Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dodd to Endorse Obama

By Shailagh Murray
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a former contender for the Democratic nomination, is expected to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this morning, sources close to the campaign said. Like Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Dodd has been heavily courted by both the Obama campaign and that of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), including numerous calls from former president Bill Clinton. But the veteran senator had been reluctant to weigh in until voters across the country, including from his home state of Connecticut (which Obama won on Super Tuesday), could weigh in.

By Washington Post Editor  |  February 26, 2008; 7:35 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain's Bankers Weigh In
Next: Obama's Ohio Grilling

Comments

The media needs to address the fact that Obama belongs to a church whose minister, Obama's mentor, Dr Wright has close ties to Farrakhan, whom he nominated for a lifetime Man of the Year award. Dr Wright has traveled to Africa with Farrakhan.
It would NOT surprize me if the Obama camp planted the obama in african garb picture and then blamed the Clinton Camp. That picture sure took the heat off of the Farrakhan endorsement. To all of the Senators backing Obama, do you guys do any reading up on a person before endorsing them. It makes me wonder how you are keeping America SAFE. I will NOT forget anyone who is so UN Patriotic as to stand by Obama.

These video's take a minute to watch but tell us plenty about Obama.

1- Click here- Trinity United Church of Christ
2- Click here: You Tube - Obama Communist Flag In Office!
3- Click here: You Tube - Obama and the National Anthem
4- Click here: Media Matters - Hannity guest on Obama's church: Its "scary doctrine" is "something that you'd see in more like


IF Obama holds Cuba's Flag closer to his heart than ours than he is NOT fit to be our President, Senator, Police Officer of any other Govt. Job.

Posted by: USAalways | February 27, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

*Calling all women!* Says sallyes, in an attempt to revive the Clinton campaign.

Desperation?!?!?! Or, is being a woman the best thing (the only thing) Hillary has going for her?

Not knowing the race is over is a sign of just how out of touch Hillary is. Obama and Clinton are dead even with *women voters*. See ya Hillary, bring on McCain.

Posted by: dionc9 | February 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Calling all women! Let's all get together and vote out of office all these obnoxious elected men (like Chris Dodd) who clearly are threatened by a powerful woman like Hillary. Then let's go after all those media commentators (men like Keith Oberman on MSNBC and women like Gloria Borger on CNN) who clearly have issues with women. It's time for women to stand up and fight again for what's fair. Vote Chris Dodd out of office! Get rid of Ted Kennedy! Ugh! They make me sick! Women, this election is a big wake up call that some men still want to control women.

Posted by: sallyes | February 26, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

So you joined Kennedy's loser club????

Posted by: accountability_in_gov | February 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the 700,000 in campaign contirbutions Obama has made to superD's had something to do with this. He is getting such a free ride from the press it's pathetic, my own research from unbiased sources have discoverd so many lies and misleadings about thhis guy, at least w/ Hillary we know what we're getting, obama we have to take at his word and from nuke waste legislation to med marijuana he has consistently changed his word; maybe thats the change he's talking about

Posted by: Jackson_dem_73 | February 26, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Voters in Ohio and Texas, before you go along with the other Obamaites, read what CBS news (a relatively unbiased article) has to say about Obama's record in the state and US senate:
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/26/politics/main3876941.shtml)

Some telling points:

"Binder notes that Obama has spent his time in the Senate on "midrange issues," such as ethics reform and nuclear proliferation, where he could more easily find a Republican senator that would be open to working with him.

"He wasn't working on issues where you have hard Democratic vs. Republican divides," she said. "He seems to have very carefully chosen out areas where there were prospects of success and where he could find like-minded people across the aisle."

"In a debate with Hillary Clinton last Thursday, Obama was asked to respond after his rival brought up an uncomfortable cable-television exchange in which an Obama supporter was unable to identify any of the senator's accomplishments. Obama cited his work on health care, providing tax breaks to families, reforming the criminal justice system, and passing "the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate."

"I don't perceive him as one of the chamber's liberal members," said Jennifer Duffy, a veteran analyst with the Cook Political Report. "I don't perceive him as one of the guys who goes down on the floor and rails about his pet cause."

