Wide Open Democratic Race

Competition is good. An honest debate among reasonably capable people is a generally a good sign in a democracy (I said debate, not right wing Republican sophistry where a signing statement is sometimes considered more important than the U.S. Constitution or the opinion of a right wing comedian with a cigar is taken as fact). We have an open race on the Democratic side and it's not just about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Even some of the other candidates benefit as well.

Here's a story that explains the benefit to both Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd:

Sen. Barack Obama scored big in fundraising this week but the two happiest candidates may be New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, two second-tier Democratic presidential hopefuls who now see an opening since Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not run away with the nomination.

As the two candidates with arguably the longest official resumes, Mr. Richardson, in his second term as New Mexico's governor, and Mr. Dodd, in his fifth term as senator from Connecticut, say they can compete for the long haul. This week both spent time in New Hampshire, trying to persuade voters in the first-in-the-nation primary to choose deep experience over deep pockets.

"All I want is for you to keep your powder dry," Mr. Richardson told several hundred voters at a town hall meeting at New England College in Henniker, N.H., on Wednesday. "Wait until you see all the candidates, wait until we have debates. ... Don't get swayed by rock-star status or polls or how much money you raised."

(snip)

That's exactly what Mr. Dodd is banking on.

"People in this state don't want to be told by the national media the outcome of their primaries and caucuses 10 months out. In fact, they've had a history of trying to prove you wrong," Mr. Dodd told reporters this week. "So I'll take the news here on the ground, and I'll take the receptions I'm getting in these states as better evidence of how I'm doing than whether or not I've got a bank account equal to some of the other candidates."

No one should ever forget that our greatest president was a guy who wasn't even in the top three spots in the early running. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was running fourth but he had a knack of talking people into thinking of him as their second choice if their favorite candidate didn't make it.

We should all keep in mind that part of George W. Bush's failed presidency can be traced to his father's campaign contributors who guaranteed Bush $200 million before the first primary vote was cast. And Bush almost lost to McCain and he decisively lost the national popular vote to Gore. Despite what the Bush family may think, money can't buy everything. It certainly can't buy competence or a successful presidency this late in the day.

This election, let the candidates show their quality, not the fat cats and their purchase of public relations illusions where candidates talk a good game but don't really understand what they're doing and aren't pragmatic enough to learn. Show me a candidate who can learn in six weeks, not six years. In 2008, we need to elect a competent president.

Christopher Dodd and the Need for Experience

Just about all the Democrats running for president would do a fine job and every one of them would do better than the current occupant. But the race should not be reduced to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, though the media seems inclined, for whatever reason, to do just that. This should be a wide open race and it shouldn't depend on Hillary Clinton's deep pockets or Barack Obama's charisma. Both are fine candidates but there's also Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, John Kerry, and even possibly Al Gore.

Jackson Willliams of The Huffington Post says we ought to take a closer look at Christopher Dodd:

...unlike Bill Clinton's youthful win in '92, when a clean break from twelve years of Reagan-Bush was just the cure, experience and wisdom really count now, and Dodd may offer both.

A senator for 26 years, a member of the House of Representatives for six years before that, Dodd speaks fluent Spanish from his Peace Corps days in the Dominican Republic, and has often forged coalitions with Republicans on various issues. He spans our modern political history, from Watergate to possible Waterloo.

(snip)

...Only two sitting U.S. senators have won the presidency in over 100 years: Warren Harding in 1920 and JFK in 1960. Many more have tried and all have failed, most not even getting out of their party primaries. Something about that senatorial staccato style of speaking that infects over time (think John Kerry or Bob Dole). Dodd is up against this huge historical trend line, as are other comers from that august body.

Which makes him a dark horse indeed. But he's by and large a work horse, not some prancing pony, and he could surprise. ...

The next election is too important for the media heavyweights to tell us who has the most money and who we're supposed to be voting for. Let's keep the race open until the voting begins and the candidates can make their case.

If you're new to Cold Flute, click on the 2008 presidential race link below to follow the candidates; I have my own take on things but I'm doing my best to follow all the Democratic candidates with a post now and then about the Republicans.

It's Official: Senator Dodd Running for President

Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut is running for president. Here's the story by David Lightman of the Hartford Courant:

He launched his bid for the White House this morning on the Don Imus radio show, and then told the Courant he would file the papers today to become a candidate for the White House in 2008. ...

(snip)

Dodd also talked about his two young daughters, and how he has a responsibility to shape a better world, and said his experience and temperament make him uniquely qualified to lead the country.

"You have to have the capacity to lead and bring people together," he said, "and I have a lot of experience at that."

(snip)

"People look at President Bush and think part of his problem is that he was unprepared to be president," Fischer said. "That is a real opening for someone like Chris Dodd, because not even his fiercest opponents would be able to say he would not be ready on day one."

Dodd is one of the most respected and experienced senators in Washington but he's not that well known outside of Washington. He has a major job ahead of him getting his numbers into contender range.

Senator may also have to deal with some irrelevant issues; here's an AP story by Andrew Miga in The Boston Globe:

Sen. Christopher Dodd's image as a Northeast liberal could pose a hurdle in his longshot bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The Connecticut senator will be running in the turbulent wake of another prominent New England liberal, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Kerry's losing 2004 campaign embittered some Democrats who contend he squandered a prime chance for his party to capture the White House. Those bad feelings have lingered as the 2008 contest begins to unfold.

"The party just nominated a New England liberal whose campaign was a failure," said Dante Scala, an associate professor of politics at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire who wrote "Stormy Weather," a book about the state's primary. "That's going to be one strike against" Dodd.

