My point, basically, is this: if we're going to complain about the media creating an aura of inevitability around Sen. Clinton, is it fair for us to turn around and create an aura of inelectability around Kucinich and Gravel?

I really don't know the answer to this, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

I guess another question I want to ask is this: what does Mike Gravel represent to the Democratic Party?

By most metrics I can come up with, he should be a hero. This is a man who was single-handedly responsible for the public release of most of the Pentagon Papers. This is a man who led the fight to defund the Vietnam war. The things he accomplished in the 1960s and 1970s should be a beacon for all of us who want to bring down the current warmongering regime, and restore democracy to our country.

In some sense, I think Gravel "isn't a credible candidate" because he is, in some sense, an embarassment to everyone who calls themselves progressive. Sure, Obama and Edwards aren't taking money from PACs or Lobbyists. Good on them. But they're still glad-handing and elbow-rubbing with a lot of rich, white assholes who have a lot of rich, white advice to offer. They have begun to pander to the Netroots (and yeah, I think that's largely what Edwards' and Obama's clumsy overtures have been), and that's great news for our egos, but does it make them truly progressive? Not really. Mike Gravel, and to a lesser extent Dennis the Menace, make that clear. Matt was right on when he said that Gravel was the only one who seemed to really understand what people have been feeling for the last seven years. Doesn't that count for something?

It's a shame to me that we can't seem to get past the horse-race no matter how hard we try. I almost cried reading the post debate thread at the sheer volume of uncritical, unthinking sound bites about who won or lost the debate. Who gives a shit? This isn't about who looked nervous or who did or didn't raise their hand -- as Kucinich said, "This isn't American Idol, we are electing a President here." Let's talk substantively about what the candidates said. If the debate were entirely boiled down to bullet points, Kucinich and Gravel said more I agree with and less I disagree with than anyone on stage. I suspect the same is true for a lot of you.

This point is driven home in trying to find a transcript of the debate on msnbc.com. I found: links to "Interractive: Rate the candidates," "Live vote: Who won the debate?," "Discuss: Who won the first tussle?" and "Fighting the battle in the spin room." Notably absent: "WHAT THE FUCKING CANDIDATES ACTUALLY SAID."

I expected, perhaps, to find more substantive discussion here or on Kos. No such luck. Kos had, "Did someone win?  Did someone come in second?  Did someone break out of a holding pattern?" and MyDD had "Who did well? Who didn't? What were the memorable lines? Who flubbed?"

Taking Options Off the Table was refreshing for it's willingness to address the substance of what was said (very little, when it comes down to it) but then degraded into "he raised his hand," "no he didn't" in the comments. I thought we were past this.

To start, let's look at what the candidates said on Iraq:

Kucinich said:

I think it's inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, you continue to vote to fund the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you're reauthorizing the war all over again.

Gravel said:

If you're worried about filibuster, here's what you do tactically. They can pass it in the House. We've got the votes there.

In the Senate, let them filibuster it. And let Reid call up every -- at 12:00 every day to have a cloture vote. And let the American people see clearly who's keeping the war going and who's not.

I agree with both of those statements a whole hell of a lot more than something like this:

We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward. [Obama]

Which is a nice idea, but doesn't say how we make it happen. Or this:

But I think that the real question before us: Is what do we do now? How do we try to persuade or require this president to change course?

He is stubbornly refusing to listen to the will of the American people. He threatens to veto the legislation we've passed, which has been something that all of us have been advocating for a number of years now.

And I can only hope that he will not veto it. And I can only end by saying that if this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will. [Clinton]

Which does a great job of putting the ball in Bush's court, politically, but basically says, "I hope to hell this war doesn't end before the elections, because I would be out a talking point."

I'm sorry if this seems vitriolic, I need to remember to stay drunk for a few days surrounding presidential debates otherwise I get surly.

It's almost depressing that I feel the need to include this disclaimer, but I think it's probably for the best: I have no intention of voting for Kucinich or Gravel. Both of them, for whatever reason (most likely because Kucinich is a pussy, and Gravel is a little scary and maybe senile), are completely unable to "gain traction," as Leather Face put it, with the media or the media consuming public. But I think it's scary and a little depressing that their ideas, most of which are pretty awesome, aren't gaining traction in the progressive sphere (blogo or otherwise).