Obama has been criticized for not taking a stand early in his career on some hot-button issues, including abortion: He voted "present" on abortion questions seven out of 14 times in the state Senate, including once when the issue was a statewide ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.

Binder said Obama's time in the Senate suggests that he seems "comfortable working across the aisle on some of these smaller type of issues." But she suggested there are few clues as to how effective President Obama would be in dealing with larger, more divisive issues such as the war, health care, and entitlement reform.

"Those are all issues where there could be bipartisan solutions, but it's a big challenge," she said."


Also don't forget the NYT article on Obama's watered down nuclear waste bill (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?scp=1&sq=obama+illinois+nuclear&st=nyt) which he claimed to have passed but in reality, the bill was never taken up in the full Senate.

Obama is not a fighter, when the going gets tough, he bows out.

Posted by: Jackson_dem_73 | February 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I could see a obama/gore ticket!

Posted by: jramos | February 26, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Today, in an email message to his former supporters, Senator Chris Dodd said he is "throwing his support to the candidate who I believe will open the most eyes to our shared Democratic vision."
He listed his reasons for endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president:
"Put simply, I believe Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to help us face this housing crisis, create good jobs, strengthen America's families in this 21st century global economy, unite the world against terrorism and end the war in Iraq - and perhaps most importantly, call the American people to shared service and sacrifice. In this campaign, he has drawn millions of voters into politics for the first time in their lives and shown us that we are united by so much more than that which divides us."
He concluded, "The last seven years have been as difficult as any I can remember. More than ever, we need a President who will inspire us to take part in the political process and change our country's path."
For all you naysayers who blasted Chris Dodd in these comments, this former newspaper reporter examined all the Democratic candidates last fall and found Dodd to be the best qualified to serve as president in 2009. He was beaten by two other candidates here in New Hampshire (Clinton won by two percentage points), and most of the states that have had their primaries and caucuses have indicated they too believe Senator Barack Obama to be the best qualified to lead the American people.

Posted by: LiveFree | February 26, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, The Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) from Aug. 6 '01, entitled *Bin Laden determined to strike in US* comes to mind. After that PDB GWBush should have stopped the brush clearing and sought out Richard Clarke.

Posted by: dionc9 | February 26, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

crat3 What about the lack of JUDGMENT on Hillary's part with her vote on Iraq. Also, her poor judgment on running her campaign?

Posted by: claudiam1 | February 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, so you DON'T blame Bush for failing to prevent 9/11? Are you sure you are a registered Democrat?

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, Please do connect the dots. Just do it without redacting the truths we hold self-evident. Drop the straw-man argument, it lowers the level of conversation. We are sick and tired of fear mongering as a means to forsake the freedoms we hold dear.

Posted by: dionc9 | February 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The endorsement by Dodd is a good thing. Any President who wants to get anything done, will have to take the issues to the people and convince them so that special interests can be overcome for the common wellfare. Obama has the ability to do this. None of the other candidates come even close. Also, how well he does will also depend on (1) his cabinet, and (2) the congresses willingness to cooperate. That's when his ability to take his case to the people will count. I believe his endorsers see this.

Posted by: sailorsac | February 26, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

GO OBAMA!

Posted by: madison7 | February 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Well, which one is it, dionc9?! "Connect the dots" or not? You blame Bush for failing to prevent 9/11, but then you want his hands tied in the first place? You people have no idea what it takes to defend a nation!

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

JakeD... Don't lose sight of the fact that GWBush started spying on U.S. citizens prior to 9.11.01.

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html

As for *We're at war here*, let it be known that 19 people with box cutters is not enough reason for me or any self respecting American citizen to give up inherited liberties. Liberties that many Americans have died for. Liberties that I took for granted until GWBush and a GOP ruled Congress with no oversight became my rulers via not an election but a Supreme Court decision.

Terrorism is not going to end due to invasion and occupation of foreign lands. That kind of action will only create more terrorism.

"Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war"
Shakespeare

Posted by: dionc9 | February 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Bud0:

Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security."
Hillary Clinton

Gee, Hillary, since Bush is such a dick, maybe you shouldn't have voted to help start his war.

