REAL Top 10 Reasons I'm Voting for Chris Dodd

I took some flak recently for posting a diary which was a bit of a parody reaction to a concurrent Edwards Top 10 list -- I took only a half-serious stance because the Edwards diary, which included such reasons as "good looking" (counted twice!), hit the top of the Recommended list, which made me utterly sick.  People complained I could have done a much better job if I'd left out the Edwards stuff, apparently not realizing that the top 10 reasons I picked there were picked expressly not just to compare Edwards with Dodd, who I feel is a much better candidate, but more to excoriate the poorly-written yet ecstatically received earlier diary itself.

But I do support Senator Dodd quite seriously -- I even sent a nice chunk of money, which is a stretch because I'm unemployed -- and I think there are a lot of good reasons to do so.  Actually I had to pare down this list while I was writing it, rather than look for filler, so it really is a Top 10.

So without further ado, here you have it:  the REAL Top 10 Reasons I'm Voting for Chris Dodd (and Why You Should Too!)

10--
Maybe he's not "Top Tier" right now, but have you noticed how his name keeps showing up on the front page here?  What's more, have you noticed how all of those diaries are using Dodd as the benchmark against which other candidates are measured -- and usually fall short of?

• Dodd: End the Cuba Embargo
• Dodd Throws Down Gauntlet to Obama -- the best Kos has to say is "It's a damn good question."  How about changing from "Let's get our favorite to fit our mold" into "Let's vote for the guy who's ALREADY doing the right thing"?
• Dodd and Edwards are Leading.  Where are Obama and Hillary?
• Dodd for the Rescue
• Democratic Candidates on Iran  Dodd is cited as "excellent."

The list goes on.

UPDATE: And again today!!  Front-page comment by Kos, again ostensibly about Hillary, but with Dodd doing the leading!

• Come On, Hillary, You Can Do It!

Isn't it time to elect somebody who's in front of the pack, and not someone who's responding to it?

9--
Al Gore isn't running (yet?). :)  I have to admit, I want Al Gore to run; but at the moment he's not, and honestly I don't know much about his off-the-front-page positions.  I think he's a good guy, and a principled guy, but honestly I just haven't heard about him on other subjects.

If Gore jumps in -- which will have to be in the next month or so if it happens at all -- I think my allegiance would switch, but that's not a certainty.  (How's that for a Dodd endorsement??!? :)

Before I get flamed... yes I would vote for pretty much whichever Dem gets nominated (with the possible exception of Gravel.)  But shouldn't we nominate the best candidate -- the person who would make the best President?  Isn't that the whole point?  And it seems clear to me that Senator Dodd is the best candidate running.

8--
Gorgeous, intelligent wife & adorable kids. :)

Funny that I should include this?  Maybe.  But serious too.  I would much rather have somebody as intelligent as Jackie Dodd whispering into the President's ear at night.  And I think the quality of a man's children says a lot about the quality of the man -- at his event, his young daughters were happy and played imaginatively and were always well-behaved, even while they were missing nap-time.

Actually I spent a good bit of time talking with Jackie after Dodd had answered pretty much all of my questions in his speech.  We talked about him a little but more about their two daughters (I had asked her how much her older one, 6 years, understood about what was going on.  She might even remember me. :) )  She struck me as an intelligent, capable woman.  I didn't know until later that she's got a long and distinguished history of her own, among other things being for a while the Chief Operating Officer of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (appointed by President Clinton), being on the board of several companies, and earning a Masters Degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a summa cum laude Bachelors from Southern Utah University (later being awarded an Outstanding Alumna Award from that institution.)

And damned if she couldn't pass for 15 years younger than she is. :D

(Not my best side. ;) )

7--
If the worst knock you can come up with for a man who's been a Senator 26 years (and a Representative for 6 years before that) is he was a little too friendly to the accounting industry (only once, and ten years ago, and it never even got as far as the Ethics Committee -- see Wikipedia), I'd say he's got to be a pretty honest guy.

I've met the man.  (Living in NH has its advantages.  I've seen 5 candidates so far, having personal conversations with four of them.)  I talked with him for several minutes, and he answered several of my questions, before I made up my mind.  He listened to me carefully, fully focused, and answered me fully and thoughtfully, just like a real person.

