Who Will Gore Endorse?

The Gore endorsement sure did wonders for Howard Dean in 2004.

Posted by right | October 12, 2007 10:19 AM

I'd take Gore over Mondale... But it's hard to tell how much support he has on the ground.

Posted by Carrington Ward, Queens,NY | October 12, 2007 1:21 PM

Edwards has the worst environmental record, according to the League of Conservation Voters ratings, of the top Dems (Obama-96%, Clinton-90%, Edwards-59%.) Edwards has had to resort to public financing, which effectively silences him for six months between the primaries and the convention.

Last week Obama gave a far-reaching environmental speech just last week that was extremely well-recieved by major environmentalists.

I can't see Gore going with Clinton.

Only Obama has the money and the organization to beat Clinton, and he's right in line with Gore on his major issues. An Obama endorsement would allow Gore to be a kingmaker. The Gore who endorsed Howard Dean is not the Gore of today.

It's just a guess, of course, but it would seem that Obama would be the natural choice, if Gore chooses to endorse at all.

Posted by Volumnia | October 12, 2007 1:32 PM

I really need to start proofreading. I should start last week, in fact.

Posted by Volumnia | October 12, 2007 1:34 PM

Oh, I hope he endorses BozObama. He's at 18 in the polls. If it is too easy for Hillary to clinch the nomination, the whole thing will get boring. If Gore endorses BozObama - there will be a whole bunch of articles on the feud between Gore and Hillary.

But it doesn't matter. This is what Hillary wants. As long as BozObama gets a lot of attention, nobody is noticing the rest of the candidates. Hillary only has to beat one guy. BozObama beats everyone else for her.

The interesting thing will be to see what Hillary come up with to knock BozObama out.

Posted by Golda Meir | October 12, 2007 2:06 PM

Gore almost picked Edwards as his VP in 2000, so he's always liked John Edwards, and the media hates Edwards '08 as much as they despised Gore '00. Gore hasn't forgotten what the media did to him, and I'm sure he recognizes that they are trying to do the same to Edwards.

Gore has undergone a transformation. John Edwards has evolved on many of the issues, as he should have. He had time to do a lot of soul-searching when he got out of the Senate. Time to think about issues that he never thought about before he got there, and that he only had time to "vote on" while he was there. He still has the best Energy Policy out there (MoveOn), and Gore is adamantly opposed to nuclear power and liquified coal, so why would he back Obama who supports both nuclear power plants and liquified coal?

Let me explain why money does't matter for John Edwards. No one needs "money" to beat anyone, just ask Edwards and Kerry, who both outlasted Howard Dean in 2004. Whoever wins Iowa or gets the nomination is going to get TONS OF FREE FACE TIME ON TELEVISION.

Unless a Democratic Nominee John Edwards won't be allowed on television, like every other Democratic nominee in the history of television has been, money won't be an issue.

As for Barack Obama, I'm sorry Volumnia, but he has no chance of winning a General Election in 2008. And "no," I'm not a "white man." You can speculate on what I am, it's irrelevant. People who think this country is going to elect Barack Obama either don't have perspective (what Obama being only the 3rd Black Senator ever elected by popular vote to the Senate means) or they just choose to ignore historical precedence and are willing to lose an election as long as they can "hope."

Don't get me wrong, I like Barack Obama and I think he would make a great VP choice for John Edwards, but like I said before he announced, his time has always been "2016" when there will be huge demographic shifts in the electorate (increased minority voters and Generation X and Yers will be more reliable voters), but he has zero chance of winning a General Election in 2008. In this country you have to win "states" in order to become President, and the citizens of only "two" states have ever elected a black candidate to the United States Senate by popular vote (Massachusetts - Burke; Illinois - Obama & Mosely-Braun).

It's simple "odds-making."

What are the "odds" that in a country where only two states have elected black candidates to a "statewide federal" office, that enough states will buck that trend and choose to elect one to the highest office in the land?

Any honest person will say the "ODDS" have to be "low." If that's the risk you are willing to take in an election as important to the Constitution and the future of the country and planet like 2008 is, then the Republicans "heart" you.

2008 is too important to mess up. The Democrats know what has worked for them recently:

Populism and progressivism works for them (Schweitzer, MO; Tester, MO; Webb, VA).