We've seen the tragic result of having a NY senator who had neither the experience nor wisdom to stand against the greatest foreign policy mistake of our time.

Posted by: Bud0 | February 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Senator Dodd for helping Senator Obama shown the Clintons that our "clestial choir" is a might force. Wish I had a button to wear that reads "Proud Member of the Obama Celestial Choir" to turn her words against her. How dare she characterize my support of Mr. Obama is such a maligning way.

Posted by: friendlyfire | February 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I am old enough to remember the photo and the newspaper headline "Dewey Wins." Harry Truman was holding that newspaper with a big smile on his face after he won the election in 1948.

Dewey, like Obama, had the media endorsing him all the way...

It ain't over until it is over.

Posted by: Kansas28 | February 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Each one of these endorsements are basically CYA. There was a piece about how The Media was in support of Obama, Well Hello!!, I have been saying, and giving examples for many months now, this is what is going on, it is a little surprising The Media actually let something like this be reported.

Posted by: lylepink | February 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

To hanbrane:

Thank you for your civilized reply to my post. Quite refreshing and I read it carefully. My doubt is that every time the change from the inside has been attempted, it hasn't been too successful. Now, I am not a cynic. I am an idealist and I have believed in many Obamas that have come down where I live, Latin America.

The change has to be inside the heart not only of Obama but of all those he will surround himself with. Are there that many Obamas willing to give their expertise to public service? Will he convince his people to go against special interests? Republican interests, etc, etc, etc? What will happen when the favors given will ask their due? The U.S.A. is in a real mess in all fronts, right now, and I just don't see it happening.

A revolutionary person is not a politician.
If this were another time, another Washington even another American population, maybe, just maybe. But I just don't think so. Just read the papers, see most of the films you make, the commercials you make, the TV shows you make. Thank God you have PBS but who watches. Just a thought here.

True, the US might be able to survive a bad Obama presidency, it still has the foundations to do so, unlike many of its southern neighboring countries, but at what cost to itself and its allies?

Posted by: poh123 | February 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

dionc9:

The Supreme Court has reduced the "probable cause" standard many times before -- we are at war here -- and the Constitution is not a suicide pact, see e.g. Terminiello v. Chicago 337 U.S. 1 (1949) (Jackson dissent); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez 372 U.S. 144 (1963).

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

As GWBush and his corrupt administration attempt to give immunity to the telecoms for warrantless spying on U.S. citizens(even spying prior to 9.11.01. Yes, shocking and against the law). Chris Dodd stood in their way... Obama stands with Chris Dodd on this issue as was shown by Obama's voting for Dodd's Amdt. No. 3907. Hillary Clinton stands with GWBush and the telecoms. Hillary spits on our Bill of Rights rather than hold corporations accountable for breaking the long held rights of American citizens.

United States Bill of Rights
Fourth Amendment
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*

Posted by: dionc9 | February 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Voters in Ohio and Texas, before you go along with the other Obamaites, read what CBS news (a relatively unbiased article) has to say about Obama's record in the state and US senate:
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/26/politics/main3876941.shtml)

Some telling points:

"Binder notes that Obama has spent his time in the Senate on "midrange issues," such as ethics reform and nuclear proliferation, where he could more easily find a Republican senator that would be open to working with him.

"He wasn't working on issues where you have hard Democratic vs. Republican divides," she said. "He seems to have very carefully chosen out areas where there were prospects of success and where he could find like-minded people across the aisle."

"In a debate with Hillary Clinton last Thursday, Obama was asked to respond after his rival brought up an uncomfortable cable-television exchange in which an Obama supporter was unable to identify any of the senator's accomplishments. Obama cited his work on health care, providing tax breaks to families, reforming the criminal justice system, and passing "the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate."

"I don't perceive him as one of the chamber's liberal members," said Jennifer Duffy, a veteran analyst with the Cook Political Report. "I don't perceive him as one of the guys who goes down on the floor and rails about his pet cause."

Obama has been criticized for not taking a stand early in his career on some hot-button issues, including abortion: He voted "present" on abortion questions seven out of 14 times in the state Senate, including once when the issue was a statewide ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.

