Does Gore really believe Dean is the best candidate?

[Meshuga]

At least from what I see Gore is not endorsing Dean because of agreement on issues but because of the success of Dean's campaign. Let's remind Gore that just because a campaign is successful it doesn't necessarily mean that it has the best candidate. Kerry for example (who is not the only one I would support for the nomination), is an awesome candidate with a poor campaign. Dean is a barely decent candidate (in my opinion) but with an AWESOME campaign.

Does Gore really think Dean is electable?

Unless Gore really believe that raising the taxes on people who earn money rather than only raising taxes on people who make money is going to make Dean electable.

Anyway, Let's all listen to Al Gore and stop criticizing Dean, a man who lacks foreign policy experience, that has a testy temperament, policy flip-flops and who wants to raise taxes on people who earn money.

Let's all blindly change our minds and support a candidate we feel is not the best for the party nomination.

Let's listen to a man who f'd up so bad in 2000 that turned a sure landslide against a mediocre candidate into a close election. So close of an election that Gore couldn't take office after winning it.

Oh boy, did I just criticize Dean? Sorry Mr. Gore! My bad... I'll stop it. I promisse. But only after the nomination.

Until then I will fight for a better candidate. :-)

[pistoff democrat]

1. Innocent question, really...

Do you think Gore may have done this to try to usurp some Clinton attention? I doubt very much Tipper prefers Dean.

[southpaw72]

5. Begged question.

[WiseMen]

17. A slap on Hillary, but WIN/WIN for GORE all the way

Al Gore has a great record of service to the nation in the Senate and as Vice President. It is a disgrace that Hillary Clinton is taking all the spotlight when she is a newbie to party leadership. I think we need to show due respect to Gore and recognize that John Kerry or Wes Clark would want his strong support during the general election.

The Kerry campaign, most of all, must acknowledge blame. The campaign held off from exposing Dean weak record until is was too late. Al Gore had said that he would endorse a candidate. If Kerry had responded strongly to Dean’s attacks against him and others as cowards and "cockroaches" he could have crippled Dean early and gotten Gore’s support.

Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi is a very smart guy. He had to get someone like Gore on board to buttress his new campaign strategy of positioning Dean as the future of the Party and denouncing any attack on Dean as an attack on all Democrats. And he did what it took to do this.

Dean dominance among the activist community, the media and the polls that led to Gore’s support. And Joe Trippi is going to do whatever it takes to keep it that way. The train was leaving the station.

Gore is also a very smart guy. He would made a far better president than Dr. Dean, but he is not running. He had to get on the train.

Look, Al Gore wants to play a major role in the Democratic Party and there is no better strategy than to support Dean and help him build-up from the grass-roots a new and invigorated Party. This is a win-win proposition for Gore:

ON THE ONE HAND, if Dean WINS against Bush, he will be so indebted to Gore that Gore (not Clinton) effectively becomes the party leader and will be able to use the grass-roots movement to help propel the new Liberal Media Empire that he is trying to build to oppose the right-wing Fox/Clear Channel dominance of talk news today.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if Dean LOOSES against Bush, he will have been discredited because all his flaws will have been exposed during the campaign. Gore would then inherit the grass-roots movement and the Internet money machine to fuel his 2008 campaign.

Gore did what he had to do for Gore.

Kerry is by far the most awesome candidate but he has to get into the dirt if he is going to rescue his campaign.
Kerry has to do NOW what has to be done for Kerry and the future of the nation.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jcgadfly]

3. Who are you fighting for?

[Meshuga]

6. Someone who can beat Bush

I like Kerry but I don't think he will win the nomination. I would't mind supporting Clark or Edwards for the nomination.

[maxr4clark]

13. Supporting Clark

The story I've heard in the press (CNN, MSNBC mostly) has been that Gore wanted to give his endorsement at the time of the New Hampshire Debate, and shopped around for which candidate to endorse. I don't think he was interested in an outsider; he seems to have been looking for someone to scratch his back in return. That's good political maneuvering on Gore's part, but it definitely isn't about who the best man for the job is. So Clark wasn't on his list. Also, the Clintons like Clark, so Gore wouldn't get any credit for supporting Clark even if he did; he would still be seen as merely second to Clinton.

Much as I like Al Gore, I feel forced to conclude that Gore chose to endorse the candidate who would give Gore as much political payback as possible.

So if Gore didn't consider endorsing Clark, should we? To put it another way, what has Clark done to qualify him as a candidate? Here's my answer, and why I think Clark is a far better candidate than most people realize.


Clark has devoted his life to public service; that is what a job in the military is.

He has earned a Rhodes Scholarship.

He has taught economics and political philosophy at the college level.

He has worked with foreign diplomats on both sides of many of the issues of the past twenty years, and impressed our European Allies with his ability to solve difficult international situations effectively.

He has dealt with housing, education, and health care issues for the European command of the US military--which included more people than live in the state of Vermont.

He has built an international coalition that committed soldiers from countries like France and Germany to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing.

He has succeeded in bringing a homicidal dictator to justice.

