Candidate Dodd

With under two months remaining before the Iowa Caucuses, it's time to take a look at each candidate's positions. We'll begin with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn).
In Iowa, Dodd is currently polling in single digits and has tried to find traction with a message generally ignored by the frontrunners. That message, restoring the integrity of the Constitution, is a potent one but it remains to be seen whether it will be significant enough to generate greater support among Iowans.
Dodd chose this issue politically because the Bush Administration's constitutional violations have sparked a good deal of outrage in the blogosphere (here and here) and, appropriately, with the Democratic base.
But apart from this, it's difficult to see how he's been able to distinguish himself from the other candidates. Like the others, he's offered his prescription for ending the Iraq War but, at least on his website, the details for doing so are sorely lacking. In addition to "redeploying" troops out of Iraq, he lists "three narrowly targeted exceptions – the protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, specific counterterrorism operations, and assistance with the training and equipping of Iraqi forces."
It's axiomatic that anyone running for office tries to appeal to as many people as possible. The danger in this is the equally axiomatic impossibility of being all things to all people. Dodd runs this risk (as do the others) by making ill-considered public statements. In the recent Las Vegas debate, Dodd responded to a question-cum-trap from CNN's Wolf Blitzer who presented him with the false choice of "human rights versus national security."
Rather than challenging the question's ridiculous premise, Dodd said, "obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic."
Yet by protecting and defending the Constitution, one is necessarily protecting and defending human/civil rights, a distinction apparently lost in this debate environment. After all, isn't this the principal issue surrounding the detention and treatment of "enemy combatants," illegal wiretapping and torture?
This is disturbing if for no other reason than it shows a lack of clear thinking. If here, where else might Sen. Dodd's clarity be lacking?
Dodd's chances for victory are currently slim to none. But, if nothing else, he has the ability to keep front and center issues such as the integrity of Constitution and its repetitive violations by the Bush Administration.
If there were ever a need for a litmus test, it's now and it's this.