Southerners work for them (Clinton, Carter, LBJ)

John Edwards has the most progressive platform of the top 3 Democrats, and he comes from a place that has been good for Democrats.

2008 is too important to take huge risks and end up with nothing. With Edwards, you get both what has worked for Democrats, and a policy platform that most Democrats would love.

Posted by framecop | October 12, 2007 2:40 PM

"BozObama": Wow, what a clever boy you are!

Posted by Thelonious nunc | October 12, 2007 2:53 PM

Dear "Framecop:"

Is your offline name Mudcat Saunders, 'cause you sound just like him? And "framecop", I'M SORRY but since when has 6 months of negative ads and talking points improved antone's chances of becoming president. Say what you will, but when Edwards opted into the CF system, he improved his chances of making a show in the first four states only, which might net him the nomination or not; but will NOT, I repeat NOT, net him the White House.

Posted by Michael's Mom | October 12, 2007 4:15 PM

Dear "Framecop:"
Is your offline name Mudcat Saunders, 'cause you sound just like him? And "framecop", I'M SORRY but since when has 6 months of negative ads and talking points improved antone's chances of becoming president. Say what you will, but when Edwards opted into the CF system, he improved his chances of making a show in the first four states only, which might net him the nomination or not; but will NOT, I repeat NOT, net him the White House.

Posted by Michael's Mom | October 12, 2007 4:15 PM

I sound like Mudcat Saunders? You sound like someone who refuses to acknowledge reality.

How many states has elected black U.S. Senators by popular vote?

If only two have done it, what in the world makes anyone think there is a great chance that Barack Obama could win enough "states" to become President.

The odds are low of that happening. Extremely low.

As for the campaign finance system foolishness, John Edwards will have more than enough money, media face time, friendly media outlets, and friendly organizations in 2008 to defend himself, get out his message, and go after the GOP nominee.

You all seem to think that "money" is all that matters.

The GOP nominee is going to have to defend himself from attacks as well, so all of their money isn't going to be focused on John Edwards.

You must suffer from tunnel vision if the only thing you can see is Candidate A and Candidate B.

There will be a lot more players out there.

Posted by framecop | October 12, 2007 5:41 PM

John Edwards: Honesty, decency, thorough bold plans, common bonds in every state in the Union.

Posted by JoAnnCr | October 12, 2007 5:41 PM

In response to Volumnia's assertion:

Earlier in the year Grist.org, an environmental journalism site, had a great chart on the issues and the candidates positions on them. It coincided with the Live Earth events.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/

Only John Edwards and Bill Richardson had a position on every environmental issue. HRC and BO had appallingly thin platforms. Gravel's was even more of a joke. This was earlier in the year and these candidates probably have since beefed their platforms up, hopefully.

But this was also very telling. Even with all the media attention on the upcoming Live Earth happenings with Al Gore front and center, HRC, BO, etc. didn't put enough value on fully explaining their thoughts on the environment or having a sharp advisor/aide do it.

Where would the environment be on their priority list if they did get elected?

Posted by EW | October 12, 2007 5:51 PM

Dear Volumnia,
The LCV treats missed votes by counting them the same as negative ones; hence the percentages you show for Edwards include 2004 when he was campaigning as the Democratic VP candidate. The percentages also aren't comparable because they aren't for the same periods of time and thus cover very different votes.

Obama has "cleaned up" his energy plan considerably since the beginning of this year when he endorsed liquid coal (CtL) with Jim Bunning (S.154). Since then he has backtracked by changing from all out support to conditional, repudiating his own legislation in just 6 months.

So, yes, Obama is "green" now, but go back to January 4, 2007 and before, and the record looks very different. In fact, Gore probably helped turn him around.

For someone so new to recognizing the difference between "using coal-derived fuel produces nearly twice as much carbon dioxide (a key global warming pollutant) as using gasoline, turning a compact car into an SUV from a global warming perspective" (LCV at http://www.lcv.org/president-and-congress/issues/coal-to-liquid.html) to "Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels," I don't see a Gore endorsement on the horizon.

