How much does 0% cost anyway?

I downloaded this weekend's Meet the Press podcast, which was an interview with presidential candidate Chris Dodd. For those who don't know, Chris Dodd is the senior Senator from Connecticut who has more than a passing resemblance to Boss Nass. It's really in the eyebrows and chin in my opinion...

Anywho, thanks to the interview, I now know how much of an asshole Chris Dodd is. Luckily he's polling 0% nationally according to Public Opinion Strategies (cited in the show). When Tim Russert asked him about his numbers, he said "there's room to grow" and then explained that success really depends on how much money you're able to raise, etc; Valid points. However, Russert should have pointed out that according to that same poll, Stephen Colbert, who's currently spending nothing and is only running in South Carolina, is currently whipping his ass with 2.3% of the potential vote.

That's not why he's an asshole though (although indicative). When Tim Russert asked him about his voting record, he came up with nothing but lame excuses and contradictory statements. Tim asked him why, since he now wants to withdraw our troops by 2009, he voted for the war in the first place. Tim then played his speech before Congress on Oct 9, 2002 (before the war vote), where he said: "there's no question that Iraq poses biological and chemical weapons, that's not in doubt, and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That's not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed." Dodd defended himself by saying that his focus in that speech was on searching for the weapons. He added that he regretted that vote and wished he could take it back. Fine. So Tim asked him why then, in July of 2005, he was still giving speeches supporting the president and the war? And why in February of 2006, he said he didn't want to impose deadlines on the president. Dodd defended himself by saying that on September 28, 2004 he said just the opposite. That was supposed to exculpate him I suppose. He said that NOW he thinks its going very poorly and he wants to "change direction." Riiiight. So, in 2002 war was good, in 2004 it wasn't, in 2005 and 2006 it was, and now it isn't again.

Tim asked him if the troops had all died in vain and he said of course not. Then Tim again played a clip from some speech he gave where he said: "all that loss for WHAT?" Tim again put the question to him, and he said that the soldiers have "create[d] some space... in Iraq... for them to come together so that the nation has a chance in succeeding." And are they reconciling their differences? Nope.

He then played a clip from April of 2007 where Dodd said the war was about oil. Tim said he thought it was interesting that he had never said that publicly before 2007 and asked him if he always thought that was true. Yes, he thought it was true. "Why then did you wait until this year to say that?" Replied Dodd: "... good question."

He also threw out the number of Iraqi casualties at 80-100,000. Where the fuck did he come up with that? Even the president's own conservative estimates are higher than 200,000. Who the fuck is this guy?

I guess it just comes back to the fact that Connecticut sucks. And not, as Luke pointed out, that northwestern part of Connecticut that looks a lot like western Massachusetts. The part of Connecticut that the rest of us just drive through on our way to New York and probably elected Chris Dodd. You guys suck.