A New Netroots Presidential Candidate?

Chris Dodd broke into the first tier of candidates in an influential survey of Democratic activists on Monday, leaping to second place in the monthly "straw poll" conducted by DailyKos, the top liberal blog. John Edwards led the pack, as he has all year, but Dodd's bounce to 21 percent has the netroots buzzing. While Dodd registered no support in the same poll in August, his aides say primary voters are just tuning in now, and they like what they're hearing.

"Chris Dodd's work to stop the illegal wiretapping bill and...end the war with a firm enforceable [deadline] is resonating with Americans who feel a sense of frustration that Congress hasn't followed through on its mandate to change the direction of the country," campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan told The Nation, in response to the DailyKos poll.

Last week, Dodd put a hold on President Bush's surveillance bill, which might allow more spying on Americans and immunize potentially criminal surveillance by telecommunications companies, saying the move was required by his oath to uphold the Constitution. By bucking the "Rage and Cave" Democratic leadership -- and building on his fights to restore habeas corpus, oppose the Iraq supplemental and withdraw troops by 2013 -- Dodd sparked the first serious netroots discussions of his candidacy.

Dodd also raised $200,000 in the 36 hours after the hold announcement, his YouTube viewers jumped 4.6% (double his rivals' growth rate), and his website traffic spiked. That traffic is likely to jump again today, as the organization Act For Change is emailing its 529,000 members with a call to "support Dodd's stand against amnesty for Bush's telco cronies."

All the action has impressed experts. "There is definitely a Dodd boomlet happening among the netroots," concluded Micah Sifry, cofounder of TechPresident. Blogger and poll junkie Chris Bowers added yesterday, "While it was expected that his gains from last month would continue, Chris Dodd has surprised even me by shooting all the way to second place in the Dailykos straw poll."

Dodd has also benefited from boosts by the most influential blogger in politics today, DailyKos founder and Meet The Press guest Markos Moulitsas. Last month, Moulitsas told readers Dodd "outshone the other candidates" and earned his vote -- though he would look elsewhere unless Dodd was competitive in January. Yesterday, Moulitsas pointed to the straw poll as a reward for Dodd's leadership in "protecting our Constitution."

Endorsements don't cut ice in the blogosphere, of course, so those posts probably don't convert many readers. But they do legitimize Dodd as a viable candidate -- a hurdle he's had trouble surmounting. When a politico like Moulitsas validates an underdog candidate, his readers are more likely to take a second look.

And Dodd is well positioned to benefit from the online attention. He's already been leading on the netroots' three major priorities: Iraq, the Constitution and Proud Aggressive Politics. As an agenda, that boils down to: End the war, Defend the Constitution and instead of apologizing for your beliefs, Fight like hell when opponents attack you or the country. Alert readers will note these are key items for plenty of Democratic voters offline.

Internet buzz alone is unlikely to propel Dodd into the first tier, of course. But I think his quick rise among Democrats online offers two reminders. First, campaigns are very fluid, from blog straw polls to the Iowa Caucus. Second, the best approach to this race is to just seriously appraise all the candidates and issues. Too many people have accepted the conventional wisdom that there are "only three" viable Democratic candidates -- primarily because they get the most media attention and donations. Never mind that no votes have been cast. Never mind that each of the "top three" have less experience in national elective office than each of the next four (Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich). And never mind that on some fundamental issues, such as defending our Constitution during an endless global war, you need to look into the "second tier" to find the strongest leadership.

Comments

[fariqabdulaziz]

I appreciate his standing up a little against Bush and Clinton in their push for war with Iran. I also appreciate that he seems to consider the Constitution a worthwhile thing. But he's still not top tier when it comes to speaking Truth to Power - the gold standard is Mike Gravel.

[Pdubya]

I commend Senator Dodd's efforts! That said, he should reach out to the few republicans and fellow democrats that have a spine and get this bill passed:

HR BILL 3835 The American Freedom Agenda Act, introduced by Dr. Ron Paul...1st tier candidate if you examine the numbers not reported on MSM.

Good luck in the race, Senator...I could live with your positions!

[KRANKY]

Dodd has been a solid senator on most issues, but he is only recently audible against the fiasco in Iraq. It is welcome, if late.
As for vaulting into the top tier in the "netroots", that is questionable.
I am as active an activist that I know of.
The threshold between "netroot" and "grassroot" is when one actually gets out and does something.
The activists that I know fall into the following estimated percentages:
Kucinich....50%
Edwards.....25%
Obama.......15%
Clinton......5%
Richardson...5%
This is a snapshot at this time. It may only apply in my area. There are obviously pockets of support for all announced candidates.

