The Poliblogger thinks that the New York Times overstates its case:
I think this headline in the NYT, Gore to Endorse Dean, Remaking Democratic Race, is an overstatement, as is the breathless statement that Gore's endorsement "rocked the Democratic presidential field."
What, precisely has been remade? Prior to the Gore announcement everyone was saying that it's Dean's to lose, and that he was the prohibitive favorite...
Had Gore endorsed Dean back in March, then okay, it would have been dramatic. At this point it was an utterly safe move for Gore.
As it pertains to the 2004 election, I agree with the Poliblogger. The Democratic nomination is Dean’s to lose and not much has been changed by Gore’s announcement. Gore’s support should help a little bit, but his help would have been far more useful in March. Lieberman was probably the most harmed by this; not because of the announcement itself, but because his former running mate did not have enough respect for Lieberman to let him know about it. Poor old Joe found about it via the media.
However, I think the Times (and even the good Poliblogger) are missing the bigger story. For those who follow politics, it is well known that Dean really is an outsider to the established Democratic Party; especially the Clinton faction that is backing Wesley Clark. To my mind, Gore is publicly challenging the Clintons and letting the Democratic party know he is still a power in the party. He may well be considering a run against Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
Make that "Steven"
yeesh.
Yes, your phrasing about becoming a power again is rather apt. Of course, he does have some power now. His mere announcement has generated tons of free and favorable press for Dean (see http://politicalwire.com/ar... for some more links).
So long as he is modest in his use of public announcements, he should retain the power of free media. And the potential Gore/Clinton fight in 2008 is guaranteed to get lots of media attention in the years to come.
So my idea is shared by Rush? Hmmm, not sure if I'm pleased to have support or dismayed my idea wasn't original...
I think its possible that in the end this will come back to haunt Gore. I suspect a significant percentage of the public would have voted for Gore in the future because they erronously believe the election was stolen from him. However, those same people (who try to do the right thing as best they can determine) are sure to notice the horrid way Gore treated Lieberman. Even if Gore had decided against supporting Lieberman, it was tacky to not inform him. This reminds me of the way that Tom Landry was fired from the Dallas Cowboys. (Interesting to note that Dallas is no longer "Americas Team") Unnecessary public humiliation doesn't really sit well with decent people.
Indeed. No points for style here.
This Limbaugh's thesis as well. I see some of it, but not all of it.
Plus, <i>what</i> power does Gore have aside from saying he won the most votes in 2000? He has no influence ove the DNC, and he was resoundingly rejected by the Democratic establishment after 2000.
So, I would say that rather than asserting himself as a power, he is trying to become one again. And I agree about 2008.