...on Karen Tumulty's post about Dodd's filibuster threat is still highlighted on the front page of the blogs section at Time.

"Dodd is apparently the only candidate who's willingness to govern matches his desire to do so.

the others....not so much..."

http://www.time.com/time/blogs

* * *

It cannot be overstated that intelligent cross-pollination among blogs was one of the keys to yesterday's success.

Not only that, but he was truly gracious (with not a hint of gloating) in his willingness to share the credit with those on the floor with him yesterday, and especially the army at his back. (Us, citizens, bloggers, et al)

There has been such a dearth of Graciousness from the WH these past 7 years... and really, it should be such a simple social attribute for anyone seeking the office of, or acting as, our president.

I am long past weary of feeling terminal embarrassment on behalf of our fearless leader.

* * *

Glenn, add my congratulations, too, to the many deserved kudos coming your way after your undaunted leadership on the entire FISA issue.

Now, we can all be prepared for the next Dismal Debbie (?) who claims nothing really good can come from blogging.

If anything, I see it from the opposite perspective...

Rather than using the FISA issue to further his campaign, Dodd, from the beginning, has been using his presidential campaign as a platform to speak out about the threats to the Constitution. It isn't a new issue for him. It began early on in his campaign. (And my understanding is that it was one of the reasons he decided to run.) He was just surprised each time by how much reaction he would get from his audience. And so it grew...

As for why the M$M doesn't cover him better, it's even simpler than not being sexy enough*: because if they did choose to write more about him, they would have to abandon the horse race and write about substance. And, as we know, that is just too much work for most of them. Plain and simple. It would involve critical thinking, for one thing.

Shorter version: Dodd's campaign is just one means to his end of restoring the Constitution. For the other candidates...not so much... Their campaigns are ends in themselves. (h/t Paul D.)

Perhaps we should just start calling the political reporters/pundits of the M$M, Versailles, the Village, etc. what they truly are: Sports Writers. Except that I would hate to impugn sports writers as a class. ;~)

* Frankly speaking, Dodd has enough sex appeal all on his own...

Why not?

Why can't Dodd be President? Everyone seems to take it as received wisdom, a priori fact, that Dodd can't win. Why the hell not?? -- Jim

Indeed. Why not?

Jim, I just wrote up something very similar on the blog at ChrisDodd.com.

Talk of his becoming majority leader seems both presumptuous and a bit premature to me. I'd much rather he were president.

Let's borrow a page from the Pauliacs, who reference Ayn Rand's work with "Who's Ron Paul?"

...but let's ask: Why Not Dodd?!

* * *

Bebop-o... sorry, I've had difficulties accessing the letters section. No need to blush for Dodd; I was merely stating a fact. And I went back to read Perris, but can't remember what/why I should have.

The problem for the Bushies is that the cases are the weapon that achieves disclosure, that is what they are worried about. -- MacK.

Not some future and potential burden on the Telecomms.

That one sentence bears repeating. And repeating. And repeating.

So repeat away, Everyone!

Let's just make the best of the day.

Stretch forth the arms up into the air.

Stretch and do what a well fed babe does.

Yawn. And goes: goo, goo, gaa, gaa gaa-ah!

-- bebop-o

Works for me.

I thought I was being direct... using "presumptuous" and "premature."

Then I read your response, and where I apparently held back, you really let fly.

Way to go!!! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Again... Why Not Dodd? For President.

One thing I have taken from these past two days is that this letters section is a key center of grassroots organization. So whatever I write here or elsewhere, I must write with care.

Lots of folks still don't understand that. And it is key.

...prompted an email from me to Clark Hoyt, their Public Editor.

In it I also apologized for not being able to completely restrain my sarcasm. I tried, I really, really did. It leaked out anyway... just civilly.

Especially if (or, unless?) popping those balloons actually causes everyone else to stop blowing up balloons and just stare into the abyss, too.

Pedinska and IntrovertGirl, you are both too kind. I am humbled. But flattered, too. Any character played by Cate Blanchett is a good one.

(I've read The Hobbit, but not The Trilogy, and so am less conversant with these characters. I had to consult wikipedia. I did, however, have another idea for Gollum, but I may not utter his name.)

Pedinska, I think you have an until now untapped talent for casting. Between you and I'Girl, you'll have it all worked out soon.

I really had no intention of impugning sports writers, since I agree with your take on them, even though I'm not a sports fan. My boyfriend was particularly surprised that I actually knew who Keith Olbermann was (and that he was a sports writer) when I heard his voice one night while he was watching a game, and I was perusing GG's comment threads.

He keeps track of the sports for both of us in our house, while I pay more attention to politics than he does, though he is far from apathetic.

My emoticon was meant to imply a wink. ;~)

And my comment was meant to suggest only that those who are more interested in the horse race than the substance might be better off writing about sports. However, our point about fairness is a good one.