I can't figure out if that's intended to help Howard Dean's chances, or hurt them. I mean, why would you want to be endorsed by the guy who lost the last election -- and his home state, for that matter?

Hooah!

He's also giving the finger to Bill & Hill because Lieberman and Clinton were stalwarts of the DLC. In addtion, Wesley Clark is widely thought to be the anti-Dean; Gore passed over HIM too.

P.S. Jerry -- give it a rest. Gore got more votes, remember?

Maybe Gore's saying, "If we're gonna lose, let's lose well."

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Ara. Still playing the "he got more votes" game, eh? So do you think the Yankees should have won the World Series this year since they outscored the Marlins? Or that the Giants "really" beat the Angels last year because they outscored them?

Gore's endorsement will help Dean, only inasmuch as Gore ran an angry, resentment-based campaign in 2000. Dean's entire focus is being even more angry and resentful than Gore was, and in tapping that fury. It helps Dean cement that part of the base base.

But Jerry's point is even more important. Dean just won the endorsement of a candidate who lost in states that Dean badly needs in order to win the Presidency. The winner of a football game is not the that gets the most rushing and passing yards, and the winner of the Presidency is not the guy who gets the most votes.

Do you really want your party to try to win again by getting 60% of the votes in a handful of states, and 45% of the votes in most of them? It didn't work out so well last time.

It's pretty clear to me that, while this may help him a little now, it probably isn't of much long-term value. Jerry's got a very good point.

As I recall, Dean wasn't exactly clamoring to be his Veep at the time.
Different choice of people, and Gore probably thinks Dean is the best person for the job. I have no problem with that.
Heck, most Democrats who voted for Gore/Leiberman obviously think Dean is the best person for the job, but that's not seen as a slap in the face to Leiberman, right?
I think Gore's endorsement is a reflection of the people's will, and the people's will is a reflection of Gore's endorsement, in that they both think he's the best candidate. I see no problem with that.

Ara has a point: if Gore got "more votes" in the 2000 election, doesn't that mean "more people" like him? He didn't win the electoral; that doesn't mean his endorsement is bad for Dean's campaign. Gore has alot of fans: his popular vote proves that, no? By endorsing Dean, maybe, just maybe, some of Gore's large fanbase will, you know, think Dean is good, which is the point of an endorsement.

"I think Gore's endorsement is a reflection of the people's will, and the people's will is a reflection of Gore's endorsement."

Besides being foolishly self-referential, the above is utter twaddle.

From those of us on Planet Earth, NO ONE has been nominated by the Democratic Party yet. It's just a teeny bit early to talk about the "people's will" just yet.

Ara: you give it a rest. Gore lost. Get over it. And I would say the same damn thing to a Republican today if Gore had ended up 100 votes ahead. It's over.

At least, it should be. One of the hallmarks of a democracy is the ability to form a consensus, and that's something that the current Democratic Party strategy is destroying, by all this babble about a "stolen election."

Hell, even Nixon had more class than that after the 1960 election...

I am of the opinion that Algore knows he would get his ass handed to him if he ran against Bush again so he wants to make another run in '08. He knows Dean can't win, so endorsing him - now that he's practically, but not quite, got it locked up (making it look like Gore put him over the top) - helps ensure there's no incumbent that he'd have to win a primary against.

But, yes, it is a major "fuck you" to Lieberman. But, hey, that's politics.

"Gore has alot of fans: his popular vote proves that, no?"

His popular vote proves nothing. It is a thing of the past, and it was more an anti-Bush vote than a pro-Gore vote. Who likes him? Politically, Gore's a dead man walking (rather, blathering). He may help Dean with the anything-but-Bush crowd, but that's too much a splinter to win a general election.

Casey,
...but I like foolishly self-referential twaddle! [grin]

All I'm saying is Gore has no obligation but to endorse the person he thinks would make the best President. Dean is leading the polling right now, but there is no reason to think Gore's endorsement is merely betting on what he thinks is a winning horse.

