Chris Dodd: This Race Must End

In a new interview with National Journal, Sen. Chris Dodd says that continuing the Democratic primary race for the next several months would be "devastating," and that over the next several weeks, Democratic leaders "have to step up to the plate and say enough is enough."

A few excerpts from his interview:

Look, we've got five more months to go before the Democratic convention at the end of August and, candidly, we cannot go five more months with the kind of daily sniping that's going on and have a candidate emerge in that convention. My hope is that it will be Barack Obama, but if it's Hillary Clinton, she too will suffer, in my view, from this kind of a campaign that I think is undermining the credibility and the quality of the two candidates that we have. We have two very strong candidates. So I'm worried about this going on endlessly and to a large extent, Linda, the media, a lot of these cable networks, are enjoying this. It's what is keeping them alive financially. The fact that this thing is going on forever, back and forth every day, all night -- I don't think it's really helping the candidates or the political institutions.

Asked about the solution to ending the race:

Dodd: Well, the solution is -- look, we've got a contest coming up in Pennsylvania and one in North Carolina and Indiana very quickly afterwards. In my view, the outcome of those three races will determine -- I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it's very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can't be the nominee of the party. I think that's a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are.

But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion. And in the absence of doing that -- and that's not easy, and I realize it's painful. But the alternatives, allowing this sort of to fester over the months of June, and July and August, I think, are irresponsible. I think you have to make a decision, and hopefully the candidates will respect it and people will rally behind a nominee that, I think, emerges from these contests over the next month. That's my suggestion. That's what I would do.

...I mean, if a person wants to stay in the race, stay in the race. But if you have enough people rallying behind what appears to be the likely choice, and I believe the choice is Barack Obama, and I believe that will be the choice over the next several weeks, then I think you have to step up to the plate and say enough is enough. We want this to be over with. We want to get behind this candidate, and we want people to pull together to win that election in November, to build those majorities in the House and the Senate if we can, and then start doing the work on health care and Iraq and all these other issues that demand our attention.

Read the full interview here.

Comments

[dukeitout]

Sen. Dodd: Your comments sound like you are ready to have a nervous breakdown over who to support. It seems you want to support Obama. For god's sake do it! Your reluctance illustrates why many people prefer ex-governor's to ex-senators when selecting a president. When's the last time you made a decision all by your lonesome.

[motamanx]

I would love it if a woman were president. Just not this woman. I don't trust her and votes for the Bush agenda all along the line, simply to position herself as "presidential".

She is neither honest or moral, if she can vote for a war and then attack the man who wants to stop the war. Bill ain't acting right this time around either.

Hillary has one great skill: she can organize republicans against her better than anyone. We don't want them again for a long, long while.

[leftoflennon]

Dodd is right. But Hillary cares about....you guessed it...HILLARY !!

So the cloud around her will put their hands over their ears and scream "LA! LA! LA! I cant hear you"

[MilitaryWifeInNC]

I'll post what I posted elsewhere..Asking a Candidate to drop-out seems Desperate, leave it up to the Voters to decide! The Democratic party is Suppose to be based on DEMOCRACY, that means ALL Voters should have an Equal Say & VOTE on who will be the next Dem. Nominee. I'm in N.Carolina, and I haven't voted yet. This Is an Important Election Year-treat it that way!
She hasRecord of Working for ALL People: She has Worked towards Improving Children's education, she led a Federal effort to helping Children to be Insured- who's parents were unable to afford it for their children themselves, innacted the Safe Families Act, She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed raises & increase in benefits- that Republicans & President Bush were resisting against, she's fought for equal and civil rights, Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore, Wants a complete re-write in No Child Left Behind, wants to work towards investing in alternative energy to Not be so dependent on Foreign Oil, she has the best plans for our Economy & on helping All Americans to be able to Have Healthcare Coverage. What We need in our Next President, Hillary has what it takes.
Don't Make a Vote you might later regret! Unlike the alternative candidates she isn't full of empty promises and Won't be a Part 3 of the Bush Years but Who's Actions DO speak louder than words.

[TheOtherMaven]

Yeah...she'll take one baby step back toward the center from the center-right. Obama will take two baby steps. (McCain will take a giant leap farther to the right, which is why we don't want HIM.)

[US55588144]

Screw you Chris Dodd, Let things play out. I know who Hillary is, I have no idea who Obama is, to me he's an empty suit. Let the people decide, if it goes to the Super delegates, so be it. But lets include Florida and Michigan first!

[jp1949]

For US55588144, great post. How about Obama answers why he has dual citizenship, Kenya and the USA. Someone running for president should hold only one citizenship, the USA. Also where are his STATE senate records. I bet we could find out a lot about him fast.

