Chris Dodd: "Obama is the antithesis of Kucinich"

[Seabiscuit]

Just saw an MSNBC interview of Chris Dodd where he made that statement.

He said he wouldn't tell his supporters who to back in the event he didn't poll 15% in Iowa. He said that unlike Kucinich, he wants them to think for themselves.

He also said he recently stood up in the Senate to defend the Constitution. He said Obama notably did not.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Yes he did.

Some of us will always remember that Senator Dodd. Thank you.

[KingofNewOrleans]

2. Did both Dodd and Nadar say the same thing?

That would be kind of freaky.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

4. What did Nader say? nevermind, I see the other thread.

[Seabiscuit]

16. The truth is "freaky"???

That's what the repukes say about "socialized medicine" when Michael Moore tells the truth about our corrupt health care system.

[redqueen]

3. Well antithesis seems a bit strong...

but yes... I see his point.

[gaiilonfong]

5. And Senator Dodd you STILL call LIEberman your friend

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO STFU
you are embarassing yourself, STILL claiming you are viable as a candidate.
Your jealousy is ruining all the great things you have done LATELY!

[indimuse]

8. A HUGE Lieberman supporter..Obama is.

Obama also voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he helped vote down a Democratic amendment
to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now, Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush's right-wing judges.

A HUGE Lieberman supporter..

[gaiilonfong]

10. NO SALE n/t

[Seabiscuit]

15. Dodd has nothing in common with Lieberman other than Connecticut.

ALL Senators and Congressmen refer to their colleagues as "friend".

BFD.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Tall, black, viable candidate

[MuseRider]

7. I thank Dodd for his recent stand for us and the

constitution but Kucinich did not "tell" anyone to do anything.

He can suggest all he wants, we know what he is doing and it is OK, it is the strategy but many many of us will not move to Obama and I don't think any of us feel like we have been told to do anything.

Here is the release. Bold is mine.

Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot

For Immediate Release — Tuesday, January 01, 2008

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Sen. Barack Obama. "This is obviously an 'Iowa-only' recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change."

[Seabiscuit]

17. So: "I strongly encourage" people to vote for X is not an endorsement of X???

What boggles the mind of this former contributor to the DK campaign is that Obama is the candidate with the least in common with DK. Dennis' telling his followers to back Obama if he doesn't make 15% in Iowa is something straight from the twilight zone. It makes no rational sense whatsoever.

I think Dennis has finally lost his marbles.

[MuseRider]

19. Well

I just looked up the word and you may be right. My bad.

What I see other people doing is running with this as if Kucinich gave Obama complete support and using it to prove that Obama is the most progressive. This is a one time strategy IMO because they are going back to being competitors in NH.

I made a mistake in use of the word probably. To me an endorsement is, "I am dropping and this person is the person I feel most represents my issues." Kucinich said nothing of the sort and I need to learn to look things up before I shoot my mouth off.

[Seabiscuit]

20. You're right, it is a one-time strategy, but to me it still makes no apparent sense.

[MuseRider]

30. Stop Hillary?

That is the only thing I can come up with. He can't do a thing if he does not get 15%, this way he can at least try to make a difference and if I was him she would be the one I would feel the most need to get rid of. Even Obama comes closer to K than Hillary although some would and will argue that.

[skipos]

9. I like Dodd and Kucinich, but that statement is BULLSHIT

Dick Cheney or Inhofe is the antithesis of Kucinich.
Very lame on Dodd's part.

[Seabiscuit]

22. Dodd wasn't talking about Republicans. He was talking about other Dem candidates.

And within that context, his remark was 100% appropriate.

What is lame is to try to alter the context.

[skipos]

29. What is lame is not giving the context and then blaming others for "altering it."

Lame ass.

[Seabiscuit]

49. The context was clear.

Dodd was being interviewed about whether he would lend his support to a leading candidate if he didn't reach 15% in Iowa, as Kucinich did, by DK's invoking his supporters to back Obama in that event.

That was the context, which was clear in the OP. It obviously had nothing to do with Republicans.

You sure like to call people "lame". Rather aggressive about it as a matter of fact.

[sandnsea]

11. So it's good when Dodd trashes another Dem

:crazy:

[Seabiscuit]

25. He was responding to questions about whether he would do what DK did in Iowa

if he didn't register 15% - specifically, would he tell his supporters to then back one of the frontrunners.

