And here comes Dodd's memo

Hillary4prez for all America — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:08:53 GMT

Dodd, give it us and get out of the race, only Hillary can carry us thru to victory ALL the news media id for her and with good reason. Katie Couric gave her raving reviews last night. The NYT Loves her, so get on board or be left behind, There is no more debate here, its over

And here comes Dodd's memo

Students at UNF — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:31:44 GMT

Ditto Hillary4prez!

And here comes Dodd's memo

Students at Beijing University — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:54:31 GMT

Us to. We wood rike Hirrary to be the precident.

And here comes Dodd's memo

Josh D., Washington, D.C. — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:55:30 GMT

The media is with her, because they know she will be the most entertaining in the general election (a.k.a most polarizing)

And here comes Dodd's memo

MK,MO — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:58:41 GMT

Hillary4prez for all America / 'The NYT Loves her, so get on board or be left behind, There is no more debate here, its over'

I dare say it is not over until the votes are counted dear, if you venture out of the big apple you might find that hillary's criminal activities and most recently her vote to bomb iran may not be playing so well, but your enthusiasm is surely worth whatever the clinton machine is paying you, by the way vote for a change for the better, edwards 08

And here comes Dodd's memo

Sierra, SF — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:00:08 GMT

When reading this or other blogs, it's important to know that Mark Penn, Clinton's campaign manager is the invent of 'astro-turf'.

'astro-turf' is fake grass roots.
It's a strategy to make it appear that real people are in favor of his clients, when he's really manufacturing phoney public opinion.

This makes it appear that there's a groundswell of public opinion in favor of his clients (here, Hillary Clinton).
He hires people to pose as average people in favor of the tobacco companies or the oil companies.

Are all these pro-Clinton bloggers real ?
Or are they paid operatives ?
Do you know anyone who would post as 'Students at UNF' ? as 'Hillary4prez for all America' ?
It's all a smokescreen by Mark Penn.
How many of these 'people' are real ?
You be the judge....

And here comes Dodd's memo

JGT Miami,FL — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:01:22 GMT

I couldn't agree less. The election is far from over, and I for one have not made up my mind. Who the hell cares what Katie Couric thinks? Please! Hillary did not impress me at all with her last vote on Iran. It really depresses me to think we are going to get more of the same from a Bush/CLinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty.
No offense, but being first lady DOESN'T COUNT as foreign policy experience.
I think Dodd is doing the right thing, and am ashamed of any democrat who does not see it, regardless of who you support for president.

And here comes Dodd's memo

Sierra, SF — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:07:54 GMT

'...to deny amnesty to telecom companies who might be engaged in the Administration's domestic surveillance program...'

Good for you, Chris !
Let's let the courts decide if the telephone companies violated our privacy!
Why should politicians decide ?
If the phone companies did the wrong thing:
LET THEM PAY !!

There is usefulness in your campaign.
Keep finding good issues and keep pushing them.

...and thanks for voting NO to WAR WITH IRAN !!

It's a pity that Kucinich and Gravel aren't allowed to play similar roles in the debates.
Unfortunately (I think) Kucinich is a little to far out there and a little too impractical.

And here comes Dodd's memo

A. Gore — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:33:53 GMT

Democrats are great at memos. Too bad they suck at everything else.

And here comes Dodd's memo

jcc — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:34:06 GMT

Sierra - That is definately how she works. Watch here campaign censor supporters of a different candidate here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa30AgNzkM0

And here comes Dodd's memo

johnny7 — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:59:34 GMT

Jump on Hillary's wagon... and ride it to defeat.

And here comes Dodd's memo

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:10:34 GMT

Dodd is full of it, and sadly desperate! Not only did he originally claim that it was "unknown" whether Joe Biden supported or opposed telecom amnesty, despite Biden having already publicly stated he was against amnesty for telcom companies.

Now Dodd takes credit for Clinton and Obama's vote in May against the war supplemental, and criticizes Biden for voting to "to give Bush what he wanted." Whether Dodd pressured Obama and Clinton in May is their respective problem, but Biden was the only Democratic Senator running for President who showed courage and leadership in his war supplemental vote. The other three should be ashamed of themselves!

