Gore and Dean...

[Larry Gude]

...how could Al change his mind about Joe so soon?

Is Al gunning for Veep again?

Can he do this?

Does this mean Dean knows what Tauzin/Dingle is all about?

Can Howard name the assistant undersecretary of agriculture of Azerbijan?

Is this all a 'web' thing?

Did Al invent Howard?

Maine?

Is this all a part of the Clintons grand scheme to sink Howard Dean?

???

 

[Bruzilla]

I doubt it's anything deeper than Al sees Dean as a winner, and he wants to be seen as a powerbroker, so he's backing a winner. What would happen if he backs Lieberman and Lieberman loses? Looks bad for Gore.

Let's face it... no one would give a poop if Gore backed Lieberman. But look at all of the press he's getting by backing Dean. Now he's back in the political spotlight and I'm sure he'll tute his own horn if Dean wins the nomination.

 

[SamSpade]

I think it shows that Gore has no sense of fair play. Lieberman held off his campaign for a LONG time - to his own detriment - because he *respected* Gore and was willing to give him an open field to run again. Once Gore belatedly made it clear he wasn't going to run, Lieberman joined the race - a little late, but because of loyalty and his principles.

So Gore gets in and supports the guy who's WAY out in front, rather than his friend three years ago. If Dean is so frickin' awesome, why didn't he tap him three years ago?

I think it sucks. Lesson learned - in politics it doesn't pay to be Al's friend.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK...

...so, Bruz, Al Gore honestly sees Dean as the winner? OK i guess...but...

Why now? Why take the risk of getting in on the ground floor when there is no way in the world he gets anything extra for the risk? Deans a sure winner in NH, probable in Iowa. Then Leiberman might be out, Kerry out and, viola, Al walks in to help Dean in the south WITHOUT being seen as so ugly towards Joe and without alienating JFK and the Northeast libstablishment.

If he sees a winner, why not do something helpful like bash Bush along the lines of Deans attacks and let people speculate or even just say nothing for 30 more days??? This, to me, shows Al's tin ear and HURTS a situation, Iowa and NH, where Dean needs NO help.

Leiberman is in the race nationally, just not NH and Iowa. With Al's endorsement, he is INSTANTLY right back in the thing.

Sam,

I'm not so sure it's a friendship issue. They say if you want a friend in Washington get a dog. I do agree it makes him look, needlessly to me, like a jerk. Paul Begala was on Imus this AM asking, as a Dem plumber, THE question Gore and Dean will now hear every day: What went so wrong with Joe in 3 years?

Again, wait a month, Joe is done, easy time to come in, great time perhaps.

I swear to God, all these guys MUST work for Karl Rove.

 

[vraiblonde]

Watched the Dem debate tonight and you know who really impresses me, in terms of sheer personability and charm? Carol Mosely Braun. No kidding. Those other clowns are up there like a bunch of dogs fighting over their master's slippers but CMB was cool, baby. And she seemed like an adult. She had presence and class.

Her policy points still suck but MAN she looked good!

 

[Bruzilla]

WOW!!!!

I've been following the news flow on this and I AM AMAZED! I thought the only ticked off Dem would be Lieberman but was I ever wrong! I even heard Susan Estritch say that "what he did was PI$$ OFF a lot of Democrats!" on FNC last night. Never thought I would hear anyone, yet alone Estrich, utter that phrase on a national TV news show.

So far I've heard the following complaints:

1. The Clinton democrats are mad because Gore's comments that the Dems need to re-invent themselves is a direct insult to them.
2. The other candidates and their supporters are mad because Gore should have waited until there was a clear winner before making an endorsement. To paraphrase Estrich and others, "that's what a real party leader would do."
3. Lieberman and his people are mad for obvious reasons, but what's really interesting here is that concerns that lots of people in the Clinton camp had about Gore's loyalty are now resurfacing in a very strong way.

