Long-shot candidate Gravel keeps beating anti-war drum

[El Supremo]

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel is tough on fellow Democrats, but Republicans shouldn't let their guard down either.

"If I'm the Democratic nominee, I'll eat them alive," Gravel declared in an online chat Wednesday with the Rocky Mountain News.

In the race to win the nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Gravel is perhaps the longest of long shots. But he has not stopped making noise since his bombastic role in a televised debate last month.

It was there that he declared that some of his presidential rivals "frighten me" for saying that all options remain on the table when it comes to dealing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

Gravel, 77, has been an anti-war activist since the Vietnam era, when he fought to end the military draft and played a controversial role in publicly disclosing the Pentagon Papers.

In the online interview, Gravel blasted four rivals currently in the U.S. Senate - Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware - saying they have the power to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq but choose symbolic resolutions instead.

More>> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5562961,00.html

[welshTerrier2]

1. Gravel can't win ... but he should be heard loud and clear

there's something tragically sad about our electoral process ... and tragically dysfunctional as well ...

our system of electing people reinforces the status quo ... when we talk about someone "being a real leader", we are usually talking about their ability to inspire us. we're focused primarily on their "style". rarely, are we focused on their leadership ON THE ISSUES. that's not to say we might not agree with them on the issues. the point is that it's safer for political candidates to follow than to lead. we let marketing types help our candidates determine where the votes are and then the candidates target their message to those rich pools of voters. that might make for good politics; that might make for "winning"; some might even say that's the way democracy is supposed to work. the argument would be that the politicians are "representing" the views of the electorate. sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

well, no ... not exactly ... you see, those we elect are often more informed on a wide array of issues than the general voting population. they have an obligation to inform us so that we can make better choices. sometimes, they need to lead us in new directions that are not yet "popular". sometimes, they have to be the bearer of bad news so that we can understand the risks we face. marketing types do not like to emphasize bad news. it's bad for business; it's bad for candidates.

thus, the status quo is reinforced. change becomes, at best, incremental change. when we're confronted with a real crisis, global warming for example, that might require severe changes in our society, we are offered incremental legislation. if what is really needed are mandatory reductions in auto use, or difficult budget choices to reduce the defense budget to fund mass transit, or better urban planning to reduce "commuter waste", that's seen as un-American or against the spirit of capitalism or an interference with the rights of the individual. global warming's coming and its coming in a big, scary way. you think the marketing types will let their candidates call for what is really needed? forget it. we'll get an inspirational speech about how we really need to do more to protect our planet. what we won't get is anything remotely meeting the needs of the crisis we face.

so, we have Mike Gravel. we have lots of "little candidates". our system doesn't let them win. if Hillary were to win two terms as president, we could be looking at a 28 year long two family dynasty. you call that democracy? i don't. that's a stacked deck. most of us understand that. Gravel's voice, and the many ideas he and the others bring to the table, will be as marginalized as the mainstream candidates can make it. the last thing they want to do is to be dragged off message into some kooky new theory from some nobody candidate. but that's no way to have a healthy democracy. each and every idea brought to the table, whether good or bad, deserves a full and honest hearing before the American people. without that, the elite ruling class has an airtight lock on the national dialog.

many rightly complain about an overly centralized corporate media. they understand the issue all too well. i'm here to tell you it's no different in the political arena. and even our own party fails to adequately bring the "wacky new issues" from minor candidates to the table in a meaningful way. I commend them for allowing minor candidates at the debates. That's critically important. But after Gravel, or one of the others, throws out some fresh new idea, the "big boys" just grin and move on to other business like nothing was said. No need to respond. That loser isn't going anywhere anyway. Thanks for nothing.

[Rydz777]

2. Gravel may be a "long-shot" but he shoots straight. eom

[CrispyQ]

3. Gravel/Paul 2008

;)

[NoPasaran]

8. The Chock Full O'Nuts ticket!

Going for the coffee-drinker vote.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I like Mike

As long as he remains in the race, he will challenge the other Dem candidates to show that they are liberal--or closet conservatives. Either way, we'll better know how all the candidates stand on the war issue. Thanks, Senator, my hat's off to you!

Kucinch/Gravel 2008!!!!!!!

[Benhurst]

5. James Earl "Jimmy Who?" Carter was a "long-shot" candidate in 1976.

History probably won't repeat itself, but I'm damned tired of the Corporate Media spinning the race.

Unless there is a brokered convention, all but one will have been reduced to "long-shots" by early next year, by September is there is one.

I suspect if Gore enters the race, there will suddenly be a pride of Democratic long-shots, including some who seem to have a reasonable shot at the nomination this early in the process.

[Colobo]

6. Gravel will NEVER be president.

This country is a middle of the road country, and whoever plays that card the best becomes president.

[Benhurst]

7. I'm not that pessimistic. You may right, though.

If so, we'll never have a woman or minority president either.