Dean, Gore and the Democrat primaries. As I see it unfolding:

Al's most excellent speech today would have been a wonderful campaign speech, but I take him at his word that he will not be a candidate. So where does that leave things?.....everything he said merges pretty well with Howard (or John, as Annthrax C kept saying) Dean's position.

Al said he would endorse a candidate ...later... And of course he will, but who else but HD could it be? I would happily support and vote for John Kerry, or Dean. Possibly Edwards and even more Bob Graham; it just depends on how it all washes out, but it sure seems to me that AlGore is leaning toward Howard. (And yes, I wish he would jump into the fray)

If we can't get rid of Shrub, we all might as well bend over and kiss our asses goodbye.

what gives you the impression gore supports dean?

i'd hope so

Dean's famous 16 questions he wants the Simian to answer goes quite nicely with President Gore's speech today.

Julie

Gore is an establisment Democrat who will support his own, just like Clinton does. According to what I've read, Clinton was the one who got the DLC to back Kerry because Lieberman's conservative campaign isn't doing well.

Gore will most likely support someone like Edwards or Kerry. I really doubt he will support Lieberman due to his Joe's lurch to the right. And Dean is an outsider who rails against the very establishment that Gore is a part of.

Gore talked about how Congress didn't deliberate war very thoroughly, talked of them signing away their constitutional responsibilities...seems to me he, like many of us, is pretty fed up with the Establishment Dems. Rightly so.

Julie

Gore said some very anti dlc things in there!

And Gore wasn't for this bogus attack on Iraq. He said so way back in San Francisco at the Brookings.

Frankly, I was surprised to hear someone like Gore saying all the things you normally see posted on DU but hardly ever hinted at by mainstream politicians.

I may be reading into what he was saying (being a Dean supporter and all), but I also thought I heard themes that were similar to Dean's themes; and then there was that quick release from Dean after Gore's speech praising the President in Exile.

I still think Gore could go for Kerry, too. But I just felt (hoped?) that I saw some interesting signals being sent between Gore and Dean's camp today.

Time well tell.

Regardless, it was great to hear Gore come out swinging today! I've been frustrated with him in the past, but I admire him for what he did today. It also made me sad that this intelligent, articulate, humane man should be in the White House today.

after Gore's courageous and eloquent arguments against the war, how could he possibly endorse Kerry or Edwards, who voted in favor of it?

That's why he would do it.

And Gore himself said
"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan."

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

(Thanks for the link Spoon)

shifting behind the scenes to Kerry. Clinton was all over that move. I also think he was behind the move by the Chicago Teamsters to break away and endorse Kerry while Clinton was in town.

Those who are saying that Clintons are only in it for themselves are wrong. He wants this country back as soon as possible and he wants to be part of the team that fixes all that Bush has broken around the world. I believe Gore does, too. It will take a village of the smartest minds available in 2005 to stave off a worldwide disaster in so many areas - security, diplomacy, environmental, economy, healthcare, etc....

so eager to fix all that Bush has broken? He was in a position where he easily could have delivered considerable damage to Bush -- and not only did he fail to do that, he actually went out of his way to DEFEND him. !#$#^$@@$@$^!!

Did the thrust of Clinton's statement really differ all that much from Al's:

"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan."

I'm still not seein' the problem with this.

The quote from Al that you cite was a weak moment in a generally very strong & deeply critical speech. Clinton, OTOH, simply offered an unqualified defense of Bush -- and NOTHING in the way of criticism. He acted to get Bush off the hook -- at a moment when Bush was in considerable trouble.

The two things are very different, because of the overall context of the remarks.

but I am with you on your second paragraph, blm. There is one helluva bad moon a-rising, thanks to Bush. We have to hope that "the smartest minds", including those of us who are just "regular citizens", will unite to help hold everything together.

:hi:

What I meant was that Gore would probably support Kerry or Edwards, and this is a good thing because it won't be Lieberman or Dean.

I'm a moderate Democrat anyway, and I have no problem with most of the establishment Democrats i.e. those who fight for a center-left agenda, people like Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Schumer, i.e. "Clinton Democrats".

Gore would never endorse Dean. Dean is the Bradley of this election. The bulk of Dean's support are the same folks who supported Bradley, and who thought there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Dean is running against the Party itself, which the Clinton machine (which includes Gore) basically controls. Gore may disagree with Clinton on certain issues, but he would never go against him in any major way (like some people on this board are suggesting he might). Even in the speech he delivered today in front of liberal activists, he touted the policies of the Clinton admininstration, which many liberal activists disagree with (some on the far left felt the Clinton administration was too conservative). If Gore ever went against Clinton, it would be like going against himself.

I'm glad Clinton is getting the DLC to back Kerry. Clinton is a master at sensing the political climate and formulating a winning strategy.

My take on the whole situation: Lieberman was always center-right but never this conservative. The DLC is no doubt responsible for advising Lieberman to move this far right. Clinton senses the political climate and knows Lieberman doesn't stand a chance in the primaries. Clinton urges the DLC to back a more liberal candidate who is also electable: Kerry. The DLC has been very quiet about their backing of Kerry, because From and Reed's goal is a Dem party that is center-right, not left or center-left like Kerry.

the Dean campaign early on absorbed some of the very Bradley workers who spread disinfo about Gore during his primary fight. They cozied up to the presss and had them reporting stories like Gore called Bob Kerrey a cripple right before the NH debate. That's when the press booed him in the media room.