First, I don't think of Dodd as a Northeast liberal. I'm also tired of the usual political consultants and journalists trying to shape the dialogue. Christopher Dodd will have to make his case. If he has ideas, we need to hear him out.

Americans are going to have to look long and hard at what has happened to this country in the last six years. The Republican Party has lost its way and if somebody has an idea of where we should go next, we as a nation need to listen.

Senator Dodd Says It's Time to Withdraw

No one should pretend at this late date that Dick Cheney or George W. Bush will get it right. Senator Dodd has an article in the Des Moines Register:

The time has come for the United States to begin the process of getting our troops out of Iraq.

In Baghdad last week, I joined in a conversation with a West Point graduate who is serving in Iraq. He said, "Senator, it is nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do. I'm doing work that State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense."

After spending six days in the Middle East last week - which included visits with the top leaders in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel - it's hard not to come to the same conclusion: Our strategy in Iraq makes no sense. It never really did. It is as bad in person as it appears on television. There are literally dozens of sects, militias, gangs, warlords, foreign terrorists and others killing one another for dozens of reasons in Iraq today, and American troops are caught in the crossfire.

Our brave men and women have done everything asked of them with great courage and honor, but searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand. True peace and security in Iraq will not come at the end of an American gun. It will only happen to the degree that Iraq's leaders are willing to take responsibility for governing their own country and securing their own future.

Senator Dodd is making sense. We need to hear more from him and even if his odds of winning the Democratic nomination are slim, I hope he enters the race.

An increasing number of Americans, including Democrats, independents, the bipartisan members of the Iraq Study Group, the majority of voters in Novembers and even a growing number of Republicans say its time to draw down in Iraq. We've done as much as we're going to do without wasting more lives, money and years of effort for a minimal benefit that may never arrive. We're in Iraq because right wingers needed a cause to unify the Republican Party. That's a lousy way to begin the 21st century. We need to get out of Iraq before the Republican right wing gives us a war that could last generations.

War is the wrong way to bring democracy to the world. It is absurd and it was clear from the beginning that democracy at the point of a gun makes no sense. There are better ways, and we've been using those ways for sixty years with greater success. It's time to get back to doing what we do best: using all our resources within reason to improve international cooperation while reserving war as a last resort. For most Americans, Afghanistan met the criteria of a necessary war. Iraq did not. We're in danger of losing both war thanks to the incompetence of the current administration and the jingoism of their right wing supporters who have so clearly revealed to the world that they haven't a clue. The greatest nation in the world shouldn't let such ignorant and mean-spirited authoritarians tell the rest of the world what democracy and free speech means. Like I said, they haven't a clue. But the good news is that the real America is coming back.

From time to time, everyone needs to renew themselves and that's a good thing to do in this holiday season. Enjoy the holidays but remember our nation has serious work to do and we will celebrate many more holidays before we put the worst of these troubled times behind us. Renew old acquaintance and remember always the season where we hope and pray for Peace on Earth.

Senator Dodd May Be Close to Running

After eight years of George W. Bush, the 2008 election is going to be critical. Fortunately, some excellent Democrats are considering a run for the presidency. Like other potential presidential candidates, Senator Christopher Dodd seems close to running; here's a story by AP reporter David Weber in the Boston Globe:

Sen. Christopher Dodd edged closer to officially declaring he is running for president Friday at a Harvard University student-sponsored forum for potential candidates in 2008.

"You're not that far from New Hampshire. I'd like to sign you up," Dodd said, alluding to the first-in-the-nation primary election state while he posed for pictures with students after the session.

Dodd, D-Conn., accused President Bush of not working with the rest of the world's nations when it comes to environmental policies and fighting terrorism.

"This mentality of unilateralism is very, very dangerous. If I am nominated and elected, that will change dramatically," he said.

It's good to see Senator Dodd criticizing Bush's foreign policy, particularly his unilateralism. I checked the senator's site and was glad that the senator seem to agree with the failing grades the Iraq Study Group have given Bush's policies in Iraq, but I was surprised at how bland the statement was; here's the first paragraph:

“The Iraq study group conclusions and recommendations are very realistic and sobering at the same time. What is very clear is that the group has come to the same conclusion that many of us in Congress have felt for some time – namely that we are not winning in Iraq and we need a course correction if we are to have any chance of success. Our troops are absolutely doing their part. They are bravely and valiantly sacrificing everything they’ve got on behalf of our nation, and they deserve concrete bipartisan solutions that will help them fulfill their mission.

I applaud Senator Dodd's general belief in the need for bipartisanship in Washinton. There was a time when our foreign policy was largely bipartisan (there are always going to be differences from one president to the next and things will vary according to party philosophy somewhat but most years since World War Two, there was usually real dialogue about the course that should be taken). But it takes two parties to have a bipartisan relationship and in the area of foreign policy, President Bush has drifted far from where we once were; he clearly is engaging in a foreign policy that so far has led to a series of blunders and failures.

There are signs that it's going to take hard work, and perhaps a certain amount of pressure, to get George W. Bush to change his policy in Iraq. A lot of work will probably take place out of the public eye because that's in the nature of how real bipartisanship works, but it's important to remember that Bush still has a powerful noise machine, even if that machine is losing its ability to sway people.

Let's hope Senator Dodd's official statements don't continue to be so bland. I appreciate the senator's thoughtfulness and statesmanship but he needs to assure us that bipartisanship doesn't mean some bland criticism of the president that is followed by deferring to Bush's one-sided style of bipartisanship; that can only lead to more of the same for the next two years.