Where’s the Gore endorsement?

December 31, 2007

Random thought of the day: I kind of expected some kind of endorsement from Al Gore by now, and I’m curious if we’ll see one this week.

Let me concede from the outset I haven’t heard any rumors from anyone about Gore’s intentions, and I’ve been privy to no inside information about what may or may not happen. But I am curious, because a nod from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning former VP could be a fairly big deal.

Back in September, Gore had this to say in one interview:

Will you endorse a candidate in the primary?

Odds are that I will.

Who?

I haven’t made that decision yet.

Do you feel some obligation to endorse the wife of your former boss?

Uh … no. I have friendships with her and with the other candidates, and they’re all on equal footing at this point as far as I’m concerned.

This touched off a fair amount of media speculation about who might get Gore’s support, with most observers expecting his endorsement to go to almost anyone but Clinton.

But that was nearly five months ago. Since then, we haven’t heard much about this.

I suspect every Democratic candidates would jump at the chance of getting Gore’s endorsement. Indeed, I would imagine that, given just how close the polls are in Iowa, the field is looking at their watches and thinking, “Al, if you’re going to endorse, now might be a good time….”

So, I’m just throwing this out there for baseless, idle speculation:

* Who would Gore back?

* Would he show some flair for the dramatic by hosting a surprise event this week, before the Iowa caucuses?

* Is there any chance that a leading Dem would balk, given that Gore’s endorsement didn’t work out well for Howard Dean in 2004?

* Or is the opposite true: Gore’s endorsement would mean far more now than ever before?

Like I said, it’s just a random thought of the day.

He has two nice opportunities in the next couple of days – HRC is having a big New Years Eve party late tonight at which both Clintons (and perhaps Mom, Chelsea or both) will be in attendence, and on Wednesday Edwards is hosting a small-venue concert with John Mellencamp.

That said, I don’t think a Gore endorsement this late does much. It wouldn’t have time to filter through the system to be well known, and as you noted Steve his endorsement of Dean (much to my chagrin) didn’t do much.

  • Oh if only he’d run for prez. I could then be totally behind a candidate. Amazing though the ridicule I hear and read from the neanderthals here in Georgia about Gore and his accomplishments. He does more in one week than the chimp’s ever done in his pampered life.

  • When a local newspaper endorses someone for a minor local office, I pay attention because sometimes that’s all I know about the race. But for president, I don’t think endorsements mean much. I’ll make up my own mind, thank you, and I think that most others feel the same way.

    For Democrats, Al Gore’s endorsement cuts both ways. He’s a free-trade guy, but he’s an environmentalist’s hero. He’s the anti-Bush, but he’s yesterday’s news.

    If Gore made an endorsement I don’t think it would be Hillary, even though he probably regrets running away from Bill Clinton in 2000. HIllary carries too much old baggage. I don’t think it would be Edwards – too populist for Gore. Obama? Not enough gravitas.

    Gore might have endorsed Dodd, Biden, or Richardson, but none of them has caught fire and he doesn’t want to back another eventual loser, as he did with Dean. Kucinich? I don’t think so.

    Gore will endorse and work for the eventual nominee. Period.

  • He is now a Nobel Peace Prize winner who has stated that the climate crisis is not a political issue. For him to endorse a candidate would then make it political. Just then let us speculate that a Republican candidate has an ephiphany between now and the election and actually introduces a plan to address the climate crisis that actually would merit serious support… do you honestly think Mr. Gore endorsing a Democrat just because they are a Democrat after all he has stated about it would make him look credible? He is doing the right thing now. He is also far above the political fracas that would ensue if he picked sides regarding this crisis.

  • I think Hillary did away with her chance at a Gore endorsement when he was in front of her Senate committee and she asked one question.

    “Do you support a Carbon Tax?”

    If Al doesn’t endorse Hillary, it’s all her fault.

