Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

On Climate, Business as Usual




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Obama’s Wars

Obama’s Wars

By Bob Woodward
$15.00

more items

 
A/V Booth

Gravel Has His Own Debate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 19, 2007
Gravel with Clinton on TV

Mike Gravel wasn’t invited to CNN’s Democratic debate last Thursday, but that didn’t stop him from taking on the other candidates anyway, armed with the power of TiVo. What follows is part history lesson and part Howard Beale polemic. Enjoy.

Watch it:

Check out The Largest Minority for more coverage.

 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 29, 2007 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Ernest, I did this special for you.  I think very highly of your comments on all discussion boards in which I’ve participated.  Glad you had a laugh, I did too.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 29, 2007 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

If Gravel was to get out of the race, I would respect his endorsement.

Report this

By gravel kucinich paul nader, November 29, 2007 at 4:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HDNet Dec 1 DNC debate (Sat 7:30pm ET).
- all eight -

gravel kucinich paul nader

Report this

By cann4ing, November 28, 2007 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

Fabulous, S.  I can’t stop laughing long enough to try to top that one, so I won’t.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

It’s a game!  I love it.  Or, E, “being aboveboard upon discovery of a boner brings luminous mirth to the hefty of heart.”

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

Not bad, S, or perhaps “candid admission of error reflects enlightenment.”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

How about, “it takes an enlightened human being to admit when they are wrong”?

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

Once again I find candor in your willingness to reconsider an earlier position, Shenonymous.  Admirable.

That called to mind, however, another sexist phrase that we Americans often use.  Why do people say “it takes a man to admit when he’s wrong,” when the phrase applies to both men and women equally?  If you have given thought to an alternative, gender-neutral phrase to replace that one, I’d love to hear it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

Because while issues are clear but the candidates are not, I, in a manner of speaking, mine these forums for insight to help me understand and come to some rational decision so I may vote as an informed individual with some conviction. I know I am not immune to reactionary responses. And I try not to be defensive. Maybe not always successfully.  I have my pet political-issue peeves (my PPIPs).  I can always count on someone able to set me straight, occasionally without patronization, and then I actually appreciate it and have no resentment whatever.  Yes, I was able to see that sexism was not really part of his strategy.  But the way it was presented on the video above, could make one think it was.  It was not easy to find all the Gravel criticisms as I googled and was not able.  I’m finding politics today very exciting and can only hope we can shape a better country and by doing that maybe have a better impact on the world.  There are so many different aspects to consider. I will look forward to both your and Ernest’s comments. So again, thank you.

Report this

By Sam, November 27, 2007 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Shenonymous, I’m glad to help, and I’m happy to see you’re willing to revise your criticism.  Your evaluation of Gravel’s arguments (#116170), while sound and from what I could tell accurate from a philosophical perspective, didn’t seem to provide any evidence to substantiate your previous claims of sexism.  I’m glad to see you’re willing to change your view with the presentation of new evidence, which to me is characteristic of a free-thinking individual; an increasing rarity in today’s political and intellectual culture.

Regarding the $1 million requirement, I’m not sure if it’s a provision set in place by the Democratic Party, CNN, or some other organization.  If it was set in place by CNN, then it is an utter contrivance considering all Republican candidates, including those with less than $1 million in funds (Brownback, Hunter, and Tancredo according to opensecrets.org), were ALL invited to this Friday’s YouTube/CNN Republican Debate.  It just goes to show that you can never be too far to the right, but the moment you move to the left of the New York Times and the current Democratic Party orthodoxy, you’re out.

I will read the paper on the National Initiative when I get a chance.  Thanks for the link.  I have several criticisms of Gravel as well, including his regressive “Fair” Tax plan and insurance-based universal health care plan.  Those and other small criticisms aside, I love his “outside the box” approach and admire his courage to stand up for principle regardless of the political consequences, both during his time in the Senate and now as a candidate for President.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