To assume that 2000 would have had the same popular vote results were the election a strictly popular vote is foolish. There are large segments of the population that don't bother voting when there vote won't change things ( like alot of Maryland Republicans ).

Dean, Casey, et. al.

You guys crack me up! Go back and read my comment -- all I said was Gore got more votes and instantly you got your shorts in a knot.

Get over it.

You know I usually do not speak up on these matters but this time I will. No, I do not think Gore just (blank) Lieberman. I am careful as to what I put in any print even when I am a total goof ball.

Casey you brought up Nixon, and you are so right. As a nation, we were shocked and sickened that the decay had gone too far. To us, The Presidency was a symbol of all that was right and decent in America. We had chosen to believe that the men who assumed that office grew in stature to fulfill our image of it(which was really our image of ourselves). And thus we ignored the rumors about certain Presidents' personal lives, though with each seamy disclosure it was becoming increasingly difficult to do. I will never forget how Watergate tore down my, and Our "civil religion" it was shattering for so many back then.

I, we, would have loved to have put the blame on one man, affix it and blame. We could not.

Dean you are so right when you put this into a perspective of a football game. Man Oh man! That is right on! I went to so many football games with my dad. By the way, I want to pay homage to Mr. Everard Vern Cruea. He taught me so much. He was in World War II and suffered greatly in later years following the war. My dad taught me so much when we went to a football game and I did not realize it at the time. Our team, The El Paso Miners, were on their own 20 yard line with 80 yards to go for a touchdown. I jumped up, with a full 12 ounce of Coca Cola loaded with ice in my hand, and I yelled at the top of my lungs, "KICK A FIELD GOAL!!!"

Well, I do not recall too much other than my Dad putting his arms around me holding me tight, laughing hysterically while my he was protecting me from a an irate woman I just showered with my coca cola. And all of a sudden these Miner fans that for some reason, are giving me the most awful looks I have ever seen in my young teenage lifetime, on this earth!!!

So you see Dean,...Politics is like football, and I do love them so much. I still believe in America and the fact that we will get it right. Or should I say left. Oh it does get so confusing doesn't it? We have to have team spirit and we will. ("America does get it right", I took that line from a previous post by Mr. Dean Esmay).

Hang in there everybody, We've only just begun. Now that , "We've only just begun" is not my line, that is straight from heaven...Karen Carpenter is up there ya know.

I think we have the bandwagon effect coming into play.

There is a line about when democrats have a firing squad, they form a circle.

I get a picture here of rats boarding a sinking ship.

Bill

I think we have the bandwagon effect coming into play.

There is a line about when democrats have a firing squad, they form a circle.

I get a picture here of rats boarding a sinking ship.

Bill

I think we have the bandwagon effect coming into play.

There is a line about when democrats have a firing squad, they form a circle.

I get a picture here of rats boarding a sinking ship.

Bill

I think we have the bandwagon effect coming into play.

There is a line about when democrats have a firing squad, they form a circle.

I get a picture here of rats boarding a sinking ship.

Bill

I think we have the bandwagon effect coming into play.

There is a line about when democrats have a firing squad, they form a circle.

I get a picture here of rats boarding a sinking ship.

Bill

I think we have the bandwagon effect coming into play.

There is a line about when democrats have a firing squad, they form a circle.

I get a picture here of rats boarding a sinking ship.

Bill

Bill

What's up with posting 4 times? I thought I was the only one who accidently did multiple posts but maybe you did it on purpose. Anyway, I like the effect cause your remarks are pretty funny.

Ahem....

Let me 'splain this one for y'all.

Gore is endorsing Dean (if it actually comes off, as looks likely now) in order to play the Nixon to Dean's Goldwater. Anyone with any sense at all (and Gore is actually quite intelligent) can see that Dean is heading for a major fall next year - please understand that there is practically no chance of Dean even making it a close race next year; he's toast - stick a fork in him, he's done; GW's gonna have this guy for lunch. But its not just Dean - its any Democrat; other Democrats (Lieberman and Gephardt, eg) would be able to make it a closer race, but the final result (GW re-elected) is not really in question...short of GW being caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, he's in. So, Gore eschews being the sacrificial lamb in 2004 and sets his sights on 2008.

