A PO'd Clarkophile understands Gore's logic. + a Gore v. Clinton angle?

[Bucky]

From the viewpoint of the party and election tactics, Gore's choice to endorse Dean makes good sense. The buzz going around is that Dean really does have this thing bagged. If that's the case, then the rest of the party establishment really does need to make its peace with a guy who, frankly, a lot of them don't really like, support, care for, or believe in.

For the good of party unity in this election, assuming Dean is the nominee, the Solons of the Democratic Party really need to come around and get OK with the good doctor. Gore has started to make this possible.

Gore had lots to lose and virtually nothing to gain personally from this endorsement. I have to believe that he's sincere about it. I also believe that it's amazingly un-presidential for a guy whom I really think should be president.

But there's another angle here. Clinton's guy, I think most people know, is Clark. The Clinton crew is gangbusters for the guy. Dean really is the anti-Clinton: dignified and classy where Clinton is folksy, abrasive where Clinton is creamy smooth, angry and impatient where Clinton is calculating and persistant.

There evolved over the course of the 2000 campaign a real rivalry between Gore and Clinton. Clinton thought Gore was distancing himself too much from Clinton's successes while Gore thought the sleeze factor alone cost him the election--meaning that he didn't quite distance himself enough (in Gore's eyes). With Bubba unpublicly boosting Clark, the underdog in the campaign for the nomination, it only makes sense for Gore to favor Dean. And that's what he's done.

I don't like it at all. I've always felt that in a democracy the party's elder statesmen (tho at 55, Gore's not all that "elder") should sit out the nomination business. It's the people's business and the grayheads taking sides lowers their stock as Solons. Gore doing this sorta solidifies his position as an also ran, as a guy just one rung below the status of party elder.

That all changes, of course, if Dean confounds all expectations and actually wins in November. Then Gore's back on top and Clinton's one play weaker. But again, I think Gore's decision to endorse Dean was not self serving. I think it was sincere. It was also calculated, certainly. Gore in the end, I'll bet, thought he was serving his country by doing this. I think he's made a mistake that we'll all be paying for in lost elections, reduced civil liberties, higher deficits, future wars, and increasingly pissed off Third World terrorist recruits.

But more importantly, the dude supported someone besides my man.

[Redneck Socialist]

1. Gore vs Clinton...

...there may be something to that. If Dean wins, Gore has positioned himself very well to assume that "elder statesman" mantle and take a leadership role in the Democratic Party thus stepping out from Clinton's shadow.

If Clark wins look for Clinton to assume a more visible role in the campaign.

[Frances]

2. What happens if it is a Dean-Clark ticket?

[Redneck Socialist]

8. Dubya loses big time...

Seriously though, I do thing we are starting to see elements of an internal struggle for the direction of the Democratic Party.

There is the long running left/center split and now there is a populist faction starting to form.

Gore started to tap into that late in 2000 (too late) and Dean, despite the lefty labels that are being slapped on him has begun to connect with that group as well.

If the Gore vs Clinton idea is legit then a Dean/Clark alliance with Dean at the head would be a repudiation of the DLC/Clinton wing of the party. If that ticket goes on to win in November you will see a realignment of power withing the party.

[Bucky]

9. The historical analogy may be Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, or Kefauver in 1956

I don't think Clark does much as a VP. He on the ticket below the fold does nothing to erase Dean's huge negatives west of the Hudson River.

[Redneck Socialist]

10. Clark is a very different candidate from Bentsen

but if your point is that people don't cast their votes based on who the VP candidate is I have to agree with you.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. does it really matter

it doesn't really matter to me who somebody endorses. Particularly not in this political climate when the choice is as clear as ever: ANYBODY BUT BUSH.

Personally, I'll take whoever emerges as the contendor. Keep your eyes on the prize. Do not begin petty internal quabbles. What the RW is doing right now is throwing us bones about Hillary's this and Bubba's that and Gore's this. All the while we are in the here and now the conservative press is talking as if this is 1999. They are turning our arguments about current/future leadership into a discussion of the past in the hopes of distracting us.

[fairfaxvadem]

4. there is no Gore v. Clinton thing going on here....

That's just sour grapes coming out of, oh, maybe one of those ex-Gore staffers who are on the Clark campaign. Either that, or our friendly Republican trouble-making lie machine which we've come to know and love since 2000.

[Bucky]

6. I'm just speculating below the lines. This is from me, not some Republican

I've heard no talk about a Gore-Clinton feud having a role in the 2004 election. I'm just looking at the different faces of this very surprising move by Gore.