[bucagogo]

"Destroying the Democratic Party, destroying the Democratic Party..." What's so great about it? Why can't we just vote for the best candidate, and we be the ones who decide how long the process lasts? I don't have a bowling jacket that identifies me as one of the Pink Ladies or a Democrat. The democratic party? that gave us Dukakis, Mondale, the wooden boy named Kerry. Jimmy Carter had a heart as big as all outdoors but not a politician. Clinton is the only successful, highly successful dem we can claim. Teddy,well that doesn't count when you leave a woman to drown. So the clintons ARE our party and the only success we've had. So if they want to form the "Clinton" party, a lot would jump ship for a country with a clear course.

[J E Mugford]

The reason this is important is quite simple. The forces of evil (a combine of the military-industrial complex and other like-minded corporate entities) basically bought the republican party under Reagan. In the following years the managed to coalesce even greater anti-progressive power by hoodwinking the evangelical movement. Of course they came up with their own versions of Darth Vader and the evil witch in the forms of Dick Cheney and Carl Rove. This is a highly motivated group that is well organized and is not interested in your well-being or mine at all. ...... .
The only way to fight against a well organized attack on our civil liberties, environment, freedom and economic health is to be just as organized, just as motivated and equally committed to the progressive movement. That means working with the only power base that is interested in progressive causes, the Democrats. We need to work for the health and energy of the party so it can work for us, without it we are doomed.

[WLA]

Very good post. The only point that I would argue is that the wholesale buyout by the MIC began immediatley after, if not during, WW2. And Prescott Bush was there, playing both sides of that game.

[bucagogo]

wow, and you think the democratic party can stand up to E.V.I.L Empire? What are you smokin'? Come out into the light. if this exists, the people that brought you Howard Dean and Dukakis are definitely not mighty gate keepers of social programs with the lasers to destroy the petty rifles of Cheney (he's such a good shot). But the Clinton party, well, you all are always saying what a "mean machine" it is. So who better to destroy the republicans? The two with definite plans or a group of old senators, the most influential being the one who couldn't keep his date afloat. hmmmm

[WLA]

In my fantasy world, unlike yours, the new viable third party is running Kucinich.

[bucagogo]

yeah...now there's a dynasty lol

[brooklyncitizen]

Clinton looks good by comparison: his administration is bookended by two disastrous Republican adminsitrations : Reagan's and Bush senior. It is a bit revisonist to keep lauding Clinton as such a great POTUS...he was just better than these two guys.

[WLA]

Check your bookends.

[bucagogo]

your bookends were almost correct. Clinton did have to undo Reagonomics that caused the bottom to fall out of the real estate market around '87 and financial firms to fold or downsize ( I was living in NYC then working for Shearson Lehman) The first Bush couldn't fix it so Clinton was called to apply the principal of buy only what you can pay for, and pay only it's REAL worth. With second bookend about done, we are left with the entrails of the housing market and the ashes of Bear Stearns. Looks like we need another Clinton... and his wife too! Two for one.

[AUNTIEDAWN415]

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]
Try this lie on for size lol

[Mchris1947]

Apparently you get your news from direct mail too. The University of Chicago issued a statement clarifying that Senior Lecturer is equivalent to Professor at their institution.

So much for your lol.

Besides, if that's all it takes to disqualify Obama, how do you reconcile Hillary phony war stories. Talk about lies, that turned out to be quite a whopper... LOL

[lizabethj2]

This is, at it's core, a lie. Here is the quotation from the Sun Times - which clearly states that Obama could've been full-time - whenever he wanted. Maybe, just maybe, he had bigger things in mind. I'm so thankful that he didn't decide to teach full-time, but instead placed himself between us and the lying Clintons.

"Some Obama critics say because he had the title of "senior lecturer" he should not call himself "professor". Univ. of Chicago professors said Obama - who practiced civil rights law for a time and stopped teaching in 2003 - could've joined their ranks whenever he wanted."

A senior lecturer teaches classes and gives finals just like professors - except professors are full-time. By the way, that same article states that he was the most popular professor, with students lining up for his classes.

Let's see now, who is the candidate that flunked the D.C. bar exam?? Oh yeah, Clinton.

[Mommiablo]

Chris Dodd, Senator Leahy, Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, et alia:

Leave us be. Leave us Democrats be. This is our process of matriculation through complex issues of policy and personality. I am older so I actually remember decisions made at the convention. So what? At the end, one or the other will concede votes to the nominee, and we will prevail over the Republications.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much - what is the Dem leadership afraid of, anyway? Is there something lurking in the wings (other, than of course, the deals that have been made for the endorsements)? Is there something that justifies a premature call for Hillary to get out? Lock in Obama early, and then he's our nominee no matter what comes out later?