There's a problem, though; Hillary has also set her sights on 2008, and her people control the DNC...pretty tricky for Gore to get the nod against Hillary under any circumstances; downright impossible as long as her people control the actual nominating process (as they did in 2000 and handed it to Gore; remember what happend to Bradley?). So, how to get the Clintonites out of the DNC? Simple, help the anti-Clinton get the Democratic nomination and allow this person to clear out the DNC...and appoint people he likes, among whom will be at least a goodly number coming from the good office of Al Gore.

Additionally, by loyally supporting Dean as he tilts at windmills ala Barry Goldwater in 1964, Gore will earn the affection and loyalty of the Democratic left just as Nixon did by backing Goldwater...winning enough affection that it even allowed him to prevail over the right's favorite Ronald Reagan...winning enough affection that in spite of relentless liberal social policy, Nixon held the support of the right until Watergate simply made it impossible to continue. In short - back Dean, and Gore can tilt as center/right as he wants in the 2008 primaries and still keep the Deaniacs on board.

At first glance Rosemary's headline looks like she's saying "Gore Endorses My Husband", "Gore Has Good Taste In Blogs". But then... ...oh well... I can dream.

Ara,

give it a rest. Gore got more votes, remember?

You give it a rest. Nixon got more votes than Kennedy too.

Gore couldn't even carry HIS HOME STATE. If he had been able to do that, he would have won. Instead, he LOST.

That's not a big word, ponder it. LOST LOST LOST LOST

Mark,

Anyone with any sense at all (and Gore is actually quite intelligent)...

Gore IS quite intelligent, but he doesn't have much sense. That's his biggest problem.

Hillary has also set her sights on 2008, and her people control the DNC...

Yes and no. The Clintonistas control the DNC NOW. But the Democratic nominee for President gets to put his own people in there. One reason that the Clintons fielded General Clark was to keep control of the DNC. If Dean wins the nomination, you can be confident that the Clintons' hold on the party will be gone.

Gary Utter,

Ergo, Gore's endorsement of Dean....now, lets sit back and watch the Clintonista fireworks begin...

nathan: fair enough. I was caught off guard by the way you said "the peoples' choice," when they haven't really chosen yet. :)

But... Looking at your reply, did you mean to say "there is no reason to think Gore's endorsement is not merely betting on what he thinks is a winning horse?" It doesn't make sense to me the way you typed it.

Ara: no, we all knew what you meant by that crack, and we're sick of the BS. Or are you just trolling now?

It really irks me when the intelligent liberals like you regurgitate that stuff. It depresses me, it really does.

All: dunno, maybe Mark has it right, at least a bit. Maybe Gore is manuvering for the VP spot for a second shot. Could be that he figures that would give him a leg up on Hillary.

Hey, Steven M. Anderson I too thought Rosemary was endorsing Dean... her husband... upon my first glance as well! How about that...dag nab it!

Mark, Gary -

Sure, what you say makes sense. Get Dean the nomination and clear out the Clintonites from the DNC. Good theory.

But what that would actually have to do with the election in 2008 is a longshot bet if ever there was one. I mean Al Gore was riding high, on the wave of economic prosperity, taking on a guy in GWB that sounded like an idiot whenever he opened his mouth, and he STILL lost, including his home state. And this guy, 5 years from now, is somehow going to rekindle the magic and win?!?!! Talk about delusions of grandeur!!!!

Hilary Clinton might actually win the damn thing in 2008. She has the same feel now that GWB had in the late 90s. Only the democratic party would be so blatantly stupid as to shun the next decent chance they might have of winning the presidency by installing Al Gore - say that again to yourself - AL GORE as the sympathy candidate in 2008.

