Silence, For Now, From Al Gore

With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama, the list of star-aligning endorsements shrinks to about two: former Sen. John Edwards, if he decides to drop out, and, of course, former Vice President Al Gore.

At this point, he has not told any of his political advisers and friends if he is considering an endorsement. During the past year, he has spoken privately with all three leading Democrats.

An adviser said that Mr. Gore had long ago decided to lay low once the Democratic delegate selection contests began so as not to interfere in the race.

Last night, a close adviser said "nothing has changed" with regard to Mr. Gore's decision to keep mum about an endorsement.

Comments

I don't buy it. Bold prediction: Gore endorses Obama Wednesday morning (with a little advance notice Tuesday night -- just in time to take the wind out of Hillary's sails when she wins uncontested Florida's zero delegates). Gore has to remember getting screwed by the Clintons in 2000 (and as VP -- they did basically nothing to push for climate change legislation) and he'd likely endorse Obama rather than stay mum. Besides, he's a smart guy, he probably knows that Obama is going to have far more political capital to enact climate change legislation than Hillary would.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | January 28, 2008 4:56 PM

Is this according to sources close to Gore, or sources close to Bill Clinton?

Posted by Fred App | January 28, 2008 5:01 PM

Gore said in an interview for 02138 in October 2007 that "Odds are that I will" endorse someone.

So he's obviously considering it.

He just has to be careful he doesn't endorse someone like Obama, who'll probably end up losing anyway. That would tarnish his legacy and his ability to get things done in a Clinton administration.

Posted by Mike | January 28, 2008 5:02 PM

Endorse with your heart Gore.

Gore endorsed Dean in 04. However, if Kerry had won, I have no doubts that Kerry and Gore would have had a fine relationship.

The New Gore just seems closer to Mr. Obama than the Clintons of old.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 5:06 PM

I'd like to see Pres. Jimmy Carter endorse Obama.

Posted by Paul Kekai Manansala | January 28, 2008 5:10 PM

Anyone who has read The Assault on Reason has to see a strong resonance in the current conversation about politics of distortion/divisiveness.

To me, he cannot support Clinton without undermining the hope for a new politics that Gore calls for in that book.

Posted by Wayne | January 28, 2008 5:11 PM

I don't want his endorsement this week. I'm worried it will look too much like piling on Hillary, and we know what happens when people start feeling sorry for her.

If he decides to endorse, I hope he'll do it after Feb 5. Even though, yes, I know, TN is on the 5th.

Posted by evie | January 28, 2008 5:12 PM

Anyone who thinks a Gore endorsement wouldn't be TERRIBLE news for Hillary isn't thinking this through. Assume you aren't like us, news junkies (is it safe to assume that Ambinder's readership is 100% news junkies?) and you haven't been following the news closely, but you are thinking of voting in the Democratic election. You probably don't remember who Gary Hart is, don't care who Ted Kennedy is and can't make heads or tails of what John Kerry's endorsement means. But Al Gore, people know that he was VP under Clinton. So if that's all you knew-- that he was VP for 8 years under the Clintons and then would endorse someone else, well what conclusion can you draw from that? You might not know about the bad blood between Gore and Clinton dating back to the 2000 election/recount. You might not know that Gore has become a far more progressive voice in the debate, closer in policy positions to Obama than Clinton.

But you would know one thing: this guy who knows them really well doesn't like them very much. If that doesn't give you pause, what does?

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | January 28, 2008 5:21 PM

A Gore endorsement prior to 2/5 is key to winning some big states that day...

I would agree that perhaps on Wednesday, to quelch the commentary on a HRC beauty contest win, would be the best time.

Posted by NJPolitico84 | January 28, 2008 5:26 PM

I would agree that perhaps on Wednesday, to quelch the commentary on a HRC beauty contest win, would be the best time.

The whole theory of course is predicated on the assumption that Obama has control over when he gets his endorsers to announce. Logically though, if you already knew secretly that you had both Gore and Kennedy in the bag, wouldn't you announce Kennedy first and THEN Gore? If you just had Kennedy, you'd save him for post-beauty-contest to steal the news cycle. But if you had Gore waiting in the wings...

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | January 28, 2008 5:37 PM

At some point it would start to look like the boys are all ganging up on Clinton, right? And she'd be correct, right?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 28, 2008 5:59 PM

At some point it would start to look like the boys are all ganging up on Clinton, right? And she'd be correct, right?

How would she be correct? Three of Obama's biggest endorsements are female statewide officeholders (Napolitano, McCaskill, Sebelius). And Clinton has plenty of male endorsements.

Posted by RS | January 28, 2008 6:07 PM

"Newsmax has learned from Democratic sources that Gore is said to be waiting until after the primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5 to enter the fray with an endorsement."

Any truth to this? Wouldn't it be more help before Super Duper Tues?

Posted by Brady | January 28, 2008 6:13 PM

Gore may end up endorsing Edwards after Obama and/or Hillary fades due to the mutually-assured-destruction campaign policies of the Clintons.

I looked at the exit poll data carefully.

Edwards gets the majority of the white-vote, especially white males. He also did well with white females.

In case no one noticed, the blacks are only 12% of the population, and have a low voting percentage.

The democrats do not have a problem getting the votes of women and blacks: 90% of blacks vote democratic, and women constitute 60% of the democratic party.

The same reason John is having trouble, is the same reason he would be the most, and perhaps ONLY electable candidate: he is capable of getting the most white male-independents and Republicans to vote for him.

Obama will probably fall apart in states where there is no black populations to carry him, and Hillary has become hated.

If McCain becomes the clear nominee, it may become clear that Obama is not going to win the nomination, and Hillary can't win the general election.

Edwards and Obama can make a deal at the convention, or before.

The problem here is that we are trying to operate on the myth that we are "color-blind."