Dodd, Clinton and Obama showed that politically calculated votes (that they knew would not end the war one day sooner) take priority over the lives of soldiers.

If voting in May against the supplemental would have ended the war one day sooner, I'm sure that Biden, the only Democratic Presidential candidate with a son heading off to Iraq in 2008, would have voted against the funding. What father wouldn't, especially one who still lives with the pain of his daughters death. All voting against the supplemental accomplishes is delaying funding for troop protection. Nothing more!

If Clinton, Dodd and Obama's politically motivated, but cowardly, vote really would have any effect ending the war, why did only 5 of the 21 Democratic Senator's who voted against the 10/11/02 authorization also vote against the May supplemental?

Did Senator's Akaka, Bingaman, Byrd, Conrad, Durbin, Inouye, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, (Jack) Reed, and Stabenow who all voted against the Oct. 11, 2002 authorization in the Senate, and Senator's Sherrod Brown, Ben Cardin and Robert Menéndez who all voted against the Iraq authorization on October 10, 2002 as members of congress, have a change of heart and now when it's obvious to everyone that Iraq's a mess, these Senator's who opposed the Iraq resolution in the Senate (or House)in 2002 now support staying in Iraq? Of course not! They voted in favor of the supplemental because despite their opposition to the war, they will not allow those views to stand in the way of protecting American soldiers.

What Dodd fails to mention when he claims "Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, voted to give Bush what he wanted" is that Senator Biden didn't vote to give Bush what he wanted, but voted to protect the Sons, Daughters, Brothers and Sisters, Dads and Mothers, of many Americans, instead playing politics with real lives!

Biden was able to insist the supplemental include immediate funding for 18,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, which reduce IED deaths by 80%.

Biden had been trying, without success, to get funding for these vehicles for several years, after he learned during a trip to Iraq of their effectiveness in saving lives from IED blasts, which is the leading cause of American deaths in Iraq. For reasons I'll never understand the WH and DOD didn't consider funding these vehicles a priority.

Due to Biden’s leadership and insistence on immediate funding for the MRAP vehicles in the May supplemental four Iowa based guardsman are alive today! Last week these young men were in one of the MRAP vehicles produced as a result of the May supplemental, when an IED went off.

According to the Iowa National Guard spokesman, if they had been in the regular Humvee, and not in one of the new MRAP vehicles that Biden was able to get to Iraq, they would have died. The only reason these four young men weren't in a regular Humvee last week is because of Senator Biden's efforts and insistence that the supplemental include immediate funding for these vehicles.

I'm sure if voting against funding could actually bring troops home sooner, you could make an argument that these 4 lives would be worth losing in exchange for the lives that would be saved by getting out sooner. But because voting against the supplemental will not end the war one day sooner, voting against funding intended to protect lives is immoral!

No one from my family has served, nor are any of them likely to ever serve in Iraq, but an employee of mine, who joined the Guard for college money spent a year over there, and another employee's son is there right now. These are real people, with real families, it isn't a game. Just because Bush is bull headed and irrational, does not excuse candidates for President casting politically motivated votes in order to gain electoral support, when these votes jeopardize lives.

Fortunately Biden isn't like Clinton, Dodd and Obama. As Biden's said many times, "there are some things worth losing elections over." I'm sure four Iowa families appreciate Biden's effort in securing immediate funding and deployment to of these MRAP vehicles to Iraq.

And here comes Dodd's memo

Patricia, Fairfax, VA — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:27:08 GMT

Sara:

You're clearly very passionte about this, but you're wrong to state that "Dodd is full of it and clearly desperate". Dodd is taking a principled stand against this bullsh**t war. Stop the funding and bring them home. PERIOD. There is NO WAY that we can win this -- it is UNWINABLE -- IT IS A GOAT RODEO.

Will giving money for better equipment save four lives? Yep -- and that's a nice, little miopic view of things. Hitting the administration in the pocketbook and stopping these blank checks to Bush will be more effective in the long run.