After watching the Gravel debates the Dems, it is clear he should have been included.  There is something radically wrong with a system that keeps candidates with valid ideas out of a public debate.  It does look like at least two other candidates Clinton and Edwards were looking for a reduction in the number on stage. But I would be interested in what the other candidates had to say about the elimination of Gravel.  The million dollar requirement is an artificial manipulation for what purpose I cannot understand except the producers want to have more questions asked and cursory answer given within the time bought for the debate.  The debates seem fatuous to me.  Gravel should have been there regardless of what I think about all of his political views.  It is very difficult to find what the candidates think on the issues as there are so many on both sides of the political ideology (Dems and Repubs) and while I have the luxury to surf around and have the interest to listen to radio and tv political programs, I would bet there is a large segment of the population that don’t.  Guess for me, these forums help.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Thank you Sam.  I am grateful for the links to the Gravel dramatizes debate.  I will have to revise my criticism.  I watched the first video of his ghostdancing debate and think it was a good thing.  It gave me more perspective hearing all the candidates replies.  I listened and watched and have many agreements with his criticisms and I have disagreements.  And I have many agreements, criticisms, and disagreements with the candidates.  I won’t take the time to list them now except to mention that en passant.  But I am intrigued by his proposal of National Initiative.  An interesting critique is offered by Paul Jacobs,
http://nationalinitiative.us/symposium/jacobpaper.pdf
Having live in California for over 40 years, though no longer, I know that the initiative and referendum process has worked in California for many years.  But I think Jacobs has valid suggestions for improving the proposal of the Democracy Amendment.  I will continue my to make inquiries for the pros and cons of the proposition.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 27, 2007 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, the $1 million fund raising criteria is an artificial device utilized by the corporate media as an excuse to silence a dissenting voice by excluding it from the debate.  It is fundamentally undemocratic and a device, like many others utilized by the corporate media, to prevent a full airing of “issues” before the American electorate.

As to my observation of “gender blindness,” it was one that came by way of neutrally observing your consistent efforts to conflate what other posters, and in this case, Senator Gravel was saying, when there was no hint of gender issues in their respective remarks.  I also observed that bias in your observations about a supposed male “genetic predisposition” not to appreciate issues that adversely affect women.  I for one have been a consistent supporter of both NOW and NARAL.  I think my observation is valid, and certainly not “beneath” me.

Report this

By Sam, November 27, 2007 at 8:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here’s the actual time each candidate got on July 23: http://chrisdodd.com/node/1878.

Here’s a link to the entire alternative debate: http://www.ustream.tv/Gravel2008/videos/lYSUmY,gpZixLmp7zuvXQA (I found it by clicking ustream.tv in the blog post linked to and then doing a search for Mike Gravel since the copy on Google Video was taken down.)  This was a Democratic Party debate, so no, Gravel did not specifically comment on the Republicans.

The rest of your comments will have to come later.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 27, 2007 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

My biggest problem with Hillary is her connection at the hip with special interests.  But why should that bother me now, do I expect transparent integrity from political leaders who will do or say anything to get the job. 

We have a leader of lies in office of president right now, so a few less lies from the next person in the White House may be invigorating.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 27, 2007 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

Sam, I can see that in November at Las Vegas, Gravel confronts a video of Hillary, who doesn’t have the opportunity to confront Mike Gravel.  Wonderful contrivance. You are just plain wrong in what you are telling me. I did as you suggested.  I reread the post and visited not only Gravel’s link, the CNN debate and all the other links.  Now let’s be very clear.  The mock debate Gravel had was indeed, as I said, only against a video of Hillary Clinton.  The title of the video is Gravel vs Hillary.  Gravel was not invited to the November Las Vegas CNN debate because he raised $240,000 not the $1 million that was required.  He was a sorehead for two reasons:  He wasn’t able to raise enough money, and Hillary raised more than enough.  I watched the entire July 23 debate and heard all the candidate’s comments including Gravel who had just about the same amount of time as the other candidates, the video of the July debate was broken up into several segments but it seemed the videos covered the entire thing.  The questions put were from people on a telecast, and the questioners asked specific candidates specific questions. I transcribed as I watched it and heard all the candidate’s answers. If Gravel criticized all the debaters of the November debate, there is no video of him doing that that I could find anywhere on the Internet.  If you have one, I’d be delighted to see it.  Because that is exactly my point, He selected only Hillary to attack.  Might he have done that on behalf of the other boys? And the ones in the Rethug boys club too?