The fact is that race does matter, and that we have deep-seated prejudices and feelings.

The bigger problem is that we cannot acknowledge them as a society, which would be a start to dealing with them.

Posted by Oscar | January 28, 2008 6:14 PM

All I know is that a Gore endorsement of Obama would be the deepest betrayal of women everywhere, indicating he's just yet another of those white progressive guys who can't take a woman being president.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 28, 2008 6:17 PM

"I don't want his endorsement this week. I'm worried it will look too much like piling on Hillary, and we know what happens when people start feeling sorry for her."

I agree with this. Also, people would play up the "bad blood with the Clintons" angle, and it wouldn't be seen as simply the judgment of a smart and committed liberal, I don't think.

Outside of Kennedy, I think the most important endorsements of Obama can come from prominent women, Latino, and labor leaders, plus key local figures in the 2/5 states. I don't see a Gore endorsement as an un-ambiguous good thing at this point.

Posted by PJ | January 28, 2008 6:19 PM

I think Evie's got a good point: anyone looking to do Obama favors has to walk a fine line. Obama's running on the underdog status, which works in contrast to the "Clinton Machine. Several large endorsements, especially of former friends and colleagues will look like betrayals to her. Lots of people still feel that Hillary's treatment in the press is unfair and it causes a lot of sympathy, and possibly votes for her.

And yeah, Michael, we're all political junkies here!

Posted by Lesley | January 28, 2008 6:21 PM

I iamgine it would be the end if Gore were to back Obama. Publicly, I mean. Not like he's considering endorsing the Clintons...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 28, 2008 6:28 PM

Oh poor Zephyrus:

It's not that Hillary is a woman, it's that she is a bad candidate who can't win.

Get over your victimized view of the world.

Poor woman? Please. She has made all of these enemies on her own, gender be damned. Lately we can all see that she feels entitled, and worse, she cannot stand on her own two feet.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | January 28, 2008 6:34 PM

I don't think Gore is going to endorse this week. I think the Sebalius endorsement fresh off her respose to the SOTU will be the next focus and will be good because it is from an acomplished female, and has little danger of creating a "boys ganging up on HIllary" dynamic. Obama will be campaigning this week with her and Napalatano and maybe McKaskill too. Hopefully this will minimize any boys vs the girl dynamic, which is always hillary's trump card. I think any big endorsements should be from women and latinos as much as possible from now until feb 5th. Obama needs to be very careful about having his momentum blunted by some HIllary appeal to gender tribalism. I wouldn't be surprised if she staged or planted a sexist moment to provoke a female backlash for her. I also think on thursday's debate, Obama needs to rise above and not get into a street brawl with hillary. He needs to dismiss ad rise above her attacks rather than get stuck in the tit for tat.

Posted by RKA | January 28, 2008 6:45 PM

I concur with Betty- This men piling on woman thing is ridiculous. PPPleeeze. Perhaps HRC should have considered running a campaign that was more positive rather than allowing her husband to play good cop vs. bad cop. American is waking up to the Clinton Drama and finally changing the channel! This is not the right woman for the White House, NOW or ever. And the NY chapter of NOW did not do itself a favor today with that little stunt they pulled. Many, many woman are furious. Myself included!

Posted by Ezzy | January 28, 2008 6:52 PM

All I know is that a Gore endorsement of Obama would be the deepest betrayal of women everywhere, indicating he's just yet another of those white progressive guys who can't take a woman being president.

Amazing how people think. Are all the blacks who are endorsing Hillary betraying their race? C'mon folks. People will pick who they pick, and it doesn't mean they are betraying any sex or race if it's not someone of their own kind.

Posted by Ben | January 28, 2008 7:13 PM

Alas, no Gore for Obama. But perhaps Obama can get an endorsement from Tony Rezko? That should at the very least help Obama with the mob demographic.

Posted by Grant | January 28, 2008 7:13 PM

Amazing how people think. Are all the blacks who are endorsing Hillary betraying their race? C'mon folks. People will pick who they pick, and it doesn't mean they are betraying any sex or race if it's not someone of their own kind.

I thought Zephyrus was mocking NY NOW.

Posted by RS | January 28, 2008 7:20 PM

Sorry if people didn't catch my meaning--I was referring to NOW's response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

Read it in its entirety. See what the Clinton campaign is reduced to:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/NY_NOW_Betrayal.html

Posted by Zephyrus | January 28, 2008 7:24 PM

Al has a big IPO in the offing for his media company, 100 million or so, and he recently joined a large silicon valley venture capital firm. Why would he jeopardize his business relationships by endorsing anyone?

Posted by Beefeater | January 28, 2008 7:47 PM

If Gore is to endorse Obama the best timing is Wednesday-Thursday. Waiting until after California would be terrible strategically.

Posted by Ben C | January 28, 2008 7:54 PM

Environmental responsibility and green innovation are only liberal pipe dreams for as long as machine politicians retain control of the White House. A US President who is not afraid to do the right thing could change that perception overnight, which would be a huge boost in our relations with the other free countries around the world, whose disappointment in the US on this point is nearly universal. I think Gore knows this, and I hope he does not wait until after Feb 5th to voice that sentiment.

Posted by Tim | January 28, 2008 8:21 PM

A lot of people have been unimpressed with Obama's collection of high-profile endorsements. But my view is that the more support he gets from people like the Kennedys, the easier it becomes to get the support of Al Gore and John Edwards and others. Americans love to ride the wave, to get on board with the winner. Obamamentun is peaking at just the right time. I don't know if this is all being co-ordinated by Obama staff, but if it is they are brilliant.

Posted by ghost of zorro | January 28, 2008 9:14 PM

I agree. REAL Change means No "Bush" -or- "Clinton"

MY PREDICTION:
Gore & Edwards both endorse Barack.

