US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Tina: Condi will not succeed her "husb," much as she might like to. she is just too firmly tied to the least competent administration in US history, specifically to the worst-planned military action in recent memory.

Nor'Easter: now that we see the light, we'd better stand up for our rights.

Tina: If Sec. Rice is going to run for any office, she's going to have to learn how to answer questions in simple declarative sentences.

You can obfuscate some of the answers some of the time, but you can't obfuscate all of the answers all of the time.

This dumb scam is just trying to get around the feeling that the chickenhawks are a**holes because it is other families' kids who are dying, not theirs.

That's what Boxer was saying: the chickenhawks are a**holes because it is other families' kids who are dying, not theirs.

It is right wing propaganda to hear that sentiment, recognize it as a true and forceful accusation against them, and then sanctimoniously change the subject to a sneaky red herring notion that Barbara Boxer is not a feminist.

People are not stupid enough to believe this! They can't be! Please God, don't let the human race be stupid enough to fall for such a stupid, cheap dumb scam.

This kind of word twisting is dumb. Here is the exact same quote of what Boxer said.

During a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Boxer asked Secretary Rice: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Secretary Rice replied: "I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom..." Senator Boxer cut her off, saying in response: "Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

--

It doesn't have anything do with what Boxer said to try to twist the words and insinuate it was something like only mothers can be good female leaders.

Instead, what Boxer said was, leaders whose children are actually serving in Iraq -- as opposed to the vast majority of actual leaders, Boxer herself and Condi included, because Boxer's own children are the wrong age to be serving -- would be the best ones to make decisions.

How stupid to try to twist someone's words so hard. The twisting is so bizarre it will set off red flags in anyone's mind as a scam. I doubt that anyone who didn't already hate Boxer for political reasons will fall for this dumb scam.

This seems to be the only place I can post this comment defending Secretary of State Condi Rice. Sadly,on the Friday Political debate, Jonathan Weisman dismissed her potential as a 2008 contender based on her testifiying with Biden and friends. Yet at the same time, Jonathan also claimed she has a soothing tone and womanly touch, as he explained why she is not being dragged down by the media.
The Big Stink is about how Barbara Boxer tried to demean the Secretary for not having personal family members sacrificed.
Here we have the highest Republican woman to ever be in the line of succession to the White House since January 2005, and Boxer can only whine about Condi not having children? Read this from Project 21:

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives

Single, Childless Women Should Not Be Disqualified from Leadership, Project 21 Members Say

For Release: January 12, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C. - Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is being criticized by members of the black leadership network Project 21 for implying that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lacks a proper perspective on the War on Terror in Iraq because she does not have children.

"Barbara Boxer is a feminist who is attacking the feminist dream," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "But Condoleezza Rice's achievements are disqualified because she is a black conservative, and her rise was not blessed by the liberal establishment. Former attorney general Janet Reno was also unmarried and childless, but I don't remember insulting questioning like this regarding her handling of Elian Gonzalez or the deadly raid on the Branch Davidian cult."

During a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Boxer asked Secretary Rice: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Secretary Rice replied: "I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom..." Senator Boxer cut her off, saying in response: "Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

In an editorial about the incident, The New York Post noted: "The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman."

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli added: "I am deeply appalled by Senator Barbara Boxer's cruel and callous attack on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Senator Boxer's absurd comments are inexcusable and immoral. The debate should have been about the war in Iraq and not a platform to demean Secretary Rice, who is one of the finest examples of a leader and is well qualified for the nation's chief cabinet office. No matter what her views are, Secretary Rice is a noteworthy public servant who should be treated with respect."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.

Mark Warner, who grew up in Connecticut, was on the staff of (Congressman) Chris Dodd in the 70s.

I doubt it's only an ego candidacy. I think it's ego combined with circumstance: the first time in 56 years that no previous occupant of the White House has been running. Every politician with any serious contemplation of wanting to be President is thinking "This is the chance of a lifetime, probably my only chance." That's why Romney, Vilsack, Brownback, Biden and so many others are running when they don't have any chance whatsoever. In that kind of environment, why not Dodd, too?

Trust me, he's not going to be the funniest/saddest we're going to see in this race (I'm looking at you, Kerry).

I'm also from CT and I like Dodd, but don't see this happening. I'm a cynic and I say it pads the register in his bank rolls....

I don't get it. I don't understand what Dodd thinks he'll accomplish. He's a little known Senator from a New England state, just like Kerry was in 2004, but presumably he realizes that Democrats voted for Kerry in the primaries largely because of his military service.