From the video, at the beginning Clinton is criticizing the Bush administration and Gravel is criticizing her for something else.  It’s too weird.  It’s called deflecting the attention, an illusionist trick.  Have you really watched it?  I mean really really watched it?  Then when Hillary criticizes Bush for not having diplomatic relations with Iran, Gravel doesn’t deal with Hillary but attacks Bill Clinton’s policy, which is a fallacy of poisoning the well and calling her a liar is a fallacy of an appeal to belief, and by claiming she’s ignorant, he commits another fallacy, an appeal to ridicule.  He also commits the fallacy of an appeal to fear and a party to what could cause millions of human lives and unleash a nuclear holocaust.  His over use of “appalling, appalling is rather melodramatic and the fallacy of an appeal to emotion.  Oh, he’s good, really good at the weaving of a particular denigrating image of this woman candidate.  He has thespian talents.  We could go through the entire video and I could give more fallacies this old bellyacher is heaping on the only woman in the bunch.  He flipflops back and forth between criticizing Hillary then criticizing her as representing the Democrats, it’s the fallacy of bandwagonning.  Interesting dodging. He commits other fallacies such as begging the question and burden of proof, person attack, oh my gawd, a whole slew of them.  Whadda guy.  We could do that, keep going, if you like.

Ernest, your post #116106 is informative but extraneous and attacking me by calling me blinded by my gender is really beneath you.  It is plain stupid.  I’ve said plenty of times Hillary is not my choice, but…should she be nominated by the party, I will vote for her.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

Not a very convincing retort, Shenonymous. 

This post dealt with a snippet of Clinton responding to young man who appeared at the debate together with his mother.  The young man served three tours of duty in Iraq.  His mother was fearful he would now be sent to Iran.  Gravel took Clinton to task because, despite her denials to the contrary, her vote for Kyle-Lieberman has moved this nation dangerously close to another war. 

The Bush administration has consistently argued, even in cases they lost at the Supreme Court, that the Congressional authorization to use force that passed in the wake of 9/11 amounts to an unlimited authority for the president, as commander in chief, to take the nation to “war” against the “terrorists” anywhere and at any time.

Clinton stated that Iran has been directly implicated in funding and arming the insurgency in Iraq.  She presented that as an established fact, just as in the run-up to the war in Iraq she had repeated claims that Saddam possessed WMD, a statement that proved to be a damnable lie. 

The fact is that the claims of Iranian involvement in the Iraq insurgency are dubious at best.  By going along with the administration’s claim that the Iranian guard is a terrorist unit she has helped to move this country dangerously close to an unmitigated disaster.  And if you were not so blinded by gender you would see that, just as you should see that Hillary Clinton, a former member of the Wal Mart Board of Directors, is prepared to sell out the American working and middle classes on issues like NAFTA and the WTO; that Mrs. Clinton, who is the second largest recipient of healthcare insurance lobby monies (second only to Geo. W. Bush) is also the advocate of a sham “universal coverage” proposal that amounts to a subsidy scheme for the insurance industry.  The only real reform, single payer, is offered only by one candidate, Dennis Kucinich.

This election is not about boys and girls, men and women.  It is about war and peace; life and death; policies that preserve democracy and the rule of law vs policies that involve executive lawlessness and the surrender of our civil rights.

Finally, while I would be the last to encourage anyone to vote based on polling data, if you go to Brad Blog you will find today’s Zogby poll revealing that in head-to-head matchups, Hillary Clinton loses to all four of the top Republi-crooks whereas either Obama or Edwards beats the same four.  (The poll did not measure how Kucinich would fare).

Report this

By Sam, November 26, 2007 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@ Shenonymous

If you reread the post in its entirety (including the link below the video), you’ll realize that the video posted above is only a small segment of an event that included Gravel criticizing every single candidate on a variety of issues.

Also, if you just watch the video again, you’ll see Gravel calling out ALL the candidates on stage and the Democratic Party as a whole.  For example:

“This is what the Democrats have locked into, which is another war, which is the way we did it with the Democrats and the Vietnam war, with the Iraq war, and with the Republicans and now the Democrats locked in permitting Bush to go to war.”

“These are all fellow travelers to war because they all admit a little bit, ‘Oh, I’m good on this, but they are terrorists.  I’m good on this, but they shouldn’t have the bomb.  I’m good on this, but they’re killing Americans.’  Well, they wouldn’t be killing Americans if we brought all the Americans home.  It’s the insurgents killing Americans.  And its their country, and we need to bring our troops home.  This is not what they talk about.  This is obfuscation of the worst kind of political demagoguery.” 