Dodd's not perfect -- aside from the accounting industry thing, I don't like that he dismisses impeachment for Bush and Cheney as "impractical" due to the timing (although when we met back in early August he said he was considering impeachment proceedings for Gonzales.)  But when he speaks, even for something as staged and repetitious as a stump speech, you can see the passion he has for the topics he talks about.  And aside from the impeachment thing, he was on the right side (from my perspective) of just about every damn issue he talked about.  Better than that:  he was cognizant of their complexities but I was convinced he could handle them, and handle them morally and courageously.  For example (and I'm picking the ones that aren't on the front page these days):

• Medicare
• Health care coverage problems when non-union workers are called "contractors"
• Net Neutrality (not the least esoteric of subjects)

The guy is really aware of what's going on, he's honest, he has opinions (right ones), and he isn't afraid of speaking his mind.  Isn't that what we want in a President?

6--
Union support shows he's a viable candidate who has his priorities straight.  The Nation called the IAFF's support of Dodd "justified" (in a backhanded sort of way, but they did admit it) and pointed out that he had supported firefighters continuously though his 30 years in Congress.  Before 9/11, wasn't that a large part of what "security" meant to us -- that first responders be taken care of?  As the article starts out,

Does the the International Association of Fire Fighters know something the rest of us don't?  The firefighters were the only union to endorse John Kerry in 2004. Yesterday they went out on a limb once again, announcing an endorsement in '08 for Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd...

5--
He's not an inscrutable mask; he's been around for a while.  Thirty-two years of track record, so that we can see what he really believes as evidenced by actions rather than speeches.  Not a rock star or well-known for the wrong reasons.  A one-incomplete-term senator who gave a bang-up speech at the convention?  A one-full-term senator named "Sexiest Politician Alive"?  A candidate whose primary claim to experience is being First Lady?

Let's quit putting forward people who are a flash-in-the-pan, who try to create a perfect storm of a wave to get in.  Let's start talking about people who have put in the work, who have earned our respect, who have passed the tests, who show more than a couple of non-binding, consultant-written position papers to evaluate them on.  These positions I'm evaluating him on aren't new, they aren't taken because he has to or because their popular or faddish; he's been working on them for a long time, knows the issues, and believes in them.  Somebody like that would be useful about now, don't you think?

4--
Long-term support for children.  The Family and Medical Leave act was his baby, HeadStart called him Politician of the Decade, and he is the founder of the Children's Caucus in the Senate.  In several non-advertising locations, he's referred to as "the Children's Senator."  You don't get this kind of accolade for one event, for one bill passed.  This is long-term dedication to not just a single goal (though many individual goals were met,) but a principle.

I'm not trying to say the others aren't principled -- although in a few cases I have my doubts.  I'm saying that in Dodd's case, it's clear his principles drive him -- clear because we've been able to watch that happen for 30+ years.

What a nice thought -- a principled Senator.

A nicer thought:  a principled President?

3--
Dodd's support for the environment is practical, thorough, and no-nonsense: an emissions rollback and a carbon tax.  It's been called "the gold standard against which all plans will be measured."  

Stop and go back to that.  It's not just a placeholder.  It's not even just "good."  It's "the gold standard."

The League of Conservation Voters says:

Dodd’s plan is one of the most comprehensive policies released by any of the 2008 candidates to date.  His ambitious plan includes requiring an 80 percent reduction in global warming emissions by 2050, a renewable electricity standard, as well as increases in fuel economy and energy efficiency.

Senator Dodd was also the first presidential candidate to call for a carbon tax. A cap on carbon pollution provides certainty that we will achieve the necessary reductions in emissions. In that context, a carbon tax is a welcome addition to the debate.

Courage.  Principle.  Experience.  Knowledge.  Leadership.  Looking pretty good so far, wouldn't you say?

2--
He's right on Iraq -- and he doesn't waffle.  Yes, he voted for the AUMF, but he has admitted that was a mistake, based on believing what he was told, and frankly a lot of people made the same mistake -- the liars did their jobs well.  Now, he is leading on the subject of getting our troops home, as you've seen by several front-page DK stories recently.  Bullet points (no pun intended:)  Start withdrawing pretty much immediately.  Withdrawal complete by April of next year.  Of course, he can't do it that soon without help.  But if we make him President...

