The Dodd Amendment

The Dodd Amendment:

Start withdrawal immediately
50,000 troops out of Iraq by January 31, 2008
Complete re-deployment of combat troops by April 30, 2008
No additional funding for combat operations after April 30, 2008
Make funding for the war during the redeployment period contingent on progress of redeployment.

Okay that's not going to pass and there are probably five people in the country who don't know that and they don't know that because four are in especially deep comas and one has only just been born and hasn't heard about the amendment yet. So the question is, what is Dodd willing to do?

I was talking about this question tonight with a friend at the weekly peace vigil I organize. We both like Dodd but find this sort of posturing offensive. Is Dodd willing to filibuster alone until he physically cannot continue? Is he willing to call out his fellow Democrats who are unwilling to support him? Is he willing to bring protesters to the steps of the Capitol to rally for an end to this war? Is he willing to commit an act of civil disobedience? Is he willing to wake us up even a little bit? Is he willing to take any step beyond publicizing vain amendments?

Is this a struggle for life and death and the future of our country or is it something less?

Comments

[mick arran]

I like Dodd but I'm afraid the answer to all your questions is "No". Which is too bad because if he did those things, he'd be president in '08 and the back of the DLC/BD Alliance would be broken forever.

[eRobin]

I think it would ruin his chances to be president but it would be shake things up for a while. The problem is that even I, who loves and sees promise in the grand gesture, can't promise Dodd that he'd be giving up his run at the presidency for a sure thing. There's just no guarantee that people would follow him.

[mick arran]

I disagree. If it's not ironclad, it's as close to a guarantee as it's possible to get without actually being one. a) He'd be the only one not waffling, but far more important, b) he'd be the only one actually fighting for what the people want. He'd stand out like a rose on a manure pile.

IAC, what exactly has he got to lose? He has no chance against the heavyweights unless he does something dramatic, anyway.

I think any Dem candidate who fought for withdrawal in the way you outlined would increase their chances of winning exponentially if they did it soon enough.

[eRobin]

When Dean was running, I thought that nobody could misunderstand his passion. Then I talked to my kids' dentist about him. She said something like, "he's so angry." I defended him -"No, it's passion, not anger and anyway, there's a lot to be angry about." "Yeah," she said, "but you shouldn't BE angry about it. People don't like that."

And then Kerry the Meek went on to win the nomination b/c he was electable. (and was, in fact, elected) Dodd - and Edwards for that matter - learned that lesson.

I don't know. I just don't see people rising up in support of anything in this country - unless Dodd is going to promise them dvd players for 15 bucks or the new gaming platform for half off. That may get our attention.

Certainly you can't ask Dodd to take a chance on us. I'm sure he thinks he can win. He's got the firefighters and Iowa will be his!

[eRobin]

P.S. There's also the chance that he doesn't want to end the occupation at all, which is probably more likely than any scenario we've been discussing.