You’ll see Gravel call several of the candidates demagogues throughout the entire alternate debate.  This is hardly a singular attack on Hillary, nor a sexist one.  And if somebody else wants to bring up the “kid” comment, I suggest you also review the video.  Gravel is clearly talking about the soldier in the audience who asked the question, not Clinton.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 26, 2007 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

Ernest, at the risk of being called a feminist sparkplug, you can’t see beyond surfaces.  By default and taking only Clinton to task, regardless of how much you like them, Obama and Kucinich, or even whether or not I like them, and for the record I do, they are not the only other boys on the debating team and Gravel ignored them too.  Furthermore, there are more than the issues of Iraq and Iran for which all the other candidates ought to be evaluated.  Was this called a debate, even if it was a synthetic one?

Report this

By cann4ing, November 26, 2007 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous you are way off on this one.  Gravel criticized Clinton on substance, not gender.  You play the gender card like OJ played the race card.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 26, 2007 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

Yes it is, Non Credo, about gender in spite of and along with the other criticisms made about Hillary Clinton.  But it is expected, her being the first brave lady to attempt such a high assault on the lock-step male bastion of politics.  The few women we have in politics are for the most part strong but many bend to the pressure of the desire to stay in office under the masterdom of their male colleagues.  They are learning and learning is often a painful process

Report this

By Verne Arnold, November 26, 2007 at 3:41 am Link to this comment

#115064 by Robert B. Livingston on 11/21 at 9:04 pm
(4 comments total)

Crudely comparing Gravel’s attempt to voice his candid opinions to the fictional Howard Beale clip is exactly why I have come to detest and distrust Truthdig.

Why lampoon him like that? 

Nicely said….I agree.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 24, 2007 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

I was looking around TD for information about Gravel since I don’t know that much about him and ran into this video article and a few other commenters I often encounter elsewhere.  Rather nice. 

I agree with Ernest about depriving the citizens of this country of the opportunity to have all candidates speak.  Can’t agree though that this was a wonderful rebuttal. It did not nearly reach the heights that Howard Beale’s did.  It was grouchy not profound.

Many of his ideas have merit but was Gravel supposed to comment on all the “other” candidates in the entire debate, as advertised, or launch a specific attack on Hilllary? I do not agree with Clinton on many issues and she is not my choice in the primaries.  But if she wins the nomination I will vote for her.  Gravel is marginalized because he can’t make his points and criticisms known.  On the few debates he was invited to and I watched them, he did very little to galvanize the audience or the rest of the viewing public.  In this video he portrayed a simple grumbling grouch and made a personal attack at Clinton and only Clinton.  Are we to suppose he doesn’t disagree with any of the other candidates?  How can we not think from this video he is not sexist?

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, November 24, 2007 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ours is the most schizoid nation in known history of homosapien.  Nobody screams bloody murder about stemcells tossed by necessity into the trash but bloody murder be screamed said stemcells should be used in medical research.  A child is aborted before she enters a world on foul Earth where she will not have sufficient love and food so naturally in accepted modern religion said innocent child goes right to Heaven, rather than say be having to prove she is good enough on Earth so what she would lack nurture.  And a larger segment of the US population scream bloody murder said child should get her shortcut to Heaven.  All this on and on is schizoid, mindless soul rape when there are true problems on Earth for humans, such as starvation, torture, prison etcetera.  Yea.  Gravel is the most sensible and entertaining human running for US President but he is not twisted thus cannot be believed in schizoid Nation.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 22, 2007 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment

How long are the American people going to put up with the corporate media’s manipulation of our democracy. Who are “they” to deprive “We the People” the opportunity to have each candidate, including Sen. Gravel who was not their because of their refusal, or Mr. Kucinich who was there but was prevented from addressing this issue of fundamental importance?  Why was the America public deprived of the opportunity to hear Sen. Gravel’s wonderful rebuttal?

It is time that we have a debate conducted on PBS, moderated by Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman.  A debate that includes all Democratic candidates including Gravel.  A debate run by those who would seek out substance rather than “diamonds or pearls.”

Oh, Hell, what am I thinking?  I must be one of those delusional people who thinks we are still living in a democracy.  A “real debate” with honest, hard-working journalists who are not afraid to speak truth to power as moderators?  Fat chance!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 22, 2007 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

Shameless exploitation of peoples lives in the name of corporate interests, Hillary shows her hand, why for some is it so hard to see?

Report this

By Robert B. Livingston, November 21, 2007 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

Crudely comparing Gravel’s attempt to voice his candid opinions to the fictional Howard Beale clip is exactly why I have come to detest and distrust Truthdig.

Why lampoon him like that? 

There is something very wrong when life and death issues are reduced to such cheap shots.

Gravel gave a clear answer to what he would do:  he would bring the troops home so that they would not foment further insurgency against them.

Gravel exposes the other candidates as opportunistic phonies and liars who will truly facilitate more war. 

Hillary Clinton had real gall to face that soldier and lie to him like she did.  She is shameless.  We should all cry out to high heaven.

Someone else wrote here that Kucinich should take lessons from Gravel—and I agree.

Report this

By thomas billis, November 21, 2007 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only guy besides Kuccinich who makes any sense.The Democratics got him out of the debates because the free speech party is not interested in free speech.Next to go will be Kuccinich.Then the Democrats can have that same warm cozy insider debates that the Republicans have.The fact that Kuccinich and Gravel have garnered very little support among democrats is a mystery to me.I will be changing my affiliation to independent so I can honestly say that the way the democrats are going is not of my doing.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 21, 2007 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

Mike Gravel would make a much better president than Hillary.

Report this

By Sam, November 21, 2007 at 9:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@ Chalmers Johnson

Thanks for the grammar lesson.  This is getting boring.  Care to actually address the arguments I originally made instead of changing the subject?

“As for Hillary, her “her First Lady position counts as experience” but not in the Executive branch as she was First Lady and not an elected official.”

Based on that logic, only the President and Vice President count as Executive Branch experience since those are the only elected ones.  You might want to let Karl Rove know he has no experience in the Executive Branch since his job in the White House as Chief Of Staff was non-elected.  Same with Madeline Albright to name a Clinton appointee (Senate confirmed, not elected).  I suppose that’s true for a whole host of non-elected positions in the Executive Branch (and other branches of govt. for that matter).  That’s really sound logic Douglas.

Naturally, people working in the Executive Branch hold varying degrees of input, so of course Hillary isn’t responsible for EVERYTHING, but she is complicit in everything the Administration did.  And no, she’s not responsible for his “fucking” Monica Lewinksy, to put it in your own sexist terms.  I’m talking about actual POLICIES, which you seem keen to avoid.

Again, you make accusations, back them up with no facts or logic, and then change the subject to avoid actual discussion.  Bill O’Reilly would be proud.

Report this

By paul, November 21, 2007 at 7:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

well I support Gravel the one with the solutions and imagination.  With Gravel you can go into the future with excitement and insiration and his programs are right on all of them.  The rest of the field has not much to speak of and no inspiration that is exciting and a change from the mediocre present and past. Gravel has delivered and will deliver again a humaine government that is exciting, rich and full of life.  Everyone knows he is dead on, on all the issues especially the drug war, war, taxation, national initiative, education.  He is a hercules next to a bunch of whining girls.  He is tough and shows passion, what a human, as opposed to the rest of the retards running the show.

Report this

By paul, November 21, 2007 at 6:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think that the positions of Mike Gravel are a no brainer why people dont flock to his side. He has all the right solutions for healthcare, drug war, war, fixing tax, windmill generators are all over europe.  He is right and everyone knows it. Why do people bury their heads in the sand talking about Hilary and the rest of them, they are all the same, they offer no progress and no change.  As far as Sen Gravels” sometimes angry stance, I like it and it sends goose bumps through my skin, so it is extremely effective, for those people who do not like it are deluding themselves and think that the world is all nice and happy so you have Bussh he is so smooth.  Well I have news that the world is at a crossroads on environment,and many other topics and no one seems to have solutions but Mike Gravel.  And his solutions are a nice way out and do not demand that much of us in reality, but are exciting and a fair means to equilibriate the world.  How can people not get excited by gravel a man that has a proven track record.  Hillary has a unproven track record because she did nothing about healtcare as far a I can tell it was a failure and lost promises, do people want more of this or a solid person like Gravel who has stood up to danger and politicians, media and such for the good of all humans. Yea so in light of all this go ahead and call Gravel names, sure give power to the greedy that is really nice and intelligent, go backwards that is going to be an exciting future for us all.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 21, 2007 at 3:28 am Link to this comment

#114758 by Sam on 11/20 at 2:14 pm: “...It was you that was separating Hillary from her husband’s policies, thereby implicating that she wasn’t involved in policy deliberation in the Clinton administration…”

Say after me, Sam - “It was you WHO was….” - the word “that” refers to an inanimate object or non-human life-form. maybe you don’t understand the diference, uhh…..

As for Hillary, her “her First Lady position counts as experience” but not in the Executive branch as she was First Lady and not an elected official. In other words, she was not the “decider guy” and thus cannot be responsible for all of his actions - including fucking Monica Lewinsky.

But you could say that was the second impeachment she was involved in, though. Apart from that, you are totally dishonest in the construct of your dubious and distorted arguments, Sam - you can’t have it both ways. By denying Gravel’s sexist approach, “kid”, you have become complicit yourself…..

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 21, 2007 at 1:18 am Link to this comment

Wow, I never knew Mike Gravel and I had that much in common.  I also have debates with the candidates during the debates.  It’s fun ain’t it Mike.

Every candidate and/or organization that endorses, accepts or marginalizes another candidate out of any debate is undermining the constitution and the rights of citizens to choose their leaders.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 20, 2007 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

It is really niece to see the Gravel tape, I like it better than the debate, in-fact Kicinich should do the same thing, before they kick him out of the debates. 

Hillary the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Money talks Hillary the war monger for pres.

Report this

By GB, November 20, 2007 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bottom line. If you want more war then vote for Hillary. If you want peace and common sense then Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul are more worth your time. The reason these three are minimalized in the media is because big media is run by the military industrial complex and media consolidations benefitting by distracting us from the truth. Some of us see through it, alot of Americans don’t.
Remember, the Pentagon was selling military parts to Iran at the same time Bush was calling them terrorists. Wake up and smell the truth.

Report this

By Sam, November 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sorry, the last sentence of the first paragraph in my last comment should read: “You claimed the latter, and then called me a sexist for pointing out what you did.

Report this

By Sam, November 20, 2007 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@ Douglas Chalmers

“#114746 by Sam on 11/20 at 12:23 pm: “- So wait.  Does Hillary get to claim her time as First Lady as legitimate experience or not… The “kid” remark may be a touch off color, but it’s hardly offensive (to me at least)...”

As a total sexist, you must be completely up yourself, Sam. Oh, I’m sorry - this is a pro-Mike Gravel topic, then???”

- I actually consider First Lady experience to be legitimate experience in the Executive Branch.  If you actually READ my comments, you might have noticed that I was defending Clinton’s claim that her First Lady experience counts as experience in the Executive Branch.  It was you that was separating Hillary from her husband’s policies, thereby implicating that she wasn’t involved in policy deliberation in the Clinton administration.  Like I said, you can’t have it both ways.  Either she gets to claim that experience, and therefore take responsibility for her involvement and complicity in Clinton administration policy, or she can no longer claim that her First Lady position counts as experience in the Executive branch.  I believe the former is correct, and therefore consider Gravel’s criticism of her complicity in the Clinton administration’s actions to be legitimate.  You claimed the former, and then called me a sexist for pointing out what you did.

And sorry, since when is “kid” sexist?  Gravel has referred to other people younger than him, both male and female, as “kid” before.  You’ll probably notice a lot of older people talking this way.  This is really just a red herring to get away from actual discussion on the POLICIES.  Notice you addressed NONE of the arguments I made, instead simply grabbing a few quotes out of context and calling me a sexist. 

BTW, I could care less if you criticize Gravel, but please, for the sake of respectable dialogue, cease the personal attacks and discuss the actual policies.  Labeling anyone who criticizes Clinton as sexist is just ridiculous.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

#114746 by Sam on 11/20 at 12:23 pm: “- So wait.  Does Hillary get to claim her time as First Lady as legitimate experience or not…  The “kid” remark may be a touch off color, but it’s hardly offensive (to me at least)...”

As a total sexist, you must be completely up yourself, Sam. Oh, I’m sorry - this is a pro-Mike Gravel topic, then???

Report this

By Sam, November 20, 2007 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@ Douglas Chalmers

“He is right about Bush using the terror/terrorism word but his purpose is to bag Hillary by presumptuously accusing her of something she hasn’t said. So “unsophisticated” and then he goes on to blame her of something her husband did!?!?”

- So wait.  Does Hillary get to claim her time as First Lady as legitimate experience or not?  If she does consider it experience, then we should be able to criticize what the administration she was involved in did.  Either she takes responsibility for the “experience” she had as First Lady, and naturally, the policies and actions, good or bad, the Clinton administration took, or she doesn’t.

You can’t have it both ways.  If she wants to claim immunity from her husband’s record, then she should start telling us that her public service experience in the Federal Govt. is limited to seven years in the US Senate.  Seeing as she continues to claim the First Lady job as experience and simultaneously take credit for things her husband did, I think it’s fair to criticize her for those same things.

“Gravel is also blaming her for things which the Democrats AND the senate are guilty of as a group as if she was in a position to solve all of the problems herself. He is merely excusing himself for his own failures there….... how precious .....and how disloyal to his own party!”

- Gravel does criticize the Democrats.  Clinton does not.  She simply passes blame to the President.  Clinton voted to name the Iranian military a terrorist organization.  Bush already has the authority to use force against any entity the US government deems a terrorist organization.  What congress did with the Kyl/Lieberman amendment is indirectly authorize Bush to use military force against Iran.  Either she doesn’t get this, or she’s lying. 

Who said it’s her, and her alone who’s responsible for actions that the congress and Bush administration have done?  Not Gravel.  He called out ALL of the Democrats.

BTW, in case you didn’t know, Gravel hasn’t been in government for nearly 30 years.  So what exactly did he fail on that he’s excusing himself for?  And who cares if you’re disloyal to your own party?  What is this, the GOP, where party loyalty outweighs moral principle and observance of Federal and international law?  Or maybe you’re advocating some form of Bolshevism with strict party unity and loyalty?

“This is sexism (and age-ism in reverse, perhaps) masquerading as critique as Gravel “tilts at windmills” which are aside from Hillarys’ statements but conveniently also slags her. No wonder nobody wants him in any more debates….. “lets see how this kid responds” is an offensive and irresponsible remark!!!”

Please care to share what exactly he said that was sexist?  The “kid” remark may be a touch off color, but it’s hardly offensive (to me at least).  I don’t understand how criticizing Hillary’s policies is sexist.  When Fox News talks about pant suits, shrillness, calf-size, etc., that IS sexist.  But calling Hillary out on her votes and policies as well as her deliberate political obfuscation is fair game.  To be honest, this kind of grouping of all critics of Clinton as sexist reminds me of Israel apologists calling critics of Israeli policy anti-semitic.

Report this

By k11u, November 20, 2007 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mike Gravel - The only one that’s fighting and the only one that’s worth fighting for.

Report this

By C Quil, November 20, 2007 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

Go, Mike!

He and Kucinich tell the truth. Why aren’t people listening? Why don’t they want to hear it?

Report this

By Verne Arnold, November 20, 2007 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

#114670 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/20 at 4:38 am
(1254 comments total)

#114668 by Verne Arnold on 11/20 at 3:55 am:

WOW!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 5:38 am Link to this comment

#114668 by Verne Arnold on 11/20 at 3:55 am: ” You may have your opinion and rightfully so, please allow me mine….this is not asking permission…this is requesting courtesy and the freedom of speech and opinion.  Dissent and disagreement used to be the back bone of this republic. Peace…”

Frankly, I don’t really understand what youa re whining about, Verne. The blog is open to all and you post as you please. Truthdig are so slack they hardly care what you say. That is laid-back California style .....or at least it was until the black-shirted stormtroopers episode in Macarthur Park earlier this year.

The again, are you insinuating something? I would say that you are blaming Hillary for the Bush administration’s shortcomings - because that is what every sexist male has been doing lately (“phrases that men hear or repeat continually”). The real agenda is that they/you don’t want a woman president! I’ll say it again - it frightens the lot of you, uhh…... thus, “you divide and deceive yourselves”.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, November 20, 2007 at 4:55 am Link to this comment

•#114662 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/20 at 3:00 am
(1253 comments total)
•  #114654 by Verne Arnold on 11/20 at 1:32 am: “This also applies to the Clinton machine….trust it not!”
What are you looking for Verne - perfection? People are willing to accept this crazy style of democracy so the political party machine is what you get, uhh.
Don’t tell me that the Republican party machine is in any way better because the candidates are all male!!!

Mr. Chalmers, did you read my posts?  Both of them?  I don’t particularly care about gender, sexual preferences, race, or what planet a candidate comes from.  I am only concerned that a candidate follows and obeys the constitution of this country.  Hillary has already voted for the resolution to declare Iran’s Qud’s Force a terrorist organization…that’s on the record.  As far as I understand, that resolution is illegal under International Law.  This is not acceptable for me.  A continuation of this administrations policies by any, any, candidate (republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, et al) is not acceptable for me.  You may have your opinion and rightfully so, please allow me mine….this is not asking permission…this is requesting courtesy and the freedom of speech and opinion.  Dissent and disagreement used to be the back bone of this republic.
Peace

Report this

By Margaret from Portland, Or., November 20, 2007 at 4:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gravel will not make it he seems angry but what is he saying, all of those running could make a good president, Clinton has a lot of experience but she has Bill the husband that was Impeached, Barack Obama is a fresh face, but he is young, and this not having experience is a dumb excuse, the current President had experience too being governor of Texas, a southern state that is very corrupt and I will bet that daddy Bush helped junior to run that state.

Joe Biden would be a very good candidate he is smart and dispite what people say about rambling he is very knowledgable and has been a senator for a long time and if experience is what we need in a president he is our man.

I cannot imagine Gravel being president, I would rather have John McCain but that is not going to happen, the man is 70 yrs old and even though he seems honest has a politican ever been completely honest.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

#114654 by Verne Arnold on 11/20 at 1:32 am: “This also applies to the Clinton machine….trust it not!”

What are you looking for Verne - perfection? People are willing to accept this crazy style of democracy so the political party machine is what you get, uhh.

Don’t tell me that the Republican party machine is in any way better because the candidates are all male!!!

Report this

By Verne Arnold, November 20, 2007 at 2:32 am Link to this comment

Post Script;


This also applies to the Clinton machine….trust it not!

Report this

By Verne Arnold, November 20, 2007 at 2:28 am Link to this comment

As regards the present situation, lest anyone think history doesn’t repeat itself; here are a few notable quotes from Goethe:

Divide and rule, a sound motto. Unite and lead, a better one.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

Priceless;

We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

And finally;

The phrases that men hear or repeat continually, end by becoming convictions and ossify the organs of intelligence.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

This last one summarizes the Bush White House and neo-con propaganda machine, short, sweet and dead on.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 2:02 am Link to this comment

Ahh, Gravel starts out by pre-supposing out loud that Hillary has said something that she actually didn’t (if you listen to her voice). He is the one who is being “ignorant”, uhh!

He is right about Bush using the terror/terrorism word but his purpose is to bag Hillary by presumptuously accusing her of something she hasn’t said. So “unsophisticated” and then he goes on to blame her of something her husband did!?!?

Gravel is also blaming her for things which the Democrats AND the senate are guilty of as a group as if she was in a position to solve all of the problems herself. He is merely excusing himself for his own failures there….... how precious .....and how disloyal to his own party!

This is sexism (and age-ism in reverse, perhaps) masquerading as critique as Gravel “tilts at windmills” which are aside from Hillarys’ statements but conveniently also slags her. No wonder nobody wants him in any more debates….. “lets see how this kid responds” is an offensive and irresponsible remark!!!

Report this

By gravel kucinich paul nader, November 19, 2007 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 19, 2007 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

Re: #114577 by vet240 on 11/19 at 6:23 pm
(179 comments total)

“if you buy into the parties position you will forever be marginalized too. In fact you and I will become less and less important.”

Excellent point.  We see it happening incrementally in almost every regard.  Slowly, bit by bit every-one’s economic level, educational opportunities and constitutional freedoms are being worn away.  As people bought in to these political schemes with a fervor they sealed their fate.

I also believe that many were shocked to find that when they stood with and for the corporations that the gesture was not reciprocated.

Report this

By rowdy, November 19, 2007 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

don stivers

you’re right,it is hopeless.

thermonuclear holocaust; it would be glorious.

Report this

By vet240, November 19, 2007 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

The two major parties in this country along with the media work hard to marginalize honest people like Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul to th epoint most Americans believe these men are insane.

Why? Because they don’t want to give up their collective power and allow a government for the people and by the people.

So, if you buy into the parties position you will forever be marginalized too. In fact you and I will become less and less important.

Report this

By Don Stivers, November 19, 2007 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment

It is really amazing how the flock goes along with this travesty of information.

Gravel and Kucinich are right but the march to war goes on.  Brinkmanship sure works doesn’t it?  It worked with Iraq. Ha, ha, ha!!!

Why not give each candidate EQUAL TIME.  Maybe John Q. Public would see the so called front runners are inflating with hot air and no substance.

Oh God!  I think it is HOPELESS!

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.