And far and away the #1 reason--
His #1 priority is the rule of law.  To me, this is The One.  If we don't accord this the care and priority it deserves, that's it, folks, that's the ball game -- America's dead.  Right now, I think we're going to avoid that, but honestly, I wasn't sure.

Senator Dodd has introduced into the Senate the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007.  He has made this topic first thing he talks about in his stump speech.

His father was one of the lead prosecutors at Nuremburg.  Remember Nurenburg?  When Stalin and others wanted to just execute any suspected Nazis they found, it was the U.S. who insisted on the rule of law(ref).

The tables are turned now.  Our nation's government has lost its moral compass.  It is up to our next President to restore it.  We absolutely must elect someone for whom this old-school definition of American morals rings true.  I believe Senator Dodd holds these moral values, and I want my country back!

So there it is, the REAL Top 10.  I could have talked about Katrina, or Cuba, but those fall under Leadership.  I could have talked about his national service plan, or his plan to let every kid go to college.  I could have talked about healthcare, which he is also rather spectacularly good on, and which is important for me as I'm currently not covered...

...but like I said I only have room for 10.

I believe the man is honest and courageous.  I know he is a hard worker who accomplishes difficult things.  I love his fleshed-out positions on almost every issue.  I like the idea of a leader, someone who will show the direction to move in, rather than a compromiser or a talker.

Please join me in supporting Chris Dodd for President!

•  Tips, if you are so inclined.

  --
  I support Chris Dodd for President and Steve Marchand for U.S. Senate!

  by ThatTallGuy on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

  •  With that in mind

    can I ask you one thing?  That photo of you and Dodd .... seeing as how you're for Dodd, I have to say it's not a terribly flattering view of the man.  You might think about taking it down, or replacing it.  Visuals, you know, they're very powerful things.  It's the business I work in BTW.

    by theyrereal on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:41:19 AM PDT

    •  I did debate about that.

      I know they are.  But one of the reasons I like him is his humanism, and how we interacted.

      [sigh] But I guess if that's the reaction then it's gone.

      --
      --
      I support Chris Dodd for President and Steve Marchand for U.S. Senate!

      by ThatTallGuy on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:59:34 AM PDT

•  Dodd is by far the best Dem candidate

  unless Gore runs.  Which is looking quite unlikely.

  He's certainly saying all the right things.  

  by theyrereal on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:39:14 AM PDT

•  I like having Dodd in the race

  although I can't say he's my favorite candidate.  But his presence in the campaign makes the other candidates uncomfortable... and that's a good thing.  They have to respond to his no-nonsense stances on the occupation of Iraq, his insistence on following the Constitution, and his common sense approach to environmental and conservation issues by formulating and enunciating their own positions more explicitly.

  I like having Kucinich and Biden in the race for many of the same reasons.  And, yeah, if Dodd somehow pulled off a miracle and won the nomination, I'd vote for him in November '08... in a hearbeat.

  by Eddie Haskell on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:48:47 AM PDT

  •  okay, so

    why doesn't that make him the best candidate?  Those very thing you describe ....

    by theyrereal on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:56:49 AM PDT

  •  A nomination isn't something that's won,

    even though that's the conventional wording.  I think it's the Republican's fault.  They like to pretend that every action is somebody else's responsibility.  So, in the case of elections, the voters' role is discounted, if not entirely dismissed, and whatever Bush Two does is blamed on God.
    That's not the Democrats' way.  Democrats take responsibility for their actions, admit when they're wrong and correct their mistakes.  Democrats know that it's more important to DO right than to BE right all the time.

    by hannah on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:23:20 PM PDT

•  The more I hear Dodd speak

  the more I like him. To my surprise he's moving into 1st place for me which I hadn't even considered a few weeks ago. If he can get the media exposure I think he could make the top tier anyway.

  by mommaK on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:00:58 AM PDT

  •  and the book tour is a big help.

    by mommaK on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:01:47 AM PDT

•  Rethinking Dodd this week.

  There has to be a reason I'm still undecided after all this time. I'm a party activist who'll be casting an endorsement vote within the next month, yet I haven't decided (between Edwards and Obama, leaning Edwards today). I'm consciously going to give Dodd some serious consideration.