If Connecticut were an important (i.e., early) primary state, then I could see him guessing that he could get momentum early in the campaign and that he might be able to leverage that momentum into the nomination. If I'd ever heard him say anthing ever I could see how he might guess that his candidacy could draw attention to some issue he cares about.

But I don't get it at all.

I live in Connecticut and follow politics pretty closely, and I've heard from Dodd about two things. He endorsed a few candidates in the last election, and he announced that he would be interested in maybe running for president in 2008. That's it.

Is this just a weird ego candidacy? Does Dodd just want to find out how he'd do in a race for the presidency (confidential to Sr. Senator from CT: You'll miss 5% in Iowa. You won't hit double digits in any state aside from CT, in which you won't hit 25% and you definitely won't win.)?

Is there something else going on? Is there something that Dodd thinks he can accomplish?

Billy,

You won't see serious moves in that direction until after the 100 hours legislation is through. Defunding right now would just lead to a big stalemate and it would prevent the Democrats from fulfilling their promise to getting the 100 hours stuff done on schedule.

Probably the 60 votes in the Senate will not be there at the moment to pull Bush's funding. The most likely way that this would happen, if it happened at all, would be through a failure to provide new funding when the current money is running dry. That way they would be accomplishing their goal through refusing to introduce a new spending bill rather than trying to introduce a bill that takes something away. A GOP fillibuster can only prevent the Dems action, not inaction.

However, I happen to think it's far more likely that Bush will use various executive powers to manage to keep the thing going all the way through the end of his second term.

I, for one, am looking forward to rehashing the old "waitress sandwich" stories. If Kennedy won't run, his drinking buddy certainly ought to.

I saw Dodd on Hardball and I was once again impressed with his ability to articulate his views. I still don't think he has much of a shot (it would be different if he had voted against the war), but I do think his knowledge and perspective on international affairs will be welcome in the primary debates.

In general, I think the Democrats will be well-served if the primary debates end up showcasing the depth of foreign policy experience available in their party (such as with Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Clark). I think that would help persuade voters that handing the White House to a Democrat would not be a bad idea, even if the nominee ends up being someone like Obama or Edwards.

I doubt that Dodd will get much support, but the more the merrier.

Mr. Dodd lost my vote last November when he turned his back on Senator Joe Lieberman, who ran as an independent in CT. This lack of integrity and blind loyalty to a political party is what's wrong with American politics today.

And in other news:
"President Bush vowed Thursday to veto Democratic-drafted legislation requiring the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare."

This should read "President Bush made a public vow Thursday to veto the chances that the GOP would retain the WH in 2008."

He can veto what he likes and suffer the consequences but at least he doesn't have to get the seniors really made at him ahead of time. Consistent stupidity.

drindl: that's why I like him; reminds me of McCain in 2000.

Thx everyone for the feedback on Dodd.

Earlier in the day I commented about this being an preview of an attack on Iran that I have thought for some time was, or is, in the planning stage. Let us all hope and pray that I am wrong.

Dodd. I'll admit i have heard of him. I think. The man is so bland that he makes Kerry look good. I'd rather listen to Gore and his lockbox or Clinton and her healthcare pitch than to Dodd and his...heck i don't know what he is known for. He's a five watt bulb standing next to a hundred watt personality (Obama). Didn't we get into trouble last time we elected an unknown, personality challenged president back in 76?

and open forums and honesty, and Mount Vernon highway reststops...

Impeachment goes it wouldnt take much, I believe at some point the President just becomes a common criminal, especially if it twere determined that

we were never in a war,

just an occupation to corral some scarce resources on the sayso of a former alcoholic crack smoking daddys boy

who never got anywhere on his own, and never even had to face a DWI or a SEC fraud investigation

although he should have, just like Neil shoulda had a felony on his record for Savings and Loan fraud/Silverado

Marvin Bush head of security at WTC, how fricking lucky is that....the gawds must be on their side...

but yah know, when treasonous behaviour becomes the norm, the best thing to do is to indict, arrest, try, and if guilty hang some greedy treasonous lying manipulators, and drag their stinkin corpses through the streets of Washington, after that fair trial of course... as fair warning

Come on now. Why don't the dems grow a set and put forth a bill tomorrow to defund the war? This is what you said that you wanted and needed. Put the bill to a vote in both chambers!

Dodd has the resume of a Biden or a Richardson (and almost a Gore) without the negative baggage of a Gore, a Kerry, or a Hillary.

Of all the second tier candidates (Vilsack, Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, Clark), I think Dodd has a very good shot. However, he seems to have no distinguishing characteristics, which will make his run for president a short lived one. However, Dodd's international experience and fluency in Spanish could put Florida and New Mexico in play.