My God, the democrats might not sniff the presidency again for a decade if this is the intelligence with which they run their party!!!

Gary:

Nixon got more votes than Kennedy too.

Are you serious? What almanac are you going to cite as your source of information?

Casey:

we all knew what you meant by that crack, and we're sick of the BS.

Sorry to hear that you are sick of the BS.

But what are you going to tell your son when he comes home from school and says what I said: "Gore got more votes." You gonna march on Washington and demand that the teacher get fired?

Facts are facts.

But what are you going to tell your son when he comes home from school and says what I said: "Gore got more votes." You gonna march on Washington and demand that the teacher get fired?

Nah, that would never work. Teacher unions are too powerful.

Of course he got more votes - the deceased always arise to vote for a democrat.

Hrm, wonder when Dems are going to drop the "we wuz robbed!" meme. It tedious but at the same time pathetic and amusing. The bloke could not even win his home state, yeah he was popular alright.

As far as Hilary running for President more power to her, I just hope she gets pummelled at the polls.

Ara, there was a substantial chance that Bush would have won the popular vote in 2002, but lost the electoral college. His campaign had no plans to challenge the validity of the electoral college, but there were fringe supporters who were expressing such a hope. Al Gore's lawyers prepared a substantial defense of the electoral college in such an event. However, as we saw, Al Gore quite fairly lost the only vote that counts, that of the many states as expressed by the electoral votes. He accepted that. Now why don't you leave the third-grade smirking behind.

Ara,
Very possibly Kennedy stole the election of '60, I believe, with the connivance of Daley, the mayor of Chicago, from Nixon.

The people in South Illinois had their votes in, but they wanted to wait until Chicago announced their votes. But eventually the Southerners caved, and Daley added up their votes and figured out how many fake votes were needed to give Illinois to Kennedy.

Or so the story goes.
I like Kennedy, and I respect him for his physical courage, but we should not forget that he was a rumrunner's son or grandson.

I remember as a kid reading a congratulatory biography of Kennedy, and having a hard time with the child-raising aspects described. Back then Kennedy=Good, but then he seemed to be praising actions like hyper-competiveness between siblings that I regarded as Bad.

So Kennedy had bad examples and bad teaching as he grew up, and he ended up as a mostly decent man with some serious flaws like possibly stealing elections.

Tadeusz

Rosemary:

the deceased always arise to vote for a democrat.

Jesus. Talk about a sore winner! :^)

Andrew:

Hrm, wonder when Dems are going to drop the "we wuz robbed!" meme.

You're talking to one who has. What cracks me up is how .... touchy....certain conservatives get when you refer to the historical fact that Gore got more votes than Bush.

John:

...Al Gore quite fairly lost the only vote that counts, that of the many states as expressed by the electoral votes. He accepted that. Now why don't you leave the third-grade smirking behind.

What?!? All I said was he got more votes. You all are really touchy about this. I love it!

Ara, I might, but that would be because the teacher was too stupid (or ignorant)to explain how the electoral college works in America, and why the founders added that feature.

I would then require my son to look up the number of elections where the popular vote winner lost the electoral college, and explain to me in a short essay why, or how, that happened.

As for this: "What cracks me up is how .... touchy....certain conservatives get when you refer to the historical fact that Gore got more votes than Bush." No, what irritates anyone with a sense of history and proportion is that observation contains within it the implication that Gore "should have" won the election. I was right the first time; you're just trolling on this.

Casey:

Let me spell it out for you:

1) Gore got more votes (fact)
2) Bush won the electoral college and the election (fact)

You think that my mentioning #1 somehow negates #2. It does not and cannot.

In short, you are reading entirely too much into my comment. Go back and read it again. All I said was Gore got more votes (fact).

You added all the additional baggage on your own.

Don't be such a sore winner!

Sherard,

And Nixon was a good idea? It doesn't matter what we all think of Gore; in the Dean endorsement, the only thing that matters is what Gore thinks of Gore. You also have to realise the gigantic amount of cynicism which is Al Gore - remember, he's from one of the most political families in the United States, and a family which has never once blushed at ruthless, backstabbing politics to get ahead.