Your anger is misplaced. Try aiming it at the real culprit -- George Bush and Dick Cheney -- the two morons that got us into this mess in the first place.

And here comes Dodd's memo

Wayne, TN — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:12:08 GMT

"Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 4:10 PM)"

You make some very good points, which few Democrats choose to recognize.
Pulling Funding does not "Stop the War", nor would pulling all US troops out of Iraq "Stop the War", its just not that simple.

And here comes Dodd's memo

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:18:30 GMT

Patricia, Fairfax, VA :

My anger is not misplaced. I am not angry at Dodd for his IWR vote, and he's entitled to vote against funding, I think it was wrong, but didn't criticize it until he tried to make it a false political issue.

However I do not appreciate Dodd claiming on his website that Biden's view on telcom amnesty is "unknown", when Biden had come out against telecom amnesty long before Dodd put that claim on his website. Maybe Dodd was completely unaware that his campaign claimed that Biden's views were unknown, or maybe his campaign didn't bother to check to see if Biden's views were known, before claiming they were unknown, although as I recall both Dodd and Biden showed up to a forum in Waterloo Iowa, and that was a question, and both opposed telcom amnesty, so Dodd personally was aware of Biden's position. To Dodd's campaigns credit, they did correct that portion of their website after Biden's staff alerted them to the falsity of their claim. I don't believe its appropriate to make false accusations against other candidates, whether intentionally, or because of lack of research.

I do think Dodd is full of it, because I believe from watching Dodd over the years he knows full well that there are not the votes to end the war, the reality is that the next President will inherit W's mess. He has said so many times during the campaign. It sucks, but it's reality. Dodd knows this, and I assume you realize this also. As I said if stopping the funding would bring the troops home one day sooner you could justify cutting off funding. Basically sacrificing the lives of soldiers now to save more in the future. But that is a false argument. 1. There is already enough money in the pipeline to keep the war going through 1/20/09 when the next President is sworn in. 2. There are not the votes in the Senate to stop the funding, all you can do is delay funding. There may be the votes in January 09, but there are not now.

Of course the war is the responsibility of Bush and company. And I was against it from the start. And I don't think the war, a civil war, is winnable? I don't even know how you define winning, or victory.

You may think it's myopic to believe it's our moral obligation to fund the troops because it saved four lives, but actually that was not what I said. I have no clue how many lives have, or will be saved because Sen. Biden insisted on funding for the MRAP vehicles. I know about the four young kids from an Ottumwa Iowa Guard unit, because it was reported locally. How many more have already been saved, and many more will be saved between now and the eventual end to this madness will probably never be known. But I do believe that as a country when we send kids to fight a war, whether a just one like WWII, or this insane action, we have a MORAL obligation to do everything possible to protect these soldiers. These young kids aren't the ones who picked this fight. Most of the people in guard units join to help pay for college. I was fortunate and had parents willing and able to pay for college, but for too many this is their only way to receive a higher education. My children are fortunate and won't be forced to join the Guard to pay for college. It's a pretty sad situation that you have to potentially sacrifice your life in order to go to college, but it becomes tragic if the government won't do everything to protect you after sending you off to fight.

I have to assume that anyone who supports cutting off funding, (and I'm not supporting rubber stamping Bush's requests, there is funding in W's latest supplemental that need to be taken out) does not have a loved one in Iraq, or know some one who does. When you hear a secretary (whose son is in Iraq) break down in uncontrollable sobs after taking a phone call (someone you've known for over a decade and never seen close to tears)your heart sinks. When you find out her son's fine, its just his best friend since basic training who died in an IED attack, and the call was from her son whose shaken up and upset over the loss of his friend. You're relieved that she didn't loss her son, and feel a little guilty that your happy it was some young man from Indiana.

The only thing more immoral to deny funding for these MRAP's in the May supplemental, was the failure of the WH and DOD to have included these vehicles in prior funding requests. Thank God Biden cared enough about these young kids to insist on immediate funding for these MRAP's, but why didn't the WH do this long ago?