The thing is, what you're calling "sour grapes" and a "Republican trouble-making lie" are the words that I have written. I'm thinking for myself here, not repeating what I've heard from others. I really don't like my words getting labeled that way.

[fairfaxvadem]

7. hmmm....sorry, that's not how I read your post...

I thought you were referring to that "one person w/the Clark campaign" story that is going around and at the end of your post you sounded like you were basically rejecting the theory with some observations.

I was, and am, calling that story that is circulating "sour grapes" and "republican lie machine", unless you are that certain Clark staffer, in which case....

So, no, I wasn't intending to speak to YOUR words, just the story that is already out there.

[dionysus]

5. Good analysis, good post RE Gore

Gore's no fool, and he's got his heart in the right place.

I'm sad to see the Dean/Kerry/Clark factions tear each other apart over this. Heated debate is one thing, but it's reaching a childish level nowadays between these candidates' supporters. Your post rises above that. Thankyou.

[eileen_d]

11. Personally, I don't think there's enough evidence...

... that Clark is "Clinton's guy." I think a whole lot has been made of the commonality in their backgrounds and their shared past... and that most of that has been literally "made" in the media whore echo chamber. I know Clinton encouraged Clark to run, but hell, Clark's uniquely qualified, and his presence in the race is ultimately positive for all Democrats.

Unless you can provide some more evidence of Clinton "unpublicly boosting" Clark (is that like "sort-of impregnating" a woman? bad analogy, sorry) -- I just don't buy it.

I do agree with you that "Gore had lots to lose and virtually nothing to gain personally from this endorsement" -- and I think it will add to Dean's support. But next week we'll all have something else to wring our hands about. The race is still on.

[Bucky]

12. You're right. Let me amend "unpublicly supporting"

Clark's campaign is reputed to be thick on old Clinton operatives according to most knowledgeable analyses I've read (TPM, Slate, and New Republic). Clinton famously said at a gathering at his home in Chappaqua that he sees two rising stars in the Democratic Party--Hillary and Wes.

Clinton is not doing anything to boost Clark per se, that I know of. But his high esteem of Clark and the alignment of his allies behind Clark makes Clark pretty much the Clinton-wing candidate of 2004. Obviously His Bubbaness isn't taking sides in public. That would be too unseemly for an elder stateman to do.

[eileen_d]

13. Yes, I forgot about the "rising stars" quote

So Clark is obviously a favorite of his. But in public (I'm thinking of his appearance back at the Harkin steak fry a few months ago) he does seem to be generous with his support for all of the Democratic candidates, which I admire. I would guess he'd support Dean if Dean was nominated, or any of the others. I read in LBN he's even supporting the Democrat in the Dem/Green SF mayor race... so if nothing else he's certainly a party loyalist.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Unpresidential?

Clinton endorsed Gore before the 2000 primaries. Gore has learned from the best.

[Bucky]

15. It ill-behooves your candidate when you act like a bonehead

Obviously Clinton endorsing his sitting, loyal VP after eight years of service against one challenger (who was attacking the Clinton record) is entirely different than Gore endorsing one of nine legitimate challengers running for an open nomination when the final decision is still in the air.

But you knew that. You're being manifestly illogical.

[dfong63]

16. if Gore's endorsement of Dean is "unpresidential",

then why would it be any less unpresidential for Bill Clinton to endorse Clark? and isn't it just as "unpresidential" for Clinton's "crew" to be "going gangbusters" for Clark?

[Bucky]

17. If Clinton endorses Clark

then why would it be any less unpresidential for Bill Clinton to endorse Clark?

If Clinton endorses Clark, I'll eat Tucker's shoe. But if Clinton endorses Clark or anyone before the nomination is a certainty, it will also be unpresidential. In a democracy senior statesmen need to stand back and let the people speak.

Gore was certainly within his rights as a Democrat to make an endorsement. My point is that it is not fitting for a man of his stature to have done so. My concern is that he has lowered his own stature by doing this and he's damaged himself permanently if Dean goes on to be defeated in November.

and isn't it just as "unpresidential" for Clinton's "crew" to be "going gangbusters" for Clark?

Clinton obviously doesn't control the political activities of his former employees, none of whom have actually been elected president. Gore has been awarded the highest honor our country can bestow. I don't expect professional political operatives to sit out the race. I expect certain party elders to not take sides before the people have spoken.

(on edit)

Those elders include Clinton, Gore, Senator Clinton (because she was First Lady), Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and Geraldine Ferraro.