Post Magazine: The presidential campaign of Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel believes he can win the presidency. He just has to overcome a near-empty campaign chest and the blank stares of voters who have never heard of him.

In this week's issue of Washington Post Magazine, Michael Leahy goes on the trail with the Democratic hopeful. Watch the video.

Michael Leahy is a staff writer for The Washington Post Magazine.

____________________

Michael Leahy: Thanks for joining us for the chat today. I see we have quite a few questions, so let's get started.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: Wanted to pass along a thought on your well-done and incisive Sunday story. While I appreciate the Senator's passion, what would he say to critics who think that he and most the remaining low ranking candidates are merely sucking oxygen out of the room and doing it only because of some Messianic sense of mission about social causes that few Americans seem to care about.

Michael Leahy: Thank you for the kind words and your question. I've seen and heard that word "Messianic" in several messages that I've received. Let me point out for starters that most politicians, whether in the first-tier or second-tier, are passionate about some cause or causes, though we generally ascribe "Messianic" only to those candidates with a remote chance of winning. Secondly, many underdog candidates before Gravel seized upon a presidential campaign as a means of advancing a social agenda (Al Sharpton is notable in that regard). Arguably, there is no solid ethical or political reason not to use a candidacy to advance a cause; after all, a candidacy is just another political tool.

_______________________

Baltimore, MD: My compliments on a story as compelling as it was colorful. (And thank goodness also that the Post finally did a major story on someone outside of the Big Three Demo contender)My question is this, If Gravel was involved in a one-on-one debate with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and had time to say all he really wanted to say to them, how would he challenge them?

Michael Leahy: Thanks. Gravel is quite clear what he would do if presented with the opportunity of having a lengthy discussion/debate with Hillary Clinton. He would grill her in particular on her vote to grant authorization for the Iraq war. He would ask her why, reportedly, she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). He would argue that when she suggests that she was simply among a large body of misled Democrats on the issue that she is being disingenuous; that, in fact, many of her Democratic colleagues voted against authorization (the Senate vote was 77-23). He would ask that she hold herself accountable for what he regards as a failure of judgment, and he would assert that her action then disqualifies her now as presidential material. He has his argument ready, certainly. His political problem, as he sees it, is in the structure of a typical Democratic debate, which affords a candidate only a minute or half-minute to talk at a time -- not enough time, he says, to make his case about Hillary Clinton or the other frontrunners.

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, PA: Loved your pieced on MG. At 19 I had dropped out of college (University of Alaska at Fairbanks) and got reclassified 1A. When I took my induction physical in a little room in an old building in downtown Anchorage, Gravel had been our junior senator for just a few years. While I served in the Navy, Gravel served our state and the nation by working to terminate a horrible, stupid, phony, pathetic war started by men with too much power, arrogance, solipsistic ego, and fool-headedness and almost devoid of empathy, heart, or moral and physical courage.

Almost 40 years later, Mike Gravel is still serving his nation in the only way he can. Running for president and denouncing the real cowards of society: the enablers of the current mindless and meaningless war of nothing. Nothing: no WMD, no mushroom cloud, no truth-telling general officer corps, no Saddam, no reconciliation, no country named Iraq, no peace, no prosperity, no hope. I can't think of a worthier reason to run for president. He should be thanked not vilified by the likes of no-shows like ABC television darlings and dandies.

Thanks for a splendid piece of writing. It started my heart going again. And it reminded me again of what Gravel taught us all in our youth: that greatness comes from insignificant, powerless people resisting the stubborn banality of evil. Even when those acts of courage include enduring the public enmity of powerful people or "making a fool of oneself" by waging impossible campaigns.

Thanks much. Veteran/Citizen/Professional Engineer

Michael Leahy: Thanks for sharing your background and your perspective on Gravel.

_______________________

Richmond, VA: Appreciated the historical perspective that the article provided. You mention Carter as the only bottom tier winner. Has anyone else out of the bottom tier even come close?