The general concensus is that if Dean wins the presidency, then Gore is secure and will be the party big-wig he's always wanted to be. If Dean loses, well, again to quote Estrich - "a lot of Democrats are sharpening their knives." It seems that by trying to reinvent himself, Gore has once again stepped in it.

Larry, the reasons that I hear, offered up by Democrats not Republicans, are:

1. Gore wants a powerful position in the Dean cabinet, specifically Secretary of State.
2. If Dean wins, Gore becomes a serious contender for the 2008 election (which is another reason why Hillary is pi$$ed off about Gore's comments.)
3. Gore's name is all over the media today, like I said yesterday, and now he's back in the spotlight.
4. He did it to stab the Clintons in the back by coming out and saying that the Clinton/McAuliffe Democratic party is going down the wrong path.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK...

...let's run with this because I am fascinated.

Can we throw this one out?

2. If Dean wins, Gore becomes a serious contender for the 2008 election

If Dean wins, DEAN is it in 2008, not Gore and no way does Gore go for the Veep job again, right?

BUT, if we do follow the self interest path, Gore looking at another run for prez, he'll certainly be young enough, mid 60's, in 2012 to run, so, that follows the Secretary of State rationale; do good works, build resume and good will.

But, IMHO, everything else you list is more accurate; ####ing people off. If this is the case, as it seems, then Gore's ONLY prayer is a Dean win. Dean loses, Gore is a back stabbing, disloyal opportunist and is in political Siberia for the rest of his days.

I can see a 'conspiracy':

Gore is endorsing Dean to ensure he loses for Hillarys sake. The problem with this is there is no upside for Gore if Dean does lose.
He is right now an outcast and what could Hillary offer him to make it worth while? Not likely. This would be an admission of:

...'tin ear':

Gore has NO clue why he did not do well in '88 and no clue why he lost in 2000. The problem here is that he did seem to know that there was no support for him to run in 2004.

I was actually starting to think Dean could beat Bush but I can think of ony one thing worse for Dean than toting Al around the country side; toting Bill.

The moderates could care less about Gore which is why he did not run this time.

The left sees him as cheated but had no fire to get him elected this time.

The right sees him as an ugly reminder of the Clinton years (his 'greatest President of all time' speech after impeachment) and his horrendous conduct during the recount. That plus who is a bigger turn off in the history of the world when they open their yap?

Nobody wants him and the people against him are REALLY against him.

This just seems to be suicide by Dean.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
2. The other candidates and their supporters are mad because Gore should have waited until there was a clear winner before making an endorsement. To paraphrase Estrich and others, "that's what a real party leader would do."

No, Susan - that's what a real party follower would do. And if you don't think Dean is a clear winner, then you have worse political instincts than Al Gore.

 

[Larry Gude]

At this point in time...

...in the fall of 1991 there was a candidate for the nomination. This candidate stood at about 4% in national polls. This candidate was a virtual unknown to the general public. He had not yet played sax on Leno. He had not yet semi-bared his soul on 60 minutes. He had not yet not inhaled pot. He had not yet not had relations with 'that' woman.

He did, however, have a new job job 11 months later.

Dean is the clear front runner as was Tsongas.

Dean has just ####ed off every single Democrat in the nation except himself and Al Gore.

There has not been one vote cast in New Hampshire, which Clinton lost. Nor Iowa which Clinton also lost.

Explain to me how Dean is a shoo in if you would be so kind.

 

[Bruzilla]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
No, Susan - that's what a real party follower would do. And if you don't think Dean is a clear winner, then you have worse political instincts than Al Gore.

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with Susan Estrich and disagreeing with Vrai! If you look around at the party chieftons... The Clintons, McAuliffe, Daschle, Pelosi, etc., no one is coming out in support of anyone yet. They are all waiting to see who the voters go with and then they'll throw their support behind the winner to go against Bush. The only people showing support now are the hacks like the Hollywierd types and Gore. The leaders are keeping quiet.