Dodd's newfound committment to the Costitution is laudable. I only wish that he had that same committment in October of 2002.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Chris Dodd for Senate Majority Leader!

[DrenchedOtter]

One more point is that both Clinton and Obama are Senators, just like Dodd. They could have done what Dodd did, but they didn't. Biden, to his credit, has said he will support Dodd.

Dodd is actually doing something, he is acting like, well, an executive. Go Dodd!

[MinuteMan]

What we need are fewer "formula" Senators/Candidates and more with vision and and the moral courage to stand up for their principles. That is why the current presidential "front runners" leave me cold---the Democratic Congressional "Leadership", too.

Bill Clinton was a lot like Bush-Lite: carefully tuned rhetoric to cover themselves while carrying out rather different policies. An HRC presidency will be more of the same---unless you expect Bill to just sit by and bake cookies.

Obama and Edwards seem to have high-minded rhetoric but I don't get the feeling that there is a whole lot of substance behind it.

If Gore won't do his duty, maybe Dodd could be our best hope. There's a straw poll over at Democracy for America (http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll); you have the rare opportunity to write in a candidate so I could finally vote for Gore rather than simply "other".

[CSDofNM]

All we need is for one senator to stand up.

I've been saying it for months.

Well, one did. He has my support for as long as he will fight for us - hopefully in his second term.

[Mike__M]

Good for Dodd! He's threatened to take a page out of Mike Gravel's book and filibuster against the the thug-in-chief's anti-constitutional wishlist.
Just bear in mind, Senator, that, as Gravel says, you'll make new enemies in both parties, you'll be labeled a crazy kook, a loose cannon, you'll be excluded from further debates. I will vote for someone like that.

Mr.Melber, you refer to eveyone else's experience; why are you afraid to mention Gravel's actual accomplishments? There are not only three in the race; there are not only seven, either. Just because Kos has joined the neo-establishment in brushing off Gravel, we don't all have to put his blinders on.

[Nonamnesiac]

With the 3 frontrunners refusing to commit to getting out of Iraq by 2013 (2013??????????) and one of them voting for the Kyl-Lieberman invade Iran resolution and two others willing to bomb Pakistan, if there is any hope for progressives in the next election it comes from the "second tier" of candidates.

I am not convinced of the experience arguments regarding Dodd (or Biden for that matter) because they voted to give Bush the right to invade Iraq, ignoring the Constitution and the overwhelming intelligence at the time that Saddam had no WMDs and was an enemy of al Qaeda. That vote means they have an incredibly limited world view and lack the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff as a result of that world view. It also demonstrates that Dodd has a very low standard when it comes to sending my family (and others like mine) off to war. I also noticed that Dodd was not one of the three Senators who voted against Bush's war budget (buried in the defense authorization bill) in October or in April. This vote shows Dodd is still tied into his limited world view and group-think Democrats.

Having said that, I'm happy he's putting a hold on Trample on the Constitution Act 3 (FISA Reform with retroactive immunity for telecoms) and may filibuster. Let's see if he caves in as soon as he is pressured. Because of his votes on the defense bills, I don't believe his newly found anti-war stance, but will continue to look.

It seems there are only 3 clear Democratic anti-war candidates -- Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel. And as the Republicans are going to run in 2008 on a secret plan to get the troops out of Iraq by 2013, they will probably win in 2008.

Dodd's experience in group-think of the Senate Democrats may be too strong for him to overcome.

[DrenchedOtter]

You're right that Dodd has been around since the war started and has a number of pro-war votes. Personally, I'm willing to follow what people say now, if I think it's sincere, rather than holding them to their votes of 5 years ago.

Dodd voted AGAINST Kyl-Lieberman, and he said in the debate that he WILL get us out of Iraq by 2013:

http://action.chrisdodd.com/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=807

[Nonamnesiac]

I agree that he's worth watching. I'm not ready to support him yet. He did vote for the war budgets. And the most recent one was not five years ago, but three weeks ago. The limited world view of group-think Democrats is one of the major problems (aside from the fact most are bought), and I think he may remain susceptible to group-think. I worry about that with him. He did vote against the condemnation of MoveOn's righeous, truthful, accurate ad regarding General BetrayUs.

[SimplyBilly]

Hopefully the other candidates will learn that courage in the face of Bush Cheney is rewarded by the American people, and that compliant subservience is not. Just ask John McCain. If Collin Powell had stood up to Bush Cheney and really tried to stop the war, i.e. resigning, he would be the republican frontrunner and not Giuliani the cross-dresser.

[LizM]

Let's at least be clear about one thing - Senator Dodd does not have a strategy to end the war. He has a tactic to get US troops out of Iraq with a firm deadline but that doesn't touch the surface of what is needed to end the war or prevent a regional conflagration.