Anyways, it might not play out, but I feel confident that what I wrote is the ultimate plan behind all of this...after all, if it was anything but what I say, then Gore would have done some low-level campaigning for his loyal Veep candidate of 2000, and then switched to low-key endorsement of Dean once it was all wrapped up. This ruthless bit of backstabbing (of Lieberman) has more of a point to it than a swelling in Gore's heart that Dean really is the Man of the Moment.

Whether he's 'betting on the winning horse', trying cynically to set himself up for '08, or just giving a big finger to Clinton out of spite, the lack of loyalty as well as the willingness to back a candidate who has positions fundamentally opposed to his own shows how cynical and shallow Gore really is. Unless Dean goes all the way, I think this is a huge mistake.

Mark:

Your analysis makes a lot of sense. Two thoughts though:

1. While I tend to agree that Dean has an uphill--upmountain?--battle to beat Bush (and if the election were held today I would give him no chance to win), but 11 months is a long-time in politics, so you never know.

2. Do you think Gore is as shrewed as Nixon?

2a. Do you think Hillary is Romney?

You know I would sound a lot smarter (shrewder?)if I learned to spell "shrewd".

Hillary is definitely a shrew.

Lets hope she's tamed.

Ara,

Are you serious? What almanac are you going to cite as your source of information?

Go back and read historical accounts. There was SERIOUS doubt about the Illinois vote. No one seriously argues that Daley didn't vote more than a few graveyards for the Democratic party. Additionally, the way electoral college votes were figured in a couple of southern states (Alabama and one or two others) depended on key districts, rather than total votes. What is listed in almanacs now is not so much misleading as uninformative with regard to those states.

At the time, however, there was VERY public outrage at the Democratic Machine stealing votes, and Nixon was strongly and publicly urged to bring suit against Kennedy. Unlike Algore, Nixon had enough class to say no.

Mark,

Gore is not endorsing Dean to help Hilary, he is endorsing Dean to help himself. If Dean loses (which I am less and less confident of these days), I expect Gore to be running for the 2008 nomination himself. Against Hilary.

Gore doesn't want to be part of the Clinton machine anymore.

Actually, Gary, the folks over at NRO have a couple of articles about the endorsement, and at least one of them deduces that Gore has definitively moved to the left, in order to stake his future claim there, and away from the more-centrist Clintonites.

I forgot to add: over in The Corner at NRO, they posted the text of an interview with Senator Lieberman (scroll on down, or control-F for "JOE ON TODAY") on the Today Show this morning.

I think Lieberman showed some class. You gotta figure he's pretty torqued right now. Matt Lauer even played back a clip from the '00 campaign where Gore just gushed about Joe's excellent qualities, then asked the senator: "What happened?" Joe replied "Well, you'll have to ask Al." :)

I liked what he said when Lauer mentioned that Lieberman had earlier said he would turn to Gore for advice, if elected, but might offer the man a position in his administration. Lauer then asked "has that changed now?" Joe laughed "I’d say that’s less likely this morning."

My understanding, as someone who was a youngster in Chicago listening to anti-Daley parents at the time, was that Daley was actually stealing the governor's race, but did it with the then-standard straight ticket votes. Kennedy thereby carried Illinois with a coattail effect, and Daley got a reputation as kingmaker.

The last time I saw unquestionable evidence of vote fraud in Chicago was around that time. My wife was an election judge for twenty years, and there wasn't an election she didn't get visited by Federal poll-watchers. Here in Milwaukee we've been trying for six years to get former residents of our house, at least one of whom we know voted, taken off the rolls.

Speaking of stealing votes, does anyone find it interesting that the city of Philadelphia had a turnout of 98% of registered voters in the 2000 election? Wasn't the PA vote for President fairly close??

Per post on Donald Luskin's "Conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid"- from poll watcher Jameson Campaign.