In the process, he expressed his shock about Dennis asking his supporters to back Obama in that event.

[Adelante]

12. Dodd is exaggerating, as candidates do

Dodd certainly took the lead and gets all the credit, but Obama has supported the same position as Dodd all along and was ready to filibuster if it came to it. It didn't come to it.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced Friday that he will start debate Monday on bills that will let the nation’s spies use American telecom facilities and services for warrantless wiretapping, choosing to start with the most expansive bill and then letting a second version be considered as an amendment. Congress is moving quickly on the legislation, since the Democrats are seeking to reverse some of the extensive surveillance powers it handed to the Administration this summer in rush legislation known as the Protect America Act.

Action could have started as soon as today, forcing a promised filibuster to happen over the weekend, but today Reid indicated on the Senate floor that he would wait until Monday.

-snip

The move comes after weeks of speculation over whether Reid would prefer the Senate Intelligence committee’s version - a bill favored by the Administration — or the Senate Judiciary’s version. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut has a hold on the Intel bill, since it includes amnesty for telecoms being sued for helping with the government’s secret, warrantless wiretapping program, but Reid decided to override that hold. Civil liberties groups prefer the version from the Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), since it requires an investigation into the warrantless spying program, is mum on immunity and more tightly limits warrantless wiretapping inside American soil.

Dodd has also promised to filibuster any bill granting retroactive immunity to telecoms, a move that fellow Senators/Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama (Illinois) and Hillary Clinton (New York) said they would support.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/warrantless-spy.html

Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It’s not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote or not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/17/obamas-statement-on-dodd-and-filibuster/

S. 2248: FISA Amendments Act

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We understand that the Senate will shortly be considering amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As you know, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee have reported very different versions of the FISA Amendments Act, S. 2248, and it is up to you, as Majority Leader, to decide how the Senate considers this legislation.

We urge you to make the version of S. 2248 reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee the base bill to be considered by the full Senate. While the structure of Title I of both bills is the same, and both make improvements over the Protect America Act, the reasonable changes to Title I made in the Judiciary Committee ensure that the FISA Court will be able to conduct much-needed oversight of the implementation of these broad new surveillance authorities, and help to better protect the rights of innocent Americans. While we appreciate the hard work that the Intelligence Committee has done on this legislation, the process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, the results of this open process should be accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Committee’s unique role and expertise in protecting those rights.

We also believe that the Judiciary Committee bill is preferable because it does not provide immunity for telecom companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. As this is such a controversial issue, we feel it would be appropriate to require the proponents of immunity to make their case on the floor.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)

Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT)

Barack Obama (D-IL)

Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)

Jim Webb (D-VA)

Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004890.php

[high density]

32. "Whether [Obama] is present or not" is the problem

Dodd made time to be there to filibuster if he had to. Obama was offering moral support but decided his campaigning was more important than defending the constitution. Actions speak louder than words.

[Adelante]

33. Clinton and Biden weren't there, either

If the filibuster had been necessary and they didn't fly in for it, then you would have a valid complaint. But it didn't happen.

[sniffa]

13. hmmm, i find it odd that he and Nader say the same thing

at about the same time. anything's possible.

[Renew Deal]

14. Dodd is the antithesis of relevant.

I agree, everyone should think for themselves, but politics is about results. Encouraging people to vote one way or another is a way to put your politics to action. It's positive overall.

[Cha]

23. It was a tad

disingenous.

[Stop Cornyn]

18. Dodd or Edwards -- either one is fine by me. An Edwards/Dodd ticket, and I quit my job to become a

campaign groupie.

[readmoreoften]

21. Agreed. /nt

[Seabiscuit]

26. Edwards/Dodd or Edwards/Biden would be our strongest ticket, IMHO.

[LordJFT]

24. last desperate act from a pathetic campaign attempt

[gmudem]

27. It sickens me that people are so willing to slime

a man who just recently stood up for the Constitution like a real American. He wasn't going to let that blatantly unconstitutional bill go through and Democrats and all Americans should be extremely grateful for his actions. It's too bad his campaign isn't getting more traction because he's one of the better candidates.

[Seabiscuit]

28. I think the only people

flinging slime here are the Obama backers. They seem to do it in every thread.

[maximusveritas]

37. I guess you missed all the attacks on Kucinich

from Edwards supporters.

