Really, he has no redeeming qualities as a candidate. One of his main draws is experience, but Biden's been in the Senate for eight more years and chaired two important committees (Judiciary and Foreign Relations), whereas Dodd chairs the comparatively unimportant Banking Committee. Dodd's from a solid blue state and thus brings no new states into the fold. And he's so patrician in manner (check that accent) as to make Kerry sound positively populist. Speaking of which, didn't we learn in 2004 that running a New England aristocratic Senator with 20-year voting record is a really bad idea?
Moreover, Dodd - like Hillary, Biden and Edwards - voted for the war in 2002. He also voted against the Levin amendment requiring UN authorization to invade, just as Edwards, Biden and Hillary did. And as last night's debate showed, he still defends his vote for war, saying it was really just a vote for diplomacy (sound familiar)? Dodd proved be lacked the judgement to be president when he voted for war, just like Hillary and Edwards did.
But the most important reason you shouldn't vote for Dodd is that he isn't running a serious campaign. I once met his staffer in my region, and found out that she was organizing four of New Hampshire's ten counties. Many Obama staffers, by comparison, only organize one or two towns. But what's really telling is that that staffer is not in New Hampshire anymore. She, along with the vast majority of Dodd's staff, got a transfer to Iowa, leaving Dodd without any organization outside of that state. He simply doesn't have the resources to run a real primary campaign; even if by some fluke he does decently in Iowa, he won't be able to follow it up in the slightest.
Yes, Dodd is right about telecom immunity, and I do like his carbon tax proposal. But he's a completely disastrous candidate in so many other ways.