Posted by edgery | October 12, 2007 6:17 PM

Gore will endorse nobody before it's crystal clear who the nominee will be. That's how party elder statesmen traditionally act. In Gore's case there are two additional reasons reinforcing this. First, what's most important to Gore is his cause. Trying to play political king maker would not advance this one bit, and being the extremely perceptive and intelligent man that he is, Gore know this quite well. Second, Gore is life long committed Democrat, so I think his second priority seeing a Democrat in the White House and not just because the National Republican party is locked into a violently anti-environmental agenda. Thus, he'll do nothing that will prolong the nomination battle any longer than necessary to avoid damaging the eventual candidate. The differences, if any, of all the Democratic candidates on environmental issues is so slight, especially compared with the yawning gulf between two parties in this area, simply doesn't make it worth it for Gore to get involved right now.

Posted by Reference Librarian | October 12, 2007 9:49 PM

Hey Framecop,

Who's Doug Wilder? Last I checked, they elect governors by popular vote. Even black ones. Even in the seat of the Confederacy. Put that in your corncob.

Posted by BronxLefty | October 12, 2007 10:06 PM

Even though I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat, he is wise to stay out of presidential politics. He really has transcended the meaness, pettiness, and media-driven horserace tactics the other candidates have to face everyday. Gore is now a respected citizen of the world, even if there are still idiots here who revile him, and he would be a fool to squander all he has achieved on another tilt at the presidential windmill.

So who will he endorse? I doubt it will be Hillary, but who knows. He probably shouldn't endorse anyone at this stage. He won't want to endorse a sure loser, and there is only so much of his own celebrity status that will rub off on a candidate, unless he chooses to campaign aggressively. He would probably be wise not to do that either, and save his campaigning for next year.

I say there's a better than even chance he won't endorse until the general election.

Posted by Richard | October 13, 2007 11:05 AM

Framecop,

The problem with your odds is that you neglect to include other factors. The only factor you consider is 'race.' I wouldn't expect that you think this is the only, or that this is the primary, determinant on election outcomes.

I forgot who wrote it but I read a column recently which made the point that Obama is as challenging to white people as The Cosby Show. In my opinion, that wraps up the role of race for Obama pretty well.

Consider a comparison between Bill Clinton '91-'92 and Obama today. Bill was 46 years old then, the same age as Obama today.

Bill had 10 years as state governor, Obama has 10 years in state and US Senate (7 years state, 3 US).

They are both framing themselves as the change candidate in a change election, both accused of being too inexperienced by competitors who've been in the white house.

I could go on to compare their campaigns, but the point is that not only is race not the only metric to guess odds, I don't think it's even a useful one.

Oh yeah, have you ever heard of Bill being called the first black president? heh.

Posted by Jeff Morgan | October 13, 2007 4:20 PM

Gore will endorse Barack Obama.

Posted by mike | October 14, 2007 12:58 PM

Obama supports liquid coal ,regular coal and nuclear energy....

Volumnia...do you support those?

Edwards received low LCV voting because he was campaigning,not because he was voted poorly .(I contacted LCV to ask).

Edwards was voted # 1 (33%)with MoveoN.org at the same time that Al Gore did his Party for the Planet.

Jimmy Carter says about Edwards " I can say without equivacation that NO ONE who is running for president has presented anywhere near as comprehensive and accurate of what our country ought to do in the field of environmental quality..."

Steve Kirsh's analysis of the 3 candidate summarizes it well:

http://skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison1.htm

If you read the analysis-- YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ALL HAVE TO BE SUPPORTING EDWARDS.

THE ONLY ELECTABLE CANDIDATE. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CANDIDATE.

Posted by yann123 | October 14, 2007 3:07 PM

Gore should endorse John Edwards. Edwards was the first to come out with a detailed and aggressive global warming plan that was voted #1 by nearly 100,000 MoveOn members in April, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton barely mentioned the term "global warming on their websites. Edwards was also the first to run a carbon-neutral campaign, he uses solar energy in his home, and he has a public education program on reducing your carbon footprint--we pass out his flyers at our local farmers market.

To quote Grist magazine, "In his current campaign for president, Edwards has been more aggressive on the issue of climate change than other Democratic candidates, who've ended up following his lead."
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/31/edwards_factsheet/

Unlike Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Edwards opposes liquid coal and nuclear power. Also, Edwards has the courage and experience of a trial attorney who has fought corporate abuse his whole life, unlike Clinton and Obama who are deep into corporate pockets. (Obama almost voted for Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative...see http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275)

Edwards' low LCV rating is simply a reflection of being absent for some votes during the 2003-2004 campaign season--He actually rated very well during most of his years in the Senate, and even had a 100% LCV rating in 2000.