Binder said Obama's time in the Senate suggests that he seems "comfortable working across the aisle on some of these smaller type of issues." But she suggested there are few clues as to how effective President Obama would be in dealing with larger, more divisive issues such as the war, health care, and entitlement reform.

"Those are all issues where there could be bipartisan solutions, but it's a big challenge," she said."


Also don't forget the NYT article on Obama's watered down nuclear waste bill (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?scp=1&sq=obama+illinois+nuclear&st=nyt) which he claimed to have passed but in reality, the bill was never taken up in the full Senate.

Obama is not a fighter, when the going gets tough, he bows out.

Posted by: alee21 | February 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Dodd is a superdelegate, and a big one.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

If you noticed Dodd actually endorsed Obama before Super Tuesday, when Reps. Larson, DeLauro, and Murphy endorsed Obama. They (especially Larson and Rosa) would never have endorsed Obama if the senior member of the CT Democratic Party didn't sign off on it first.

It should be noted that both Larson and Rosa DeLauro are in the House leadership, to show who else allowed them to support Obama.

Posted by: ctyankeeboy1638 | February 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Way to go Senator Dodd! I am extremely happy that you have made the wise decision to back Senator Obama. I know that Senator Obama is the one who can take on McCain this fall and give the government back to the people!

I am hopeful and prayful that my 2 nephews will be able to end their many tours in Iraq real soon. Obama 2008!

Posted by: Debmood | February 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I am extremely disappointed in the poor judgment and shortsightedness of my fellow alumnus Christopher Dodd in endorsing Obama. But then again, these are the same reasons I didn't support his Presidential campaign.

Posted by: baycitywriter | February 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I hope that Dodd is given a Cabinet position too, as well as any other Senator from Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, or Utah ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Yes. The writing was on the wall, someone like Dodd couldn't back Hilary, she even missed the FISA vote in the Senate and that is Dodd's issue, he fought hard to deny immunity to Telco's, but eventually lost to those Senators who had been bought and paid for.
This endorsement makes perfect sense, and I hope Dodd is in a cabinet position in Obama's administration. Chief of staff maybe? At least give him the FCC.

Posted by: coco_dtd | February 26, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Hillary as the First lady governing the domestic aspects of the White House could not anticipate, detect or stop the nefarious adulterous life the President was leading under her watch. You expect her to secure the Nation?

Posted by: ajnairus | February 26, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

poh123:
Your doubt about whether Obama is a true agent of change is justified. It's hard to imagine how someone can change a system that he seems to have mastered so astoundingly. It's obvious that he's got politicking and campaigning down to a science.
But what's the flip side? Is it impossible for someone to master the beltway and also be an agent for change of the same system he mastered? I honestly don't know, because I can't foretell the future. What I do know is that times are changing very quickly. So we can't use established trends to foretell the future the way we could before.
There's also the proviso that if there is change, it will probably have to come from the inside. This is evidenced by people like Nader who probably achieved the opposite of what he set out to do in 2000 and, I'm sure, deep down he hates himself for it.
Now if someone came about that simultaneously had a mastery of beltway-politics and also the potential to change it, how would we see it? Wouldn't we initially have doubt, and assume that this is just another brilliant politician?

I guess it's about giving someone a chance. If it does turn out to be smoke and mirrors, it will be no worse than what Hillary and McCain have to offer. But...there's that chance that he is the real deal.

And how is this different to the faith that people had in George W. Bush? Simple. The base that elected Bush actually got what they wanted. They saw in Bush a conservative leader who would elect conservative judges and forward their agenda. Bush promised them that, and that's exactly what they got. Obama is now promising a change in the status quo. The difference is that it isn't the agenda of vested interests. It is the agenda of the whole country.

Posted by: NittyGritty08 | February 26, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I guess Dodd just added his name to the delusional/reckless/insignificant/sexist millions voting for Obama. LOL

If only Obama had some substance, people might actually support him.

Hillary is like a person trapped in quicksand. The more she flails around, the faster she sinks. Give it up Hilldog.