Posted by Craig | January 28, 2008 9:35 PM

Too many of you are over-thinking this endorsement. The fact is that an endorsement after Feb. 5 will likely do much less good than a prior endorsement. An endorsement from a politician with equal name recognition as Hillary Clinton is huge. The more the better when it comes to endorsements. There is absolutely no way Hillary can pull another "the boys are piking on me" moment after Bill Clinton's actions the weeks before South Carolina. Endorsements are endorsements. Especially from Al Gore. If Gore wants to endorse Obama he will do so this week, before Sunday.

Posted by Davud | January 28, 2008 9:36 PM

Have Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein endorsed? As both women of Clinton's generation and the two highest profile Democrats in California, they'd be worth something -- especially if they went with Obama.

Posted by John Z. | January 28, 2008 9:41 PM

Feinstein is publicly supporting Hillary but Boxer is neutral as of yet.

Posted by Tractarian | January 28, 2008 9:58 PM

I agree, Davud, Clinton has a limited use of tactics, but not only because of her campaign's ugly display in SC. She can't pull out the emotion card again, or the boys-are-ganging-up-card, because people will just roll their eyes at her transparency. Since all she has to work with are tactics, she will eventually wear very thin with the electorate. The problem will be if she doesn't wear thin quick enough: if she gets the nomination she is far more likely to lose to the GOP than Obama. I think a Gore endorsement needs to come before 2/5, because afterwards it might be too late. And John Edwards: Would you hurry up and get real please?

Posted by Pete | January 28, 2008 11:00 PM

This is the turning point of a smart decision to come: He will run!

Posted by Eli | January 28, 2008 11:00 PM

Stand by - Gore will endorse GORE. It is not too late for him to walk into the DNC and take the nomination.

Gore Obama 08!

Posted by Joe in Australia | January 28, 2008 11:11 PM

Stand by - Gore will endorse GORE. It is not too late for him to walk into the DNC and take the nomination.

Gore Obama 08!

Posted by Joe in Australia | January 28, 2008 11:11 PM

On the October 14,2007 edition of the Chris Matthews Show, John Heileman from New York magazine made this claim:

Mr. HEILEMANN: A guy I spent a lot of time with last year, Al Gore, before his movie came out and right on the cusp of it, just won the Nobel Prize. And there's going to be a lot of people who are going to want to get him into this race. There always have been. It is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. And he is going to endorse Barack Obama.

MATTHEWS: When?

Mr. HEILEMANN: Six weeks.

Obviously Heilemann was wrong about the timing but Gore seems to have been quietly leaning in Obama's direction for some time now.

Posted by The Grand Panjandrum | January 28, 2008 11:19 PM

An Al Gore endorsement for Obama would only continue to legitimize Obama's presidential campaign in some people's eyes. There are those -- like Bill Clinton -- who see Obama as another Jesse Jackson.

If Al Gore wants to make a significant endorsement, he best do it sooner than later. The Obama thumping on Saturday and the Kennedy family endorsement today has to have some affect on what Al must be thinking.

Posted by KISSman | January 29, 2008 12:07 AM

I'm hearing that the Gore people and Obama people are in talks as we speak. Looking like Thursday, which gets it in the press before the weekend, but isn't so early as to give the Clintons time to spin it into the ground. Tease it on Wednesday night, so it makes the morning shows/papers. Then do it on Thursday afternoon to rattle Hillary's cage before the debate.

This way, people will be able to talk about it at work on Friday, and over the weekend it makes the Sunday shows. Plus, volunteers and staff can use it when they canvass and phonebank over the weekend. Friday or later is too late to have maximum impact.

Maybe Gore even makes an appearance on the Sunday shows?

Posted by VTY | January 29, 2008 12:26 AM

You can't compare Gore's 2004 endorsement of Dean to a Gore endorsement of Obama in 2008. Two very different candidates, and two very different Gores. He wasn't the Nobel Prize winning Goreacle back then. And Dean is no Obama.

But I don't know if he endorses. Something makes me think he wants to stay above it all. And most of all he doesn't want to endorse if there's ANY chance his candidate will lose.

Posted by Callimaco | January 29, 2008 12:29 AM

I don't think Gore will choose to endorse. However, should he decide he wants to endorse, he should do it on Wednesday morning and leak word of it tomorrow night. It would be the biggest possible advantage to the Obama campaign because of the timing.

Further, I think Bill Clinton has crossed the line on four or five occassions in the primary. The problem with the Clintons is that they're playing the primary like a General Election--we don't care how much we piss off our opponents, they're not with us.

The two problems with that: a. it doesn't fit a year in which voters desperately want to reject that kind of politics (see the GOP's embrace of McCain, and even to a lesser extent, Romney). b. The party needs the very people that Clinton is currently pissing off to knock on doors and man phone banks in November. The line that was crossed is not one that is easily forgiven.

I think Ted Kennedy understands this. I think Ted Kennedy, and others like him in the establishment (Xavier Becerra, Kathleen Sebelius, George Miller) also realize that there's now no way Clinton can win the White House. Democrats want to do that more than anything. There's also a gigantic fear within Congress about the two-headed monster of "Billary," which the Clintons have allowed their campaign to get tagged as, on the top of the ticket. High conservative turnout and depressed liberal turnout could mean the end of the House Majority. So a Gore endorsement of Obama has two potential upsides: a. It'd help the chances of the candidate who has the best chance of winning, becoming President, and signing global warming treaties. b. Even if it's not successful, it earns chits in Congress, which are desperately needed to get the treaties ratified.

So I hope Gore will endorse. I think he should endorse Obama. But I am pretty sure that he won't endorse...

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | January 29, 2008 1:10 AM

I think he'd rather play Deus-ex-machina than frontline soldier. He'll endorse when it will seal the deal.

