Terry, you're just making a fool of yourself trying to defend your personal attack with another diatribe which has not a single word on the substance of the thread. Perhaps you just don't understand the difference between the two and we should feel sorry for you. But attacking me does nothing to advance your side of the argument. I make no bones about my support for Obama, both as a candidate and as President. So what? I'm showing that the accusation that he "broke" a campaign promise can't be viewed in a vacuum. The promise was made in the context of the larger promise to reform healthcare. Only a fool would allow the ship to sink because he wanted to prove that it was stronger than the iceberg. (In that context, you Ron Paul supporters ought to be able to sympathize: if he'd been elected, do you think he would have been able to disband the Fed on Day One? Or just yank everybody out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately? Talk about fantasies....)
Back to the substance, I actually like these Senate retirements. Dodd's not only frees him to back strong banking and insurance reforms this year, but makes it a virtual certainty that Dems can hold the seat with Blumenthal (who, like Ron Reagan, is another GOP son who's seen the light
). Plus, the "smack-down" with this rich WWE McMahon lady will be good theater.
Dorgan, likewise, is free to kick some a$$ this year w/o worrying about the next race. OK, his seat is a possible gain for the GOP, but w/o Dodd's retirement, it would be two, so it just cancels out reversing Dodd's likely loss in CT.
Besides, if it has to come to that, some changes are worth losing for. I think Obama believes that. Frankly, I'd be happy to see some more Senators acting on the same principle.
And, in the end, it may be that fewer than 60 in the Senate will prove to be better than 60, because I'd rather be able to blame the GOP for paralysis than have to deal with the likes of Joe Lieberman in order to "govern with a filibuster-proof majority."
Lieberman won't run again. Mark it down.