Chris Dodd Takes on Bill O’Reilly

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ApOkZJN7-c]

When Democrats decided not to have a debate on Fox News to avoid giving legitimacy to the network as a news organization for their failure to follow basic standards of objective journalism, conservatives tried to spin this as Democrats being afraid to face Fox News. That is an absurd argument which already admits that Fox News is not an objective news organization by admitting that Fox News sees itself as being in an adversarial position with the Democratic Party.

While not wanting to give Fox legitimacy by allowing them to cover a news event such as a debate, Democrats frequently appear on Fox News, showing no fear of their dishonest debate tactics and smears. Chris Dodd demonstrates very well how to handle dishonest commentators such as Bill O’Reilly in the video above.

Who Needs Seasoning? Edwards Far More than Obama

Questions of experience have often come up this year, perhaps after we saw the effects of having a president who was not capable of performing the job for the last eight years. I could see if supporters of candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden were to use their candidate’s experience as an argument against Barack Obama. There’s no question that Obama has less experience than many of the previous presidents. However, Obama is far from the least experienced candidate running, making this claim at Talk Left rather absurd:

Why this race isn’t between Hillary and Edwards as opposed to Hillary and Obama has me stumped. I think Obama needs a lot more seasoning and experience before becoming presidential material.

Which leads me to conclude it’s still a three-way race and Edwards is very much in it.

Nobody has less experience than John Edwards. Edwards has a single term in the Senate, and he made a rather poor Senate while there. It was also clear that he had no interest in the Senate and was only using this as a stepping stone to run for president. As Bob Shrum has written, he’s “a Clinton who hadn’t read the books.”

Obama has far more experience than Edwards. Not only does Obama have his time in the Senate, he had years of previous experience. This includes working as a community organizer and in the state legislature. While he didn’t deal with national issues in the state legislature, when he did express his opinion he was right and Edwards was wrong on Iraq. While John Edward has dubious experience in the Senate where he worked on the Patriot Act, Obama has experience as a professor of Constitutional law and might know a bit more about civil liberties than Edwards. Obama also knows more about separation of church and state, with his comments sounding much more like those of a seasoned professional than Edwards’ recent statements on religion and gay marriage. Edwards’ changes in so many of the positons he previously held appears to be a matter of political expediency to go along with his internet strategy as opposed to seasoning, especially when his economic policies are best described by The Onion.

This may be a three way race, but there is a true seasoned candidate who has the best shot should Clinton and Obama both fall. Edwards continues to remain in the race by primarily from his 2004 name recognition, allowing him to register in the polls as Lieberman did early in 2004, large amounts of money from the trial lawyers, and running a continuous campaign in Iowa since 2005. While all this keeps Edwards in the race, his support has been gradually dwindling while Richardson has shown momentum, including moving ahead of Edwards in some New Hampshire polls. Richardson also came close to Edwards in second quarter fund raising, and would lead him for the year if not for Edwards’ backing from the trial lawyers. Some people looking at Richardson’s momentum and Edwards’ problem believe that Richardson will win in Iowa.

I still want to hear more from Obama before deciding on him. If experience is what is desired, it would make far more sense to look at Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd than John Edwards. While Obama may be inexperienced, his is far more experienced than John Edwards and has shown far greater ability to evaluate problems and avoid mistakes of the past. Those who see Democratic victories in 2004 as an opening to return to far left economic policies misunderstand why the Republicans lost and, more importantly, why the Democrats were a minority party for so long.

Chris Dodd Unveils Health Plan

Chris Dodd has announced his health care plan, but it hardly sounds like anything new. Like John Kerry in 2004 he makes use of a plan like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to provide employees with more options. Insurance will be portable. I don’t see anything on community ratings (although plans posted on web sites may not include everything being considered). Dodd would allow employers and individuals to keep their current plans if they choose.

This is too vague to really analyze, but the plan states “if a person or business is unable to pay for insurance, the government will subsidize their premium share on a sliding scale based on income.” Besides mentioning such subsidies there is little information with regards to what this will cost individuals or businesses.

Dodd would keep Medicare (but no mention of lowering the eligibility age) as well as Medicaid, and would allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. All people under 100% of the poverty level would qualify for Medicaid, which at first read might sound good but this really means that they will continue to be in second class plans.