Posted by KobayashiMaru | January 29, 2008 1:14 AM

Re: Scheduling: Presidential campaigns tend to have control over when endorsements are announced. Partly because of logistics, and partly because the people doing the endorsement want the campaign to win and are therefore willing to accommodate its desires as to when to announce an endorsement.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | January 29, 2008 1:15 AM

I'm not sure the conventional wisdom that it would be better for Gore to endorse Obama before 2/5 is correct.

It is pretty much going to be impossible for either Clinton or Obama to actually win the nomination on 2/5, and I suspect the results will be spinnable as a "victory" in both directions. And as we just saw with Kennedy, a post-event endorsement can arguably be more powerful than a pre-event endorsement insofar as it controls the narrative. Indeed, I think Kennedy more or less just wrapped up the whole early nomination phase (Iowa through SC) by declaring Obama the clear winner.

So it would seem to me the best use of a hypothetical Gore endorsement might well be to control the post-2/5 narrative, using Gore to effectively recognize Obama as the new Party leader in the same way as Kennedy has just done.

Of course when Gore endorses on Thursday, this post may look a little foolish.

Posted by DTM | January 29, 2008 1:16 AM

does anyone know Gore's email? Is there some way we can get a petition going?? Al, please, Al, endorse now!!!

Calming down now, Gore's endorsement would have maximum impact now. Non-political-junkies I talk to like Obama but they don't know if he's experienced, if he can win, etc. A Gore endorsement would do wonders for that. After February 5th might be too late. Look at the polls, Obama has a lot of ground to make up between now and then.

Those who say Gore should wait or that it would backfire are practicing Yglesias-levels of contrarianism. But very unconvincingly. As long as Gore does it without going negative on Clinton, which of course he would accomplish, than it would only help Obama.

Posted by nathan | January 29, 2008 2:07 AM

If Gore endorses anybody, it should be Edwards (Remember him? He's still in this race and he's the only Dem worth a vote.)

Edwards' platform most closely aligns with Gore's environmental cause. Edwards is the one with the vision of rebuilding American industry through his comprehensive Green Economy plan. Obama and Clinton have given nothing but lip service to environmental issues, whereas Edwards wants to really put this idea to work.

Posted by Mary | January 29, 2008 2:27 AM

I just got this info, and have NOT YET confirmed it's authenticity and status (whether it's current), but I'm planning to call the number tomorrow (Tue.) to find out (and get a fax number to send a hard copy letter).

Perhaps everyone (pro Obama, that is!) on this blog could too. I agree that a Gore endorsement before the 5th (especially because Edwards is still in it, draining more "change" votes from Obama than Hillary) is crucial.

22 states is too much territory for Obama to cover in seven days with his personal, town hall style and most of the states on the 5th suit Hillary the best (NY, NJ, CA).

A Thursday announcement to give it time to play in the news all day Friday before I and other volunteers phone bank, would be VERY helpful to us here in Los Angeles.

Posted by Russell | January 29, 2008 2:52 AM

Gore has no reason to endorse right now. If Obama is going to win, he better win on his own merits. Talk about change is great, but I want to hear specifics. If neither Hillary or Barack take the majority of the delegates on 2/5, there will be time before the Democratic Convention for sides to be taken. How many rounds are the delegates committed to their candidate?

Gore's endorsement would be persuasive when he's ready to hand it out. Wouldn't it be a dream come true if Al stepped up at the Convention, commited and gave a rallying speech. Why do it before?

I'm seriously considering John Edwards. I believe he has the ability to beat a Republican. I don't think that the majority of voters want a Republican, particularly any of them being offered up.

Posted by lacy | January 29, 2008 2:54 AM

Fascinating how many Obama supporters are posting here, looking to ride the Obama beauty contest wave. When are people going to absolutely look seriously at issues that impact our daily lives instead of what is currently the cool thing to do (Hillary bashing, Obama coronation)? How has Obama shown that he can do anything but give an eloquent speech to change what is going on in Washington? By his own admission, he operates as a strategic insider politician, so he is in effect, another one of the boys. He talks about change from the old politics, but he is surrounded by the old establishment guard representatives like Kennedy and Kerry. I have yet to see substance from this man, but I understand what he represents to the American people - the ideal that we are not really selfish, racist, and isolationist. But, you know what, I have yet to see how he is truly different than all the other politicians and how he is going to bring about change. As I remember, and what so many of you seem to forget, both Bill Clinton and George Bush were also 'change' candidates. Any Democrat who takes over from Bush is a Huge Change, so let that be our goal.
I am a Black American Woman, and I will not be voting for Barack Obama, because I see him as a superficial attractive lightweight, so typical of the American taste for the flavor of the day. I need more substance and gravitas, so I stand for Hillary Clinton, an inifinitely superior candidate. I have carefully considered this in terms of picking the leader of our country and am unwilling to entrust the job to someone with no depth, but an awful lot of rhetoric. John F Kennedy had much more depth and experience, when he stood for President, so the comparison to Barack Obama ends at good looks and eloquence. Every candidate has vision, it just depends which vision attracts you the voter. (Do you find any code words in my post?) I will vote for him only if he is the nominee, because the Democratic Party will be the winner.
P.S.: Al Gore will either seek to ride the hip wave, and endorse Barack Obama, or he will preserve his carefully cultivated new image and endorse the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. I suspect he will do the latter. It will be hard for him to endorse her (!), because of their personal baggage, but he will do it for the Party.
P.P.S.: Ride the wave at your peril, people, this is not a beauty contest. It is for the leader of the free world.

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 4:00 AM

Excellent post Denise.

Posted by Stacy | January 29, 2008 4:36 AM

Gore will follow Leiberman and endorse McCain.

Posted by Tim | January 29, 2008 6:23 AM

Yes Denise, a thoughtful and reasoned post. If only more Americans (read: Republicans) put this much thought into their politics, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

I will support any Democrat that wins the nomination, and I think when you get right down to the nuts and bolts, all the Democratic candidates have similar goals and would support similar policies. However, I like Obama best for many reasons.