Hey Larry, I'm as confused as you are about the Gore 2008 thing, but it's out there in force right now. I heard five different Dems saying they thought Gore might be making a run in 2008 reguardless of a Dean win in 2004. I guess the unspoken conventional wisdom is that if Dean were to somehow win in 2004 there's no way he would be re-elected. I guess he could be wanting to be seen as one of the "New Left" in 2008 if Dean loses in 2004, but he's burned a heck of a lot of bridges with this stunt, key Democratic bridges, and I don't see him getting much party support. I mean... he just told the country that all the stuff he did with Clinton was wrong; that Hillary and McAuliffe are out to lunch, along with anyone who supports them; and that he supports increasing taxes, breaking up corporations, and cowtowing to our enemies... oh yeah... he'll be real popular.

 

[Larry Gude]

Hence...

...he would have NO chance in '08.

To borrow a phrase:

'Galactically stupid'?

I mean Dean, BTW. Gore was already anxiously standing by for a call from his party that would probably never come. Now, it WILL never come.

So, recapping, Kerry has made such an ass of himself lately, I still think he is done.

Joe is, after last night, right back in the game. Al (Sharpton) brought his BS rap down the lane once to often; 'how can you break into somebodys house, brother Howard, and then decide to stay because you are already there'?. Lieberman politely and firmly handed the Good Rev. his walking papers by stating we are doing the right thing but W is messing it up.

Plus, he is handling Gores slap with class and dignity which always scores point with moderates.

Dean IS backtracking on the war and he's no Clinton.

Clark, jeezus, how in the hell can the Democratic party seriously and enthusiastically support a guy who was a Republican up to about 2 months ago? He's a time bomb for the Dems.

Dennis is dying to be heard. The party and the media are doing everything they can to make sure he isn't.

Carol may actually be the only one Buch CAN'T handle. She is getting good at this.

Edwards...oh yeah. The lower his numbers go the better he insists he is doing. Only a lawyer...

Gep? Trying to wheeze into Iowa and pick up a W without shooting himself in the foot.


...interesting.

 

[MGKrebs]

It's possible that Gore just wants them to chill on the infighting. Dean can win, Dean's acceptable, he backs Dean and it's one more brick in the wall.

Gore seems to have chosen his words poorly in asking Dems to get behind one candidate, but I think the sentiment is to stop the attacks on each other.

It's funny though, I suspect Gore is surprised by the intense reaction. I think it means that the other candidates view Gore as more important than he does himself. In other words, if Gore really thought he was THAT important, he would have waited until we had a nominee. So to some extent, he must just see himself as another Dem trying to help out, not realizing how significant his endorsement would be perceived.

I highly doubt Gore has any more aspirations for Prez or VP. And having been VP, I also think it is unlikely he would be Sec. of State or something. However, the Dem chairman (Terry McAuliffe) announced his resignation today (effective February). Could this be related?

 

[Larry Gude]

Man...

...you'd know better than I but, I'm not seeing it.

It just makes no sense to come out right now in favor of Dean BEFORE a single vote is cast. Hillary, Bill, Daschle, Pelosi, Jesse, Mario, everybody in Dem politics I can think of is waiting for the proper time; after the people vote.

Chill on the fighting? Aren't they SUPPOSSED to be fighting? Then, there's a winner, everybody shakes hands and pulls together to
win in November.

Dean CAN win. Lieberman CAN win. Kerry CAN win. Gep CAN win.
Rev. Al can't. CMB can't. Edwards can't. Clark can't. Dennis probably can't but damn, he's the true liberal here and he's got that "I'm not bullshitting you" quality that might interest a bunch of that 50% who don't even vote. He sure as hell gets 40 million plus the Green. There's not much for W to fear dealing with Kerry, Joe and Gep. All they'd be doing is quibbling over degree. What in the hell is Bush gonna do with Dennis Kucinich?

