Dodd drops out, I go directory digging
After presidential candidate Chris Dodd came out of the Iowa caucus with approximately 0% of the votes, he abandoned his bid for the presidency.
His website, chrisdodd.com, is now displaying the following banner:
The URL for the above is http://chrisdodd.com/i/10wa/13A.jpg — note the cleverly obfuscated “iowa” directory name. 13 is presumably a reference to the date (January 3rd). What happens if we change that 13A to a 13B, though?
Looks like Dodd had hope yet, but that was clearly “Plan B.” There’s also a third, though it just reads “Thank You” and has a donation link.
Time will tell
If we query Dodd’s web server for last update timestamps for those files, we get
| 13A.jpg | Thu, 03 Jan 2008 8:50:20 PM CST |
| 13B.jpg | Thu, 03 Jan 2008 4:49:18 PM CST |
| 13C.jpg | Thu, 03 Jan 2008 7:13:24 PM CST |
Come up with whatever theories you will, but I’ll point out that the caucus began at 7:00 PM and the earliest mention of his dropping out was at 9:37 PM.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:14 am
It’s too bad he’s withdrawing and didn’t attract more support. If his senior senator counterpart from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman - a wishy-washy centrist liberal-conservative - can attract more support from Democrat voters in 2000 and 2004, then that’s a sad day. Dodd’s probably a nice guy and certainly far less aloof than Lieberman. Why Gore chose Lieberman, a wealthy aristocratic orthodox Jew, as his running mate in 2000 is a real question. One could even say if Gore had had a stronger running mate, he would’ve had a more convincing win of the popular vote and even won the electoral college, beating Bush. As for 2004, well, I go back to that - if Gore had won convincingly, we wouldn’t have had to watch that painful election loss by John Kerry.
As for the naming conventions on Chris Dodd’s web server, I like fishing for similar unintended quirks. Naming formats that follow a scheme certainly make sense from an organizational standpoint but they are woefully embarrassing for the person operating the website in cases such as this.
Who do you think is next to withdraw?
I think Biden will withdraw after New Hampshire as will Mike Gravel. Richardson will stay in through South Carolina and possibly a southwestern state like Arizona or New Mexico then it’ll be just the Big Three (Obama, Edwards, Clinton) and Kucinich who will hang on because he’s a publicity-seeking political wonk.
That said, I like Dennis Kucinich but he’ll never win. So, I think I’m an Edwards supporter. Obama may be great for the country domestically - he has a similar vision and similar ideals to Edwards - but is woefully inept on foreign policy. He’d continue the “war on terror” and he also thinks Canada has a “president”. Um, Barack? Mind if I grab your attention a moment? Canadian Governance 101: Canada is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, legally speaking. What does that mean, you ask? Our Head of State is the Sovereign, or Queen or King of England of the day. Representing the Sovereign is the Governor General, who is essentially chosen by the Head of Government (the Prime Minister) but constitutionally is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Governor General (currently, Michaelle Jean, a former broadcaster with the CBC and Radio-Canada), if that’s who you meant by “president”, has very little power - other than receiving diplomatic credentials from various foreign ambassadors, greeting foreign Heads of State, signing bills into law by giving Royal Assent and also giving Royal Assent to government regulations (Orders-In-Council) (though, most of this function is often delegated to the Deputy Governor General, which is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who is currently Beverley McLachlin), and serving as a figure head for the Canadian Forces as its symbolic Commander-in-Chief. If you meant the Prime Minister, well, you had it wrong on two counts. He’s not a “president” and he isn’t the Head of State. As mentioned, he’s the Head of Government.
Who do you favour in the presidential races, Ryan?
Cheers, Doug
January 7th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
And then there were 6… Dodd & Biden are both out, but Mike Gravel (who has possibly the coolest name of any candidate) stubbornly clings to his 0%. Rather than click that Contribute button and pay Dodd’s bus fare home form Iowa, you ought to throw your support behind Gravel, and join the likes of actor Mark Ruffalo and Texas radio host Carl Wiglesworth (who’s own website is about a year out of date…).
January 8th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Mike Gravel is definitely a candidate I like, but he has no realistic chance in a race with a very full slate of candidates.
So, my next choice would probably be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I like Mr. Obama’s positions better than Ms. Clinton’s, with the exception of foreign policy where Mr. Obama believes Canada has a “president”. Domestically, Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton are equally matched. I like John Edwards, too, especially the fact that he is very much against Wal-Mart and its corporate policies. What disturbs me is he is a wealthy trial lawyer who claims to not take special interest group money, then does so. As well, he was indirectly an investor in a private equity firm that owned a stake in a predatory lender while he preached against such lending practices. In short, Mr. Edwards is pretty flakey. Moreover, he wasn’t elected while running for Vice President in 2004. Why does he think he can win now?
Ultimately, though, I’d like to see Mike Bloomberg make an innovative, well-heeled independent run for president. He’s probably the guy who could pull it off.
Cheers, Doug