So was Senator Dodd being too far to the left the reason why he was endangered?

[Winterblues]

Or was it because he was on the Banker's side instead of the American people? People that say the reason Democrats might be having trouble is because they are too far to the Left are just plain retarded IMO.

[FLAprogressive]

1. he was owned by the banks.

[county worker]

2. No, he was too far into taking money from the banking industry.

[David Zephyr]

3. Dodd got caught with a sweetheart mortgage deal and the gift of a house in Ireland.

And then he voted against allowing Americans to reimport their meds from Canada.

He is perceived as a corrupt politician. The LA Times blasted him last month.

He disgraced himself.

[brooklynite]

4. Lousy analogy...

If the bank fiasco hadn't happened, Dodd's "closeness" to the Banks would have had no impact at all on his vote, and if he was a moderate but -not- attached to the banks, he wouldn't be in trouble either.

[naaman fletcher]

5. no, it was for being a scumbag owned by the banks.

Although he had the decency to decline to run, and Blumenthal is a sure thing to win.

[ThomWV]

6. When no one else would say a damned word Dodd stood up for the Constitution - don't call him Scumbag

He deserves better.

[old mark]

7. It's because he got caught. I doubt he was any more of a crook than

98% of congress, but he got caught and looked very bad.
Of course, if he had been republican, he could have had several more terms anyway....

mark

[Edweird]

8. I agree. They need to get with the program, or suffer the consequences.

Stop the corporatism. Jobs. Single payer. In that order.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. I think it largely has to do with moving to Iowa for a year and ignoring Connecticut

And that's something voters might forgive you for if you actually stand a chance in hell of winning the presidency. Dodd did not, however.

[fascisthunter]

10. danke schön!