Gore Endorses Dean - Who

Gore Endorses Dean - Who to link to about this story:

Hewitt? Sullivan? Reding?

All of them and more, of course. But in the end, Scott Ott probably covers the story as well as anyone.

I did like Sullivan's quote:

if Dean goes down in flames (which must surely be the likeliest eventuality), Gore has allied himself with the energized, leftist Democratic base, and could position himself in 2008 as the real soul of the party - unlike that centrist opportunist, Senator Clinton. In fact, the minute after a Bush re-election, the Gore-Clinton struggle for control of the party begins again in earnest. To my mind, this is somewhat delusional of Gore. No sane political party would ever give him another chance at the presidency, after he threw it away with such spectacular incompetence in 2000. But all politicians have to be a little delusional; and Gore is nothing but a politician.

And this:

And it also marks the first time that a major establishment figure has essentially blessed the new forces of web-based anti-war upper-middle-class activism that has propelled his candidacy. Gore, of course, helps with blacks, for good measure, a group now indispensable to any chance the Dems have next year. So there you have it: the left-wing take-over of the Democrats continues apace. And only the Clintons can stop it.

How much of a blessing is it for Dean? How many of that 50.01% that voted for Gore in '00 would do it again?

Especially now that he's finally (irrevocably) thrown his lot in with the hard left in the party?

Jonah Goldberg notes, regarding Gore's backstabbing of Joe Lieberman:

Indeed, Gore could have picked Dean in 2000 to be his runningmate -- the man was no less qualified then than he is now. The only thing that has changed is that Gore has moved even further to the angry left and Dean is in a position to reward Gore (and Gore may be counting on the even angrier Dean voters in 2008, after Bush finishees his second term). And, oh yeah, we are in a long, dangerous bloody struggle with an enemy dedicated to destroying us. And, we are in the midst of one of the most ambitious and generous foreign policy efforts in American history (recall that Al Gore was a passionate defender of nation-building). But all that seems to be beside the point.

In other words, Al Gore not only thinks Howard Dean is more qualified to be president of the United States than Joe Lieberman was or is, he thinks that is especially the case now after 9/11. If you really let that sink in for a second, you can see what an amazingly mercenary and damn close to dishonorable position that is. Moreover, it shows how a vast swath of the Democratic Party really, fundamentally, doesn't care that there's a war on -- except, that is, to the extent it wants to bug out from it.

So, all of my moderate Democrat friends; who's your guy? Lieberman, the only candidate with a responsible position on terrorism? Or are you going to sit tight and hope for Hillary to throw her hat and her newfound hawkishness into the ring?

Posted by Mitch at December 9, 2003 07:10 AM