Posted by: BarackTheVote | February 26, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

So Ted Kennedy got to you as well Chris?....you fool....remember Mary Jo Kopeckne!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: accountability_in_gov | February 26, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

McCain's campaign would much rather campaign against Hillary - because they are convinced they can beat her. Obama is much stronger against McCain in November. If the democrats nominate Hillary, they may win the battle and lose the war.

Posted by: kevin | February 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

TO WTOBIE RE YOUR COMMENT AS FOLLOWS
I wish the news media did this research instead of being entertainment news media.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
posted by: wtobie | February 26, 2008 08:40 AM

MY RESPONSE-Thanks for this link.Good stuff-however, the KOS author who wrote this did not dig deeply enough into the bill propositions that she included in the article. I conducted similiar research
several months ago. When reviewing proposed bills,you need to dig more deeply. Most politicions who are running for re-election or higher office try to introduce as many bills as possible some time in advance of their candidacy so they can produce this list to voters. Your question about bills/propositions should include: intent of bill, when proposed, who supported/fought against passage, did it pass-why or why not.
1- Some bills and props are real no brainers-EVERYONE would pass them so you need to understand what the intent of that bill was. Other bills/props are suicide issues for the candidate proposing them but candidate knows and may still try to get passed by fighting long and hard for it or refrains from proposing ANYTHING until political situation is more 'favorable' in house or senate. However I do encourage voters to go to your link...Thanks-

Posted by: teddy21 | February 26, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

"... The media should really be careful of how they report the news. Even in the case of Hilary's 'moment' at the Texas debate. ...." The media apparently cannot find YouTube and see Hillary "xeroxing" Bill's words for her "moment."

Perhaps they could look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lXCPSltMHc

Her White House "experience" must be limited - she never had a security clearance, so she couldn't (shouldn't?) have seen anything of substance.

Posted by: SJobs | February 26, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama is letting these people who are endorsing him that they will be on the ticket after the media elects him

Posted by: yankeenana2 | February 26, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"Who cares? No one but himself and his family, I suspect. There was no reason for him to do this other than he craved attention. Dodd has been irrelevant since he stabbed Joe Lieberman in the back. Retiring is not a bad idea."

Dodd has a hundred times the intellect you will ever have.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | February 26, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

"Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity."

Are you on crack?

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | February 26, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Am I missing something? HRC supporters are always saying that Obama is inexperienced. My question is where did Hillary get all this so-called experience from? Foreign policy? National security? It seems to me that HRC supporters are forgetting that Bill is former president not Hillary. Yes, Bill has experience running the country, but not Hillary! Her First-Lady-looking-over-hubby's shoulder experience does not count. Furthermore, she's not fit to be President, because her character stinks! With her in the Whitehouse, America can look forward to a steady diet of petty catfights. Between the two, Obama is the real leader and for that reason alone he has my vote. Oh hell, he can't do no worse than the 40+ that came before him.

Posted by: Joy4u | February 26, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Am I missing something? HRC supporters are always saying that Obama is inexperienced. My question is where did Hillary get all this so-called experience from? Foreign policy? National security? It seems to me that HRC supporters are forgetting that Bill is former president not Hillary. Yes, Bill has experience running the country, but not Hillary! Her First-Lady-looking-over-hubby's shoulder experience does not count. Furthermore, she's not fit to be President, because her character stinks! With her in the Whitehouse, America can look forward to a steady diet of petty catfights. Between the two, Obama is the real leader and for that reason alone he has my vote. Oh hell, he can't do no worse than the 40+
that came before him.

Posted by: Joy4u | February 26, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Wow! The Anti Establishment candidate being flanked by the entire establishment! The Candidate of New being protected by the Candidates of Old, it is so obvious it is almost blinding. Oh, what to do when everybody seems to be blind when it comes to Barack Obama. Don't you find the timing of it all, all of it, including Obama's face about turn and explosion into the psyche of the American populace and media rather strange? Masterful campaigning, I must admit. More deceitful, sly, underhanded and strategic than any other, but masterful in its disguise. When it is all over the media (and everybody else) will start figuring it all out and they will realize how they were all duped. See Barack Obama is no savior,messiah or agent of change. Those people are NEVER politicians of established parties running with hundreds of millions of dollars and special interests, yes, special interests behind them. Never!.