First, I think experience is overrated. Intelligence and good judgement are far more important. Dick Cheney has tons of experience, but he is still a disaster.

Second, I believe Obama is more electable than Clinton. Hillary would rally the Republicans to the polls like no other. Her roughly 50% negative rating alone would guarantee a close election, and somehow the Republicans always seem to come out on top in close elections. Maybe I am naive, and racism is more rampant in our society than I believe it is. (I am a 44 YO white male, so I do not have your perspective on that issue). But I really believe that most Americans have moved beyond the days when a black person could not be President. I truly hope so anyway.

Third, If Hillary is elected elected President, there will be instant, unreasonable, vicious, partisan opposition to everything she tries to accomplish. Do we really want to re-live the politics of the 90's?

Fourth, Obama is a LEADER. After 8 years of Bush, this country needs a real leader. I believe Barack Obama can bring us all together in a way no other candidate can. He truly does inspire people, and all the sound policy in the world does no good if people are not inspired to work together and implement that policy. If elected, he will accomplish far more than Hillary ever could, and we need a lot of progress made after the many messes W has left us with.

That is why I support Obama, and that is why I would love to see Al Gore endorse him as soon as possible.

Posted by Stephen | January 29, 2008 6:45 AM

This election is different. With the modern day news cycle, and peoples heavy use of the internet, his is the first election cycle where the majority of voters will be informed. So with that said I think a Gore endorsement would be HUGE.

Posted by Brad Glisson | January 29, 2008 6:54 AM

If Hillary wins this nomination I think Democrats are going to wake up in November and go "Oh my God, what did we just pass up". People say Obama is just all talk, which I dont by, but even if you go along with that I mean have you ever seen a politician get people this excited? This motivated? The young people NEVER come out in numbers like this. You keep hearing anecdotal stories about how children are telling there parents 'you have to listen to this guy'. There truly is a change in the air, and if we miss it then we're going to be stuck with 4 years of another divisive political landscape where nothing gets done because of the bickering.

Posted by Brad Glisson | January 29, 2008 6:59 AM

Looks like all the failed wannabe presidential candidates are with Obama. It will surely be the biggest boatload of losers.

Posted by Svenson | January 29, 2008 7:15 AM

If AGore endorse Obama it would be becos of Obama's support for the Bush Cheny oil policy

Posted by Svenson | January 29, 2008 7:17 AM

Denise,

I think it is true that Obama has been accurately described as a "strategic" legislator. But that is only half of the story, and the second half at that.

The first half of the story is that by background and inclination, Obama is a community organizer. And so when he wants to get something done, he typically uses a standard community organizer approach: first he goes to the relevant community and gets it organized behind the cause in question. Then he goes to the relevant public officials with an organized community behind him to work out a solution. They may do that willingly, but there is also an implicit threat: public officials generally recognize that they need to be responsive to the will of an organized community if they want to hold onto their offices.

All this is quite clear if you look at his time in the Illinois Senate. It is also going on right now during the nomination process. For example, one of his standard procedures has been to organize in states well ahead of anyone else. His organization then approaches relevant local officials with the community already behind them and asks for their support in the relevant primary or caucus.

And on a mass level, that is what the speeches are all about too. He is trying to instill in the electorate a sense that they are not just participating in an election, but rather are joining an organized movement for change on various key issues. The point is to give him the ability as President to go to Congress with a broad and deep coalition of the American people strongly behind him, so that he can credibly threaten to remove members of Congress from office in the next election if they obstruct progress on his agenda. Of course, to the extent he can help get willing members of Congress elected in 2008, that will help too.

And finally, that is what is going on with the likes of Kerry and Kennedy (and Napolitano and McCaskill and so on) as well. Obama did not get their endorsements first, and then try to build a movement using their support. Rather, Obama built his movement and demonstrated its effectiveness in Iowa and beyond, and now he has asked these party leaders, both old and new, to work with him.

So that is how he intends to bring about change. Of course, I can't promise you that it will work, but I do think there is a lot more substance to his plan than is immediately apparent from something like his speeches alone.

Posted by DTM | January 29, 2008 7:44 AM

Getting an endorsement from Al Gore, would really be great for Barack Obama. If Al GOre is going to do it, he'd better do it now. Obama needs all the help he can get, before Super Tuesday. The Clintonites have the upper hand, and a strong team behind them, and it is indeed an uphill battle for Obama. Since all the pundits are predicting a Clinton win, I do not look forward to the next phase of the game. With all that baggage the Clintons bring to the table, the rethugs will once again bring all those sordid details into focus, and make this a dirty election. The Clintons are polorizing, divisive, and will bring all the rethuglican voters out on election day, to vote against her.

Posted by Samantha | January 29, 2008 8:03 AM

Great post DTM. It's exactly why I'm voting for Obama. He knows how to lead by getting others involved which is so critical in a democracy. If we lived under a dictatorship it would be much easier for one person to enact their rules and ideas. But we don't so it takes a collection of people to get anything accomplished. Obama is so effective of getting everyone involved. True grassroots from the bottom up is how Obama has elevated his campaign to where it is today.

Posted by JJ | January 29, 2008 8:10 AM

I doubt Al Gore will endorse anyone. I think for mall his statements over hte past few years that he is above politics and pretty much dislikes the whole process. I really really doubt he will ever endorse Hillary and when she was asked about it once after she had talked to him when he won the Nobel prize she just laughed. Obviously no loved lost there. Gore knows the Clintons better than anyone and if doesn't approve or like them than that is enough of an endorsement of Obama (or Edwards if he was in Obama's place delegates wise) for me. He was their VP and no endorsement for the former boss's wife? Does not look good for the Clintons. I really think Gore has seen the ugly side of the Clinton's behavior and was turned off a long time ago. I have been turned off by both of them in this primary.

