My favorite Mike Gravel moment.

For serious?

It seems to me that the idea of moving up primary dates has been lost. Isaw that purpose as giving more states a say. Instead, the result seems to be that there can be no more than two candidates after the very first few primaries. Of course, part of the problem is that so many people want to back the "nominee" early they will abandon their principles (if they really ever had any) to be able to tell their friends and themselves that they backed the "nominee" early on. Yes, the primaries should "whittle" down the choices, but it seems rather like fashioning a carving for the mantle display by starting with a pickaxe fashioned by the mdedia. Yes, the media is too quick to try to crown the eventual nominee, but potential voters are too quick to jump ship on their candidates, as well. Primaries are supposed to help them focus on their options, not to make them live in mortal fear that they might be supporting a "loser." In 1972, McGovern, for beter or worse to the party's prospects in November, could still offer the public a contrast in ideologies after getting just 6% of the vote in the Floida primary. Today, too many folks can't stand the embarassment of anyone knowing they backed such a "loser." I kind of admire the Ron Paul people who keep their signs on their lawns or self-employed businesses even after Paul has had so many losses.

Or, that a pickaxe is a useful tool if you know what it is for and how to use it. You go Zach!

Comprende, voters?