I can't believe this made the news. Gore endorses Obama? What a load of crap:
Former Vice President Al Gore made his debut appearance in the presidential campaign here Monday evening, offering a vigorous endorsement of Senator Barack Obama and urging Democrats to keep in mind the consequences of not taking the general election with grave seriousness.
Wow, that took a lot courage—come out after it's clear Obama won the nomination and then throw support behind his candidacy. I appreciate that Al may have his head elsewhere (no comment) but given his prominence in our political system and in the Democrat Party, I expected way, way more from him and he failed to deliver, once again.
If this is to be the way Old America choses to run things at the DNC then they may as well crown McBush president and save this country the huge cost of running a federal election.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Endorsements are worthless. They should have no influence on one's decision. I understand that they do, but I don't think they should.
Pop-culture and deep pockets is what determines elections. The party line has to be adhered to in the safest way possible, lest ye lose your career. I'd rather not have a party system and just have candidates campaign on what they actually believe rather than what they have to say to play it safe.
I think ANYONE expecting ANYTHING different from ANY candidate should be ready for the inevitable disappointment.
Which modern politician on either side of the aisle hasn't disappointed in some way? And I'm not just talking about minor or average disappointment.
Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush (both), Clinton, Johnson, etc...
Sure, some differences in beliefs, but in the end, just another politician saying whatever it takes to get in there.
So sad.
Well, it's that sort of cynical attitude that prevents any sort of real, meaningful change in the United States. "They're all the same, so why not just vote Republican."
What's been happening in the Democratic Party for some time now has been a true grassroots revolution. All the DLC candidates (safe, centrist, "electable") are being challenged at the local level by grassroots activists who want to take back the party and make it stand for something again - and they're either getting people to run or running themselves. This wouldn't have happened without netroots.
Yeah, Gore's endorsement came rather late. But at the same time Gore's avowedly stated several times that he is trying to stay out of politics and build on his strengths -- the awareness-raising, public-policy arena.
If nothing else, Obama's plans for creating jobs through clean energy are quite realistic (no vaporware "hydrogen economy"). Even avowed Republican T. Boone Pickens is investing heavily in wind farms...
There is no perfect candidate, nor a perfect endorsement. If you're going to sit around and wait forever, then you WILL be disappointed. But if you don't act, then you have no right to complain about the results.
I got involved in civic politics this past year, joining a local heritage preservation / sustainable development movement fighting the expropriation of one of the oldest sections of Montreal for a bland suburban shopping / condo plaza. Something that will be less than useless in a no-fossil-fuels near future. We got dozens of architects, urban planners, citizens and critics on our side and raised awareness in the local media.
Technically, we lost the vote at city hall, but the project may implode for lack of funding guarantees -- I wonder why. If nothing else, I like to think that we made SOME difference.
so enough with the cynicism. Isn't this the country that sent men to the moon and won world war II?
Prominent Democrat officially endorses the Democratic nominee. Not a newsworthy event, but like you said, what Al says is important, so what he said in his endorsement is news. I don't understand what there is to be mad about (other than finding excuses to be mad about something).
It's not like he's been throwing his weight around the party lately. I certainly wasn't expecting him to get in the middle of the primary mess, especially considering his history with the Clintons. I don't see that he had any beholden duty to endorse anybody until the party made its choice, and now he's reaching out to his rich fans and asking them to reach into their pockets and donate to the nominee. Sounds good to me. More power to him.
I heartily endorse moving overseas. I endorse that message.
@ Wilson Miner
Spot on mate.
A tad grumpy today Greg?
> Prominent Democrat officially endorses the Democratic nominee. Not a newsworthy event, but like you said, what Al says is important, so what he said in his endorsement is news. I don't understand what there is to be mad about (other than finding excuses to be mad about something).
What's the point? I seriously doubt Gore was considering an endorsement for McCain or Nadder.
Of course Gore is going to back the DNC pony--duh-hoy!--but why bother now rather than even a month ago when that decision could have made an impact on the electoral process.
I don't think this is worth getting upset or cynical over. Gore is the prime link to the Clinton administration and he chose to wait for Hillary Clinton to concede before giving his endorsement to Senator Obama. And that's fine.
It may be very easy to criticize this late endorsement looking in from the outside when you don't have a personal history with the other candidate. I believe Al Gore is just demonstrating a little consideration and respect to Hillary Clinton who's undeservedly gotten too much of a bum rap in the media and the blogosphere.