Oh well, countries get the leaders they deserve. So be it.

Posted by: poh123 | February 26, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

sirack
how can you say that he is not owned by corporations he has lobbyist fundraising for him he has taken PAC monies
He talks about his mother dying of Breast Cancer when she was 53 yrs old yet he give 51,900 general dynamics and only 4000 to cancer research where are you getting your info. from

Posted by: yankeenana2 | February 26, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"Preaching hope, inspiration, change, with no substance, no specifics, no media challenge, and media fawning, Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity."

Nice, unsubtle comparison with Hitler there, crat.

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," [Clinton] said. "We can't let that happen again."

Too bad she, in all of her inexperienced foolishness, voted to enable Bush every step of the way! She continued to do so by not voting against the Senate bill that would've granted immunity to the telecomms. Speaking of, you want to know what really enabled the likes of Hitler? Legislation retroactively protecting those corporations that had helped him consolidate power. By virtue of inaction, she enabled Bush to take America one step down that path (thankfully, he was thwarted by the House).

Now she has people flooding the airwaves of the "hostile media" with Rovian rhetoric and whisper campaigns. It's pathetic. The longer she behaves this way, the more likely I am to cast a write-in vote in November if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: ickyfoot | February 26, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The problem with HillArEE doing a HuckAbEE is that, while Huck is not hurting McCain or his party with negative campaigning, Clinton seems intent on breaking the toys if she can't have them for herself.

Posted by: zangdook | February 26, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Why are some saying that Senator Obama has no plans or do not have any specifics on any government issue? Have anyone watch any of the 19 debates that he have participated in?

Saying that he has no plans for anything is just a disgraceful lie.

Posted by: tddavishouse | February 26, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

The USA and world is in dire need of Statesmanship! And quite frankly, Senator Obama has demonstrated that he is a Statesman, fulfilling a non-political vacuum that represents the interest of All. He is leading in the same vein as the following visionaries with extraordinary Statesmanship.

* A great statesman is he who knows when to depart from traditions, as well as when to adhere to them.
- John Stuart Mill

* And statesmen at her council met Who knew the seasons when to take Occasion by the hand, and make The bounds of freedom wider yet.
- Lord Alfred Tennyson,

* Peace. commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.
- Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address

* We say that someone occupies an official position, whereas it is the official position that occupies him.
- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

* Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good. - Abraham Lincoln

- Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: ricardo_rose | February 26, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

setariq
I agree wholeheartedly. The sad fact is that there are more "opinionators" out there than there are real journalists. And the other sad fact is that sometimes, as you said, the public can't tell the difference. Which is why I'm so thankful for the internet! I can do my own factfinding, and I'm smart enough to distinguish sleazey gossip from the truth.

Posted by: joy2 | February 26, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

crat3, your comment could very well describe Bill Clinton. When he became President, he had no foreign policy experience, no military experience, no national security experience. You don't hear Billary mentioning that aspect of the Clinton administration. She's on the ropes, she knows it and will say or do ANYTHING she can to discredit Obama. Her "experience" involving jet setting around to other countries and meeting with foreign heads of state may qualify her as an ambassador but President? I think not.

Posted by: silvano | February 26, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

What I've heard from Obama is inspiration and specifics. Now if someone is drawn in by the message of inspiration and in so doing, misses the specifics, that doesn't mean the specifics aren't there. I've listened to the speeches and watched the debates. He has been saying the same things.

Then suddenly the media says 'oh, now he's mixing eloquence with specifics masterfully' and I'm still trying to figure how they missed the specifics initially. Now, everyone is saying, he has specifics.

From early on in this nomination process, I've known the major difference in his healthcare plan and Clinton's was the idea of whether or not healthcare should be mandated. I've known that he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and end the war in Iraq and thereby fund investment in green jobs and infrastructure. He has mentioned making college more affordable by instituting a tuition grant based on students volunteering in various activities in the community. There are other specifics but I won't name them all.

The media should really be careful of how they report the news. Even in the case of Hilary's 'moment' at the Texas debate. What I heard was a Hilary Clinton trying to soften her image and show that she can be warm and moving. The press read that she was being conciliatory. Her campaign said that nothing was further from the truth. The thing is that the media personalities give their thoughts and viewers adapt the media's opinions as their own.