Michael Leahy: No second-tier candidate since Carter in 1976 has won a nomination. Howard Dean came the closest. Dean parlayed anti-war support, an effective internet fundraising operation, tireless grassroots work in Iowa and New Hampshire, and some big name endorsements to build a lead in the polls of some early primary states for the 2004 Democratic nomination. Then he faded. Wanting to look confident while conceding defeat after the Iowa caucus, he did something very second-tierish: he let out his infamous primal scream that sealed his fate. But the Dean campaign suggests the kind of political model that a second-tier candidate in the future could use to be competitive.

_______________________

Philadelphia, PA: As uses of time go, running for president at one percent is open to debate. But what would his detractors say to Gravel's charge that an important reason why he is running for president is that none of the other candidates has demanded that the Democratic Congress fulfill its promise to end the war once the Democrats took power? And that some of those other candidates are complicit because they are in the Senate and could do something decisive about the war if they were politically courageous enough? Wouldn't his detractors have to concede that he is right on that score?

Michael Leahy: Thanks for your question, which is an important one and illustrative of a difference between Gravel and someone like Barack Obama, who, while opposed to the war from the outset, has not done enough, in Gravel's view, to force an end to it. What Gravel would like to see is for Congress to cut off war funding, absorb the expected presidential veto, and, after presumably failing to override such a veto, simply pass another cutoff of funds until Republican lawmakers would feel so much heat from constituents that they would ultimately surrender and refuse to override yet another presidential veto (that, at least, is the Gravel scenario). He wishes that Obama and other anti-war legislators would lead the fight to do this. That they haven't offends him as a sign of meekness. He refers to his Democratic presidential rivals as "gutless wonders."

_______________________

Bethesda, MD: Congrats. thought this was both a hilarious and, in a bizarre kind of way, a very moving story about a deeply caring dreamer with some novel ideas for making the campaign and the country fairer. I know that the Gravel campaign's mistakes make for funny moments, but congratulations to you for bringing to life the dreamer and his dreams. It was a terrifically illuminating about the ways of a longshot campaign in these times. I was intrigued by that part of your story when you say that a Gravel could not have done a long time ago the very kind of thing possible in the modern campaign environment. Can you think perhaps of a past politician who could have done what Gravel is doing today had he been around in this decade? Thanks.

Michael Leahy: Thank you for your comments. And, sure, let me throw out a name from the past: Harold Stassen. Stassen, who in another epoch, would file candidacy papers in New Hampshire for the Republican presidential nomination and then essentially disappear from sight (in no small part because no one would invite him to debates) would have been a second-tier player today. As a former Governor, he certainly would have won an invitation to the many televised debates, where, like Gravel, he could have lobbied for his favorite causes. Obviously, Gravel wouldn't be noticed but for the expansion of the presidential debates over the last couple of decades. In the '60, for the instance, the few debates were generally a closed show between simply a couple of major contenders.

_______________________

Silver Spring, MD: The catch-22 of "no media coverage leads to low name recognition and poll numbers, which leads to no media coverage" is quite frustrating for those of us who would like to know more about our electoral options. Do you think the mainstream media does enough to break this frankly boring vicious cycle? For instance, I'll bet most of this chat's readers don't know that Duncan Hunter won the GOP straw polls in Arizona and Texas, and tied with Giuliani and McCain in South Carolina. The press early on pigeonholed him as "no chance", and recused themselves of the responsibility of covering his candidacy. He might as well be running for president of Jupiter.

Michael Leahy: This question is a very important one (notwithstanding the fact that I suspect it is coming from someone pushing hard for Congressman Hunter). To the questioner: I think you raise a legitimate concern about the influence of media on the process. It is worth exploring how much influence the media has especially at the beginning of a campaign cycle, when newspapers, magazines and television begin making judgments about who should be regarded as the serious contenders or pretenders. Do we in media have disproportionate influence on that process? Does the public's view of things at that stage simply reflect media perceptions. It's a good question worthy of serious study. Mike Huckabee has had some success recently despite his second-tier standing, enough success that he is gaining a little more media attention. Ron Paul has had a bit of good fortune in this regard as well.

_______________________

Potomac, MD: His campaign and the Senator have said that the debate formats have been consistently unfair to Senator Gravel and some of the other lesser-known candidates. Would you agree with this?

