Today it occurred to me that part of the reason I haven’t taken Chris Dodd’s presidential campaign really seriously is that I just knew him as “one of those Senate Democrats” back when I was a Republican kid. He wasn’t someone that I recognized as distinctively himself–unlike Pat Moynihan, Al Gore, or Jerry Brown. And he wasn’t part of “my” party, so while I heard the name, I didn’t develop any lasting impression of him.
But with all the swooning for inexperienced Senators (a freshman, a sophomore, & a one-termer) in this election, I find myself thinking the old hand from CT is a more rational pick.
Anyone have anything interesting to say about Christopher Dodd?
Even though I’ve been a Dem for a decade now (and a Dem-leaning independent for some time before that), I too see him as “one of those Senate Democrats,” and haven’t noticed much about him to distinguish him from the crowd, even last year when the number of self-identifying Dems in the Senate was down to 43.
All this makes me think of, to be honest, is the complete absence of any media narrative about Bush’s fatal inexperience.
The area where experience would seem to be most critical would be that of foreign policy, yet excepting Bush the Elder’s one term, we’ve not elected a President with any such experience since Nixon. ITSM that the key thing is to do a better job of evaluating the instincts of the contenders.
As far as domestic politics is concerned, the key things seem to be (a) what they want to accomplish domestically, and (b) whether they have the political abilities to make the most of the Congressional and popular support for their agenda.
Most of the debate is about (a), of course, but if we want to talk about (b), then Sen. Clinton obviously has eight years of a White House’s eye view of the process, plus a demonstrated ability to work across party lines in the Senate. Sen. Obama demonstrated the same ability during his eight years in the Illinois Senate prior to his election to the U.S. Senate. Of the three main Dem contenders, only Sen. Edwards has a sketchy record to judge his political abilities by.
And this is the problem. There’s plenty of interest that one can say about Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards. Dodd’s problem is that of all second-tier candidates, such as Richardson and Vilsack in this cycle: unless he says or does something that none of the other contenders is saying or doing, his resume alone won’t get him anywhere. Where’s the unfilled need, the underserved political market, that’s crying out for Chris Dodd to fill it? And even for those who are looking for a Dem with a strong resume, why Dodd and not Richardson?
Hillary’s in the game because she’s Hillary, everyone knows who she is, and has amassed a ton of insider support. Edwards is in the game because, beginning with his “two Americas” campaign in 2004, he staked out a position in the Dem spectrum that no other national Dem was staking out, and that nobody’s really trying to compete with him for. Obama’s in the game because he may be the most gifted and charismatic politician of our age. What gets Dodd or Vilsack or Richardson in the game? That’s the question.
Well, I haven’t gotten around to looking at Vilsack yet. Unfortunately for him, he’s from Iowa, so without a strong & distinctive reason for Iowans to love him, the Iowa caucuses will avoid supporting him lest the perception of favored-son politics make them irrelevant, & other states will write him off without hometown support.
But as for getting Dodd & Richardson in the game, I think it’s a matter of keeping their names in the public eye. I’m trying in my own small way to do that with these threads, because I saw what happened to the GOP in 2000, when the party lined up behind someone deeply underqualified early, & stubbornly refused to reconsider.
I see Obama as a sort of new JFK, & that’s not entirely a good thing; while I think he’d make a good POTUS in time, I think he needs a little more seasoning. I love John Edwards, I think he’s a good guy & means well; but I fear that to make him head of state is to promote him to the level of his incompetence; I’d rather give him HHS. And Hillary strikes me as trying to sneak her husband back into power. I am willing to support any of them in the general, but they are not the best choices. The party has more depth than that, & we need to take that seriously.
Probably not the empty suit he often appears to be, but still a beltway guy like Biden - carries a lot of weight on the Hill, but outside it, nobody really cares. He hasn’t cultivated the right people (that is, us voters) to make the next leap, but is probably more valuable where he is - that’s who he’s cultivated.
I’ve always figured him to be a Sunday Morning News kinda guy. He will make a good guest on Meet The Press, but has sub zero charisma. He’d be a worse candidate that John Kerry. I’d vote for him for Senator, but can’t see him as president. Wouldn’t he be happier chairing a Senate committee than running the county?
He was in N.H stumping today and his breakfast meeting was televised. If he remains as honest and open as he was today I will pay a lot more attention to him. He did not lack charisma.
Governor of the second most populous state in the nation for six years is inexperience? I know that he’s fumbled a lot since he took office, but you can’t be serious when you suggest the media should’ve been all over his “fatal inexperience” in 2000.
Yeah, W bamboozled us. I thought, “Well, he’s Governor of Texas, that’s experience.” It was after the fool was elected that I read Molly Ivins’ & Lou Dubose’s Shrub. The book was written during the 2000 campaign, & while it is a bit spiteful, some of the points it makes were things that Bush himself admitted before the first primary, were commented on in the right-to-center press, but not made that much of:
He really didn’t do that much as governor of TX, & didn’t have to. It really is an office you can almost phone in–no comparison to POTUS. He was generally disengaged from policy, admitted that he hated to read about policy, & seemed to only be in politics because it was the family business.
He really was not the best candidate possible, & was foisted on the party for reasons I still can’t wrap my head around.
You know, dale, you’re from Texas, so whatever you consider “charisma” is by now probably the kiss of death for anyone campaigning north of Cairo, Illinois.
Anyway, I don’t give a cat’s nipples about a high charisma. We need someone with wisdom & intelligence. I’m looking for an expert, not a bard.
Chris Dodd made a good showing on the Daily Show last night. I am very curious to see if this helps his campaign. I do not know a lot about him and I wonder if he really has any chance at all.
But being a Governor gives one more of the right type of experience than being a Senator does. I don’t know how much power the Governor of Texas has to be honest with you, but it seems like the correct, executive, type of experience.
I agree with RTFirefly. I don’t really see what Dodd brings to a race that already seems to be dominated by Obama, Clinton & Edwards. His natural environment is the Senate. I can’t see him going the distance in the presidential race; no senator has since JFK, and that was 47 years ago. He also has some sharp edges that might not play well along the primary trail.
FWLIW, two Dem friends of mine in Conn. think well of Dodd, but agreed with my assessment when I discussed it with them a few weeks back.
Curious, you just said “I can’t see him going the distance in the presidential race; no senator has since JFK” and you list the three leading candidates. All three have only been Senators and not Governors or VPs. It would seem that a Senator is likely to run for the Democrats in 2008. I think he has an impossible battle ahead of him, but I do not think it is worth dismissing him for being a Senator.
Clinton is a wild card if we give her credit for being a First Lady.
Good point. But it seems that Clinton is best known as a former First Lady and Obama because he’s the Hot New Thing, and not so much because they’re senators. And of course Edwards is no longer a senator. I still don’t see Dodd as a real contender for POTUS.
I just can’t see how a women riding her husband’s name, a Washington newcomer with largely state legislative experience, & a guy who served one term before running for VP & left the Senate can be preferable to Dodd “because he’s a Senator, & Senators don’t win.” :dubious:
The same goes for Biden, who I haven’t started a thread on; more Senate experience doesn’t really make you less qualified.
If people* insist* on gubernatorial experience, the race shapes up to be Bill Richardson vs. Romney or Huckabee. But I think the strongest candidate out of both parties is a Senator (McCain), & frankly, governors don’t have the right kind of experience. (Richardson does, because he was actually in Congress & the State Dept., but governors in general don’t.) I want somebody who isn’t a newcomer to Federal politics. Senators run for President because the Senate-to-Presidency arc makes sense.
