Allison Good Guest Columnist

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama duke it out, more important things are happening in the world of the 2008 election. Yes, I said it. While these two Democrats seem like decent people who could get the job done better than Bush Jr., there are other people out there.

A few days ago, a friend directed me to a quiz at glassbooth.org that matches your ideas and priorities with a 2008 presidential candidate. Although such a site has its limitations, it conducts a legitimate analysis and connects you with candidates that many people have never heard of, including well-informed Vassar students.

The site matched my beliefs with the following candidates: Dennis Kucinich 92 percent, Mike Gravel 89 percent, John Edwards 20 percent. Now, Kucinich had a relatively high profile until he pulled out of the race last Thursday due to mediocre support in the primaries. Edwards has not given up, but remains behind both Clinton and Obama. And then there’s Gravel.

Who is he, and where did he come from? I didn’t remember him from the debates, but lo and behold, the Alaska senator who held office from 1969-1981 is a Democratic candidate in the 2008 race. Because his ideas are on the far left of the political spectrum with some libertarian leanings, he has no chance of winning the nomination. He was a supporter of the movement to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. He also wants to eliminate the IRS, extend habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees, legalize same-sex marriage and universalize health care.

He’s a grandfather, but he is not rooted in the conservative values that a large part of his generation shares. Moderate Democrats would chastise him for being too “revolutionary,” saying that America has to clean up the messes it has made before introducing new programs.

The fact that the majority of America has never heard of Gravel only serves to prove that less popular candidates, particulaly those with less funding, tend to be marginalized. Anyone who is off the radar does not have a chance because the normal American does not dedicate his or her free time to researching each and every candidate, choosing instead to tune into FOX News or CNN.
Ralph Nader may have been an exception, but his green proposals were not exactly on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Ironically, the global warming issue is one of the most important in this race, and Nader is not even running.

When I searched for Gravel on Wikipedia, I learned that his campaign is frequently in debt. He lacks the funds to run a successful campaign that will generate enough media attention. One hears about the millions of dollars that celebrities and political interest groups donate to Clinton, Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The money, however, is not available to the guys like Gravel who neither made their fortunes in the stock market nor by writing best-selling books.

The number of Republican candidates is much smaller than the number of Democratic candidates, but it is safe to say that there could have been at least a few Republicans interested in entering the race but who eventually would have had to renounce their bids due to lack of publicity and insufficient money.

Smaller candidates are at a disadvantage when it comes to finances. Political parties have a lot of resources, and each candidate running for president should receive at least some sort of assistance.
People run for political office because they sincerely want to make changes and think that their ideas and proposals could really help the country, especially since America is currently lacking sufficient leadership to be the beacon that it claims to be.

Yet in this supposed “land of opportunity,” where the self-made myth was invented, we cannot even run a fair, balanced and equal race in which all types of people with various political leanings are given a chance to succeed.

It is truly unfortunate that smaller candidates such as Gravel will have to abandon their bids for the White House before voters can really get to know them. And I find that I can identify more with Gravel than I can with Edwards, Clinton or Obama. Because the president has to represent the entire country in matters of trade, diplomacy and war, it is only right that all candidates are given a fair chance, a chance that includes plenty of media coverage, regardless of how they fit into the two-party system.