salon.com. They are not my additions.

This is why how we debate changes like the current FISA bill matter so much. We are the standard bearer for the Rule of Law. The United States should stand for that, so when we see our Vice President playing Constitutional games (not part of the Executive??) or the President taking shortcuts around the courts and around Congress, we need to stand up. Dodd’s consistent stand on this issue is another reason I’m supporting his candidacy.

The only way he can get this message out is if he can stay in the race and make a strong showing in the early primaries. He needs to be part of the debates, on TV and in the campaign. Until public financing happens, that means he needs money. Hit the blue button on the left and donate to his campaign today.

The rest of Greenwald’s interview with Dodd is pretty good, and he asks some tough questions, especially about the FISA debates. Worth reading the rest.

I hate shouting matches like this, especially with a guy like O’Reilly. It’s hard to believe he has a show that people watch. It’s like watching Colbert except sadder because he’s not kidding. Genghis Conn over at CTLP summed this up well:

One thing I noticed about the “offensive” Lieberman/Bush pic in this segment was just… how… long it stayed up there on the screen. Disturbing choice, Fox editorial staff.

[continued in the comments]

It is odd, isn’t it? I had never seen the image before, either. I do wonder where he got it.

I do wonder. Given the insane amount of coverage the Lamont-Lieberman primary got from this site, MLN and other Connecticut blogs, isn’t it odd that none of us have seen it at least once?

That sort of nutpicking is nothing new, sadly. The Lieberman campaign got rather good at it last year–I remember that the Lamont blog warned people against commenting in the short-lived comments section of the Lieberman blog for just that reason.

Exactly the point of Dodd’s comments.

Of course, in trademark O’Reilly fashion, he lied about his San Francisco statement. Sure, Dodd didn’t know it was on the radio show, not the TV show, but it doesn’t change the fact that O’Reilly said he would tell San Francisco, if he were President, that he wouldn’t do anything if al-Qaeda blew them up. The great thing about Media Matters is they keep audio and video of the segments, so you can listen to it. Like the oh-so-offensive photoshopped pic, O’Reilly probably meant to be funny(?) and make a point, but it’s probably more offensive to be okay that about an attack on an American city just because you disagree with their politics.

One more note: A lot of speculation has come up that O’Reilly is targeting the YearlyKos convention because the DailyKos community was a large factor in the Democratic debates being pulled from Fox News. I really never try to understand why Bill O’Reilly goes crazy about something, but in the extended segment, Dennis Miller brought that up specifically (the Dem debates being pulled). Make of that what you will. And, by the way, what the hell happened to Dennis Miller? He sounded ridiculous and sycophantic. I guess that’s what it takes to get BillO to be nice to you…

There are several reasons I love the idea of President Chris Dodd, but a large one is that he’s generally up front about where he stands and is generally truthful about when he’s making political considerations and when he’s making principled stands (too many candidates try to turn everything in a matter of principle, treating us like children who can’t tell politics are being played).

Well, he’s going to do something I wish someone with debating skill would try to do: He’s going to appear on the O’Reilly Factor to defend his decision to attend YearlyKos. For those that haven’t been watching or listening, Bill O’Reilly has been comparing the site Daily Kos to the Nazi party and the Klu Klux Klan. He’s been using that as a bludgeon to try to smear Democratic candidates that are attending and to get sponsors, like JetBlue, to pull their support of the conference (JetBlue caved, though they defended their decision to sponsor the convention).

Chris Dodd is going to have a tough time of this, since Bill O’Reilly never plays fair on his own show, cutting off mics and flat out lying when he needs to make a point. Good luck, Senator, and thanks for speaking up.

Of course he shouldn’t have to do this. This is an interesting phenomenon, and while we’re talking about basic honesty in the media, it’s interesting to note that it only affects Democratic sites and groups. Basically, social media online allows users to contribute commentary, media, and ideas to a web site. Sites like DailyKos allow any user to create diaries that can be promoted to the front page in a democratic manner. It’s a pretty cool phenomenon, actually. One of the risks that come with it, though, is that people will post opinions that are unpopular or offensive or just weird. That’s part of being open.

So far, we’ve seen several attempts to misrepresent major supporters of Democrats when random users post offensive items. You might remember the controversy (in comments) when someone submitted an ad with Hitler imagery around Bush to Move On’s open ad competition. Though submitted by a third party and not endorsed by MoveOn (which took the ad down when they heard about it), conservatives and Republicans used it to discredit MoveOn. Of note, few voices were on TV explaining how the ad contest worked.