Michael Leahy: Oh, those debate stages are so crowded that everybody gets a bit shortchanged, though, certainly, second-tier candidates like Gravel and Dennis Kucinich suffer the most. At one debate, the moderator had spent so much time talking at the start that, by the end, Kucinich and Gravel alone were told they would only have 15 seconds apiece to answer a question. Obviously, that's patently unfair and bad for the democratic process.

One piece of advice to debate moderators: Understand that a television audience has tuned in to see the candidates, not you. At one televised debate, the moderator, Tavis Smiley, and a radio talk show host combined to speak and soak up applause for more than six minutes at the debate's start, eating up valuable time that should have gone to the candidates. It's my sense that both parties could benefit by reining in some of the moderators. It would give everyone involved -- from a Clinton and Obama down to a Kuninch and Gravel -- more time.

_______________________

Washington DC: Dear Mr. Leahy: Let me add my kudos on your article to the others.

One thing that has changed in Alaska since Gravel was senator there is that it's virtually impossible to win election to statewide office there these days unless you're a Republican.

Michael Leahy: Thanks, and you're absolutely right. It used to be the state of Senator Gruening (a Democrat and fierce opponent of the Vietnam War) and Gravel and some other notable Democrats. As you point out, Republicans have since made significant political inroads in the state, generally thriving in statewide elections.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: Really enjoyed the story and while I'm troubled that a Gravel must operate from a crippling disadvantage in campaign contributions and media attention, I was encouraged by your analysis that a Gravel type of candidate wouldn't have even been around in a past era. Had a Gravel tried to jump in a presidential race in the '50s or '60s, what would have been his fate, you think?

Michael Leahy: A second-tier type like Gravel never would have been possible in the campaigns of other eras. A Gravel is the direct result of the proliferation of primaries and televised debates. Let me try to illustrate this by providing a little more historical background, in the way of a look at the 1960 Democratic campaign. In 1960, fewer than one-third of the states had primaries. The big primaries that year were Wisconsin and West Virginia, not because those states were loaded with delegates but simply because the contests there would enable powerful Democratic pols and big city bosses elsewhere in the country a chance to decide whether John Kennedy could overcome fears about his Catholicism and win over average voters. His primary oppostion in those states came from Hubert Humphrey. Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson didn't really become candidates until the eve of the convention. The big bosses weren't really interested in anyone else. There were no live televised debates during the few primaries. There was no second-tier. You had only top-tier candidates waiting to see whether they could woo over the bosses by a demonstrated track record of success in the few primaries or, in the case of Johnson and Stevenson, by arguing that they were more likely to win than Kennedy. Looking back, we see now that it was such an insular and rather closed process. Such a structure had no room for an outsider like Gravel, whose presence, if nothing else, is arguably a step toward greater openness and democratization in the process.

_______________________

Syracuse, NY: Thank you for devoting attention to someone other than the frontrunners. I found the story fascinating. For Gravel, it just didn't seem that with his limited resources and staffing how there was going to be a way around the scheduling snafus and ineptitude. How does it hurt a politician to be away from campaigns for so long and then to try reacquiring those skills? Is it possible?

Michael Leahy: Even Gravel admits that he has needed time to sharpen some of those campaign skills after having been away from the fray for so long.

_______________________

Oxford, Miss: Another terrific article allowing readers an insider's view. Did you notice Gravel engaging in any self-reflective moments, asking himself if he has all that outstanding leadership requires to direct an entire nation? While he may have revolutionary ideas and passion, does he question other qualities such as his administrative judgment that enables his ideas to be heard? Or are we seeing a stripped-down, bare politician without the money to buy a fully equipped advisory team?

Michael Leahy: Thanks. He is generally free of self-doubt about such things, though he concedes that he needs to develop a campaign mechanism that will spare the campaign from mistakes and self-inflicted setbacks.

_______________________

Santa Monica, Calif: If Senator Gravel is not tuned in to the big events pertaining to the campaign (he really should be the one to direct his limited staff to focus on the important debates,etc.) how can he expect people to take him seriously as a candidate for the most important job in the country?

Michael Leahy: I'm posting this reader's comment, as I've received a few comments along this line.

_______________________

Michael Leahy: Wow, I just noticed how much we've run over our alloted time today. I want to thank everyone for the terrific questions. Looking forward to chatting with you again soon.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.