The last thing needed among the Democratic faithful is the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans have plagued the country with as a whole. This is not the time.
the best response to this is from the slate video "the democratic primaries in 8 minutes": Al Gore endorses Obama. The media thinks this is important. It isn't."
Look, Gore isn't a politician anymore. Sure people wanted to paint his whole environmental thing as some kind of backhanded power play, but it's really not. To me his political endorsements are neither here nor there. Frankly, anyone who would have cared is already voting for Obama.
As far as the election goes, I think Obama has this one pretty much on lock. The more charismatic candidate always wins. The Republicans hope is only to dig up some dirt or fabricate some scandal to destroy him.
Once he's president, will his actions live up to the hype? Sort of depends what you expect. Presidents don't have as much power as people think. He'll have to operate within a framework and he won't be able to revolutionize things the way perhaps most of us would want. On the other hand I do have a lot of faith that he'll improve this country. I believe he'll carefully consider his options and bring in the best advisors in an attempt to really do the right thing. In short, I don't believe his rhetoric is utterly hollow even if it's over the top.
That in and of itself is a far cry from what we've experienced the last 8 years with neocon idealogues running foreign policy on the premise that military power is infallible, and not the first clue about how anything works outside the Texas good ol' boys club. I mean, shit, even Bush Sr. would be a breath of fresh air at this point.
If Gore had endorsed Obama three months ago, that may have helped Obama a little at the time but would have unnecessarily damaged Gore's relationship with the Clintons, who are going to play a key role in the election in November no matter who got the nomination. Same thing if he'd endorsed Clinton...why get on the wrong side of the possible nominee and popular new star of the Democratic Party? Gore's late endorsement was the best course of action for him, for Obama, for the Democratic Party, and gives the DP the best chance of securing the White House in November.
This is politics after all...Gore and Obama are both politicians, which means that not everything (or hardly anything) they do gets done in a straightforward manner. The process will likely not CHANGE, hopefully the results will.
Go find Terry Gross' excellent Fresh Air interview with Gore from about 6 weeks ago and listen to him explain himself, eloquently, his reasons for staying on the sidelines. Perhaps he was [correctly] confident that Obama would win the nomination and that his endorsement is worth more now than it would have been then -- perhaps it took courage to stay out of the fray, despite personal feelings, to recognize he could best help bring a divided party together by being unaffiliated with a candidate until the end. He's a smart guy, and courageous. I've been lucky enough to meet and work with him. Believe me, he knows what he's doing.
I'd say it's pretty obvious why he waited so long to give an endorsement--his word is a poison pill with some Democrats, even today, because of his failure to rally Democrats in 2000. Had he endorsed someone earlier, it's highly possible that it would've been the kiss of death.
I would guess Gore didn't endorse earlier because there was no reason to. The primary race ended the evening of Feb 19th (for anyone paying attention to the numbers).
Hillary would have stayed in to the end no matter what, hoping for some kind of calamity to happen re: Obama. But Gore knew, like the rest of us political junkies, that the race was over on Feb 19th. So why endorse? I doubt very much a Gore endorsement would have caused Hillary to drop out. She was clearly insane by early March (popular vote! popular vote!), and I think she still might be.
It doesn't really matter. None of it matters. You're all pawns in the bigger game if you think it does. Who ever gets elected into office next will have their entire agenda predetermined by the events that are afoot. Every promise and campaign value uttered now are meaningless once they are sitting in the oval office with their entourage of advisors and speechwriters.
Remember when Bush was campaigning for office? His big platform was education. Education this, education that. He was the candidate for education. Well, take a look at where education is in the US today. 9/11 happened and his entire 8 year administration made it their entire focus.
al gore? ...c'est finito!
>> It doesn't really matter. None of it matters. You're all pawns in the bigger game if you think it does.
True enough. I have a theory about politicians. They're mostly the C students you knew in high school that were also popular. Sure, there's a few exceptions, but I don't think politicians are generally all that bright. The A students went on to much better careers (like web design). The B students went into banking.
I'm Canadian, and we have a joke up here. Down in the US parents dream that one day their child might be President. But in Canada you don't hear a lot of parents talking about their kid becoming the Prime Minister, because, well, we hope our kids will do better than that :)
McBush... Sorry, had to do it.
