The Gore/Dean Endorsement.

Everybody has been saying that the Gore nod to Dean is bossism. I watched Gore speak and I never got the impression that he was telling the other candidates to give up their campaigns and get behind Dean. He simply said that while these people, all of which should be fine candidates, should debate the issues but not attack each other. If we continue to, we will not be able to stand toe to toe with Bush. Gore has been coming out and speaking his mind much more clearly lately, especially with MoveOn.org. The speeches he has given have been very much in the same vein as Deans speeches.

As for Lieberman, it seems that while Lieberman had supposedly decided not to run for president in 2004 if Gore did, however Lieberman had undermined Gore in 2002 by criticising the grassroots movement that he wanted to establish. He had undermined Gore during the Florida recount. I don't think that Gore owed Lieberman anything. If Gore had called Lieberman to give him a heads up, would it really make a difference.

Furthermore, I am supporting Dean, but I will gladly support, Wes Clark, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, etc.

Lieberman, I do have some reservations about but I will support him too.

I am for Howard Dean because we have been doing thing the DLC's way. They have dropped the ball. They have rolled over for Bush repeatedly since 2000. Dean will not roll over for Bush. Niether will Clark (who is my second choice among the six practical candidates).

All of the Democrats tower over Bush. Nice post.
:hi: :hi:

Nobody else said that. It is typical Sharpton baiting, I am sorry to say. If you read Gore's endorsement speech, he never ever made anything resembling a statement even remotely resembling bossism. That is why I cannot repsect Sharpton. His rhetoric is inflammatory and inaccurate. Sure it raises a chuckle at times, but it is not credible.

The whining here for the past two days has been incredible. Gore has a right to publicly express his opinion, and each voter has the right to weigh that opinion as lightly or as heavily as he/she deems proper. (And yes, Gore does have a valid point when he notes that it is to our party's advantage to decide this nomination as early as is practical, for the sake of unity. Most intelligent people, however, know that this is pure political fantasy.) People around here are whining about coronations, bossism, etc.. as though Gore has taken their right to vote away from them. Puh-leeze..

We need to go through the primaries, and make sure that we have our clear winner whoever he or she may be. We need to cease the savage attacks on each other while still truly debating the issues. We can save our anger and energy for *.

But I really was angry about it. I hold Gore to a higher standard because Gore is a made man, a legitimate elder statesman. I don't say he robbed me of my vote or subverted the rule of democracy within the party. But I do think he exercised bad judgment.

His viewpoint is that we need to rally behind the frontrunner now, that we are too weak to sustain a vigorous debate about our leadership. I think that notion rides on a horribly flawed premise. I think it says a lot about Gore's fortitude that he feels that we would only tear ourselves up if we hold a vigorous debate.