"If Hillary steals Barack's vote" - wait, some of us believe that Barack in his cigarette trousers and Rat Pack ambiance has waltzed in and stolen Hlillary's vote, without proving his bona fides.

I love the latest "If Rev Wright hadn't resigned, I would have left the church," said Barack. After twenty years, I would have finally taken the right decision.

Stay and fight Hillary.
Regards

[Mchris1947]

How can someone "steal Hillary's vote". The problem with so many Clinton supporters is that they live in a world where people have to "wait their turn" in order to lead. Obama, has a message and so does Hillary, but a vote for Obama is by no means a "theft", as you imply.

"Bona Fides", huh? Claiming vast foreign policy experience that boils down to a series of world-wide photo-ops and USO tours, hardly qualifies for your use of archaic latin phrasing.

It's also funny that King/Queen Clinton assume some seedy back room deal is the only reason for a supper delegate to back Obama. These are the same people threatening the Party that they have their powerful financial backers withhold donations if superdelegates don't line up behind Clinton, or remain silent. Talk about back room deals: either shut up or we'll shut-off your money. I guess that's her version of free democracy. I guess you're free to choose, but only if you choose her.

[useyourbrain]

Obama has written 3 autobiographies by the time he's 45 -- which means he is an expert on himself. He came into the Senate to run for President and has done nothing while there -- nothing. Nothing. He is a Corporatist empty-suit created by ad men and, ironically, old establishment Senators (Daschle, etc.) with campaign advisors from Bill Clintons campaigns and administration -- so much for change.

[EndAllWars]

Hillary has opted for Sampson Option: that of destroying Oh Bama at the expense of destroying herself, and the Democratic party is too helpless to stop it.

It was only 10 years ago that this Bill character was impeached. Nobody thought we'd ever see him again after 2000. The damage that he did to his party was so great that the public opinion swang to the other side and elected a dimwit. That we have a GWB in the WH busily destroying the well-being of our country is through the scandals of the Clintons. Amazingly, they are back at it again, all these years later, busily destroying their own party again. What people won't do to attain power.

[starrianna]

Honey, put the crack pipe down!

[useyourbrain]

Bill Clinton, as the most recent ex-president is the defacto head of the party. He left office with the highest ratings of any president, I think. He did not destroy the party, the dems do a job of that on themselves. It's the Obamatons like you that are destroying the party by trying to tear down Hillary.
Build up BO, he needs it.

[garnetwood]

Gee with attitudes like this is it any wonder why the Repubicans kick Dem ass all the time? Things are getting tough, time to quit. Is it any wonder that the Clintons have been the only Dems in recent history to kick GOP ass. Their supporters are the same way. There is no quit in them. That is why the Clintons will always come back. Even if Obama wins this nomination, he will get killed in the general what with the Wright scandal and the disenfranching of the voters in Michigan and Florida and then it will be Hillary in 2012 and she will win. Obama can then return to Chicago and return to being the nobody he was before he entered this race and lose all influence in the party the same as most of his supporters and other Dem losers ie Kerry,Kennedy,Dashile, Hart and now Richardson

[WLA]

Step away from the TV for a second. Obama has nothing to do with "disenfranchising" FL and MI. The party agreed to it BEFORE the votes. Now that Hill thinks it can help her, the rules change. The "disenfranchised" of MI didn't even have Obama or Edwards on the ballot.

No more changing rules for Clintons. It's over. Dodd is right.

[Kirby]

And there's a chance she'll sue in both state courts for redress, and she will make a greater mess for the party to address.

This woman is out of hand with her egocentric continued push for the nomination. Be sure she and Bill will continue this to the bitter end, and we'll have another unexpected "first": the oldest president in the history of the U. S. We are cujrrently with another first: the dummest president in the history of the U. S.

The real people behind this mess are those who pulled McCain out of oblion that he was in via Lieberman. McCain has given and pledged his fealty to Israel, and come hades or high water They're stacking the cards for McCain. We know now after his trip to Israel that he's pledged fujollsupport to an enlarged Israel, and at least a hundred years of warfare to ensure the status quo for Israeli maneuvers in the "eretz" direction.

Let the masses of asses assess the situation and see what we're up against.

We're being used by the elders at this point who are calculating what they can get by with.......

[useyourbrain]

I am a member of the Dem party and I didn't vote to deprive FL and MI of their votes -- the DNC officials, in licking the Iowa asshole, decided to keep Iowa as an important start to the nominating process -- talk about change being needed. Get rid of all caucuses and have four regional super-tuesday primaries. Less campaigning, and more involvement and importance of votes in all the country.