He spoke out against some of the policies of the Schwartzkopfs and Frankses and Sheltons in the US military, and he was asked to retire 3 months early for it.

He has covered the military strategies the United States employed in Afghanistan and Iraq for CNN.

In his coverage of the war in Afghanistan and the buildup to the war in Iraq, he said early and often that the War in Iraq was not necessary.

Since leaving the military, he has started a career as an investment banker. He has also been on the board of a company developing a state-of-the-art, high-efficiency electric motor to be used in automobiles. This motor can be used in either gas-electric hybrids or in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which means that he chose to work on technology that will help us achieve energy independence in both the short term and the long term.

In response to a very large grass-roots movement, the Draft Clark movement, he has reluctantly entered the race for President in 2004.

Frankly, I'd say that is a pretty good resume for someone who wants to be President in a post-9/11 world.

If you don't agree, I'd like to hear why.

[OrAnarch]

14. I think the question is a bit off...

"Anyway, Let's all listen to Al Gore and stop criticizing Dean,"


"a man who lacks foreign policy experience,"
Like many other successful presidential candidates...this is a moot issue.


"that has a testy temperament,"
Agree to some extent, but this revealing of his human nature does attract people looking for an outsider who believes in change and will fight for it, rather than another smooth politician.


"policy flip-flops"
Ever changed your mind on anything? I, being very liberal in the true sense, would rather see a man in charge whos in the center and who appeals only to logic and thinking, and can therefore act in a utilitarian fashion according to different contexts to promote the most good for the people based on the empiracal evidence at hand (rather than someone bound by ideology and not critical thought). Im not saying Dean is neccessarily that man, but I give credit to those who are not bound by ideology, but are thinkers who evaluate issues and consider new evidence. If logic is on our side, then they will make progressive choices. If not, we are wrong anyway, and need to rethink through logic and change our own policies.


"and who wants to raise taxes on people who earn money."
If Bush lowered everyone's taxes to 0 dollars, and Dean wanted to raise them back the next day to 1 dollar a piece, would you be crying he is raising them? If so, such a point is irrellevant. Your premise here assume the just and permeable status of Bush's cuts, suggesting your a repub off the bat. Instead of pandering to people's new love of such fucked up tax cuts, perhaps we should reach out and teach them why these were not good things, eh (bankrupt anti-liberalistic nation)? And maybe by raising federal taxes in a progressive fashion, people's tuition and property taxes will go back down.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. Let Me Give It A Shot

"a man who lacks foreign policy experience,"
Like many other successful presidential candidates...this is a moot issue.

-How does this become a moot issue? We are in several major international crises (Iraq, N. Korea, I/P, Al Qaeda, Venezuela, Argentina, several African countries).


"that has a testy temperament,"
Agree to some extent, but this revealing of his human nature does attract people looking for an outsider who believes in change and will fight for it, rather than another smooth politician.

-There's a difference between rough edges (like Teresa Heinz) and a penchant for snapping.

"policy flip-flops"
Ever changed your mind on anything?

-This is not about changing your mind, it is about the credibility gap between populist campaign rhetoric and, you know, actual history.

"and who wants to raise taxes on people who earn money."
If Bush lowered everyone's taxes to 0 dollars, and Dean wanted to raise them back the next day to 1 dollar a piece, would you be crying he is raising them?

-What is the point of reductio ad absurdum here? Dean's policy is a political loser, and even Paul Krugman explicitly says so. Krugman goes on to describe Kerry's exact policy as the ideal one.

[Meshuga]

23. Swing voters will decide who will win the election next year

These swing voters will make up their minds based on vague impressions they have of the candidates and their senses of the issue agendas developed by both parties. In the end, Bush will have Rove and $200 mil to make sure that security is in the minds of the voters.

Like you, I also think the Bush tax cuts were wrong. However, saying that we are going to "teach them why these were not good things" is pretty naive. I trully wish it was that easy.

In my opinion, the fact that Dean wants to raise taxes on the middle class as opposed to only raising taxes on money that people make (not earned money) is not a very electable idea. I tend to agree more with Kerry and Edwards on what to do about the Bush tax cuts.

[On the Road]

4. Here's a Hint

Gore just campaigned against Bush two years ago and he knows what it takes to win. Gore's post-convention populism won him the popular vote. He fought a successful uphill battle, and knows that the 2004 nominee will have to do so again.

It's not a question of who's the best on paper or who editorials say gave a nice speech. To win, the candidate needs to fight, energize the base, and inspire people. What Al said was that Dean was the one candidate successful in doing this across the board.

What on earth would make you think Gore didn't agree with Dean on the issues? The key issue that he mentioned was Iraq, but on general political stance they're not far apart -- DLCs who have adopted a kind of centrist populism.

[Meshuga]

7. I just wish the best candidate would beat the best campaign.

I don't know who Gore agrees more on issues and I'm not saying Gore didn't agree. It sounded to me that the main reason for Gore's endorsement was the success of Dean's campaign.

I think Dean is going to get the nomination because of his well run campaign. I just hope he can do as well against Bush which I have my doubts. I hope I'm wrong.