Gore didn't even have Dean on his long list for VP.

Kerry, Graham, Gephardt, etc all have networks of supporters who, unlike the many Dean supporters, hold various offices and who can use those offices to help Gore in his future efforts. Mutual self-interest is the mother's milk of political campaigns. What does Dean have to offer Gore?

In the last year Clinton has been fighting some hard fights.

in my opinion.

As a side note, it's really ironic, some new guidelines are introduced at DU, regarding no profanity in the headline of threads, and then there is a post that is allowed to stand that is really offensive! It gets tons of replies, and it shouldn't be allowed in the first place. It makes me mad. What a farce.

I've been a Dean booster on this site, but to be honest, Kerry was actually my first pick for the candidacy. I only learned what the heck "Third Way", "DLC", and "New Democrat" meant due to trying to find out what people meant when they applied them to Kerry, my #1 pick. And even though I had misgivings about what I was reading about the DLC, I stuck by that pick. (After all, Clinton, Gore, and Dean were members, too, right?)

Then the Iraq vote came. And my reaction could pretty much be summed up straight out of Sherman Edwards's 1776: "Good God, you've sunk us, John!"

Now my feelings on Kerry match my feelings about Martin Sheen: I wish in both cases that the character who they play on TV was running. But even after Kerry's turns against Bush, railing about being "misled", I just can't bring myself to trust him again. After all, Bush is saying he was misled by the CIA; evidence would suggest Kerry in the hotseat means getting a President who really is too gullible, instead of one who just claims to be to avoid blame ...

If Kerry picks up the nomination, I'll vote for him. But I can't say I'll "support" him, because when some middle-of-the-road guy says "But why should I vote for him? What makes him so great?", I'm going to blink on him. I can't even just tell him "Because he's not Bush", because the truth is, he can be Bush for given instants of time.

All that being said, I don't think we can read anything into Gore's comments. If he had anyone in mind, he'd have made the endorsement then; "later in the political cycle" means he's going to endorse whoever wins the Democratic nomination, whoever it is. Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, Sharpton, Zell Miller as a write-in runaway ... whatever. He'll take it as a given that anyone wearing a (D) holds the values he asserted. (And I don't mean that as an attack on Gore. It's enough that he asserts those values as what the Democrats should be.)

Uh, yeah ... what he said. (At least, the part about Gore not endorsing anyone until there's a de facto winner from the primaries.)

I think Gore's pretty much pulling an Ike '64 here. He'll support everybody's right to run, and wait for the party to tell him who he supports to win, for better or worse.

Al's VP choice back in 2000.

On the other hand, it seems that Al's speech, in addition to putting a torch to *'s fanny, served to distance the more hawkish Dem candidates, too.

All we can do is hang back and watch.

He's the DNC choice. Al is not anti-war; just anti-Bush lying bullshit about the war. Al realizes ('cause he's a politician) that we need someone who can spit back in AWOL Bush's face because of his service background. The party desperately needs the money Kerry can raise---they cannot go against Bush's 200 million with a handful of donor checks that Dean will be able to raise---------big contributors will not back Dean. And we can cry all we want; but it's going to take money to take Bush out. AND, very important--Al knows we need a candidate who can carry our other Dems who will be seeking office or re-election in '04. Dean cannot. ONly in certain very liberal areas (and those areas we aren't worried about). The powers have met--guaranteed and the powers are starting to put the game into play. And I think we are going to have Dean supporters going ballistic when Gore comes out for Kerry. I believe there's a place being saved for Gore in a Kerry administration---like Sec. of State.

I think Gary Hart will be National Security Advisor or head of Homeland Security. I just think Holbrooke or Mitchell would end up as Secretary of State.

so why would he give Gore a seat in his cabinet?

I've never heard that before....

Kerry defended Gore during his campaign and during the recount when few politicians were.

You're just trying to start a rumor because you know the truth is that Gore doesn't like your guy, Dean.

any details on this, blm ??

"And I think we are going to have Dean supporters going ballistic when Gore comes out for Kerry."

I think Dean is more conservative than Kerry. :shrug:

"I think Dean is more conservative than Kerry. :shrug:"

That's very true. Dean may be more of an outsider than Kerry, but that doesn't make him more liberal. Kerry's record speaks for itself. Other than Kuncinich, Kerry's the most liberal candidate of the nine. Even Ralph Nader said he only liked Kucinich and Kerry, of the nine electable.

"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan."
http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

It could be just as easy for Gore to endorse a "pro-war" candidate, although Gore's speech merges pretty well with Graham/Kucinich/Sharpton/Moseley-Braun's positions as well. Why isn't anyone saying Gore will endorse any of those candidates?

Other than the Iraq war, I don't know how much Gore's positions gel with Dean's. I do know that Gore was for middle class tax cuts, and Dean isn't, for example. I imagine they all have similarities and differences with Gore.

I'd say that Edwards is currently the top gunner for a Gore endorsement, only because he was 2nd in line for Gore's VP and because he is striking the same populist note in his overall campaign that Gore struck in 2000 which according to Joe Lieberman (bwahahahaha) 'cost him' the election. Not to mention that Gore apparently believes, as Edwards (and Kerry) does, that Saddam's removal was good and that the aftermath has been mishandled.

Obviously, that may change.