  I like almost everything I hear him say. I started noticing how much I liked what he had to say at the convention in Chicago, where I thought he was great in the forum. However, I did overhear him making a remark there that gave me some pause; regarding energy policy he sounds pretty firmly in favor of nuclear power. If you get another chance to speak to him directly, I'd love to know what he has to say about that. In terms of both national security and environmental concerns, I have pretty big problems with nuclear.

  And he was the only one of all the candidates is Chicago who signed my cast (I had a broken ankle at the time), so if he wins the Presidency, I'll have a Valuable Memento!;^)

  by sidnora on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:37:46 AM PDT

  •  Re: Rethinking

    Don't know where he stands on nuclear.  My own personal take, though, is that modern nuclear plants are not bad things if viewed as ways to tide us over between peak oil and full development of alternatives. My preferred strategy would not include fission but fusion (see my prior post on the subject here, although it's already slightly outdated -- new sources of tritium have been found) but we may have difficulty avoiding them -- and the modern ones are very safe and could be built with terrorism-prevention in mind.

    by ThatTallGuy on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:50:08 AM PDT

    •  I'm not knee-jerk

      anti-nuclear power, but my concerns are real: very safe even under terrorist attack? If we hadn't spent the last 5 years making as many enemies as possible around the world, I wouldn't worry too much about this one. And while I believe it's possible to build reactors that are (otherwise) safe, my confidence in the safety of any infrastructure project in this country today is not huge (I just finished reading an excellent article in the current Harper's about why we need to worry about this; maybe I'll diary it).

      Then there's the waste problem, which nobody seems to have an answer for, as yet.

      In fairness, I must admit that I haven't researched the other candidates' positions on this issue, and I'm willing to bet that some, if not all of them, are no better and maybe worse. It's just that I actually heard Dodd talking about this unguardedly, so it made a real impression on me.

      by sidnora on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:05:12 AM PDT

      •  Your concerns *are* real

        and I hope you didn't take my message to suggest I was belittling them.

        Personally, I don't know why we don't load up the worst of the nuclear waste (the high-level stuff) and heave it into the Sun.  Sounds pretty safe to me. ;)

        But you can go too far, too.  Nothing is "safe even under terrorist attack."  We'd never build another multi-story building, or ship a load of fertilizer, or fly another airplane if we used that criterion.

        It's a matter of balancing needs vs. risks.  And I think the need is going to get pretty strong in another 20-40 years.  So we just have to do the best we can with what we know.

        by ThatTallGuy on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:35:35 AM PDT

        •  I didn't think you

          were belittling my concerns at all - and I hope I didn't come off sounding hysterical. It's an issue among many issues, IMO, and it's one that hasn't been getting any play in the debates. Just popped up because I actually heard it pop out of his mouth.

          Re:

          Nothing is "safe even under terrorist attack."  We'd never build another multi-story building, or ship a load of fertilizer, or fly another airplane if we used that criterion.

          Yeah, but the fallout from a successful terrorist attack on an apartment building, or even the World Trade Center, isn't going to give us another Chernobyl. This is different.

          by sidnora on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:41:01 AM PDT

  •  I've heard him address the issue

    which is more than I can say about the others, except for Edwards who said he's against nuclear power totally (an unrealistic position considering that we have 105 plants and the NRC is getting ready to approve more).  He made the point that it's hard to calculate how we'd compensate the grid, if that source of energy were removed, given current technology.  He does anticipate that an emphasis on technological innovation will help solve the problem, but not right away.
    Personally, if I'm allowed an opinion, I'd scotch federal subsidies or loan guarantees and let the market take the risk, even as I'd encourage the department of energy to foster the development of less hazardous production processes.

    by hannah on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:36:29 PM PDT

    •  Agree re

      federal policy. Put the incentives where the most potentially desirable results are likely.

      by sidnora on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:42:34 AM PDT

•  11. Drug Policy

  "wouldn't go as far as legalization," still, better than C, O, and E, same place as K, short only of Gravel.

  by ben masel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:04:13 AM PDT

  •  link

    video with Bill Maher

    by ben masel on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:05:23 AM PDT