Here's the sad fact: the media shapes public opinion and that is rather troubling. This is no slight to media coverage more than it is a slight to the viewers who fail to exercise their own judgement on matters of significance or insignificance.

Posted by: setariq | February 26, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Why does it surprise anyone that Democratic party rats are leaving what they consider to be a sinking ship for the perceived benefit of their own careers. It is, just like Obama, politics as usual.

Posted by: theplanner | February 26, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Good for chris Dodd. Good for Obama. And GREAT for our country. It's time to turn the page on BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH and begin with a fresh face and a clean slate. For those of you who repeat the claim that Obama doesn't address the issues, I suggest you make better use of your time. Go to www.barackobama.com click on Issues and download his Blueprint for Change.

Posted by: joy2 | February 26, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Not a huge surprise, since 3 of the 4 House members in the CT delegation had already endorsed Obama (Courtney still hasn't endorsed either Clinton or Obama) and Obama won CT.

No speculation about Dodd's chances for Senate Majority Leader (Reid's still there and Durbin's the Senate Majority Whip, so it's a moot point right now), nor about any opening of a floodgate of endorsements for Obama.

If any of the OH, TX, RI, or VT delegations are still uncommitted, perhaps their endorsements this week might make a difference on 3/4, similar to how Crist helped McCain in FL. Then again, maybe not (Napolitano endorsed Obama, but Clinton won AZ -- then again, with McCain the GOP candidate, AZ's going red in November).

Posted by: ericp331 | February 26, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Dodd's not the kind of guy to fall for "smoke and mirrors." Obama stood up and voted against telecom immunity. Corporate Clinton ducked the FISA votes.

Posted by: scharb | February 26, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Who cares? No one but himself and his family, I suspect. There was no reason for him to do this other than he craved attention. Dodd has been irrelevant since he stabbed Joe Lieberman in the back. Retiring is not a bad idea.

Posted by: ricr | February 26, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Dodd would be an excellent Majority Leader, I suspect. Perhaps in a BHO Administration that would happen. He would also be preferable to Harry Reed in a prospective HRC or McC Admin, or in a Nader Admin, or if Hell froze over.

In short, Dodd is one of the good ones.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 26, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

crat3,

I wish the news media did this research instead of being entertainment news media.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Posted by: wtobie | February 26, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

One thing is clear about Obama, he is not owned by special interest. He has demonstrated for the first time in the history of our country that he is only beholden to the people because some 1,000,000 Americans are underwriting his campaign. If he did nothing else, he has shown that the people of America can own their government. That they have an overwhelming strength by coming together that no special interest could stand on their way.

Wake up America, here is our chance to reclaim our government!

Posted by: Sirack | February 26, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Senator Dodd is well respected on both sides of the aisle and throughout the country. From fighting against warrantless wiretaps to taking credit card companies to task for their predatory practices, Dodd has been a vocal and powerful leader in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Dodd's endorsement for Senator Obama may be a sign of an opening of the flood-gates, as other superdelegates follow Dodd's lead.

Posted by: kaneblues | February 26, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Huge endorsement! Maybe this is the beginning of the flood of big name endorsements coming to Obama that many are predicting.

Posted by: zb95 | February 26, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

crat3:

Hopefully, she meant that and will stay in until the bitter end.

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Great! Dodd is a good man. Now we need Biden and Webb and Tester and Richardson and GORE!!!!

Obama/Biden 08!

Posted by: dab23 | February 26, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Preaching hope, inspiration, change, with no substance, no specifics, no media challenge, and media fawning, Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity.

Sen. Dodd endorsed Obama with reckless and irresponsible disregard for the future of our country. Obama has no qualifications or experience in foreign affairs or national security. As Sen. Clinton stated:

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," she said. "We can't let that happen again."


Posted by: crat3 | February 26, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

This just further makes the point, which new national polls show today as well, that Obama is cruising ahead in both Ohio and Texas;

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

Posted by: davidmwe | February 26, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Will Hillary become like Huckabee and refuse to bow out?

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company