If your buddy's wife was running for the church's pot-luck committee chair, would you quickly endorse the competition?
>>Who ever gets elected into office next will have their entire agenda predetermined by the events that are afoot.
Right, but only half right. It's how one responds to those events that matter. An agenda can be forced upon you. The response, and the management of the message and logic behind the response is leadership. This is why experience is less important than the ability to reason and communicate. There's no job that prepares you for the challenges you will face as President, but there are talents that help one be effective and can help make progress happen. I'm as cynical as the next designer, but change does happen. The civil rights movement happened. The women's movement happened. Progress occurs only when people work for progress.
Same old soap, different box.
Republicrat. Democan.
Same thing, different colored suit.
Until voters begen to think for themselves, and step outside the box of the two party system, there will be no substantive changes in American politics.
> If your buddy's wife was running for the church's pot-luck committee chair, would you quickly endorse the competition?
Depends. Is the availability of apple pie on the line?
> It's how one responds to those events that matter. An agenda can be forced upon you. The response, and the management of the message and logic behind the response is leadership.
Exactly.
> This is politics after all...Gore and Obama are both politicians, which means that not everything (or hardly anything) they do gets done in a straightforward manner. The process will likely not CHANGE, hopefully the results will.
I hope your right Jason.
> Until voters begen to think for themselves, and step outside the box of the two party system, there will be no substantive changes in American politics.
The party system has nothing to do with the lack of leadership, that's the fault of cowardly men and women who are only interested in self-preservation. I have serious doubt that a third, fourth or tenth party would change that.
> As far as the election goes, I think Obama has this one pretty much on lock.
I wouldn't be so sure (see Presidential Elections 2000 and 2004). It's going to be a good fight lasting up to thirteen rounds.
>> I wouldn't be so sure (see Presidential Elections 2000 and 2004). It's going to be a good fight lasting up to thirteen rounds.
Dig into the machine that Obama has built. It's mind-boggling what he has put together and continues to build. Don't sweat it, the election is already over. I called the primary in the first week of January for Obama, based solely on the quality of his political machine. Basically, the guy with the fastest car wins.
Obama recognized this and built his own machine. Hillary thought she was a lock because of the Clinton Machine. And McCain thinks he has a shot because of the Mighty GOP Machine. But all will be destroyed by Obamacus Prime.
Seriously, Obama's political machine is incredible, he can't be beat. Unless he gets caught snorting cocaine off a dead hooker, Obama is the next President.
Don't forget that Gore endorsed Howard Dean before the primaries in 2004. I don't think he wanted to get involved in that process again.
It makes perfect sense that he would wait to endorse, because it helps bring the party together. If he had endorsed (for example) Obama earlier, it would have only upset the Hillary supporters, making it that much more difficult later. Also, if the nomination fight had gone all the way to the convention (a very real possibility even as late as March or April), respected party leaders like Gore would have been needed to guide the process.
>> There's no job that prepares you for the challenges you will face as President, but there are talents that help one be effective and can help make progress happen.
This is all of course assuming that the President is actually in charge, which hasn't been the case in many, many years. Big corporations are the real decision makers in this country now. All that a good President can do over a bad one these days is hide it better and explain their greased decisions in such a way that will get a passable amount of sympathy from the masses.
In general, Democrats are better at this, but I don't pretend for a second that we're not witnessing the end of an empire here. If we don't get a hardcore Libertarian in there, and I don't see that happening in my lifetime, the undoing of big business in the gov't is going to become undoable.
>> Also, if the nomination fight had gone all the way to the convention (a very real possibility even as late as March or April)
No, it wasn't a possibility. Don't buy all the nonsense from the pundits. The 'fight' was over Feb 19th, but nobody had the gumption to call it then. Hillary pulled off a minor miracle to stay in until the last race in June. And she was only able to do it because the media had a financial interest (advertising revenue) in keeping the drama going. If I hear one more math-challenged mouth-breather tell me Hillary won the popular vote, my head is going to explode.
>> Big corporations are the real decision makers in this country now.
That's true. From my perspective in Canada I've thought for many years that the US hasn't been much of a democracy for a long time, and maybe it never was much more than a republic formed to keep a few rich white men, well, exactly that, few, white, and rich.