There remains only one candidate, of either party, who has the required skill set, the comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the issue, and the bold and courageous leadership necessary to end the war responsibly without leaving a failed state behind or bringing dishonor to the promise of America.

Is the "netroots" crowd capable of wrapping their collective mind around that concept and supporting Senator Biden's Iraq strategy and his passionate struggle to restore US credibility in the world and America"s global and moral leadership role, all while radically changing the perilous course of the ship of state at home?

[whimsicalpig]

I have also been a Biden supporter all along, but it was Dodd that took the first step. I am glad that Biden has agreed to support him, but Biden needs to lead, not follow. I will go with Dodd until I see better leadership against the tyranny at home coming from the Biden camp.

[aSecondAmerican]

Sure - Chris Dodd's a nice guy. Unless you had a medical emergency, a job loss, or some other misfortune, and needed the protection of a bankruptcy to help you start over. Then you found out that you're headed for a future even Dickens would find bleak. Dodd's unseemly two backed beast relationship with the credit card companies and predatory lenders should make him a non-starter as an internet darling.

He's an attractive candidate otherwise - but some things are hard to forgive.

[meokie]

I want to think of the net community as a microcosm of global intellect, but, I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Unless the netroots can actually put boots on the ground to talk to and persuade a hundred or so voters we can expect no change. Cris Dodd is spunky that's for sure. I don't know enough about his work to despise him fairly, however, it's important to avoid even the appearance of "business-as-usual" that the rest of the world now expects of us. Therefore, I don't think Sen. Dodd is the right guy. Now if he would renounce the Party and run as a 3rd party candidate I could support him.

[Austintatious]

Indeed, Dodd may be a good candidate for a third party effort, perhaps on a Unity 08 ticket. His proposal to get American combat forces out of Iraq as soon as reasonably possible appears to be the best of what are only poor alternatives - best for the U.S., Iraq, and the rest of the world.

Dodd appears to be evolving into that rare Democratic candidate for President with the courage to speak the truth about the Iraq debacle and our government's insane foreign policy. The fact that he (and Biden, to his credit) voted against the Kyl-Lieberman resolution shows that he has the courage to stand up to the Israel lobby and should not be minimized.

On the other hand, Mr. Biden's suggestion that the U.S. must continue its hostile occupation of Iraq to prevent "leaving a failed state behind" or to prevent dishonor from visiting America are two of the neocons' "justifications" for continuing the hostilities. The Iraq situation is already a failed state and a disaster of immense proportion, for all involved. The departure of American troops will likely decrease - not increase - the totality of the violence.

Biden's idea of a tri-part state under one national government may be a good one, in the abstract, but the likelihood of it coming to fruition is virtually nil. Meanwhile, the hostilities would continue and the possibility of other nations ( Iran, for example) being involved is very real.

His suggestion that dishonor may come to the U.S., if it extracts its troops, comes a bit late. Dishonor is already here. It came with this unnecessary, immoral and illegal war. It came when the world found out, one by one, that our neocon government's "justifications" for war were lies. It came with the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Between Dodd and Biden, Dodd is the better choice. Abandon the Democratic Party, Chris Dodd, as it has abandoned the American people, and you may have a real chance of getting to the White House. Stay with it, and you won't.

[LizM]

Austintatious,

Actually, Senator Biden does NOT suggest or believe that the US - to use your phrase - "must continue its hostile occupation of Iraq". On the contrary, Senator Biden"s Iraq strategy is the only responsible way to withdraw US forces from Iraq that offers the hope of facilitating the achievement by the Iraqis of a sustainable political settlement.

I hope you are aware of how tirelessly Senator Biden has been working over the years in the Senate to put that body on record as being OPPOSED both to permanent US military bases in Iraq and to US control over Iraq's natural resources.

The Biden strategy is not only a good one, but it is the only workable option, the Iraqi leaders and most of the people are on board with it, and it is becoming a de facto reality on the ground, as we write!

And, the suggestion regarding dishonor was mine - so please, we need to be careful about what we attribute to Senator Biden. He speaks very capably for himself and one reason for much of the confusion out there about what his strategy is all about is that so many people do not listen carefully to what he has been saying and, instead, rely on the media, bloggers, or commenters like us.

I would encourage you, and others here, to visit www.joebiden.com and check out what the real deal is on Senator Biden"s Iraq strategy - there are more that a few great resources there that I am sure will not disappoint you! I hope that you would even consider taking part in the Biden Blog and debate with us the merits of the various candidates" proposals for ending the war in Iraq.

Looking forward to a great discussion,
Elizabeth Miller