Does Gore Matter?

Marc Ambinder asks the DC question du jour, namely now that he's got a nobel prize, who's Al Gore going to endorse in the Democratic primary:

Two candidates -- John Edwards and Barack Obama -- are working the ref. Gore has met privately with both men, and the two were the first to e-mail congratulatory statements upon the news of Gore's Nobel dropping. (Edwards's campaign hit the trigger at 5:17 a.m.)

Perhaps the bigger question, though, is how much would it really matter. John Edwards' campaign is, at this point, severely hampered by financial constraints and by a perception that he's already lost. Gore can't help Edwards on the former item, since he's already accepted public financing, and I'm not sure his say-so would convince anyone on the latter point. Because unions are well known for not wanting to endorse candidates they feel are doomed, more union endorsements would have been very helpful to Edwards because they would have both helped him directly and bolstered perceptions that he's in the game. I don't think Gore can do that.

Obama has a different problem, namely that a majority of Democrats -- and especially the more economically and educationally downscale ones -- think Hillary Clinton's pretty awesome. Gore saying Obama's awesome, too, isn't really going to change things. Now what really might change things would be if Gore were to endorse Obama and use his standing as a former Clinton administration insider to mount a serious indictment of Hillary's key credential -- her experience in that office. But that assumes that there's some reasonable indictment to make of her tenure as First Lady that we haven't already heard and that Gore would be interested in doing something like that. Neither of those strike me as especially plausible, so under the circumstances I'm hard-pressed to see what kind of difference a Gore endorsement would make.

Comments

well, you're clearly forgetting the 2004 race--Gore endorsed Howard Dean, Yglesias declared Dean inevitable* and Dean ran away with the nomination.

*it may have been something like "it's inevitable he'll become inevitable, then it will be inevitable that he won't be inevitable." I forget.

Posted by Goldberg | October 12, 2007 12:39 PM

...adding, where did you get that picture? Is it from 1992?

Posted by Goldberg | October 12, 2007 12:42 PM

Why would Matt frame it that way instead of the more honest "Does Gore's Endorsemen Matter " ?

Posted by Chicago | October 12, 2007 12:44 PM

Well, the *good* thing about this point of view is that it frees me up from having to invest a lot of my own time and energies into supporting candidates or policies I really believe in, since apparently these things are settled at the top anyway. I'll also save a lot of time from reading newspapers, magazines, and blogs, because I'm tired of pretending anyone cares about the crazy fringe-y base anyway, so there are some hobbies I'm looking forward to taking up.

Posted by El Cid | October 12, 2007 12:45 PM

Matt seems to forget the important part is that it would dominate that weeks newscycle while keeping Clinton off of it.

Posted by Rob | October 12, 2007 12:48 PM

Goldberg -- my thoughts exactly re: gore photo and re: importance of Gore endorsement of Dean in 2004.

Will Hillary similarly fall from inevitability? Iowa and NH voters are famous for buyer's remorse.

Posted by bob | October 12, 2007 12:49 PM

Matt seems to forget the important part is that it would dominate that weeks newscycle while keeping Clinton off of it.

Is there really a week's worth of news to be gleaned from a Gore endorsement (as opposed to a Gore attack)?

Posted by Gabriel | October 12, 2007 12:51 PM

Gore can still run, let's not give up yet. And he dissed the head of the UN group sharing it with him. Who admits Gore has made global warming a concern to the world. at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/

Posted by Ruth | October 12, 2007 12:53 PM

I think there's a different between "Al Gore the Nobel Laureate endorses Obama/Edwards for 2008" vs. "Al Gore the guy who recently gained a bunch of weight and grew a beard of sadness endorses Dean for 2004."

Posted by Dave White | October 12, 2007 12:53 PM

Edwards' biggest problem is that the media have essentially shut him out of the game all year. Reading the WaPo, you'd hardly know he was running, except for the occasional haircut/blogger/hedgefund story.

If Gore were to both endorse and (at least for a few weeks) campaign intermittently with Edwards, then the picture would change.

First, (a) the pollsters would stop including Gore in the 2008 Dem options, and (b) at least half of the 12% or so who favor Gore for the nomination, when the pollsters include his name, would probably settle into the Edwards column. This would close most of the gap between Edwards and Obama.

That, and Gore campaigning with Edwards, would make it hard for the media to keep shutting Edwards out. It would also give Edwards a decent chance of quickly passing Obama and claiming second place in the polls.