Obama does seem like an outsider, a whole lotta people were and still are trying to stop him, Hillary Clinton included. Don't kid yourself, her agenda is an Obama loss. Does it seem strange to anyone that the US almost had Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and if McCain beat Hillary you basically had Bush again? That's not a democracy.
I agree, his endorsement, like that of John Edwards, could have held more resonance three months ago. But then we wouldn't have been treated to the infinite loop of pontificating morons on broadcast news bleating endlessly on about the "horse race" and that special ring of Dante's hell that was the televised ABC debate.
But now that it's behind us, let's just focus on ending a war and doing something, anything, about health care. Now that America has moved on from hating gay people, perhaps there's some hope.
WIth a boatload of gay weddings yesterday California's bible thumpers were out on the road and in front of the local news cams yesterday with their predictable, "... burn in hellfire forever ..." love talk. So sad and medieval. Time for *Change*.
At Greg P
>>Seriously, Obama's political machine is incredible, he can't be beat.
The GOP just love people like you. Hope everyday people that say stuff like that get quoted in the NY Times.
Because every time it is said, that means 10-100 fence sitters that may have voted for Obama now stay home because "they" said Obama has already won it.
And so far all we've heard from any candidate is what their supporters want to hear to get the nomination. Lets see how far everyone backtracks to the middle to get the votes of John Q Public.
>> The GOP just love people like you. Hope everyday people that say stuff like that get quoted in the NY Times.
You misunderstand me. When I say Obama can't be beat, I'm also taking into account normal voting patterns, fence-sitters, voter registration drives, get out the vote efforts, GOP smears, all of it.
Trust me, it's already over. The GOP is not only up against Obamacus Prime, they're up against a generational shift away from the right wing, not to mention a huge neocon backlash. Has anyone been paying attention to down ticket races lately? The GOP is getting killed.
Now, Kerry and Gore had some of the same advantages going in, the swing away from the right has been happening for a while, but Kerry and Gore had mediocre machines. They weren't able to exploit opportunities, motivate the vote, etc. Look how poorly Kerry handled the swiftboat issue.
Let's also not forget the 'social web', if we're going to call it something, that really only went mainstream around 2006. This is the first 'social web' election cycle, and Obama is taking advantage of it very well. I could get into a much more detailed explanation of how the social web weakens the traditional GOP attack machine, but that's a longer discussion.
Of course any smart politician moves to where the votes are, but normal Americans, and especially the demographics Obama is going to turn out in huge numbers, tend to be pretty reasonable people. So that's probably a good thing that he'll move to where they are. That's assuming he isn't already there. Good policy is mostly common sense.
Is anything that the media says really that important?
Politicians are all puppets to special interests, liars and theives no matter what party they are affiliated with. We, as Americans, need to make the government fear us like the Government of France fears the people for real social change to occur. Otherwise you are just buying what they are selling, and in this country, we buy a lot of it.
@ the cynics: Jeez, what a bunch of whiners! It's easy to say 'politics don't matter, everything is really run by [insert your choice: multinationals/family dynasties/big oil/etc.]'. Complaining about the someone being 'a politician' doesn't make sense either. Who do you expect to run the country? Firefighters? Plumbers? Web Designers? For the most part, politicians come to government with a background in law. And government - state, local, national - is all about law. I might not like or trust every politician, and there may be some who get into office for the wrong reasons, but I think by and large, most politicians do what they do because they think they can make a difference.
As for the comment about moving overseas: I've moved overseas, but I still vote and follow US politics carefully because I think it matters (to my family and friends who live in the US and to the rest of the world, who so often feel the result of US policies. )
>> For the most part, politicians come to government with a background in law. And government - state, local, national - is all about law.
I disagree. Government is not about law. It's about solving problems. It's about logistics. It's about organizing. It's about managing people. It's about finance and economics. It's about a lot of things that have very little to do with law, so maybe it's no surprise that a bunch of lawyers can't run a government very well.
I agree with Greg Paulhus here. There's a really good book called "The Efficient Society" by one of the co-authors of The Rebel Sell that looks at how Canada has managed to rather effectively balance a capitalist marketplace and relatively generous social benefits -- in the analysis, certain things simply cost less to provide to the populace when dealt with at the state level (healthcare, defense, fire and police), others are more efficient left up to the marketplace. Simply asking "what is more efficient?" leads you to a certain set of choices when making policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Efficient_Society