He doesn't fudge Iraq like Dean "I'm for this war, not that one, we're stuck now, Saddam not good, not bad...blah, blah"...he says OUT, NOW.

I think it means that the other candidates view Gore as more important than he does himself.

Holy ####! Every single ####ed off democrat has one thing in common: they think Gore won in 2000. That makes him VERY important!!! He is at the center of most all the 'hate Bush' rage!

Maybe this is just his 'screw you all' because he was so close and yet the party was really not interested in him getting another shot?

I think you are right about Sec State and for sure Veep but I don't think Al Gore is done running for THE office. You see him thundering away, waving his arms? Looked like a candidate to me.

As far as Terry, I'd think that he is getting booted BECAUSE here comes Al Gore splashing the headlines, the candidate from last time around and Big Mac, the DNC boss, the guy who is suppossed to be orchestrating the 'splashing' doesn't know anything about it. Makes Terry look WAY bad.

Believe it or not, I'm almost as worried about the potential demise of the Democratic party as you are. I don't know who the hell is running the in DC but with the "Patriot" act, this medicaire labyrinth, airline bailout and generally spending money faster than it can be printed, it's safe to say it ain't no fiscal conservatives.

It's a morph and I don't know what to make of it other than it is Clinton-esque in 'triangulating' issues.

 

[Bruzilla]

You know MGK... I honestly think your head would explode if you ever tried to criticize any Dem besides Clinton. Dems are always so Polly Anna about their people.

This debate just keeps getting more and more interesting. I was watching Hardball With Chris Mathews last night, and Mathews was interviewing Jimmy Carter. He asked Carter about providing some insight into what Bush has been doing, and Carter was off to the races with all kinds of theories and conjecture about why this had happened, what Bush was thinking at this time or that, what Bush's motivations could be, etc. And, of course, all of these statements painted Bush as a fool, an incompentant, a kid having a temper tantrum, a guy getting bad advice from evil people, etc. Then, Mathews asked him to provide an analysis of why Gore would go out and do what he did, and Carter was all "well... I don't know... I can't really speak to what Gore was doing... I'm sure he means well..." What a load of :flush:

The other Democrats who I heard talking last night were all singing the same tune - Gore did what he did to give the shaft to the Clintons. I heard that the animosity was because the Clintons didn't do more to get Gore elected, but wasn't it Gore that told the Clintons to stay away? The Clintons have been pushing Wesley Clark and the agenda that they pushed from 1992-2000, whereas Dean wants to head off in a radically different direction. For Gore to be jumping up and down now, not only supporting Dean but also bashing the current state of the Democratic party, would mean that he's wanting to screw Bill and Hillary... at least that's the opinion of the Democrat talking heads.

I agree 100% with you on Lieberman. I never saw him as being a strong candidate, but now he's a "victim" and that works for him. Plus he's handled the situation properly, meaning that he didn't soundly criticize Gore but he's made it clear he's mad. When he was asked on The Today Show about his previous comments that if he won he would offer Gore a high-level position in his administration, he just laughed and said "no, I don't think that's going to happen now." I thought for a second that maybe Gore had done this to help Lieberman, but Gore, true to form, shot that theory down when he came out saying that he had tried to call Lieberman before the announcement but couldn't reach him (which Lieberman's folks said was a lie), and by only trying to call Lieberman well after the speech and after aids had told him he was looking bad. I mean c'mon... he didn't just show up in Harlem with no clue of what he has going to say... he's known for a while he was going to support Dean and he claims that he didn't try to reach Lieberman until just before he went on stage and that Lieberman's people couldn't reach Joe in time? The newspaper reported who first called Lieberman for comment didn't have any problem.

One other thing that I've seen creeping up is the question of Dean's credibility. More and more people are tossing the BS flag on Dean, and pointing out flip-flops and lies that he's been telling. It started when Kerry accused him of cutting health care spending and lots of other programs in Vermont, and Dean looked him, and the camera, in the eye and said those statements weren't true. I chalked it up to Kerry spinning some numbers, but maybe I was too quick to think that. Dean looked reporters in the eye the other day and said that he had never supported military action in Iraq, and that anyone who said he did is lying. Then I saw a excerpt from an interview that he gave last spring where he said he did support military action in Iraq.

