“It’s a legality that isn’t an indication of future plans.”
–Dodd spokesperson Beneva Schulte, on her boss filing a statement that he was out of the running for Senate in 2010. (link)
A Near Miss with Excitement
by Genghis Conn · January 21st, 2007, 6:42 pm · 10 Comments
Tags: Chris Dodd
10 responses so far ↓
Sounds Clintonesque …
Hussein_Obama
I nominate Ned Lamont.
It sounds like he is following the law which, as I noted in the comment thread below, requires that you not be running for two offices at the same time if you want to use the money you have already raised. Since he announced he was running for President, he had to declare that he officially wasn’t running for Senate.
Does “Clintonesque” now mean “following federal law” to those on the right?
A somewhat tortured explanation, no doubt.
Sounds like he’s hedging his bets.
If he was so confident in his Presidential run, why issue such a statement?
A) Architect, since when is being blindly confident in a presidential effort a prerequisite to making one? If he were so confident in his presidential bid that he didn’t feel it necessary to hold on to his current job I wouldn’t want him in either. This is just realism, and, despite what our current White House may lead you to believe, realism is not a bad thing.
B) However likely or unlikely it is, the paperwork alone must have Dick Blumenthal watering at the mouth.
Ba) McGee, are you serious? I like Ned, but if he couldn’t beat joementum he’s not beating Dick. Why isn’t he gearing up to challenge Shays, by the way?
I like Ned too, but the 4th was his worst district. A challange to Shays isn’t going to work in two years, especially if Joe is endorsing Shays (and he will be).
Phaedrus, he has his current job until 2010. This statement was completely unnecessary for him to “hold on to [it].” But I’m sure you knew that already. Oh, and I liked your quip about the current administration – completely unrelated to the subject at hand but whatever.
Why is it a prerequisite? Because if you are so unsure of yourself that you aren’t putting 110% into your own effort, why should anyone else put their 110% into it?
but then, by your logic, an presidential candidate currently holding elected office must necessarily leave themselves unneccesarily vulnerable to losing that office should their presidential campaigns fail. it’s ludicrous.
also, acknowledging the realistic possibility (or even probability) of defeat is not an illustration of being ‘unsure of yourself’ (one can believe he/she should win while admitting the odds that he/she won’t), nor is it in any way an indication that one won’t put a full effort behind the campaign. even you know better than to try to pass that claptrap off as arguement.
lastly, yes, the quip about the current administration was (somewhat) unrelated; i allow myself the occasional cheap shot–so long as it’s true.
Reminds me of Lieberman running for Senate and VP at the same time… people rolled their eyes at that one.
I don’t follow you, Dodd isn’t losing his office when his presidential bid goes down in flames. He’ll still have two years.
I don’t see Hillary/Obama/Edwards openly discussing their potential post campaign failure plans either.
You must log in to post a comment.