Add to my last post: Not only do you follow orders but anything that is said by you that is considered to be in disagreement with those above you are things that are not done by active duty military if they know whats good for them.

Add to my last post. See what happens to those in the military that speak in any way that could be considered as disagreement with those above them.

I agree with most in that Dodd doesn't have much of chance in 08.My favorite repub, Chuck Hagle, was highly critical of GW, along with some others. Another thing I have not seen is comments about GW's visit today with the troops. This brought back memories of your behind is grass and I'm the lawnmower, and former military will know what I am talking about. Simply put while you are in the military you follow orders or wind up in deep Doodoo.

This is really pretty funny - another very liberal guy who's never held a real job, from one of the dinky NE states, with delusions that spending some one else's money qualifies him to be President.

The list of candidates from both parties looks like the list of available players in an expansion draft: over-the-hill has-beens, untested rookies, decent but flawed players, and just plain losers.

To think that someone from this bunch will probably be president. Oh well, we've survived worse (like we are doing right now).

I again think Dodd will help elevate the primary debates, but don't see him as having much chance to win the nomination.

I agree with the poster who said Ned Lamont has more name recognition. Chris Dodd has never been a leader and then when he had a chance to lead, last summer with the Senate campaign, he wouldn't lead.

Great, another Northeastern Democratic senator running for President. Exciting.

Were Dodd a Republican, he'd look pretty good in this race--not well-known, but solid credentials, and a good compromise between frontrunners with glaring shortcomings. As a Democrat, though, he's lacking the one thing he'll need to have a chance: charisma. There are several solid "second choice" Democrats available. Someone with Romney's profile would be a good bet for the Democrats, while someone with Dodd's would look interesting on the GOPper side.

Thanks Jackson Landers for the interesting comment. It never occurred to me before to see it as a normal part of the senatorial career path to become delusional about the presidency in later years.

I thought these third-tier candidates were just being cynical (e.g. all the "retirement fund" and "run for VP" comments recently). But maybe their motives are clean, it's just that they are out of touch.

Coward - it is called free market and patents. It insures that we have the most advanced system in the world. It is called protecting your ideas from free-riders. If you ever come up with an original idea, you may discover the value of this system.

'WASHINGTON - President Bush promised on Thursday to veto Democratic-drafted legislation requiring the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare.

The House is to debate and vote Friday on the bill, which is one of a handful of priority items for Democrats who gained control of Congress in last fall's elections.'

Did you know vets under the VA medical system pay less than half, often a third of what seniors pay for the same prescriptions under Medicare part D? Because the VA ngotiates. We in the US, becuase we are suckers for privatization, subsidize the entire world's pharmaceutical costs. We pay far more than anyone else, anywhere.

But I guess we like paying more, right? Otherwise, why do we do it?

Coward - your name since you can't find one on your own: what is your plan? hide in the basement?

'As part of a campaign to market the new strategy, Mr. Bush's aides insisted that the plan was largely created by the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

Yet Mr. Bush sounded less than certain of his support for the prime minister, who many in the White House and the military fear may be intending to extend Shiite power over the Sunnis, or could prove incapable of making good on his promises. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people," Mr. Bush declared.

He put it far more bluntly when leaders of Congress visited the White House earlier on Wednesday. "I said to Maliki this has to work or you're out," the president told the Congressional leaders, according to two officials who were in the room. Pressed on why he thought this strategy would succeed where previous efforts had failed, Mr. Bush shot back: "Because it has to."

"Because it has to" work. Of course. Why hadn't we thought of that before? If we will something to happen, because we really truly think it should, then even the most far-fetched [plans] deserve to be taken seriously, right?

Judge, that was an article I have been expecting for some time now, i.e. The selection of the dems Convention city. I think this will be a help to the dems in that the western states are no longer only considered the far west but are coming more and more to the center of the U.S. know as the midwest. These states have for years now been up for grabs and now the trend seems to favor the dems.

'ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports that Sen. Hagel reacted to President Bush's speech with a statement that is arguably more critical than any Democrat's statement. The Nebraska Republican uses some strident words, including "unwinnable swamp" and "wrongheaded" and "bog of Iraq," and "more American troops will make it worse."

Hagel sure doesn't mince words, does he? My. He's the only REAL straight talker in the R bunch.

F&B, I once favored impeachment, but not now. Not unless there is significant republican support for it [depending on The Surge turns out this is always possible].

Rove knows very well that impeachment in the midst of a perceived 'war' would make people very uncomfortable. Unless of course, bushie manages to mess it up even worse.As we saw with Clinton, when an impeachment all so one-sided, it tends to energize the base of the other.