Dodd’s plan does differ from other plans in the speed in which it would be initiated: “Within two years of enactment the Dodd plan will phase in universal coverage by age group based on current levels of insurance and health need. Within two years of enactment, all children, young adults to age 29, and adults age 55-64 will have health insurance. In the following two years, all remaining adults age 30-54 will be enrolled.”

The plan also contains all the now-standard ideas on stressing preventative care and saving money with better use of information technology.

First Read complained that there was no information on cost and in response were told, “his plan will cost between $40-$50 billion a year in those first two years, and then $70 billion a year in the two years after that.”

Still no word from Hillary Clinton as to her plan.

Dodd Responds To Edwards on Iraq

Christopher Dodd is having a tough time getting attention in this year’s crowed field. It took an attack on one of the front runners to get some media attention today:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) just released a statement taking former Sen. John Edwards to task for his new ads on President Bush’s veto of a bill establishing a firm deadline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

“As Senator Dodd was the first candidate to support the Reid-Feingold measure, we agree that Democrats in the Senate should stand up to a President who stubbornly refuses to change his failed policy in Iraq,” said Christy Setzer. “We wish that Senator Edwards was still in the Senate for this important fight.”

Setzer added: “If we can’t get his vote in the Senate, of course we would welcome Senator Edwards ‘ support for Senator Dodd’s plan, which would safely re-deploy out troops and bring an end to this war within on year rather than the incremental eighteen-month approach he has proposed.”

Yowza!

The Fix also notes the difficulty Dodd is having getting his message out:

Dodd is the lone presidential candidate to voice support for the measure being sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) that would set a date certain for not just withdrawal of American troops but for funding for the war. Dodd’s campaign has repeatedly highlighted that fact as an attempt to distinguish himself from the field of better known candidates include Edwards as well as Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

If Dodd wants to distinguish himself from Edwards, he might also use the same argument I recently suggested for Bill Richardson. Dodd, like Richardson, is qualified to be President.

Bush Bypasses Congress To Pick Fox in Recess Appointment

George Bush still does not get the fact that this is a democracy and that there are other co-equal branches of government. The Founding Fathers believed that major Presidential appointments should be done with the advice and consent of the Senate. The voters felt that the President was not exercising his responsibilities in a competent or honest manner and voted to place further checks on him by electing a Congress of the opposing party. The White House realized there were not enough votes to confirm Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium following Fox’s actions to undermine the democratic process in this country by contributing to the Swift Boat Liars, who were responsible for the most dishonest smear campaign in recent history.

None of this matters in Bush World. Buried towards the bottom of a White House Personnel Announcement is this line: ” Sam Fox, of Missouri, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belgium.” Bob Geiger has posted the responses of John Kerry and Chris Dodd:

“It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,” said Kerry, in a statement. “This nomination was withdrawn because the Administration realized it would lose in the Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, when this White House can’t win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses.”

“Our country would be stronger if this Administration spent more time getting body armor for our soldiers in Iraq than it did helping their powerful friends.”

Also reacting with outrage, is Chris Dodd (D-CT), who was the first Senator to publicly state his strong opposition to the Fox nomination.

“It is outrageous that the President has sought to stealthily appoint Sam Fox to the position of ambassador to Belgium when the President formally requested that the Fox nomination be withdrawn from the Senate because it was facing certain defeat in the Foreign Relations Committee last week,” said Dodd. “I seriously question the legality of the President’s use of the recess appointment authority in this instance. I intend to seek an opinion on the legality of this appointment from the General Accountability Office and invite other Senators to join with me in that request.”

The remainder of Bush’s term is going to see many political battles. Actions such as this on the part of George Bush act to demonstrate that any checks placed on the White House by the Democratic Congress are justified and necessary.

The Hill: Bill Richardson, Foreign Policy Stud of the Democratic Contest

Bill Richardson is a distant fourth in the Democratic race, but he continues to take advantage of his experience to obtain positive coverage. The Hill reports:

Why are underdogs such fun? New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is having a great week, and it is far more entertaining than the exhausting Clinton/Obama rivalry marathon we will be subjected to all year. Not only did Richardson raise more money than his second-tier colleagues, Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), but he got President Bush to bless his trip to North Korea, creating an opportunity to remind everyone again that he is the Foreign Policy Stud of the Democratic contest.

