Odd Lots New Series #1B

Eleanor of Aquitaine
Graca Machel
Emma of Normandy

(It's not cheating to google.)

TEN LITTLE INDIANS revisited

This is the part of the presidential campaign process I really hate. The media and the back-room boys select a batch of "serious" candidates, put them through their paces, and then pick them off, one by one, until only one candidate on each side remains. Some of them just run out of money, the demand for which gets almost exponentially higher with every campaign. But the criteria for deselecting those who pass the financial bar usually has to do with the discovery of skeletons in various closets, or bloopers made on the way to the White House. Which means that the survivors are likely to be those with the fewest skeletons, or the best apparatus for keeping the closets locked, or the most practiced skills at avoiding or at least concealing bloopers (often by avoiding all spontaneous speech and action.) Which leaves us, at the end, with the most processed and boring candidates, on both sides.

The ability to conceal past or current bloopers, of course, also depends on the attitude of the media and the various power brokers to each candidate, as well as the candidate's financial and political resources. The way the media pounced on Howard Dean's infamous barbaric yawp in 2004, for instance, still amazes me. Football fans all over the world have been not only forgiven but lauded for the same level of enthusiastic expression, so what on earth was wrong with Dean's doing the same thing? My guess is that he was perceived by the media and the power brokers as a dangerously competent and innovative outsider. He had, after all, come up with the first significant new wrinkle in fundraising (the internet) since Richard Viguerie discovered direct mail. If he was not to invade the preserves of power, they had to find some way to stop him, and this was the first thing that came along. Given Dean's personally stainless life and successful tenure as a governor, it might have been the last chance they got.

Sexual pecadilloes have been ammunition for potshots at candidates ever since at least the first elections in ancient Rome. The Romans were a lot more explicit and probably somewhat less careful about fact-checking than American reporters, since the laws against libel and slander were still in their infancy. Google "sex and politics US" and you will probably find a lot more than you ever wanted to know about the frailties of Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Gary Hart, and Bill Clinton, among others far too numerous to mention.

The latest variation on this theme is divorce. Reasonably enough, a few advocacy groups for "family values" have started to wonder why almost every major Republican politician has been divorced at least once, often under seriously scandalous circumstances, while almost all the front-runners of the party of abortion and gay rights are models of monogamy. Most of this concern seems to be directed at Giuliani, who at one time was known to be simultaneously two-timing his wife and his mistress with yet a third woman. (Is that three-timing?) Although he is still a promising front-runner, with lots of money and media behind him, if he fails, it will almost certainly be because of his personal life.

On the Democratic side, the two clear front-runners are Clinton and Obama. Everybody else, in both parties, is working on knocking them off (that's one of the drawbacks to being an early front-runner--it paints a target on your back.) If they survive that process, they may well end up as running mates.

But if they don't, I'd like to suggest another winning team. At the moment, both of them are just barely hanging onto "serious candidate" status, not because they don't want the job, but because they don't have much in the way of financial or media backing. You heard it here first: Gravel and Kucinich.

You may not even remember Mike Gravel. He was the Senator from Alaska during the Pentagon Papers-Watergate era. He was the one who managed to get the Pentagon Papers (the documents that revealed the lies that got us into the Vietnam War and the atrocities we committed during that war) into the public record when the government was trying to hide them. He supports a proposal for a national initiative, enabling citizens to get nationwide legislative proposals onto the ballot when Congress fails to act. He opposes the Iraq War. He is, in general, a good guy. For more info, see The National Initiative for Democracy vote.org and Senator Mike Gravel. Main disadvantage, aside from the perceived lack of "seriousness" would be his age. At 77, he would be the oldest candidate ever.

Then there's Dennis Kucinich. Since he's the younger of the two (at 61), he would presumably be running for the veep spot. Former mayor of Cleveland (the youngest ever, when he was elected), he has represented his Ohio district in congress for ten years. He has proposed impeaching Vice President Cheney, and is a staunch opponent of the war in Iraq. Reagan nostalgiacs may be attracted by the fact that Kucinich is a member in good standing of The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States (IATSE), an AFL-CIO affiliated union. For more info, see Dennis Kucinich and Congressman Dennis Kucinich .

You may have some other personal favorites in this race. Don't let me derail your enthusiasm. But whatever you do, whoever you suppport, don't let the media and the power brokers decide which candidate you will take seriously. This year, most of the "serious" candidates are pretty interesting and worth checking out. Make your own choices and back them seriously. Your vote belongs to you.