Bill O’Reilly is trying to do the same to DKos even though much worse stuff appears on his own site. I’ll leave you with a little video of Olbermann pointing out how Bill O’Reilly reacted to someone pointing that out.

No media outcry over his site, or Little Green Footballs or FreeRepublic… wonder why that is?

The audio is a bit horrible (video camera, no remote mic) of Dodd making a campaign stop in Anamosa, Iowa. His answers are actually very, very good. I loved how he would’ve answered the question that started the recent Obama and Clinton spat and I do wish he had a chance to answer more questions (I agree with him on the futility of the debate). He is, in my opinion, the best balance of experience, knowledge, and leadership in the race right now. I would be proud to see him as my President.

Watch the whole thing, it’s worth it. The health care plan he mentioned is detailed on the ChrisDodd.com site.

WATCH THIS! It’s an interesting idea, and I’m curious to see where it goes. I hope these people that participate, though, don’t get in trouble for taping their end of the phone call. Remember to ask for permission, folks! This is a neat way of leveraging YouTube for a campaign.

It comes as no surprise how Joe Lieberman voted on the Gonzales motion yesterday, but I was surprised to read this on CTLP:

Despite co-sponsoring the resolution Dodd missed the vote entirely.

Sen. Dodd, you have some explaining to do. I hope you had a good reason for missing this vote, as it is one of the key issues of the day.

I know it’s early, and I’m reluctant to start hanging my hopes on one candidate, but Sen. Dodd is the one guy I see being consistent and honest on most issues. He is showing leadership, not trying to play to the so-called “middle.”

Today, The Nation is blogging that Dodd is taking the lead, once again, on pushing for a restoration of constitutional rights:

Some Democrats are pushing Reid to go further, advocating more comprehensive human rights protections and a repeal of the entire Military Commissions Act. Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions. “We must recognize that our security is enhanced by upholding our nation’s historic legal principles as we vigorously pursue terrorists,” he said in a statement today. Dodd is giving a major address about his proposal at the Cardozo School of Law Commencement exercises in New York on Thursday, part of a larger effort to prioritize Constitutional rights on the national agenda – and in the presidential campaign. The Dodd Campaign has gathered over 10,000 “citizen cosponsors” for his bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act, while using YouTube, blog and netroots outreach to rally more support.

I’ve written several posts over the last few months about how Dodd is pushing for the repeal of the Military Commissions Act. He is committed to restoring respect for habeus corpus and the Geneva Conventions, understanding that our job in the world is easier when we follow our own principles. Sometimes, especially reading the Republican debates, it seems like he’s the only guy running who cares.

It’s hard to sell the high road. It’s hard to overcome the traditional tools of the marketer, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). When a candidate is willing to step up and fight for principles even though it’s a tougher sell than FUD, that gets my attention. When he’s doing so and I agree with him on the issue, that gets my support. It’s really that simple.

There’s a startling lack of leadership in the Presidential field. Of the Republicans, only Rep. Ron Paul tried to take a non-easy position on Iraq and got smashed for it during the debate. The fact of the matter is that every other Republican candidate and many of the Democratic candidates are all hiding on these issues. These are important issues, perhaps the most important of the day, and we’re simply ignoring them.

What bothers me is that these issues of principle transcend the Iraq issue. Our ability to influence the shape of the world we’re moving into is diminished in proportion to our loss of prestige. Every time we have to buy and bully reduces our ability to lead on issues that matter to Americans. From negotiating better working conditions for workers in other countries (thus raising their wages to be more competitive with American wages) to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, our behavior in the world has hurt our bargaining position.

So, I’m happy when candidates like Dodd are willing to speak out about these issues. We need more candidates to do this, and we need our next President to understand how to repair the damage done by President Bush. I’ve said it before, but I’m probably voting for Dodd in the primary. You should consider it, too.

Update: Forgot to credit Atrios for the pointer to the Nation post.

I’m pretty sure at this point I’m voting for him in the primary. You should consider it too.

Sen. Dodd has been doing a number of these informal video broadcasts on YouTube. In this one, he answers questions submitted to and by several CT and national blogs. There’s something nice about the informal production qualities and Dodd’s sincerity. You can see his other videos on his campaign’s profile page.