Richardson will visit Pyongyang to collect the remains of American troops who died in the Korean War. He will be accompanied by former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi, but it is Richardson’s trip — after all, he is the one with an open invitiation to visit and confer with the North Korean government. He has earned his stripes not only as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations but has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of political prisoners in Iraq, Cuba and North Korea.

Such coverage will do more to get Richardson a shot at the Vice Presidency than move him ahead of the front runners, but at least it helps keep his candidacy alive.

Obama’s Official

Barack Obama might have less experience in Washington than most of his rivals, but he is quickly learning the rules to media coverage. A candidate can receive coverage both for announcing an exploratory committee, and then again for announcing that they are actually running. The cable news networks were repeating film of his announcement today with Breaking News banners. Is a previously announced appearance to say what everyone knew was going to happen really Breaking News?

Obama is trying hard to turn his lack of experience into something positive:

I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness – a certain audacity – to this announcement. I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.

The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we’ve changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King’s call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s needed to be done. Today we are called once more – and it is time for our generation to answer that call.

Frank Rich is more concerned with Obama’s judgement than experience:

The day after the resolution debacle, I spoke with Senator Obama about the war and about his candidacy. Since we talked by phone, I can’t swear he was clean, but he was definitely articulate. He doesn’t yet sound as completely scripted as his opponents — though some talking-point-itis is creeping in — and he isn’t remotely defensive as he shrugs off the race contretemps du jour prompted by his White House run. Not that he’s all sweetness and light. “If the criterion is how long you’ve been in Washington, then we should just go ahead and assign Joe Biden or Chris Dodd the nomination,” he said. “What people are looking for is judgment.”

What Mr. Obama did not have to say is that he had the judgment about Iraq that his rivals lacked. As an Illinois state senator with no access to intelligence reports, he recognized in October 2002 that administration claims of Saddam’s “imminent and direct threat to the United States” were hype and foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would be of “undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” Nor can he be pilloried as soft on terrorism by the Cheney-Lieberman axis of neo-McCarthyism. “I don’t oppose all wars,” he said in the same Chicago speech. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”

Rich concluded his column with suggesting that the inexperienced might do better than those who have been in Washington:

Washington’s conventional wisdom has it that the worse things go in the war, the more voters will want to stick with the tried and true: Clinton, McCain, Giuliani. But as Mr. Obama reminds us, “Nobody had better Washington résumés than Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld.” In the wake of the catastrophe they and their enablers in both parties have made, the inexperienced should have a crack at inheriting the earth, especially if they’re clean.

The Carpetbagger Report compares years in elected office among several of the candidates:

* Obama: 10 years (7 state Senate, 3 U.S. Senate)
* Clinton: 8 years (8 U.S. Senate)
* Edwards: 6 years (6 U.S. Senate)
* Giuliani: 8 years (two, four-year mayoral terms)
* Romney: 4 years (one four-year gubernatorial term)
* McCain: 25 years (4 U.S. House, 21 U.S. Senate) (more…)

Kerry Blasts Escalation of Misguided War

John Kerry gave this week’s Democratic radio address. Audio available here, and the prepared text follows:

Good morning, I’m John Kerry from Massachusetts and I am pleased to deliver the Democratic radio address today.

Earlier this week, I had the privilege of standing with four soldiers who served in Iraq. They are smart, brave, dedicated young men who volunteered for duty, followed orders, served with distinction, and believed in their mission when they deployed to Iraq.

Today, they have grown disillusioned. The war they fought to protect the world from Iraq’s imagined weapons of mass destruction ended a long time ago. Saddam Hussein is dead. Now, Iraq is immersed in a bloody civil war — and too often the brave men and women who wear the uniform of our country are paying the highest price.

Men like Brian Freeman, an energetic and promising 31-year old Army captain who told me that his men struggled to carry out a mission they never trained for and weren’t equipped to fight. This West Point graduate, who died in combat shortly after we met, was the kind of leader who was born to lead men in battle. Freeman, like many soldiers in Iraq, was conflicted – torn between his desire to serve and succeed and to achieve victory but frustrated with the lack of clarity in their mission.

Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and I met Captain Freeman in Baghdad right before Christmas. He was heading back to the states for a few days to see his wife and his two children – a boy and a baby girl. After a short visit, he shipped back to Iraq. Two weeks later, he was gone – killed in a frenzy of bullets and grenades while defending his fellow soldiers from insurgents who tricked their way past a checkpoint.