[Trinidad707]

It would seem Chris Dodd and Obama camp want Hillary to quit so they can sew up the nomination using excuses about ruining the party.....more like D for dis-enfranchising any other state voters and Florida and Michigan..........or maybe afterall it is R R is for REZKO the indicted one Rezko, 52, is accused of shaking down companies seeking state pension business for millions of dollars in kickbacks and campaign contributions. OBAMA was the buiggest recipient of campaign money perhaps it is the fact that They’re getting closer to having a jury in the corruption trial of political fund-raiser and businessman Tony Rezko.....so they figure they better hurry up before Rezko says something damaging about Obama

[uglybetty]

Trinidad...I certainly agree with you . The big hurry to try and kick Hillary out is Not because she can't win , but to Crown Obama as nominee before any more of his Dirt becomes known !!
We all know thats the only reason for the Hurry up !!
After all it is supposed to be a contest Not a Give away !!

[WLA]

"After all it is supposed to be a contest Not a Give away !!"

===

You could have fooled me. I thought she was "inevitable" a few months back.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

I guess you missed this story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/16/chicago-tribune-obama-sa_n_91742.html
And Rezko mostly contributed to the Illinois Governor - Blagojevich.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/330

[conscioushope]

To "BeyondGoodAnd Evil"~

This has nothing to do with anything important or relevant,
but I love your "moniker".

[WLA]

Bullshit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/clinton-got-money-from-re_n_90605.html
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/the-clinton-rezko-problem.php
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/hillary-clinton-tony-rezko-dnc-contribution.php
http://aunk.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/08/1352682-hillary-clinton-rezkoreagan-hypocrisy-exposed

[speakingtruth2power]

Reading the comments only proves that this has to end!

Adults have to tell the kids to stop their bickering NOW!!!

Get over it Clintonites, America doesn't relish < BCBCB!

The sooner we start with deBushification, all the better!!

[shep65]

It is time for Hillary to step down. The future of this country and the democratic party is at stake. Winning back the presidency by the democratic party is probably the most important thing that has happened to this country in my lifetime. The fate of the planet, our children, and our nation rests on making sure that the republican disaster does not continue.
As a lifelong democrat I have seen the party implode time after time. If it happens this time it will probably be the last.

[Hotshortie]

Clinton will never quit. She's a spoiled brat. 2/3's of American's hate her. But she will take the party down the tubes.

My analogy of Clinton:

She's a the person who's still eating the horsdeorves and drinking your wine long after everyone else has left and gone home. She's the party pooper!!!!

Remember what the Clintons gave America last time they were in office!!
Lost the Senate & congress
Monica Lewinsky
Shoved Nafta down our throats
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Oh and Mrs. Clinton went to Bosnia and landed in sniper fire!
I could go ...

[bish66]

You call her a brat, I call her a fighter,

She is running for office, not Bill. Same name, different people, even though they are married. It is confusing, I know. Don't worry, many people make the same stupid mistake.

She is runing for office and she was not a part of the government during the 1990s.

So, she did not lose Senate and Congress.
So, she did not have sex with Monica (as far as I know)
So, she did not shove NAFTA down our throats, because she was not a part of the executive branch back then. She may have spoken favorably on NAFTA, maybe even as senator, but she is no majority of one => she can't shove down anything.
Don't ask, don't tell was Bill and he admitted that it was a mistake.
Bosnian sniper fire, yes, that was a colorful exaggeration. You may even call it a lie, if you are in a bad mood.

[WLA]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. That was some heavy sh^t in Bosnia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

[lexilulu]

So I'm assuming her 35 years of experience don't include when "she wasn't part of the government in the 1990's"

[RedWhiteandBrooklyn]

"She is running for office and she was not a part of the government during the 1990s."

Then why does she keep on insisting that, behind the scenes, she WAS a part of the government, writing bills, drafting policy papers and bringing peace to Bosnia & Northern Ireland, among other claims?

Congenital liar, perhaps?

[lolacon]

'She is runing for office and she was not a part of the government during the 1990s.'

Then why is she using this period as part of her vast experience? You can't have it both ways you know.

[PinkoAttic]

He's right of course. But if people like himself and Leahy believe that this thing must end asap, the best way to achieve that is to get on the phone to the remaining 380 or so superdelegates and convince half of them to step forth now for Obama (or for Clinton if they are so disposed) in order to spare any more of this. Personally, I think June is an eternity away in terms of damage (perhaps irreparable) yet to be done.