Dodd is either 62 or 63, ex- Peace Corps, son of a former (disgraced) Connecticut Senator, graduate of Providence College in the 60's, fluent in Spanish, (really fluent, or used to be), and generally well thought of (when thought of at all), in Ct. He will get the scrutiny he has earned, once he gets serious and starts to gin up a campaign. I don't believe that he captures the imagination of anyone outside of the Northeast.

Judge C. Crater,

Dodd is 62 although he does look older. I would not be all that surprised if this is his swan song. Sometimes you have these guys who spent a lot of years in the Senate and they've always privately thought that they ought to be President (this is everyone who has ever served in the Senate) and when they're getting near to what they feel is probably about the right time to end their career they run for President just for the hell of it to see what happens. Just so they don't spend the final years of their life wondering 'what if.' History is full of these guys. Senate work horses who never really had a chance at the Oval Office short of becoming majority leader and having 3 people die on the same afternoon.

Unfortunately, we've usually forgotten their names a few months after they inevitably drop out for lack of support or money and that is that.

On the other hand, Ned Lamont has got to be thrilled by all of this. Ironically, Lamont probably has greater national name recognition than Dodd does.

Once Barack and Hillary announce, 10% of the Democratic Senators will be on the campaign trail.

At least this guarantees semi-decent behavior during the primaries because they all have to work together afterward.

If he's really going to run, he should come out in favor of impeachment. What's he got to lose?

Wow! With a staff as great as this I think that Chris Dodd could easily be the Bob Graham of 2008.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

In speech on Iraq escalation, Bush promises more bloodshed, wider war

By the Editorial Board
11 January 2007

President Bush's television address Wednesday night, announcing his dispatch of over 20,000 more American troops to Iraq, signaled that the bloodletting in that country will increase dramatically in the course of 2007, and that the Bush administration is likely to expand the war into Syria, Iran and other targets in the Middle East.

This decision to escalate the US military intervention is a direct repudiation of the results of the 2006 congressional elections, in which millions of American voters expressed their opposition to the war in Iraq by putting an end to Republican control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

The first wave of additional troops has already begun deploying to the region, and a total of six brigades will be ordered all together, five into the city of Baghdad and one into Anbar Province, center of the Sunni insurgency against the US occupation. Bush has also sent an additional aircraft carrier task force--equipped with hundreds of nuclear weapons--into the Persian Gulf.

Bush made several references to the likelihood of greater American and Iraqi casualties as a result of this military escalation. He used truly Orwellian language to present plans for a colossal bloodbath as a program for "reducing the violence in Baghdad."

He blamed past failures of the US occupation forces on too few troops and "too many restrictions on the troops we did have." In other words, a military campaign that has already produced torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib, mass murder at Haditha, and the rape and murder of Iraqi schoolgirls will now "take the gloves off."

Bush outlined plans for greatly increased military action in the Iraqi capital. Iraqi and American military forces will flood the city, "going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents." What that means in practice was shown the day before the speech on Haifa Street in central Baghdad, when Shiite Iraqi soldiers and American troops rampaged through a Sunni neighborhood, killing at least 50 people and leveling entire city blocks.

Once the Sunni-populated areas of the city are subdued, the offensive will turn to the Shiite areas, especially the vast working-class area of eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City. US military forces have been barred from combat operations in that part of the capital, but now, Bush declared, "Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated." The result will be the incineration of entire neighborhoods by US firepower, and a death toll among the Shiites that will exceed that under Saddam Hussein.

Increased violence in Iraq is only the beginning. Bush threatened both Iran and Syria with military action, suggesting that the deteriorating position for the US occupation regime in Iraq could be salvaged by widening the scope of the war.

In language that recalls the declarations of Richard Nixon in ordering the invasions of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War, Bush claimed that Iran and Syria were actively aiding the Iraqi resistance, and he promised retaliation: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/bush-j11.shtml

And this is interesting: Denver to Host '08 Democratic Convention

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100781.html

At the end of the day see how many comments this article generates and you'll have an idea how excited people are about Dodd. There's been zero reaction so far. Dodd the humper? Hes not serious, is he? Maybe in Connecticut the voters forgave him for sexually assaulting a waitress in tandom with Sen. Kennedy. His drunken forays with Kennedy are well known, too. Maybe Teddys trying to get in the White House as Dodd's permanent guest? Dodds candidancy wont fly nationally. I guess he can transfer his campaign funds, when he drops out, to his Senate bank account. I believe he gets to keep the money he doesnt spend. Maybe thats the reason he is doing it. Quite a little retirement scam, this running for president.

Hey, how old is Dodd?

What do the good folks back home in Conn. think of his candidacy?