Interesting to note that John Kerry, whom LCV endorsed in 2004, had LCV ratings of 53% for 2003, and 17% for 2004, also due to campaign absences...Kerry's lifetime average is higher than Edwards' because he had many more years in the Senate, so the lows didn't bring down his average so much.

Edwards has led on global warming and every other issue during this campaign, getting his bold, fresh ideas out there ahead of everyone.

Gore needs to endorse Edwards.

Posted by Kathy | October 14, 2007 5:00 PM

The Democrats need John Edwards for all the reasons
framecop cites. He would also make the best Chief Executive for the country. But, the media have already decided Clinton is the Democratic nominee, just as they decided "the Boy president" would be president long before the campaigning began.

Posted by Tom Hill | October 14, 2007 9:55 PM

Well, the logical part of my mind agrees with the two campaign workers (I'm guessing) above. Plus, Carter has become such a savvy, honest individual that his endorsement probably matters more than Gore's to me at the moment. True, Edwards has the best positions by far on environment/energy, poverty, corruption. He built his life and fortune fighting against misbehaving companies.

But the illogical part of my mind wants me to vote Edwards because the ONLY thing you really see about him on TV is the "haircut" crap. Hmm. As if Hillary doesn't get a "doo". I can't imagine Romney's grooming costs. I remember that the media very carefully ignored Dean's positions as well. Edwards is the dark horse of the whorish media. But more importantly, O'Reilly has started attacking Edwards more than Hillary. This tells me 2 things. The neocons are scare of him (a huge plus in my book). And they think he is very electable if he starts getting more press.

Really either of those arguments work for me. If my wishes came true we'd have Edwards/Obama with Hillary running the Senate with an iron fist as Pelosi was supposed to do with the House.

Posted by swarmofkillermonkeys | October 15, 2007 12:25 AM

I hope Gore endorses anyone but Clinton. I am strongly for Obama, but his endorsement of someone other than Clinton would be huge news because of his history with the Clintons, i.e. he must know something we don't know. So even if he endorses Edwards I'd be thrilled. I notice he did not endorse him in 04, though.

Since a lot of you seem to be debating Obama's position on the environment, it's here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/

Here is one small bit on coal [there is more on coal there]:

"Obama will use whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology. Obama's stringent cap on carbon will also make it uneconomic to site traditional coal facilities and discourage the use of existing inefficient coal facilities."

He knows how to get things done - by appealing to the self-interest of others.

Posted by Phoebe | October 15, 2007 5:40 PM

"Framecop" its only because of ignorance like yours that this country would have any problem electing Barack Obama! "only two states have elected a black Senator" Well, my state elected a black Congressman AND he's a Muslim - which is kind of shocking considering how much fear/propoganda has been put out there to make us fear muslims! There have been TONS more blacks elected to the House.
Another thing, you know why so few minorities have been elected to the Senate - its partially do to the fact that not that many run! We need to encourage more women and more minorities to seek elected office! Obama is the best candidate and people will see that!!! If he waited until 2016 to run, the people may be sick of Democrats again by then depending on how we handle the next 9 years and he's be a Washington insider, which the fact that he's NOT is part of the appeal!

Posted by Jennifer | October 16, 2007 10:50 AM

Check this out: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30378.pdf

Posted by Jennifer | October 16, 2007 10:54 AM

as for obama being able to win, then why has he raised so much money from private mostly white donors, why does he have so many well known again white people in the GOP backing him and not because they think he is the best one they can beat.

obama is not a regular black candidate ala jesse or al, he rancends race because he is mixed and has grown up in a far different world than other black americans.

he only has to win 45% of the white vote to win in november. tell me how many gore 2000 and kerry 2004 white voters who almost elected them would pull their support because the candidtae has a permanent tan?

obama will win in 2008 not because america wants him becuase there truly are no reagans walkin' in the room to win.

Posted by troy | October 25, 2007 12:00 AM

Comments (25)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives