GRAVEL AND KUCINICH

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich kick ass. I just read one of my favorite blogs and the proprietor had the following to say:

Dennis Kucinich and Gravel are just annoying. Yeah, I get it, some of you like Kucinich. And that's nice. Joe likes his dog Boomer too. It doesn't mean he should be on stage with the real candidates. Kucinich has zero chance of winning, as does Gravel - they shouldn't be on the stage taking time from the serious candidates.

What the fuck is this guy's problem? Aravosis, I mean. They "shouldn't be on the stage?" They aren't "serious candidates?"

What has Hillary Clinton ever done compared to Mike Gravel? Gravel was in the Army in the 50s. He entered the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. He filibustered against renewal of the draft--by himself--and Nixon was forced to let it die. What has Hillary Clinton ever done that's even remotely comparable to any of that? For that matter, what have Obama or Edwards done that are remotely comparable to any of that?

For Pete's sake, Clinton and Edwards both voted for the Iraq war. Gravel is unequivocally against it and the imperialist/neocon/corporatist agenda that fueled it. Clinton and Edwards now say they don't like the war, but they still favor the imperialist/corporatist agenda.

Kucinich

Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the war in Iraq. He is also against the imperialist/corporatist agenda. For Christ's sake, he's introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

Gravel and Kucinich have more principle, conviction, and good ideas than the rest of the Democratic candidates put together. They are serious candidates, but of course they have no chance of winning if major liberal blogs like Americablog insist on parroting the mainstream, corporate media tactic of following the horse race. What the hell is the liberal blogosphere for if not to promote candidates that actually stand for what we say we want?