Letters to the Editor
-
less mockery indeed
I didn't see the debate, but I read an item in the LA Times, which discussed the Gravel-Obama exchange, thusly:
The format for the 90-minute debate allowed each candidate a total of 11 minutes to talk — giving Kucinich and Gravel, both of whom have a negligible showing in polls, equal time with the front-runners, which they used to take aggressive hits at Clinton and Obama.
The dynamic produced at least one memorable exchange, in which Gravel knocked Obama for saying he would not rule out any options in responding to Iran's nuclear program.
"Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barack," Gravel said.
"I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike. I promise," Obama said, his words muffled by audience laughter.
Obama will get credit for disavowing his previous comment that "all options are on the table", while also being able to finesse his position in suggesting he was just joking, and is "just as tough as ever" in his stance towards Iran-- and undoubtedly he will do so shortly. Call it gestalt politicking.
But you are wrong, Mr Shapiro, to dismiss Kucinich and Gravel as mere protest candidates. Do you want to be one of those people who cavalierly frame our political debate the way a Maureen Dowd or a Chris Matthews would? I suggest to you that millions of Americans are scared ***tless by the nonchalance with which the major presidential candidates discuss a possible war with Iran, but most of them either
1.don't support Kucinich or Gravel because they don't think they have a chance, partly because fancypants journalists tell them so,
2.or they haven't even heard of them, in part because of the afore-mentioned fancypants journalists, who can't be bothered less they seem uncool for engaging in unseemly thoroughness.
In the meantime, the democrats who meekly supported war in 2002 appear unwilling to learn any lessons from our recent past. Gravel spoke up. Good for him.