Obama: "I can't say it any clearer: I will be helping Chris Dodd because he deserves the help."

[jefferson_dem]

I'm not so sure about this move...but it is a strong display of loyalty if nothing else.

Dodd Gets Key Ally

In an interview with the Boston Globe, President Obama made clear he'll be backing Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) in his increasingly tough re-election fight next year.

Said Obama: "I can't say it any clearer: I will be helping Chris Dodd because he deserves the help. Chris is going through a rough patch. He just has an extraordinary record of accomplishment, and I think the people in Connecticut will come to recognize that... He always has his constituencies at heart, and he's somebody I'm going to be relying on and working very closely with to shepherd through the types of regulatory reforms we need."

Meanwhile, Dodd appeared on the Imus in the Morning radio show today which has always played well in Connecticut politics.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/04/17/dodd_gets_key_ally.html

[Richardo]

1. Dodd was actually one of my primary picks ahead of Obama.

I'm happy Obama won, but I think highly of Dodd as well, apparent financial entanglements notwithstanding.

[Arkana]

2. Hey look, a Democratic President who stands behind other Democrats.

Shock. Awe. Stupefaction.

Yawn.

Of course Obama will help Dodd--I think Dodd's an OK guy at heart, even if he is banking's bitch.

[redqueen]

14. No kidding...

I'm surprised he had to clarify it for anyone.

[DeepBlueC]

3. Good

Dodd got sandbagged on the AIG issue.

[depakid]

4. He may have gotten sandbagged by that one- but he's one of the Democrats who's at fault

for the insane financial deregulation of the past 15 years.

I'd love to see Lamont knock him off....

[karynnj]

7. You bought the Republican spin

1) On Freddie and Fannie, Dodd and the other Banking Committee Democrats supported the bipartisan bill to regulate the FMs that passed the House. The Republicans ignore that bill, which they defeated in committee, speaking only of Hagel's bill that passed the committee but which they never took to floor vote because it didn't not have the support of a significant number of Republicans. If they really wanted regulation - they too could have supported the bipartisan bill. (In addition, the FMs only bought 17% of the mortgages that had failed by last September - their private counterparts, that would have gained market share had the Hagel bill passed, were worse.

2) Dodd was one of the co-sponsors of a Sarbanes bill introduced in 2000, 2002, and 2003 - three successive Congresses to regulate predatory lending itself. (In 2000, the only sponsors were Sarbanes, Kerry, Dodd, Durbin, and Schumer) There was no Republican support.

[depakid]

11. I lived through the 90's and my memory about Dodd is intact

December 22, 1995

The Senate tonight put off until Friday a vote on whether to hand President Clinton the first veto override of his Presidency, as both sides in the legislative fight to rewrite the nation's security laws remained unsure of the depth of their support.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, assailed President Clinton for his Tuesday night veto of legislation that would limit fraud suits brought in the name of stockholders. Mr. Dodd, who spent much of Monday evening trying without success to persuade Mr. Clinton to sign the bill, called Mr. Clinton's objections minor. Far worse, he said, the President had not raised his objections during the many months of negotiations over the issue.

Mr. Dodd's public comments mirrored the private irritation that many Democratic senators felt today over Mr. Clinton's 11th-hour veto. The Senate will vote on Friday whether to enact the bill into law over Mr. Clinton's veto.

The House voted on Wednesday to override the Presidential veto by 319 to 100, more than the needed two-thirds majority as no Democrat defected despite Mr. Clinton's plea to draft a modified measure. The vote is expected to be much closer in the Senate, where Mr. Dodd needs 66 other senators to vote against the President to obtain the needed two-thirds majority.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/22/business/senate-puts-off-a-vote-on-veto-of-securities-bill.html

Needless to say, Fodd was successful, and from there on out, accountability became very difficult, as the big four accounting firms were shielded from investor lawsuits charging that they "aided and abetted" fraudulent or deceptive schemes by their corporate clients.

Pretty Dodgy, eh? Remember Enron" Tyco? Worldcom? The dotcoms?

And of course there's more...

[karynnj]

16. I concede -

I thought you might be referring to the things I mentioned. Though even with those he really has a problem with being too close to AIG and the banks. It is said though that on other issues, including being one of the strongest opponents to FISA and the torture bil as well as usually being a good "vote".

[peace13]

5. And after you get done supporting Dodd can you get back to supporting the Constitution.

That dear friend is in need of a hand. A promise you made somewhere down the road and have been too busy to uphold. (Please don't flame me for not supporting BO. We had KKKarl Rove in town last night and the newspaper articles are all aglow about the dough boy. Our organized protest and comments were barely a blip on the screen. If Obama does not bring the * thugs to justice we are all one breath away from eternal suffocation. We may already be there.)

[ClarkUSA]

6. Unlike the poutrage pushers at DU, Senator Feingold relies on facts in his recent statement --->

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith
upon legal advice from the Department of Justice. As I understand it, his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted. The details made public in these memos paint a horrifying picture and reveal how the Bush administration's lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture. The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable." The ACLU concurs.

[peace13]

8. As I understand it...

Soldiers continue to be sent to jail for 'following orders'. What say you there? I understand that there is a possibility that the American people will one day know what actually happened and what crimes were committed but by then the chains will be firmly around our ankles. I have been in the trenches for Obama but his smooth talk went full circle last night and I am beginning to feel that it is his supporters who have been duped. Feingold is a voice of reason and we support him financially here in Ohio. Peace, Kim

[ClarkUSA]

9. Link, quote, source, proof for your "understanding"?

[peace13]

10. Well Lynddie England went to jail but she was a woman you may not be familiar with her case

An American Army reservist, in jail for crimes at Gitmo. If you can't remember that look it up yourself. Just yesterday a soldier was convict for killings in Iraq. If you didn't read it here then search for yourself. Your attitude is not worth my time.

[ClarkUSA]

13. That's not relevant now; her prosecution was under BushCo. I can't say I feel bad for her, either.

Also, the officer convicted for "killings" in Iraq is not equivalent to C.I.A. torture sanctioned by BushCo's DoJ.
Perhaps you need to read this before you get more confused: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8349584&mesg_id=8349584

[rucky]

12. I see where this is heading, and Gonzo is toast.

at the very least.

[DeepBlueC]

15. 'poutrage'

now that is a GREAT and useful word!