Posted by Jenn | January 29, 2008 8:11 AM

I think it's absolutely ironic that so many are waiting on the endorsement of Mr. Gore for Barack. We forget it was just a few short years ago that Mr. Gore had the same likeability problems as HRC. Now, he is one of the most respected people in the world. My, how opinions change. But yet, we're ready again to put another inexperienced person in the White House because he makes us feel good. I guess the argument is that an inexperienced Democrat has to be better than an inexperienced Republican? I would like to know where the autopilot button is, because I don't see how this country is gonna run on hope alone.

So what you want about Hillary, she runs head and shoulders above Obama and Edwards when it comes to the issues and every debate proves that. When the majority of the voters in this country have a chance (2/5), they will prove that's what matters to them. Double digit leads for Clinton in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc.

If you want a spiritual leader, go to church. If you want motivation, watch Oprah. What we need is someone who can the job done as President and for 7 years, we've seen President-in-Training doesn't work.

Posted by Justin | January 29, 2008 8:35 AM

Great Blog!

Gore is going to be under a lot of pressure to endorse Obama before 2/5 "Super Tuesday."

Does he stay above the fray as the Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar and legimate by 500,000 votes President 2000 winner or try for maximum impact?

There is no way he would endorse Hillary, who he fought with through out the Clinton years; unless it is at a Democratic Convention close "We all support the nominee."

Much as Edwards seemed a logical choice (who I supported until Sunday night), realistically he does not have a chance at the nomination.

So, the issue becomes will the Gore-ical remain silent or attempt to influence "Super Tuesday" when 52% of Dem delegates (presumably not counting "super delegates" in denominator) will be chosen?

In the wake of the stunning Kennedy, Caroline and Ted, endorsements, I hope that Gore will lend his credability to Obama (Gore did "win" the Presidential popular vote before he became a Nobel laurette, after all). For a awhile, I have been hearing that Obama reminded people of JFK or RFK. Regardless of which is more apt, JFK/RFK's surviving brother "passed the torch" today, aided and abetted by Caroline, etc.

Strageically, if Gore is to make an endorsement, it need to be well timed. Two options seem to make sense: (1) After this weeks, Tues FLA primary, and Wed/Thurs debate...leaked Thurs and announced Friday, with Sunday "Talk Show" impact: or (2) Perhaps better and more dramatically, with a Sunday NYT Op Ed piece (as Caroline did brilliantly), leaked Saturday and still in time for Sunday "talk shows" Followed by a massive Monday 2/4 Rally (with Kennedys, Gore, Kerry, female Governors, ETC) all lining up behind Obama as the "agent of change and the future" on the cusp of 22 State 2/5 "Super Tuesday."

Posted by SCC | January 29, 2008 8:37 AM

I think Gore will endorse Obama and I hope he does it before 2/5. Additionally, the best scenerio would be for the two to announce that Gore will be a big part of Obama's administration and hopefully that will be as Vice President, doing two things. Give Obama the gravatas and experience he lacks, and giving Gore an opening for the Presidency in 8 years.

Posted by DHS | January 29, 2008 9:27 AM

I think Gore will endorse Obama and I hope he does it before 2/5. Additionally, the best scenerio would be for the two to announce that Gore will be a big part of Obama's administration and hopefully that will be as Vice President, doing two things. Give Obama the gravatas and experience he lacks, and giving Gore an opening for the Presidency in 8 years.

Posted by DHS | January 29, 2008 9:28 AM

I don't know if Gore will endorse Obama - but it would be a "super" endorsement. Obama is still suffering from a name recognition problem. The more people can say I don't know who this Obama is but Kennedy and Gore are campaigning for him - so I'll "roll the dice" the better.

The Clintons need to be effectively rebuked - in order for Obama to even have a chance to "break" through into people's minds as a viable alternative.

Everyone talks as if Hillary "earned" her polling advantages in the big states. She is winning off the "Clinton" name, per an simple. Without it - she'd probably be a junior senator from Arkansas -at best. And without Bill campaigning for her - she'd be at 4 losses and 0 wins. And they know it - and that's why they can't afford to have Bill stop. On her own - she is a weak candidate. With Bill she is a repeating nightmare.

If the Democratic Party wants to survive in tact - they have to put the "Big Dog" down. Now! And this maybe the reason that Gore actually does endorse Obama after all.

Posted by C.B. | January 29, 2008 10:25 AM

Interesting that the children of Robert Kennedy have endorsed Hillary and that gets no play or kudos from the media. Robert Kennedy Jr has worked his whole life for the poor as is also the legacy of his family, but has been relegated to being a "lesser" Kennedy because of his support for Hillary. Ted Kennedy is supposed to bring the Latinos to Obama, is supposed to be the beloved Democrat of those who love Cesar Chavez. Why is it, then, that the United Farmworkers Association, founded by Chavez, has endorsed Hillary? I bet you haven't heard anything about that from the media.
Unfortunately, my opinion of the American penchant for following the latest and greatest fad has been reinforced by this and I hope the American people will realize that the media has helped them select their next President, if it is Obama, by their biased anointing of him rather than objective analysis of his candidacy. I personally think he is being set up for failure because all expectations are so high. I trust he can meet these expectations, I hope he can meet them, for his own sake.
As for the post on Obama's being a community organizer, Washington is not a community, it is a clique. Those who are supporting him now only came out when it was safe to ride the Obama band wagon, safe for their own careers. They have known him for 2 years, why did they not jump on at the start if they thought he was such a great candidate? Because they were hedging their bets.
I am a true Democrat. I will vote for the nominee, whoever it is, and I know it will be Hillary. If Obama somehow becomes the nominee, I will vote for him, I will not vote "Present".

