I was googling Chris Dodd, looking for some information, when I came across this piece supporting his presidential candidacy:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Jim+Craig%3A+While+other+candidates+get+'ready+to+lead%2C'+Chris+Dodd+has+led&articleId=3a60753c-50c3-418d-b36e-3226ef51c925

Our country is at a point where Americans still respect their government institutions in the abstract, but they rightly feel that their political system has become subsumed by partisan gridlock, partisan bickering and the influence of special interests. If we do not soon change course, our country is much more at risk of crumbling from within our borders than being conquered from beyond them.

Yet in spite of this, our strength is our yearning to be proud of America again and our resolve to see it remain as the world leader militarily and economically. We need a leader who understands what is at stake and who can actually do something about it.

That is why I am supporting Chris Dodd's candidacy.

You won't meet a more likable candidate on the campaign trail than Chris Dodd -- or a more accomplished one. His work in the Senate has had a real, lasting impact on the lives of American families. Throughout his career, he has avoided the bickering that turns so many people off of politics, and instead produced a record of results. He has a unique talent in this field of presidential candidates for reaching across the aisle to turn Democratic principles into American policies.

Could it be that one reason-- whether conscious or not-- for insisting that Democrats must be better fighters and more confrontational is precisely because it makes them less likeable?

I bolded the sentence above, because it was so unlike almost everything you read about Democratic candidates, yet the likeability part was considered absolutely key during GWB's campaign.

It might also explain why Dodd's campaign has not received a good enough share of coverage. He doesn't fit the Democratic stereotype of the Narrative. He isn't an obstructionist (except maybe when the fate of the Constitution is at stake); he knows how to reach across the aisle to get results; and he's actually likeable.

It does fit in with the GOP/Rove method of divide and conquer. Don't just make sure that your opponents are warring among themselves, but make sure that they also look really bad in the klieg lights at the same time. Then your candidates can point fingers at them and say, "At least we're not like that!" Effectively, blaming the other team-- ours! the Democrats!-- for any bickering or obstructionism, or lack of comity or civility.

Of course, it helps to keep those who do not fit that Narrative out of the spotlights.

Dodd really needs a lot more and better spotlights.

Sometimes I might seem slow, but I finally did get the allusion. Frankly, though, I've had other things on my mind...

ondelette:

Could it be another set up? And, if so, exactly who is being set up?

I've been looking for some kind of "free" fax method. I just hope the cover page ad doesn't get my letters tossed.

Your comment at 8:37 sent two thoughts spinning together through my brain. One was of the content in Barbara Tuchman's book, The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam, and the other was the character of Mr. Bennet (in Pride & Prejudice) explaining the notion of enjoying the folly of one's neighbors, just as they would of oneself in turn.

From you I get (not just in this post, but over time) the importance of being judicious in enjoying such Folly, lest we become too cynical or too careless... yet not totally eschewing it, either.

I have never really felt a desire to read The Gulag Archipelago before now. Something to add to my list.

Che' your description of the Village in Kinkadean terms was exceptional. I had read your exchange in Digby's comments, and was surprised by the vehemence of the pushback, even though I don't object to either Village or Palace, much less Versailles. The more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned.

Bebop-o, you're really on an inspired roll today...

...but I have a question re: the claims (now 2) of rapes committed against KBR female employees by coworkers.

Contacted Thursday, the woman's lawyer said the rules of arbitration prohibit her from discussing the case or making her client available for an interview.

[snip]

In a statement, KBR said it "in no way condones or tolerates any form of sexual harassment." It declined to comment on the Florida case, "as this matter is the subject of ongoing litigation."

Shouldn't criminal behavior-- such as rape-- be exempt from a requirement to engage in arbitration? And if it hasn't already been tested, shouldn't her counsel be questioning that first?

Surely, if one employee attempted to murder another that would not also have to go to arbitration? Where is that fine line drawn that distinguishes one from the other? Death? If so, it smacks of the definitions of torture that currently (appear) to allow anything up to, but excluding, death.

I thought there might be someone reading here who could clarify this for me so that I might understand it. I would have expected a brighter line drawn between sexual harassment and actual assault.

source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/12/more-kbr-sex-as.html

Wasn't the last "real" filibuster by Senator Byrd during the runup to the Iraq invasion, or am I misremembering?

* * *

In the meantime, I've added a comment and letter to Dodd's page, on the blog posting on the FISA coverage.

And, just because the GOP does not have a monopoly on spiritual intervention, I also submitted the whole thing to a prayer list for 24/7 for the next month.

I just read you letter at FDL... thanks for posting it here, too!

...to Senator Dodd's campaign. My third. A very satisfying feeling.

And I left a nice comment, too.

If you can take a break from holiday preparations, I highly recommend it.