With Saddam Gone, Could GORE PULL BACK or Switch Horses?

I have gotten this question from friends still devastated by Gore's early endorsement of Governor Dean. Hear is my answer:

Saddam’s capture probably reduces Howard Dean overwhelming odds in the primary and his chances in the General. But, it is in Gore’s interest to be with Dean ALL THE WAY.
Dean’s dominance among the activist community, the media and the polls makes it critically necessary for Al Gore, for his own interest, to support him. Clinton was already moving to support Clark. The train was leaving the station.

Gore is also a very smart guy. He probably believes he would make a far better President than Dean, but he is not running. Gore got on the Dean train and is riding it to Victory, one way or the other.

Whatever happens in the 04 campaign, 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. Whatever happens, 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.

Bush’s capture of Saddam, probably increases the probability of option 2. BUT, THAT IS FINE WITH GORE.

Regardless of his motives, Al Gore has a great record of service to the nation in the Senate and as Vice President. I think we need to show due respect to Gore and recognize that any Nominee other than Dean will want his strong support during the general election.

The Gephart, Lieberman and Kerry campaigns must acknowledge that they did not court Gore in the aggressive way that Dean supporters did. If you snooze you loose! These other campaigns also held-off from aggressively countering Dean’s “Bush-Lite” “Washington Establishment” and “Cockroaches” attacks until is was too late.

Al Gore had said that he would endorse a candidate and Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi was smart enough to go after Gore’s endorsement.

Trippi 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 whatever it took to do this. DEAN WOULD HAVE TO BE TOTALLY DESTROYED FOR GORE TO SWITCH.

It is now time for the other candidates to do whatever they can to counter this brilliant move and justify their candidacy. REMEMBER, BILL CLINTON HAS NOT YET ENDORSED.

With Gore in his team Dean now has can bounce ideas off and who
can help recruit other key people. There should be no way
for Dean to loose. I still worry that there are many issues that
have to be clarified. After all this time I still don't have a clear
idea of where Dean's heart really is on many issues.

Oh, right, Saddam's capture totally justifies the war, I forgot.

IMHO.

It would be a huge mistake for Gore to switch horses in mid-stream. I may have some cynical reasons why I think Gore choose Dean, but he will stick with him. There were complaints that Gore wasn't strong enough to be President and switching endorsements would make that opinion seem true. (For the record, I have no idea why Gore was seen as weak because I never felt that way.)

I can't speak for the Kerry campaign, but I agree that I don't think Kerry courted Gore's endorsement. I never even considered it up for grabs. It seemed like a lock for Lieberman to me.

It seemed obvious to me, ever since Gore announced that he wasn't running in 2004, that he would not support Lieberman. His speeches around that time were diametrically opposed to the positions that Joe was taking. I also believe that Lieberman was one of the people who was responsible for Gore not running by convincing the DLC to not support him. He was the person with the most to gain by Gore's withdrawal.

First, I didn't think Gore endorsed anyone so early.

There are a couple reasons why I thought Gore would endorse Lieberman. Lieberman waited until Gore decided not to run to announce. That showed there was still some respect between the two. Lieberman was the one with the most to gain by Gore's withdrawal, but assuming he really wanted to run for President, he was the one with the most to lose if Gore decided to run. Mainly I was surprised, because by making Lieberman the VP candidate Gore was stating that Lieberman was a person who could take over the job of President. Clearly, things change, but not endorsing Lieberman makes it appear that Gore made a mistake picking him as VP. (Man, this board need a Lieberman supporter or two because I don't follow his campaign well enough to know what he might be thinking.)

Didn't realize there was a possibility of either capturing or killing Saddam?

Bush is really looking like a winner, and dean is looking scared.

If Dean doesn't win the primaries outright, the party should
definitely consider putting forward the strongest team to face
Bush. Dean should have gone to the senate and cleared up his
record (like graham did) before running for president. When I compare Gore to Dean there is no question -- Gore is far better. DIDN'T ANYONE
WATCH GORE'S PATRIOT ACT SPEECH!

GETOVER IT!

Gore fully endorses Dean. GET OVER IT!

He SAID he wasn't running, he SAID he'd endorse somebody and he DID.

Quitcher whining.

R but most of my 'deannie' friends, out here on the west coast, see Saddams capture as a no impact. The invasion of Iraq was wrong, wrong, wrong! That is irrelevant of whether saddam is in jail or @ a spa!

CAN'T WE SEE THAT THE STRONGER BUSH LOOKS as
Commander-In-Chief the more petty and insignificant
Mr. "I'll teach George Bush a
thing about national secrutiy" looks.

It is unbelieveable that folks can't see you need someone with
a FAT FOREIGN POLICY RESUME to win against Bush in 04.

"best" position against whistle a$$. Mark my word. The quagmire is becoming apparent! :toast: Go DEAN!

that Saddam's "capture" renders the anti-war candidates moot. The war was wrong no matter where Saddam is.

And as the insurgencies continue on through the year, Saddam's capture will fade from the average American mind more and more as the body bags continue to pile up.

what does the capture of Saddam have to do with the illegality and geopolitical madness of the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?????

I keep forgetting. I know there are some themes to hum and whistle, but since they make no sense, I must memorize them so I can repeat them without so much trouble.

Gore makes his statement for Dean and Saddam is found. Just abit strange IMHO.

I think the Bush regime have a lot of surprises in store.

We had better get in gear and ask Dean to step aside for the
sake of the party.

?

Al Gore was the strongest candidate in 2000 THAT IS ALL HE WAS THAT IS ALL HE EVER WILL BE.

I knew it. Gore endorsed Dean to knock out Lieberman and Gephardt. Now George Soros is flooding the primary with cash for those anti-Dean commericals, and Gore will have most of it. It will be an open convention and Gore will walk with the nod. I'd bet $5.