Who makes your opinion? Who's making mine?

The other day I posted in response to someone that for me it would either be Kucinich or Edwards this time around.

Days later, I sit wondering why at the time Mike Gravel's name literally never even entered my mind.

As I consider him, now that I am thinking of him, I have to ask myself whether there is anything about his past or policies I find disagreeable. That answer is no (absent further deep digging).

So why did he not even come to my mind?


I like to fancy myself a thoughtful person. And in matters political, I like to fancy myself practical too, so maybe the same argument that folks use against the Kuchies could come to bear concerning Gravel.

But this really goes deeper than that. He Did Not Even Enter My Mind.

Even here at DU, the name seldom comes up. I suspect a good many folks here, like myself, don't have much bad to say about Mike Gravel.

So is the media doing the coronating? Do democrats really think so lowly of him? Of Kucinich? Just what the hell is "electable?"

He isn't campaigning.

He doesn't have an infrastructure. He doesn't have an organization in any primary state. He isn't fundraising, isn't raising ads, isn't pushing the issues. He doesn't have any special ideas. He's not getting his name out there. He's not doing anything. And even though he was invited to the first debates, he didn't do anything valuable there.

Mike Gravel spent most of his time during the debates complaining. He complained about the frontrunners (Hillary especially), the Congress, the media, the political system, everything he could think of. He said "fantasyland!" a lot. He was rambly and disjointed. He was sometimes angry and sometimes bitter. While he brought up perhaps-legitimate points from time to time, he gave nobody any reason to support him.

Mike Gravel hasn't run a campaign. It's not any wonder you didn't consider voting for him.

He's been the most passionate in the debates, strongly denouncing the war and economic stupidity from party conservatives. That scares a lot of people who find strongly held positions announced loudly to be disquieting after all these years of bullying by Xtian right wingers.

His name keeps coming to the top of all the "pick your candidate" questionnaires for me. His voting record is discussed at http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/mike_gravel.htm

I informed myself about what the candidates stand for and how they present themselves. Gravel says a lot of great things, but he does not have a platform that deals with some of the issues I am very interested in like poverty (I used to work for a non-profit that served homeless people), labor and certain other things. Gravel cares about these issues and I'm sure that he takes stands on them, but I did not find carefully considered plans prepared by him on each of them.

Edwards knows his stuff. He has thought out his plans on the issues that are important to me. He can speak off the top of his head about his plan for healthcare or the environment or revitalizing rural America. No other candidate can do that. That is because Edwards spent the past four years thinking through what he will do when he is president. (I am not reading Edwards' mind. I am a lawyer, and that is how trial lawyers prepare their cases. That is what I see him as having done.)

Some people criticize Edwards for having changed his views or proposals on some issues. I see that as a good thing. In contrast with candidates who change their stances based on their polls, Edwards changed his policy recommendations based on studying and analyzing the issues and the facts.

I do not watch mainstream news on TV other than clips on the internet. I read snippets of news articles. I read blogs. I read the candidates' websites. I consult my heart as well as my mind.

gravel's platform on poverty as well as other issues, is the National Initiative. if the people can make laws then the poor and working class can solve their own problems in whatever way they/we want. a vote for gravel is a vote for yourself and saving the world but if you don't want to support him that's ok, he will still support you. vote for yourself by voting for the national initiative.

to make the media work for them, and diffuse the drama that the talking heads try and layer on, what should be, a straight forward process.

DU has been helpful in forming my decisons for a variety of reasons. Its been a sounding board, and made me really dig in and pay attention and do my own homework. But my decision is still, at the end of the day, the result of my own observations.

My categorizing people on "electability" comes from how I see them performing in the general, fending off the onslaught, and standing toe-to-toe in debates. And in my assessment, candidates I might like a lot, don't seem to do as well in those areas. Gravel is one of those guys, like Richardson, who I don't think translates well during debate. Which I think would be a very bad thing in the general.

Even being "right" on everything will not get you elected if you don't have the skills and knowledge to handle negative campaigning and media coverage.

If you looked further into Gravel you'd like him a LOT, I think. I must have posted a video of him relaying the story of how he got the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record (BIG stuff at the time) about 6 times here on DU and never got more than a few views each time. The name Gravel didn't attract anyone.

If they each had the same amount of funding, air time, questions, I think you'd see Gravel doing rather well. He's a maverick and he kicks butt and doesn't knuckle under. It's an absolute shame it's all predicated on money.

has always been just astonishing to me.

It's the media stupid! (no offense) Since he hasn't raised significant sums of money to appear on the telescreen, he's an unperson. Of course the media drives the whole political climate. There's a lot of money to be made by corporate media by selling a story that candidate A and B are the only "viable" choices (aka big spenders with deep pockets).

As much as I respect Mr Gravel's position on this stupid frickin war and his desire to see the government follow the constitutional mandates that they swore to uphold and defend, his economic policies strike me as just nucking futs. As a workaday person, you should understand that a national sales tax will grab you by the short and curlies while the richest among us will end up dancing on your grave.

I'm not sure where you spend most of your time getting your information, but after the first debate Gravel was the hot ticket for interviews on progressive radio. He got weeks of exposure from the few minutes he got to speak during the "debate". It was all based on the two issues on which we agree. Of course, the corporate media paid no attention. When he started discussing his economic and tax policies most thinking people said "thanks but no thanks".

I learned when I was a kid in the 60's that the political system was effed up, but I figured those elected officials would at least try and throw us a bone or try to appear honest. I lost that innocent viewpoint around March 19, 2003. If I could recommend a few things for you to do to be better informed, they would be turn off the TV, don't believe any news source as being 100% accurate, and read as much as you can. The reading deal is probably the most important. Reading requires you to engage your brain in a different way and gives you the chance to digest it more fully.

I had not seriously taken a look at his economic policies - it being a waste of time and all...
Instead I was making a sideways comment on the media. You are very right about it controlling, manufacturing as Chomsky says, opinion.

If you Google "Gravel Malloy" lots of options for hearing the interview come up. It's worth listening to the WHOLE thing.

though I can say the sales tax idea is for me a non-starter.

He's got some ideas that range from nutty to dumb.

Probably it has more to do with looking "presidential" than being "electable", although your post is certainly food for thought and it's funny we don't discuss stuff like this more.

Kucinich is the one who I just WISH could be our president, but deep down we know that he just doesn't have the "look". It's really sad that perhaps the best one of them all (arguably of course) doesn't get the respect he deserves.

Those who post here tend to be knowledgeable and politically aware. Regrettably, not all are as informed or even curious about who is running. Too many rely on the "news" and the media to spoon info into them the pros and cons of the "front runners" who they have selected for us. If we were to rely on the media, we could assume that only HRC and Obama are running on the Democratic side, and Rudy, McCain and - oh wait, don't tell me - that old guy who used to be on Law and Order are running for the Repub nomination. :sarcasm:

Too many have their opinions shaped for them. I go absolutely nuts when people well into campaign cycle don't know who the candidates are.