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 10:55 AM

Interesting that the children of Robert Kennedy have endorsed Hillary and that gets no play or kudos from the media. Robert Kennedy Jr has worked his whole life for the poor as is also the legacy of his family, but has been relegated to being a "lesser" Kennedy because of his support for Hillary. Ted Kennedy is supposed to bring the Latinos to Obama, is supposed to be the beloved Democrat of those who love Cesar Chavez. Why is it, then, that the United Farmworkers Association, founded by Chavez, has endorsed Hillary? I bet you haven't heard anything about that from the media.
Unfortunately, my opinion of the American penchant for following the latest and greatest fad has been reinforced by this and I hope the American people will realize that the media has helped them select their next President, if it is Obama, by their biased anointing of him rather than objective analysis of his candidacy. I personally think he is being set up for failure because all expectations are so high. I trust he can meet these expectations, I hope he can meet them, for his own sake.
As for the post on Obama's being a community organizer, Washington is not a community, it is a clique. Those who are supporting him now only came out when it was safe to ride the Obama band wagon, safe for their own careers. They have known him for 2 years, why did they not jump on at the start if they thought he was such a great candidate? Because they were hedging their bets.
I am a true Democrat. I will vote for the nominee, whoever it is, and I know it will be Hillary. If Obama somehow becomes the nominee, I will vote for him, I will not vote "Present".

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 10:55 AM

Everyone here is talking about how Hillary made herself hated, and how Gore does not like the Clintons. Once more those speaking of tolerance are the ones being the most intolerant and divisive. You can disagree with Bill and Hillary Clinton, but the amount of hate and venom being spewed is beyond comprehension. No one has stated in any clear terms how president Clinton and his wife divided the country; all we hear is vague references. "lIBERALS" have taken the conservative talking points against Hillary and Bill Clinton and made it their own.Gore can endorse anyone he wants to,but remember it was he who refused to use clinton in 2000 thinking that it would drive people away. He was wrong. On the day the man(Clinton) left office he had an approval rating of more than 60%. Democrats are setting themselves up to lose big in November especially with the help of the corporate media.

Posted by jammie2008 | January 29, 2008 11:06 AM

jammie - People don't like the Clintons because they parse the truth, triangulate, play the race card and the gender card and they want to move on already. If you can't see how they do it - you aren't looking or listening. People will stay home in droves rather than be forced to vote for them. AA will never look to the Democrats in the same way after the Clintons are done with this campaign. They win through dividing people up and gaining a small majority 51% - they have never gotten more than 40% in anynational election. And Clinton was only elected Senator from a state she never lived in - because Bill was still President when she ran and Rudy pulled out at the last minute. Come on - they have never been a uniting force in this country except to make people recoil from them.

Denise - Please educate yourself on the use of "Present" in the Ill. State Legislation before blindly repeating Clintonian talking points. Present votes have been used by ALL state legslators on a regular basis. It is an alternative to voting straight no in order show that you support some aspects of a bill but not others. It is a tactic to get the bill thrown back for more work. Other states have the same option. It is this kind of inane spouting that shows Obama supporters that Hillary, just like Bill, will parse the truth to her advantage.

Posted by C.B. | January 29, 2008 11:26 AM

I consider myself to be a feminist, and I sincerely believe that the values of women include avoiding wars, military conflict whenever it is possible. Peace as a value. Hillary Clinton is a HAWK, as shown by her famous IRAQ and IRAN votes. To me she does NOT defend female principles nor values. SO WAHT IS ALL THIS BUSINESS about betraying women if you come out in favor of a less hawkish candidate? Is this a parallel universe we are talking about? Or her lack of defense of our Constitution and civil liberties? Since when does voting for the Patriot ACT become a feminist value??? As a woman, I defend peace, am opposed to torture, believe you should NOT be able to lock someone up and throw away the key,etc. I CANNOT SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON.

Posted by isabelle | January 29, 2008 11:27 AM

I agree with C.B. completely. In addition, I hope all voting Democrats, Independents and Al Gore always keep in mind -- the last seven+ years of the Bush administration, the very fact that there is a two term Bush presidency, primarily rests squarely on Bill Clinton's shoulders.

The Supreme Court definitely contributed to the international, evironmental, and economic, debacle of the Bush presidency by handing him the office but the race should never have been that close. It was almost single-handedly Clinton's (and I was an avid Clinton supporter) personal conduct and lack of integrity while in office that paved the road to Bush's win in 2000.

I only hope that all those who can vote in the primaries across the country forget race and forget gender -- but remember that it is critical at this juncture that a Democrat be elected. And that Obama is that Democrat not only because of his vision for a united country but also because, no matter who his supporters are, he is a break with the past and the only road to the future.

Posted by L.A.T. | January 29, 2008 11:36 AM

Actually, I think it is pretty interesting that both Gore and Carter are keeping mum on who they support. I wonder if Carter remembers what Ted Kennedy did to the Party when Carter was running for re-election. Does anyone else remember how Kennedy ran against a sitting President and then would not support Carter in the election? Think on that for a moment. Then, I still don't rule out the possibility that Obama and Clinton will tear apart the Democratic Party between them and at the convention (which will end up a raucous mess), out steps Gore as the senior statesman of the Party (not Kennedy for sure) and have Gore end up being the nominee to smooth the troubled waters. Kennedy can be a vindicative little idiot at times. And please, people, remember that JFK, while very inspiring and beloved by the people, had many things not so good during his brief administration. Those of us old enough to remember know that. Younger voters buy the Kennedy myth. And you know that the GOP is just waiting to start talking about a "liberal Ted Kennedy White House" to scare the bejesus out of whatever conservative voters remain in the GOP. Even better of course, would be if the media would give half the attention they give to Obama/Clinton to Edwards. Please please read Edward's plan for America on his website. It's been out there since he started running and way before Obama and Clinton started following his lead. Make the effort to read and listen to what Edwards is saying and see if you can still support Obama or Clinton.