[Seabiscuit]

46. If it really happened, I think I would have seen it.

I don't see Edwards supporters behaving that way on DU.

In fact, I was a Kucinich supporter until recently, when I switched to Edwards. I surely would have noticed.

So what am I saying?

I don't believe you.

[maximusveritas]

51. That's probably because you're one of the ones doing it

"I'm beginning to think Dennis really lives in Fantasyland, and is losing all touch with reality."

[Seabiscuit]

52. Wrong. Please post the entire post.

That wasn't posted in a pro-Kucinich thread. It was in a thread about Nader expressing his surprise about Kucinich's telling his supporters to back Obama if DK didn't reach 15% in Iowa. I registered my shock and disillusionment in DK with those words, because I was a former DK backer.

I am especially disillusioned with Dennis because I had hoped he'd be perceptive enough to realize that the only Dem candidate with a more right-wing corporatist/opportunist record both in the Senate and on the campaign trail is Obama. I had hoped he would be perceptive enough to realize that Edwards was the Dem candidate most closely aligned with his own policy positions. As a former DK donor and supporter I've noticed a lot of DK supporters on DU switching to Edwards as I have. It happened not too long after Dennis' space-cadet rationalization for seriously considering Ron Paul as a running mate - the rambling quote about the eagle over the door of the House of Representatives that has a right wing and a left wing and that eagles need both wings to fly. Eeeeeek!!! At that point I stopped sending DK donations, and started searching in earnest for an alternative candidate. Eventually Edwards filled the bill for me.

After hearing about this Obama thing in Iowa from DK, I actually clicked the "unsubscribe" button on one of DK's e-mails to me. While I like many of his policy positions, as a candidate for national office he seems like a fish out of water. He keeps sticking his foot in his mouth like someone lost in la-la land. It's embarassing, and I'm embarassed for him. He gives the MSM an easy personality to target when they want to target us progressives, and that sickens me, because it enables them to falsely target our policy positions.

I don't go around searching for threads about Candidate X to smear Candidate X.

Obama supporters do that. That's what I was talking about.

[LordJFT]

36. I liked Dodd alot until his recent flurry of attacks

He has run an incredibly weak campaign but I'm disappointed he'd sink to this.

[Seabiscuit]

47. "flurry"???

[laugle]

39. Well said.....I agree

with you! He did a very brave thing for all of us.......and I too wish that he would get more traction!

[Blue-Jay]

31. Perhaps one should check with Kucinich first.

It appears that he might have a different opinion.

[JDPriestly]

34. Dodd is great. He is a man of courage.

[DaLittle Kitty]

35. Senator Dodd Is Certainly Correct on This Issue, Obama Is A Conciliator NOT

A Strong Negotiator. In the End The Kucinich People Will Think For Themselves on This One as Well... About that I am Confident.

[AtomicKitten]

38. The REAL antithesis of Kucinich -- Dodd, Biden, Clinton & Edwards voting YES on the IWR.

[FreeState]

40. And Obama's continual funding of it too n/t

[AtomicKitten]

41. I guess you missed it:

You're welcome.

Obama Will Oppose War Funding Bills Without Exit Deadline

Des Moines Register | September 16, 2007 09:57 PM

Obama, who had resisted measures to tie money for the war to a deadline for withdrawal, said Sunday he would no longer support funding measures in the Senate that do not include deadlines.

"We are going to bring an end to this war and I will fight hard in the United States Senate to make sure we don't pass any funding bill that does not have a deadline," Obama told the crowd.

By making the statement, Obama joined only Dodd, who has been critical of Clinton and Obama for their resistance to tying war appropriations to a schedule.

Clinton has resisted pressure to insist that paying for the war's expenses be contingent on a firm deadline for having soldiers out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/16/obama-will-oppose-war-fun_n_64643.html

[FreeState]

43. Thats a nice announcement - and as with all the candidates

I'll believe it when his rhetoric matches his actions.

[LWolf]

42. He's right.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I'll vote DK in my primary, if he's still in it, but I wouldn't support Obama in Iowa, if I were there.

[MalloyLiberal]

44. He must be reading my DU posts! lol

[Sulawesi]

45. Overstatement alert...

...antithesis?

[annie1]

50. lol

[Sultana]

48. Dodd should just pack his bags

he has no chance.

[Czolgosz]

53. kick