He looked really bad on Fox News Sunday when he was being asked about his efforts to prevent the release of his records as governor. First he said he wasn't the one behind the effort, that it was staff and advisors. Then when asked why he didn't just order them released, he said that he didn't want the records released because there was personal information from constituents in some of the letters (like someone writing and saying their wife had AIDS), and that he didn't want that kind of information going public. When Chris Wallace told him that many of the papers that Dean had already released were letters just like the ones Dean had just said he didn't want released, Dean changed his story to saying that he was worried about the confidentiality of advice given to politicians... i.e., the very thing that he's been criticizing Bush and Cheney for in regards to the energy policy debate. Dean just kept changing his story again and again, and ended up citing a reason that's he's been attacking the Republicans on. I think the credibility issue is what's going to kill Dean's chances.

Kerry is out... he dug his own grave too many times. Kucinich... I'll be president before he is. I think Gephardt just has too many negatives against him, mainly that he's a whiny crybaby. He hasn't really gotten out of the starting gate anytime that he's run, and the only time people saw him on TV was when he was whining about somethings the Republicans had done. I think that Lieberman has a good shot at winning the primaries if he plays his cards right.

 

[Flo]

I never cared for Liberman much, as I couldn't understand what he was talking about, as he seemed so closed mouthed (mumbly) when he was Gore's running mate. In the last couple of months, I have seen him in a different light. Not that I would vote for a democrat; made that mistake in 92'.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I think that Lieberman has a good shot at winning the primaries if he plays his cards right.

You forget who's going to be making that decision - Democrats. If Republicans got to decide the Democratic nominee, it would be Lieberman hands down. Unless they wanted someone who Bush would really mop the floor with - then it would be Dennis Kucinich.

I'm sticking with my Dean prediction. Lies and flipflops aside, he's the most energetic and dynamic guy on the stage right now. Except for Al Sharpton, who will be nominated shortly after hell freezes over.

I disregard anything Jimmy Carter has to say about anything. He was such a loser when he was President, now he suddenly knows all the answers. If the Dems were smart, they'd pay him big $$$ to stay OFF the talk shows.

 

[MGKrebs]

Definitely an interesting story.

Surprising that Gore would endorse anybody this early. Most party bigwigs would wait until we have a nominee in order not step on any toes. But you know what? Gore is a private citizen. He has NO job or title within the party heirarchy. He's basically put all his marbles in the Dean basket now though, because if Dean doesn't win, he's screwed for any future political career. Which makes me think he doesn't really care about that. Maybe repubs don't listen to him, but he has a very strong voice for us rank and file Dems, even, maybe especially, because he's an outsider.

The big battle within the Dem party is between the Democratic Leadership Council (not to be confused with the Democratic National Committee), and the "populist" candidates, Dean, Kucinich, and maybe Gep. Clinton rode to victory with the help of the DLC, bringing them to prominence. They think their way can win again. Dean and the others think that too much has changed in the 7 years since Clinton's last victory, and Dems need to get back to advocating for individual people, not big business, or some twisted version of "centrism'.

The DLC is all about being "centrist", and supporting big business and therefore getting big business support. But the problem is, the "center" has moved to the right in recent years, and the populists are trying to drag it back. The DLC would have us all just be happy being "centrists", even though ten years ago we would have been called conservatives for being in the same place.

The other thing is, there is some question about the true agenda of the DLC. If you go to the DLC website; http://www.ndol.org/

you'll see a tab at the top for the Progressive Policy Institute. Click on that to go to: http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm

This is the "think tank" for the DLC. Then, if you click on "The Institute" in the upper left corner, you will see that the president of the Institute is Will Marshall.

