Forget the 50 state strategy.  

Our national leaders have instead implemented the 50-Presidential-candidates strategy.

Biden has made it official that he will seek the nomination.  

Dodd nominated Lieberman, he is toast.

You know what we need now?

Another Senator running for President.

Dodd, Biden, Hillary, Kerry..here's a fun game: name one unelectable Northeastern Senator who isn't running for President (and Ted Kennedy doesn't count).

SNARK.

This is great news.... For Mark Warner. As Dodd will simply make the conclusion that he should back his former staff member and pass along all his fundraisers and contacts.

Well, one never says never, but this is awful close.

You know, there were a few weeks in the middle of last year when the Democratic party had a potential-challengers-to-Clinton vacuum and this would have made sense.  There were a few potential candidate lists that included him.  But at this point it's obviously ridiculous.  Since Kerry and Biden both seem very likely to seek the nomination, Dodd is pretty firmly squeezed out.  The other two have far more cachet, and really, how many Northeastern Senators can there possibly be in a single primary?

strrbr,

I agree this is good for Warner. I really think Warner can do it. If only he were to come out against the war, or at least have some sort of credible "timeline" for withdrawl. Or maybe have his own "sista soldia" moment against the Washington Dems, he may become unstoppable if he begins getting support among the grassroots.

The party is dying for some leadership. He may provide it.

is running.

Although I didn't know who he was before he announced, so he may not have much traction.

http://www.gravel2008.us/
-C.

Him?

He will be a much better pick than Hillary.  He is left of center.  But he has some conserv views too.  But at least he isn't a straight moderate.

I like Dodd's politics for the most part but he can't be serious about this run.  He has way too much baggage.

1 - Used to booze and womanize with Ted Kennedy in the late 80s and early 90s.  I could care less but all the stories will resurface and detract from his message.

2 - Was co-chair of the DNC during the 1996 Presidential campaign so all the Clinton fundraising issues will resurface.

3 - Lost the race for Sen Minority Leader to Daschle in 1994 when Daschle so he wasn't especially popular with his colleagues.  That might actually be a plus but will be used against him.  

can't anyone just be a good senator?

Of course you know Chris Dodd is the illegitimate son of Josef Stalin.

What?

I read it on the internets, so it MUST be true!

I think this meets the definition of l o l.

Chris Dodd?  Really? REALLY?

My biggest problem with this is that if all the Senate Dems are running for President, they won't be willing to work together from 2006-8.

I just don't see how Dodd fits into this race.  He's certainly an accomplished public servant, I just don't see what he brings to this race that someone else hasn't already brought.  It's gonna be a crowded stage for those primary debates, lol.

http://takebackdefense.blogspot.com

I hope Biden doesn't run as I worry that we don't have anyone good enough to stop Rep. Castle(DE-ALL,R)considering this guy hasn't won with less then 58% since 92.

Otherwise known as the Hack America's Vote Act.

So, lets have a presidential race between Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel of ES&S fame.

It will be a sort of robotics competition

So is Dodd angling for a Cabinet position here?  Which one?

I like Dodd - but he'll never win it.

Our guys look so much better than the other side's. AND, the tide is turning.

Isn't Dodd single? Will that fly?

Dodd went to my old high school, but apart from that there's nothing remarkable about him. If he was nominated, he'd likely lose. He's an ambitious guy, though. I heard that back in 2004, he was thinking about challenging Reid for the minority leader position.

I'd personally like to see the DNC start off the '08 Presidential primary season oh,  about next week!  The right tries to criticize that we don't have a plan?   how about spending the next year and a half with 15 or so leading Democrats (hmmm, what a wonderful combination of words - LEADING DEMOCRATS) talking about just why the Republicans can't be trusted to govern, and why they've got what it takes.  

I see 50 states, each hosting an event every couple of weeks from now until the primaries kick off.  Call 'em the Democratic Leadership Forum or some such.  Use the events to build the local parties and support House and Senate races while hilighting the leadership potential of our presidential candidates.  They want to see the Democratic plan?   Give it to 'em, both barrels!

There's no reason,indeed, no EXCUSE in this climate, to take the cautious, toe in the water approach to running for President that's been the norm.  Hell, make the official mascott of the forums a golden retriever - he can pose with the assembled candidates over the caption, "Any one of them,  better than Bush".  

I doubt Dodd has any chance of even making it past New Hampshire, let alone even finishing in the top 2 or 3.  That being said, I admire his willingness to come out and admit his intentions so early in the process (I give credit to Biden for that too).  It is silly when people we all know want to run dance around the issue and have to speak in platitudes to not reveal too much.

Let's break it down:

Bayh: No shot in hell.
Biden: Douchebag.
Clark: Wishful thinking.
Clinton: Douchebag.
Daschle: Douchebag AND Weakling.
Dodd: Nor'east librul.
Edwards: Let's elect a puppy!
Feingold: On way to being the Dems Pat Buchanan.
Kerry: Douchebag.
Richardson: Possible douchebag.
Warner: Rockstar ugly.
Vilsack: Being governor of Iowa is not a reason to elect a man president.

If it weren't for Warner, Clark and Feingold there wouldn't be a viable person in this pile worth voting for.

Can't we just tell all the douchebags to go home so we can have normal primary instead of a herd of dumb animals braying?

It should be Warner the whole way.  Nothing against Clark and Feingold, but results count, experience counts and not being a Senator counts.

about Biden. He's admitted he's running.

I guess most of them are running because they know somebody is going to emerge as the "anti-Hillary", and each of them hopes to be it.

The progressive wing will rally around Feingold.  Feingold might emerge as the anti-Hillary candidate on that basis alone.

Gravel will make the race more interesting.  He won't win the nomination and he knows it, but I think he is running to put the national referendum idea back on the map.  He may wind up playing the role that Jerry Brown did in 1992 if Feingold drops out early in the season.  Otherwise he may wind up playing the role Eugene McCarthy did in 1992: ignored.

The others may wind up trying to be the anti-Hillary and anti-Feingold candidate, positioning themselves as the electable alternative.  Problem is, most of the names mentioned so far aren't offering much substantively different from Hillary.  I'm putting my money on John Edwards, Wes Clark, and Mark Warner as the three most likely to go somewhere.  The reason is they represent new blood and fresh ideas in the party.  The others are just the same old same old.  The 1980s and 1990s are over and the party can't keep repeating the mistakes of the recent past.  

I predict Dodd, Bayh, Vilsack, Richardson, Daschle, and Biden all drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire, Gravel stays in but goes nowhere, Feingold and Clinton stay in until the end, and one of the other three (Edwards, Warner, or Clark) emerges as a consensus candidate for those who can't stomach Hillary and think Feingold is too far left to be elected.  This will make it a 3 way race at the convention.  One thing is for certain, we can't afford a Hillary Clinton nomination, because if she's the nominee, we lose.