What should have been a watershed moment in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination occurred last month in a debate sponsored by MSNBC in which moderator Tim Russert asked the candidates if they would "...pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq."
What came next from the media-anointed "leaders" in the Democratic field was a festival of ass-covering and hedging in which Hillary Clinton said that "it is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting" in backing away from the pledge, Barack Obama opined that "it's hard to project four years from now" in refusing to commit and John Edwards flat-out said "I cannot make that commitment."
Bear in mind that Russert was not asking if the presidential contenders would advocate withdrawing troops that week, the following month or even sometime in 2008. He was simply asking if they would commit to ending a war that has nothing to do with America's national security -- except in making us demonstrably less safe -- is killing our troops, bankrupting our nation and destroying our global reputation and if they would do that within the next half a decade.
Cue crickets chirping and silence from the three primary-poll leaders.
Russert then turned to Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and said flatly "I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge, as Commander-in-Chief, that you'll have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?"
"I will get that done," said Dodd firmly.
"You'll get it done?" clarified Russert.
"Yes, I will, sir," said Dodd.
Period. End of story.
Dodd pointed out after that debate that the most "remarkable" thing about the response to Russert's direct question was that, "The so-called leading candidates were unwilling to say whether they would have our troops out of that country by 2013."
"The idea that we could be embroiled in combat for at least another five years should set off alarm bells for anyone with a modicum of foreign policy experience," said Dodd. "Sacrificing American lives to engage in a civil war is a deeply corrupt strategy and one I have been working to combat in Congress. I call on my fellow candidates to help me bring an end to this war long before 2013 - we need to end this war now before it passes Vietnam as the longest war in American history."
Perhaps it's a dismal sign of how unaccustomed we've become to presidential-like leadership that we don't recognize it when it slaps us in the face, but his firm stance on Iraq and many other reasons make it obvious to me that Chris Dodd should be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.
In addition to saying unequivocally that he will get our troops out of Iraq when he assumes the role of Commander-in-Chief, Dodd has voted for troop withdrawals at every opportunity since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has been a leader in all efforts to end the Iraq quagmire.
But Dodd has been at his best most recently in showing immense leadership and the truest understanding of our nation's meaning in standing strong against attempts by the Bush administration to let telecommunications companies off the hook for aiding and abetting the White House in their illegal domestic spying on American citizens. Despite little support from his Senate colleagues and eerie initial silence from his fellow presidential candidates, Dodd came out and said last week that he would place a Senatorial "hold" on any bill granting immunity to companies that have assisted George W. Bush in spying on Americans without required warrants and announced that he would filibuster any such legislation to keep it from passing.
Here's Dodd on the Senate floor on Friday:
"While it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement on existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.
"That is why I will not stand on the floor of the United States Senate and be silent about the direction we are headed.
Because those are the only ones Edwards would leave, at most 3-5,000. Edwards was honest at the debate even if it doesn't make an easy soundbite, and the media, and other candidates, always seem to quote part of his answer without quoting the rest.
Dodd gives the easy, quick answer, but it seems a little too easy. Where was he on ending the war before 2007 and declaring his candidacy?
by
Josh Medeiros (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 12 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 11:15:09 AM
I like what Dodd is doing. It's about time. But is it for show to get a boost in the polls? Is he yanking the chains of Obama and Clinton making them look like fools and forcing them to take positions in the Senate that they would never take as president? He has a luxury that Dennis does not have in that he can actually confront those two leaders when taking actions on the Senate floor. Dennis cannot because he is in the House.
Why give Dodd more props for doing the right thing when that is what Kucinich (also a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate) has been doing all along? After all, who has the authored the legislation for impeachment and will be forcing debate on it before Thanksgiving? Who has deemed the desired immunity for telecommunications "a text book" case of "fascism"? kWho was one of the only three House Democrats to vote against the "Thought Crime Prevention" Bill or what is officially known as the Violen Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act? Who has been right on Iraq since 2002 and is the only man right on Iran right now?
I am admiring Chris Dodd more and more each day. But he hasn't gotten me to shift my vote. Dennis is too good to abandon.
by
Kevin Gosztola (235 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 12:03:14 PM
I've lived in NE Ohio all my life and I think that I know Dennis better then most people. He's a joke that knows how to gather attention but the problem has always been his physical size. Don't get me wrong, the guy stands feet above whatever is out there but the fact is that the American Voter is one huge group of stupid people. Look at who we've elected a third rate movie star, and a half asses cowboy two damn times. Now people are seriously talking about an ex mayor who's been married so often that he was even married to his cousin and a honest to God Mormon who, I like to say "only God knows" will bring some dangerous problems to the Whitehouse and finally another Actor of the same class as the last mistake who has no resume what's so ever. The writers of his TV show never thought enough to give him a script where he could have pretended that he new something about the laws other then those Moonshine Cases he ran when he was a US Attorney.
by
drasile (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 1:10:27 PM
"American Voter is one huge group of stupid people."
You must be talking about yourself since you refer to Dennis Kucinich as a joke and claim he's not tall enough. You're a shill for the mainstream media making excuses for why Dennis isn't electable.
I'm an American and I don't give a damn how tall any political candidate is. The people of Cleveland obviously agree with me since they elected Kucinich as a mayor and several times to the US House Of Representatives.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 2:23:33 PM
No true dissident and patriot would ever consider voting for Dodd; he is the epitomy of the political status quo and elitist establishment. You should be ashamed of yourself for this ludicrous endorsement.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (133 articles, 37 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 533 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 2:49:12 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