Next, go to the PNAC website. http://www.newamericancentury.org

If you don't know these guys already, you should. They are the architects of our current foreign policy. Wolfowicz, Perle, Lewis Libby, and Cheney, have all been members and/or worked with them. NOT a progressive organization. If you look around there, you will find that they believe that we are in a special time, when the USA can dominate the world and create a "Pax Americana', and suppress all POTENTIAL challenges to out dominance. Now you may or may not agree with all this, but it doesn't seem to be the kind of thing the DLC should be involved in, right? This is major league hawk territory; pre-emptive strikes and domination of the Middle East, and what not. Well, check this out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

At the bottom, the signatories include 'Will Marshall". I have confirmed through email with the PPI that this is the same Will Marshall, President of PPI.

OK, so as a progressive, one starts to get little alarms going off and flags going up.
But the plot thickens. So far, all we have is that the prez. of an allegedly progressive think tank affiliated with the DLC is hanging out with neo-conservatives. Next, go here to see how the PPI has been funded;

http://www.mediatransparency.org/all_in_one_results.php?Message=progressive+policy+institute

So who is that "Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation"? One more link and we're done:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm

Among the most, if not THE most, conservative foundation out there. Gives Scaife a run for his money. Funding the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council. Hmmm.

So maybe no smoking gun, but you can see that some of us "progressives" are a little suspicious of the DLC. I'm on the DLC email list, and they have been attacking Dean mercilessly. Unbelievable. (I'll post some of it if you are interested). If Gore should stay out for a while, shouldn't the DLC also not attack our own? Perhaps this is why Gore chose the course he did. Gore rose to power with Clinton and the DLC. But something has happened that has caused him to jump ship. Clark is the presumed DLC candidate (who, the theory goes, the DLC persuaded to run when it looked like their other guy, Lieberman, was going to fail). Perhaps Gore saw where the DLC/PPI/PNAC agenda was taking us, and didn't like it.

And finally, by the way, Karenna Gore said yesterday that Al tried to call Joe about the endorsement, and Joe wouldn't or couldn't take the call before the story leaked. Who ya' gonna believe? Personally, I don't buy all the whining about it. Joe Lieberman (or any of the others) would have NO PROBLEM having the Gore endorsement for himself. They're just ####ed because they didn't get it.

 

[Frank]

Re: Definitely an interesting story.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
And finally, by the way, Karenna Gore said yesterday that Al tried to call Joe about the endorsement, and Joe wouldn't or couldn't take the call before the story leaked. Who ya' gonna believe? Personally, I don't buy all the whining about it. Joe Lieberman (or any of the others) would have NO PROBLEM having the Gore endorsement for himself. They're just ####ed because they didn't get it.

This is the part of the story that I think has the least credibility. For some reason, AFTER the story leaked, people had absolutely no problem contacting Lieberman about it. Whiny or not, I still think that snubbing Joe was low class, since Joe delayed his own entrance into the race out of deference to Al.

 

[MGKrebs]

Snubbed by not calling Joe or

not endorsing him?

 

[Frank]

Re: Snubbed by not calling Joe or

Originally posted by MGKrebs
not endorsing him?

????

How many times do people have to repeat their opinion?

By not calling him. By having the person he chose to run with him to hold the highest office in the land should he be incapacitated, someone of that caliber and someone he once held in that high a regard - someone who had injured his OWN chances to run out of *respect* for his running mate - this man had to find out from the *press*.

It's rude. It's damned rude. It's like finding out your wife is divorcing you ON THE NEWS.

They never WERE totally on the same page politically. And I really don't see a big connect between what Gore publically claims to be for, and what Dean is - so it really just looks like Gore's way of re-entering politics by backing someone who is ahead by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter.

I never in a million years expected Gore to endorse Lieberman, but I thought he would at least wait until a couple primaries had taken place to make his announcement. Even the Clintons haven't officially endorsed anybody - yet.