    As OFM points out, Gore’s best options aren’t winning. I suspect he’s going to wait until after New Hampshire, if the first two states split, then he’ll provide an endorsement.

    So pundits I.

  • What’s in it for Gore to endorse anyone at this stage? Seems to me he’d fare better — and the party would fare better — if he simply backs the nominee. My sense is his endorsement would mean more to independents in the general election — independents who finally have come around to realizing what a stupid mistake GWB was.

  • I like what Jan said in @4
    Gore’s best move may be to back anyone who’s saying the right things about global warming.
    That’s his meal ticket and it’s a noble one. Not just profitable, but GOOD.

    I’ve liked Gore ever since he stopped trying to win elected office. In a way… being a kingmaker is too close to what takes him away from the pure core of his appeal.
    The truism about “the most worthy candidates for President are too smart to run” is a cloak he could wear well, much to his would-be-drafters’ chagrin.

  • If I were Gore I wouldn’t waste my time or honor backing anyone.

    Since Robert Kennedy was shot there’s been no Democrat whom I valued more than Gore. I was a very active proponent in 1988. He withdrew when the Democrats began leaning toward Michael Dukakis (are there any fond memories of Dukakis?). I was happy that Bill Clinton picked him as running mate and gave him more responsibilities than any Vice President in our history (except the current one who runs all over the Shrub). I was furious when “the Big Guy” forever trashed Gore’s hopes, forcing hiim to the albatross Lieberman around his neck to even appear to be recovering the “moral high ground” which Clinton had so squandered.

    I used to hope that after eight years watching Bush ruin the nation that Gore return to the race with a Democratic House and Senate to back him. Rebuilding America at home and abroad would be an Herculean task in any case, but I used to think they could’ve pulled it off. Now that I’ve seen the sorry performances of Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the wimpy weasels, I’m glad he’s not party to it.

    I think Gore ought to pursue life on his own, beyond the political sewer this country has become. The world has already shown that it knows how to reward him for his talent and efforts, even the media and the politicians don’t.

  • Where are the top three with regards to the climate crisis? I really don’t know that there’s any serious leadership there. I’d say maybe look at the one who’s gotten the least support from the fossil fuel corporations, and that would be the one he’ll endorse, if any.

    Maybe Gore doesn’t think this election is all that important, or that the Democrats are ready for his type of leadership yet. He obviously has at least one more shot at it in 2012 (when he will be 64 and the climate crisis will be no longer deniable even to the troglodytes).

    Maybe he thinks by 2011 we’ll know whether the DLC/Democratic party needs/deserves to be extinct like the Republicans are about to become. I know one thing, if the next (Democratic) president behaves like Harry and Nancy the Bush enablers, there will be a huge effort on the web to burn the house down and start over with a party that can actually listen to the people. Everything I’ve heard from Gore makes me think that in is heart he must hold the current congress in contempt for allowing this criminal regime to skate.

    In my dreams, Al is thinking about forming a third party, because the two we have seem to be pretty fucking useless.

  • Or is the opposite true: Gore’s endorsement would mean far more now than ever before?

    i think among dems gore’s endorsement means more than oprah’s, given his previous political clout and his success with an inconvenient truth this past year. i know i’ll be listening.

  • I hope he stays above the fray, and backs no one. At this point, a Gore endorsement would bring him down a peg. He has a higher calling now, and he should stick with it.

    I think Ed Stephan #9 has said it all, eloquently.

    Gore should interject himself only to persuade the eventual Democratic nominee to do all that he/she can against global warming and for alternative energy.

  • * Would he show some flare for the dramatic by hosting a surprise event this week, before the Iowa caucuses?

    Since it’s going to be a real sore blow to whoever he doesn’t back, I think it would be funny if he went whole hog and threw a huge party or something to announce any endorsement he gives, just for the humor / schadenfreude of the thing.

    🙂

  • Much as I admire Al Gore, he wouldn’t change my mind. I am behind John Edwards all the way and I vote in NH.