[Padraig18]

8. I seriously doubt President Gore would endorse...

... a candidate he didn't believe could beat *, do you?

On edit: That *is* the ultimate purpose of this whole exercise, isn't it?

[maxr4clark]

19. RE: President Gore

Um, Gore lost in 2000, 5-4.

[Festivito]

9. No, Dean is not the "best" candidate for pres, but, SO WHAT!

There are people who are not running who could make a better president. We're not getting a "best" candidate. There may be a better president candidate who is actually running. There may be a more electable candidate than Dean. BUT, we have a twice-time business loser with a checkered past as president. Worrying whether or not person A is 0.003% better than the next guy is sadly silly.

Sure, don't roll over. Dean could meet with a tragic accident and we'd need a second for the top spot. But, don't fool yourself into thinking that ANY of the current Democratic candidates is not ten times better than Bush. So what if your candidate is eleven times better, or even a thousand times better.

I think Gore's call remains brilliant. Marginalizes Lieberman. Set back the Bush-will-win-anyway noted by Carter, polls, Bush fundraising, and maybe hoped for by Hillary for '08. It can stop a majority of the infighting that divides the money and increases Democrat-negative soundbites. The more I look at it, the more I think about it, the more brilliant it seems.

[helleborient]

11. Thank you!

It sounds like you believe something I have believed for a long time.

If nothing else, the Howard Dean campaign is smart!!

And that's a primary element for defeating Bush in '04.

[polpilot]

12. Absolutely brilliant. Imagine Shrub's face when he was told Gore was

endorsing Dean. Dean has just beaten the s*** out of ________, & _________, and __________ in SIX MONTHS time!! Only a fool would question his political abilities.

Does anyone think Rove could have taken Dean to where he is today. Hell No!!! The Dean Campaign kicks ass and takes names like no one else.

Dean '04...

[killbotfactory]

10. Gore believes in Dean

Gore is very serious about taking back the country. He said this is the most important election most of our lifetimes because of what's at stake. Believe whatever the hell you want about Dean, but Gore sees a winner in him and trusts his judgement on the issues.

As Gore said in his endorsement, Dean may make a verbal gaff every now and then, but people understand it's because Dean is speaking from the heart, and people respect that.

[maxr4clark]

16. Re: Gore believes in Dean

I think Dean will do well (although not necessarily win) in the states in which Gore did well; minus Tennessee. I don't see that Dean will do well in the South, or that Gore's endorsement will help Dean win the South.

Meanwhile, Clark does well in the South. Senator Breaux of Louisiana has endorsed Clark; Clark is doing well in South Carolina, while Dean is not. Clark is within the margin of error of Dean in the national polls, with one recent exception that shows Dean much farther ahead than any of the others.

The states that supported Gore will support Anyone But Bush, including Clark, if he wins the Democratic nomination. What the Democratic Party needs is someone who can ADD TO THAT BASE in the national election. Dean can't do that, Clark can. And rest assured, Clark will not be Dean's VP. He said so on Meet the Press.

[Upfront]

21. It Seems

Gore dosn't agree with you, and neither do I. Lets let the people vote. It will get sorted out. For Gore to come out for Dean at this time took courage. He must think something big is at stake like our country.

[NNadir]

15. Does anyone ever take Gore's word at face value?

First we heard he wanted to be drafted. Next we hear it's a set up for 2008. Then we have bizarre discussions of a putative Clinton-Gore war.

Neither the Clintons nor Gore will be in charge of the Democratic party after the 2004 convention, any more than Carter or Dukkakis will be in charge of the party. The party will belong to the person selected by Democrats to be the nominee. That's how it should be.

[Gloria]

18. Tony Coehlo on Charlie Rose last night had some very interesting

comments. The ultimate insider, he spoke first about the Dean campaign, but said 2004 depends on Bush screwing up. The power of the incumbency is the most important factor; he said Americans get comfortable and don't like to change. While he was, as he described himself, a political animal and enjoyed how the Dean campaign and all the hoopla was going, he did not transfer his enthusiasm into a prediction in the 2004 election and Dean's chances. In fact, his discussion of incumbency left me feeling that he had his doubts.

On the Gore matter, he clearly stated that Gore liked the idea of being involved and by supporting Dean he could go after Bush without having to run. He said Gore had business interests and now he could attend to them and drop in and out of the political season whenever he wanted to.
If found this rather disturbing, because it seemed to indicate that Gore had some personal agenda in all this over and above endorsing Dean.

Later, on CNBC, Ed Rollins was asked if Gore was the head of the party and he said no. He said Gore had the chance after 2000 and dropped out of sight for a year. Which sort of buttresses Coehlo's feeling about Gore coming in now in a way that is convenient.

Gloria Borger commented on how many Dems were angry about the timing and I myself wonder if there will be a lot of "sitting on hands" down the road.

(I'm finally going to post this separately instead of buried in a few other threads...)

[mitchum]

20. Hey, Al's great at picking running mates...

why should I doubt his candidate handicapping abilities?