Once ensconced as the main alternative to Hillary, the media would be forced to cover Edwards, whether Gore was campaigning with him or not.

From there, it would be Edwards' message v. people's comfort level with Hillary.

Chances are Hillary would still win, but Gore really could put Edwards back in the game. Even if Edwards lost, his making a contest of it would force Hillary to adopt a more progressive agenda.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 12, 2007 12:54 PM

the question of the day?

anyone who has even casually paid attention to al's minimal comments on the race should know better than to ask.

1.) he will continue to leave the door open a tiny crack, just in case the convention is deadlocked, and there is nothing he can do to avoid his party's call. all of which is unlikely.

2.) and he will remain aloof from the primary fray, not risking offending any serious contenders, because what is more important to his agenda is the general election and that gore's white house access/influence remain unsullied from any grudges lingering from a bad call in the primaries.

Posted by teknozen | October 12, 2007 12:55 PM

Why should Gore bother to endorse anyone? Why not go on the record boosting all three candidates and make it clear that his target is the GOP and its policies, and that he will support the nominee?

Posted by seeker6079 | October 12, 2007 1:00 PM

(Hit post too quickly.)

If Gore does anything else but what I suggested, the media will use it to turn the story away from GOP errors and onto fictional Democrat "infighting" and so forth.

Don't kid yourself. The media haaaaaated Al Gore in 2000. Do you think they like him more now that he's spent 7 years showing what fools they were? Do you think they like him more now that more and more Americans are clued in to just how much they were lied to by that same media through lies of commission, likes of omission, lies of commentary and lies of consensus? What is the first reaction of a bully-liar when caught out in a lie? To get meaner. Gore should not give them any lever to go through all that again, either to him or to the candidates.

Posted by seeker6079 | October 12, 2007 1:06 PM

Gore would be very wise not to endorse anyone.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | October 12, 2007 1:07 PM

Edwards is a boob.
Obama has no chance.

They know it, and you know it. Neither of them are running for president. They are running for Vice President. Hillary-XXX, with one of the two being XXX.

Probably Hillary-Obama, with the Republicans forced to balance Guiliani-Rice.

My suspicion is that such a matchup will result in President Guiliani. Hillary is absolutely loathed by the Right, and I suspect she would be the best recruiting tool the Republican Party can imagine. But I don't know for sure.

Sk

Posted by Sk | October 12, 2007 1:14 PM

Hillary is absolutely loathed by the Right, and I suspect she would be the best recruiting tool the Republican Party can imagine.

Maybe so, SK, but isn't the bigger problem that the Dem base is already disgusted by "Village" go-along-git-along, corporate, Bus-enabling Dems? Hilary is a part of that crowd at a time when the base has become more important than ever to the party. Short version? Whether AntiChrist Hilary drags more Republicans out to the polls may be less relevant than whether her nomination will cause the Dem base to go, "feh! Same old same old!" and not do the work that is so necessary to winning elections.

Posted by seeker6079 | October 12, 2007 1:20 PM

Really, you can almost see the two parties through a historical/class metaphor.

The GOP leadership are a bit like pre-revolutionary Russian aristocrats. They treat the peasants and workers like dirt, but regard them with profound wariness because they know those servants can explode into violent, feral, destructive rage at unexpected moments. One must, the GOP's aristocrats feel, exploit them, certainly, but don't anger them, don't push them too far; cross them that wrong way at the wrong time and they will lash out.

The Dem leadership are more akin to English aristocrats. Equally free to treat the yoemen and workers like dirt, but while having to mouth the language of shared liberties. However, there is an added level of disdain: the certainty that their servants can never or will never make them pay for crossing them.

They might be right, but it forgets one key fact: the English-style servants, the Dem base, can always vote with their feet.

Posted by seeker6079 | October 12, 2007 1:26 PM

Seeker, you obviously know nothing about pre-reolutionary Russia. And what period of English history are you talking about? Surely not the Industrial Revolution.

Posted by Malkin | October 12, 2007 2:01 PM

Re " But that assumes that there's some reasonable indictment to make of her tenure as First Lady that we haven't already heard "
--------------
Er.. isn't the fact that her "tenure" consists solely of serving as First Lady -- with NO access to classified info, decision-making councils,etc -- enough of an "indictment"?

How did the Democratic overlord class get us to drink this Kool-Aid??