  • I think Gore is withholding his endorsement for the election. There’s more downside than upside in endorsing during the primary for his future purpose which is to be a force in the next administration.

  • I’d listen to Gore’s opinion but still vote for Edwards. Gore has learned to be wary – he should support the ultimate nominee and avoid the pitfalls of the horse race.

  • I read that interview, but my guess now is that Gore will stay out of it. He’s obviously much happier now that he’s no longer directly involved in politics, and more importantly, the reason he commands so much respect is because he can act without people wondering what his political motives are. The Democratic primary seems like almost too small an arena for his considerable stature (I almost wrote weight), especially given that all of the candidates are in pretty similar places on the environment and the energy.

    If he does endorse, I’m guessing Edwards. But I strongly suspect he won’t endorse at all.

  • This is probably only wishful thinking, but what I’d like to see is for Gore to keep out of it till both nominees are set, and then run as a third party “post-partisan” candidate. (Odds are the nominees, especially the Republican, will leave a lot of partisans dissatisfied.) I don’t think he owes anything to the Democrats, and it’s not like they’d support him any more than they did Clinton (anybody remember ’93-94?), so fuck ’em. A well-chosen VP (of either or neither party) would help, too.

  • Suzy Jagger in New York From The Times
    Losses arising from America’s housing recession could triple over the next few years and they represent the greatest threat to growth in the United States, one of the world’s leading economists has told The Times.
    Robert Shiller, Professor of Economics at Yale University, predicted that there was a very real possibility that the US would be plunged into a Japan-style slump, with house prices declining for years.
    Professor Shiller, co-founder of the respected S&P Case/Shiller house-price index, said: “American real estate values have already lost around $1 trillion [£503 billion]. That could easily increase threefold over the next few years. This is a much bigger issue than sub-prime. We are talking trillions of dollars’ worth of losses.”
    He said that US futures markets had priced in further declines in house prices in the short term, with contracts on the S&P Shiller index pointing to decreases of up to 14 per cent.
    “Over the next five years, the futures contracts are pointing to losses of around 35 per cent in some areas, such as Florida, California and Las Vegas. There is a good chance that this housing recession will go on for years,” he said.
    Professor Shiller, author of Irrational Exuberance, a phrase later used by Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said: “This is a classic bubble scenario. A few years ago house prices got very high, pushed up because of investor expectations. Americans have fuelled the myth that prices would never fall, that values could only go up. People believed the story. Now there is a very real chance of a big recession.”
    He pointed out that signs at the beginning of 2007 that had indicated that some states were beginning to experience a recovery in house prices had proved to be false: “States such as Massachusetts had seen some increases at the beginning of the year. Denver also looked like it had a different path. Now all states are falling.”
    Until two years ago, each of America’s 50 states had experienced a prolonged housing boom, with properties in some – such as Florida, California, Arizona and Nevada – doubling in price, fuelled by cheap credit and lax lending practices to borrowers who ordinarily would not have been able to secure a mortgage. Two years ago, the northeastern states of America became the first to slide into a recession after 17 successive interest-rate rises between June 2004 and August 2006 hit the property market.
    Last week, new numbers from the S&P/Case Shiller index showed that house prices had declined in October at their fastest rate for more than six years, with homes in Miami losing 12 per cent of their value.

    Now it begins. A lot of people have been witting about this and now we all get to see it for real. At the same time this is going on more drought, flooding, heat and on and on. Who is to blame doesn’t matter. What we can’t let happen is to take our eye off the ball. We have to stop burning fossil fuels and we only have about 8 years to do that there is still time. We have to move forward with reason not the nonsense or perception of reality we see today. The policy makers Worldwide have got to start working together something that has never happened or never happened to a degree it must now happen. We all have to start working together. Let’s just say to call an 800 number to buy the handy dandy whatever is a thing of the past there are tuff times ahead but somehow with a little luck we will all come though this now is not the time to give up. Can it work I don’t know?

    • Comments are closed.