Captain Freeman’s loss, his valor in battle and his noble service to our country remind us of the human toll in Iraq – and it reminds us of the solemn obligation we have to get the policy right in Iraq.

Make no mistake: every member of Congress supports our troops. We all honor the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today. But the best way to pay tribute to their willingness to serve is to make sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they return. This administration isn’t doing that. (more…)

Kiplinger Letter Predicts Democratic Gains

While many pundits have a variety of reasons to spin their political predictions, The Kiplinger Letter attempts to give investors and businessmen their honest predictions. The October 20 issue leads with the midterm elections, and they do not see the Republicans as doing very well. They believe Democrats may pick up twice the fifteen House seats needed to take control and warn that Democratic prospects to control the Senate are looking better. (The Washington Post today also notes that the Democrats have strengthened thier chances for taking control of the Senate).

The Kiplinger Letter leans Republican but they do not share the total paranoia of Democrats as is seen in most of the right wing media. Rather than perpetuating the right wing claims that Democrats are practically socialists who will be hostile to business, they consider Harry Reid, as well as Chris Dodd and Max Baucus who would likey chair the Banking and Finance Committees, to be pro-business.

Perhaps they should also point out to their subscribers who are more nervous of Democratic control of Congress how the stock market typically performs better under Democrats, and the deficit would certainly be lower than under the current government.

Lieberman Won’t Support Fellow Democratic Candidates

While some naively argued that Joe Lieberman’s appearance yesterday did not constitute campaigning with Republicans, Joe Lieberman has made it clear where he stands. The New Haven Independent reports that Joe Lieberman will not support the Democrats running for Congress from his state:

Declaring himself a “non-combatant,” U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his “independent” candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut — and control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lieberman — who after losing an Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont has launched a third-party bid to hold onto his seat in the Nov. 7 general election — was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.

“I’m a non-combatant,” Lieberman declared. “I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race.”

Jane Hamsher, who deserves credit for revealing that yesterday’s event was a thinly disguised campaign event, has some words for those who argue it was not a campaign event:

I must say I was thoroughly charmed by the childlike innocence of those who thought Joe Lieberman’s trip to the Groton sub base with Republicans candidates Jodi Rell and Rob Simmons yesterday did not, in fact, constitute “campaigning.” Most people leave that kind of wide-eyed credulity in childhood; how wonderful that some manage to carry it into their adult years.

I guess the logic wraps around the fact that a “conference” was held at Groton in order to determine “specific recommendations on steps to be taken to avoid having the base targeted again in future base closing rounds.” No politics involved at all, right? It’s just a concidence that “saving” the Groton sub base is one of the fundamental claims Joe makes in trying to prove his value to Connecticut voters, and that Democrat Chris Dodd refused to be a part of a GOP dog and pony show.

If so, perhaps Joe would like offer up an explanation for his trip later in the day with Simmons, candidate for the hotly contested House seat against Joe Courtney, to the Millstone nuclear power plant?

As Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan was overheard to say, “What were they doing at Millstone, a fucking inspection?”

Perhaps if those buying into the “non-political conference” tale can tear themelves away from emailing their bank account numbers to that international lottery they just won, we’ll get some answers.

There is some intentional ambiguity in yesterday’s event, but the media reports do portray it as primarily a PR event which could certainly be considered a campaign event. The lack of other Democrats who had been instrumental in saving the base argues against this being a case of a Senator performing normal business. The words of praise for Lieberman from the Republicans present make it clear that Joe Lieberman is the Republican-preferred candidate.

Update: Two conservative blogs have linked to this and have tried to describe it as some sort of purge or other unreasonable criticism. They ignore a few facts:

  • As Lieberman has been increasingly aligning himself with Republicans (as opposed to running as a true Independent) but also retains a significant amount of support from Democrats, it is valid to point this out in the hopes of convincing more Democrats to drop any loyalty to Lieberman which he does not deserve.
  • The fact that Lieberman’s defense on this comes from conservative sites only acts to confirm that he is the de facto Republican candidate as opposed to either a Democrat or Independent.
  • This is hardly a purge, as the conservatives are calling it, as I’ve also opposed the actions of some to either remove Lieberman from the party or strip him of his seniority at this time.