Posted by Rachele Levy | January 29, 2008 11:42 AM

I love Bill Clinton but he's smeared his own reputation out of fear for the Mrs. As for Gore, he's a frickin politician and will weigh who best can serve his environmental goals and what's wrong with that.........not a darn thing!

Posted by Jack | January 29, 2008 11:43 AM

Al Gore has taken the brave stance to do waht is rght for world. When he sees a place to do better he has chosen that. I believe he needs to step up to the plate and endorse Obama.

Disounthing the animosity he might feel for Hillary the bottom line is that Hillary betrayed us. She has been to complicit to play the games of being safe. She voted for the war and she still can't says "oops"! She allowed the race card to be played without stepping in. As much as I cringe at agreeing with Christoper Hitchens, the blog he wrote about them checks out factually. Playing race games is an old and accepted practice.

As a card carrying NOW member and a long time "get out and march liberal" she let me down. She will burn this party if she is nominated.

Posted by Roni | January 29, 2008 11:48 AM

Jammie,
The post by C.B exactly proves the point you were so appropriately making. I, for one, am not a parrot, I happen to be an intelligent and informed voter, I do not speak on talking points as C.B. seems to be doing. For example, as I recall, no recent President has won a national election by a majority of the popular vote.
I also know all about Illinois, I live there, and I am one of many there who happen to not be so impressed by Obama's voting record. If you are the only one voting "present" out of all the senators on a bill and all the others vote "yes", then why not just go ahead and vote "no" if you disagree with the bill as written? The bill passes anyway as written because your vote has no value either way.
You know, I am not going to allow myself to be dragged down by those who spout vitriol and hate in defense of their candidate, who is supposed to be a uniter not a divider (hmmm, sounds familiar!). It goes to show me that America is truly not ready for the candidate that Obama represents, hope and goodwill to all, I have yet to see it from any of his defenders in any of the blogs. In fact, the hatred is toxic whenever I read their opinions, and it is disturbing to me as an American. The undertone of venom I hear makes me afraid for our future, if this is the way we defend our promising candidate. America is a Democracy and I am entitled to my opinion and the opportunity to express it, just as everyone is entitled to do the same without being viciously attacked for it. This is exactly what Obama has always said. I believe he would be ashamed of what his defenders are saying about his opponents and their supporters.
'Nuff said!

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 11:50 AM

I love Bill Clinton but he's acting like an injured puppy who isn't getting what he thinks is something to which he's entitled. Shut up Bill! As for Gore.......he's a politician folks...he'll back whomever can help him further his environmental goals period. He'll time his support to have the most impact...oh duh!!

Posted by Jack | January 29, 2008 11:51 AM

The REALLY important endorsement for Obama is RICHARDSON. He will bring the very much needed Hispanic vote! Obama/Richardson ticket beats all!

Posted by b. champlin | January 29, 2008 11:54 AM

The REALLY important endorsement for Obama is RICHARDSON. He will bring the very much needed Hispanic vote! Obama/Richardson ticket beats all!

Posted by b. champlin | January 29, 2008 11:54 AM

The truly important endorsement for Obama is RICHARDSON! This will bring the badly needed Hispanic vote, especially if he were to actively campaign for Obama out west. An Obama/Richardson ticket beats all! Gore's endorsement would also be VERY welcome.

Posted by B. Champlin | January 29, 2008 12:02 PM

It seems as if most people here think no one will vote unless someone has been endorsed by someone else. LOL! Doesn't anyone here have the capacity to think for themselves? Do you have to wait and see who endorses who before you can decide? Bunch of bebe brains. This is the sort of crap that got GW Bush elected. There should be an ammendment to the constitution that bars anyone under the age of 35 (at least) from voting. Stick your fingers up your ass and test the wind to see which direction it is blowing -what a buch of dumbasses.

Posted by LoneStarr | January 29, 2008 12:03 PM

It seems as if most people here think no one will vote unless someone has been endorsed by someone else. LOL! Doesn't anyone here have the capacity to think for themselves? Do you have to wait and see who endorses who before you can decide? Bunch of bebe brains. This is the sort of crap that got GW Bush elected. There should be an ammendment to the constitution that bars anyone under the age of 35 (at least) from voting. Stick your fingers up your ass and test the wind to see which direction it is blowing -what a buch of dumbasses.

Posted by LoneStarr | January 29, 2008 12:03 PM

It seems as if most people here think no one will vote unless someone has been endorsed by someone else. LOL! Doesn't anyone here have the capacity to think for themselves? Do you have to wait and see who endorses who before you can decide? Bunch of bebe brains. This is the sort of crap that got GW Bush elected. There should be an ammendment to the constitution that bars anyone under the age of 35 (at least) from voting. Stick your fingers up your ass and test the wind to see which direction it is blowing -what a buch of dumbasses.

Posted by LoneStarr | January 29, 2008 12:03 PM

I find it really sad that NOW people respect Gore because of the Nobel prize. The man has been a prophet -- literally without honor in his own country for a long long time. So many Americans really believed all the republican lies spread about him. They remember the catchy sound bites, but these are people who don't read and don't decide for themselves.

I feel Gore will endorse Obama. Hillary (and of course Bill) will just restart Business As Usual. the politics of total destruction. We've already had a taste of that. Enough.

Posted by MizLiz | January 29, 2008 12:07 PM

My feeling is that gore should endorse Obama and hopefully either Wednesday or Thursday. The best thing for the two of them to do would be to announce that Gore will be a part of the administration. My personal feeling is that Gore should be the VP again for the experience he brings to the ticket and also so that he can have one more shot at the Presidency in 2016.

Posted by David S. | January 29, 2008 12:53 PM

My feeling is that Gore should endorse Obama and hopefully either Wednesday or Thursday. The best thing for the two of them to do would be to announce tha