To make the frontrunner someone with NO experience in an EXECUTIVE position, someone who voted for the disasterous Iraq invasion , and someone whose standing largely results from the big piles of money Haim Saban is raising so that Hillary can send our soldiers into another disasterous war to defend Israel -- i,e, to attack Iran.

Don't Democratic leaders realize that this casual deceit is what can lose them the election -- that all it takes is a few million dollars to let every American voter realize that voting for Hillary is a vote for 8 more years of George W Bush?? FOr the same corrupt whoring to the superrich while fucking the other 99% of the population?

If someone's willing to kill thousands of our sons just to get campaign donations, why should we expect healthcare, jobs, or fair tax treatment? Education ? Fulfillment of Social Security promises? Medicare?

We need a third party. And all the arguments against it fail to accept that our investment in Democratic leaders is increasingly being shown to be a waste. That they will always betray us.

That they are the people who voted to APPROVE the Iraq war, who blew Howard Dean out of the water for opposing the war, who proclaimed they were against the war prior to the 2006 election , and who then voted to continue the war AFTER the election.

THe fact that NO Democratic leader has laid the wood to Hillary shows just how corrupt things have become.

Posted by Don Williams | October 12, 2007 2:05 PM

Yglesias comments regarding the "majority of Democrats -- and especially the more economically and educationally downscale ones" are probably correct -- Gore likely has only limited pull there.

Two things are worth noting, (beyond the possibility that Gore might dish dirt on the Clintons).

1) Obama has a good deal more pull with African-American Democrats than Kerry, Dean, or Gore.

2) Despite a very strong report-card from the League of Conservation Voters, Obama has struggled to make his "green" credentials stick. Gore's endorsement would have a significant impact in mobilizing that particular constituency within the Democratic part.

Posted by Carrington Ward | October 12, 2007 2:07 PM

Yglesias comments regarding the "majority of Democrats -- and especially the more economically and educationally downscale ones" are probably correct -- Gore likely has only limited pull there.

Two things are worth noting, (beyond the possibility that Gore might dish dirt on the Clintons).

1) Obama has a good deal more pull with African-American Democrats than Kerry, Dean, or Gore.

2) Despite a very strong report-card from the League of Conservation Voters, Obama has struggled to make his "green" credentials stick. Gore's endorsement would have a significant impact in mobilizing that particular constituency within the Democratic party.

Posted by Carrington Ward | October 12, 2007 2:07 PM

... apologies for the double post.

Posted by carrington Ward | October 12, 2007 2:09 PM

What's hilarious is that Gore gets the Nobel "Peace Prize" when it was Gore's inept 2000 campaign that gave us 8 years of Bush/Cheney warmongering.

It was Gore's incompetence which allowed Bush\Cheney to show that the United Nations concept and International Law concept are total, hypocritical bullshit.

That the law of the jungle prevails. That if a national leader can make a nuke, he is a moron if he doesn't rush to do so.

Posted by Don Williams | October 12, 2007 2:46 PM

Gore could matter -- if he conducts a sub rosa campaign for the VICE presidency.

Posted by The Confidence Man | October 12, 2007 3:04 PM

Edwards is a boob. Obama has no chance. . They know it, and you know it. Neither of them are running for president. They are running for Vice President. Hillary-XXX, with one of the two being XXX.

Maybe Obama's running for Veep, though I doubt it. But there's zero chance that Hillary would choose Edwards for her running mate, and everyone knows it.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 12, 2007 3:22 PM

John Edwards' campaign is, at this point, severely hampered by financial constraints and by a perception that he's already lost.

Last I looked, Edward's financial situation was as good or better than most of the Republicans running. (Not far behind Romney in the 3rd quarter if you ignore Romney's loan to himself). He only looks bad compared to Hillary and Barack.

As for the perception that he's already lost, the perception in 2004 was that Kerry had blown the nomination - right up until the day they started counting votes. I'm amazed that after the failure of polls to correctly predict the elections in 2000, 2004 and 2006 everyone still credits them with undue significance.

Posted by Jinchi | October 12, 2007 3:22 PM

I've got nothing against Gore, but is there any evidence that endorsements matter at all? The only case I can think of was Rudy Giuliani annointing Michael Bloomberg mayor of NY in 2001 - in the days after 9/11.

I'd sure love to see some evidence other than that - especially on the national level. Who pays attention outside of the Beltway?

Posted by Jinchi | October 12, 2007 3:29 PM

Sk:

Trying to put horse race blogging out of business? :-)

Posted by artappraiser | October 12, 2007 3:49 PM

On the other hand, a Gore endorsement of Clinton would help push that whole "inevitability" thing along and would generate significant press.

