If you've got a comment for me, I'll be around at times throughout the day...when I'm not eating.

I concur.  Dodd picks his fights wisely.  He has seen the big issues that weigh heavily on the minds of progressives, and he has taken principled stances on those issues.  Of all the horrors that the Bush administration has visited on this nation, the worst is the fundamental undermining of the system of laws and checks and balances that protect us from tyranny.  Dodd recognizes this and has done something about it.

I know there has been much talk about how experience may not be proof positive that a candidate for the presidency will perform well and wisely in office, but think back to the Clinton years and the time lost in fumbling the ball over issues like gays in the military.  It took Bill Clinton years to get his footing, and he was a consummate politician.  In the meantime, he lost his majority in the Congress.  We can't afford that setback again.

Dodd has experience; he has a good voting record; he has shown good judgment and political savviness.  He is getting the recognition of other progressive political pundits, like Kos.  He is my candidate, too.  I hope he is able to catch up with the so-called "first-tier."  He deserves it, and so do we.

That is the most lukewarm endorsement I've ever read. The best you can say is that you feel "comfortable" endorsing a candidate who has no chance because of three relatively minor Senate manoeuvres, none of which were successful?

I find it interesting that in your original endorsement, you note approving that "it seems he is unconcerned with the outcome of the fights." That's the kind of leadership we need in the White House -- somebody who can't or doesn't care to win enough support for their ideas to get them enacted? To me, that's not leadership, that's bullheadedness. I would think after living for the past seven years under the rule of the poster boy of bullheadedness, you would be ready for something else.

I would suggest that you take another look at Obama (though don't speak for the campaign). Here's the substance of your original critique of  him:

"Obama failed to attack Hillary Clinton . . . He failed to control the media narrative around his campaign . . . He tried to play her game, running a non-campaign without substance, holding back policy initiatives and stringing supporters along, instead of running with a concrete message of hope and change."

I would take issue with each of those assertions. He has attacked Hillary Clinton, he has controlled his media narrative to the extent that he could be expected given that he doesn't have nearly the kind of influence there that Hillary does, and if he's done anything else, he's has absolutely run with a concrete message of hope and change.

I think the differences you cite vis-a-vis Obama go only to tactics and strategy, and particularly timing. In my opinion, it's only right that he introduce himself to the electorate as much as possible Obama before becoming known only in reference to the differences between him and Hillary. Policy proposals are always rolled out according to a schedule, otherwise there'd be no substantive news about a candidate throughout the campaign and the opposition would have unlimited time to pick apart the candidate's ideas.

But I would never use differences in campaign tactics and strategy, especially something as subjective as timing, to decide whether or not I would support a candidate. The fact is, it doesn't matter what any of these candidates say or do, on Jan. 20, 2009, they will be exact same human being that they were on Jan. 20, 2007. That's why to me, it's about biography (who they are), record (what they've done) and ability to bring together a winning coalition that does not rely on lobbyists, corporations and special interest groups (who's behind them). To my mind, that describes Barack Obama to a "T".

i like dodd too... but your third reason to support him:

He was the first to pledge to oppose Michael Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General on the grounds that no Attorney General can put the executive branch above the law.

doesn't work for me - since dood didn't even vote against him, let alone oppose the the nomination with any kind of action.

now, there may be good reasons for this (i can even think of some)... but the fact is that dodd said he would oppose the nomination and then didn't.

Dodd's evident strengths as a legislator, campaigner and leader on many issues make me convinced the primary process is ridiculous. There's only one reason he's not considered a top-tier campaign and its money.

The other problem with our process is that the idiocy of general election campaigns really punishes candidates who have held office for a long period of time, especially if they've held leadership posts. Too long a paper trail to pick apart.

The primary drawback, it seems to me, of a Dodd nomination for the Democratic party would be electability in the south and in rural areas.

from the last debate:

BLITZER: What is more important, human rights or national security?

DODD: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously.

sounds to me like he's willing to sell out the constitution at "a time of war."

i keep hearing from his supporters that dodd is dedicated to protecting the constitution, that's he's made that a theme in his campaign.  this answer in the debate doesn't match the rhetoric.

from the last debate:

BLITZER: What is more important, human rights or national security?

DODD: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously.

sounds to me like he's willing to sell out the constitution at "a time of war."

i keep hearing from his supporters that dodd is dedicated to protecting the constitution, that's he's made that a theme in his campaign.  this answer in the debate doesn't match the rhetoric.

i was led to this issue by this article:

Bill Richardson Was Right: Human Rights Trumps National Security

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 11374.php

I'm glad you like Dodd, but none of the things you cite are evidence of legislative successes, just good intentions.  Meaning well isn't enough.

I remember meeting Chris Dodd like, a million years ago (1996, to be precise) when I was working on a campaign for a statewide office holder and found him to be one of the most polite and friendly people, and pretty forthright in this meeting thing we were doing with local leaders...dunno if he'll win or not but I give him credit for passing laws and whatnot while in the senate instead of just TALKING TALKING about "leadership" or talking about how they're experienced just because they were married to power (but were not in power).