On a related note, I'd be okay voting for another Clinton-Gore ticket, but I think that is utterly unlikely.

Posted by Joe | October 12, 2007 4:03 PM

His endorsement of anybody who isn't Clinton is going to hurt Clinton, no question. His popularity and credibility are way up from 2004, and Dean may have done something to alienate Iowa voters in the 3 weeks before the primary when his popularity sank there - I don't think we can blame Gore for his defeat, only say that whatever happened, Gore's endorsement wasn't enough to save it.

You can speculate all you like about Clinton being so far ahead than nothing can derail that, but Gore's endorsing anybody else is going to hurt her - and therefore help everybody else besides the one he endorses - to some extent. Because Gore knows the Clintons.

Posted by Phoebe | October 12, 2007 4:13 PM

"John Edwards' campaign is, at this point, severely hampered by financial constraints"

If you don't think Edwards has the financial resources to take advantage of early state success, you really haven't been paying attention.

Posted by Petey | October 12, 2007 4:24 PM

If Obama is running for Veep at this point, he might as well use the power he has to pick the top of the ticket. If Obama were to step aside in favor of Gore, and turn all his campaign operations over to him as part of an announced Gore/Obama ticket, thats really the only possible way I see of anyone defeating Hilary.

So that would be Obama endorsing Gore rather than Gore endorsing Obama.

Not gonna happen, of course.

Posted by Spike | October 12, 2007 4:36 PM

If HRC gets the nomination, she will not pick Obama or Edwards as a running mate. I bet she'd pick Even Bayh. Safe, white, moderate. If the left base wants to be influential then they need to organize around someone. And I'd say organize around Obama. He's smart, was against the war from the start, is right about talking to Iran (again from the start). Is right about torture (and more clear) And his money is from people, not lobbyists.

Posted by rg | October 12, 2007 5:23 PM

"On the other hand, a Gore endorsement of Clinton would help push that whole "inevitability" thing along and would generate significant press."

Except that Gore isn't exactly fond of the Clintons.

Posted by Reality Man | October 12, 2007 6:20 PM

No, no, no. A Gore endorsement for Obama would be huge, and I dearly hope it will happen. It would also be a big catch for Edwards. This post by Yglesias is horribly wrong.

Posted by Korha | October 12, 2007 6:34 PM

"No, no, no. A Gore endorsement for Obama would be huge, and I dearly hope it will happen. It would also be a big catch for Edwards. This post by Yglesias is horribly wrong."

Korha is absolutely correct.

A pre-Iowa Gore endorsement for Edwards or Obama would be huge for building their campaigns.

A post-Iowa Gore endorsement for Edwards or Obama to build on early state success would act as a death blow to the Clinton campaign.

Gore has an enormous amount of power to act as a non-Clinton honest broker in the nomination race.

Yglesias' internal compass on political matters is wrong more often than it is right.

Posted by Petey | October 12, 2007 7:11 PM

Le Duc Tho
Yasser Arafat
Rigoberta Minchu
Henry Kissinger
Jimmy Carter
Al Gore

Just a sampling of frauds and scum beloved in Oslo

Posted by Jozef | October 12, 2007 9:58 PM

yadda, yadda, yadda . . .

Al Gore is not about to anoint anybody, you hot air heads.

There is no possible advantage to him in doing so, and the downside of possibly alienating the next president makes any primary endorsement on Gore's part utterly moronic.

If the last seven years have proved anything, the guy is not a moron.

Ditto, why would he want to endure the utter hell of being POTUS when he obviously is working so effectively as a freelancer? In the ego-gratification sweepstakes, the Nobel Peace Prize trumps President of the United States seven ways from Sunday, and if you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter.

Prediction:

It won't be too many years before we see Bill collect his own Nobel. He, too, is having a hell of lot more fun dreaming up worthwhile things to do than he ever did in the White House.

Posted by teknozen | October 12, 2007 10:04 PM

Who will Gore endorse? Interesting question. If it's not Hillary that is perhaps impolitic given his association with Bill. Still, Gore passed over his own Veep pick in 2004 because he said Dean had the right position on the war. If he passed over Liebermann, then why not Clinton?

I can see Gore endorsing Obama. But Obama will have to give him a reason why. If all things are equal on policy questions then Clinton has to be the favorite for the endorsement.

Posted by Scott Kern | October 12, 2007 10:14 PM