A reader remarks. "Here's one prediction for a potentially game-changing event on the Democratic side that can come at any time, and I won't venture a guess as who would ultimately benefit: a Gore endorsement." It seems to me that were Gore to endorse, he would almost certainly endorse Obama and that might do him some good, but my sense is that Gore's trying to be less-and-less involved in US politics.
« Blame Biden | Main | Because God Hates Hiroshima »
A Game Changer?
09 Jan 2008 04:30 pm
Comments (33)
He said in an interview that it was likely he would endorse.
Hypothetically, a Gore endorsement might give Edwards a nudge. He might at least get some media attention for half a sec. But it's hard to see it having much of an effect for Clinton or Obama or being a game-changing event for anyone. Endorsements are nice and all, but they're just one more pebble on the pile.
One advantage that Obama has is his lack of any connection to the fights of the 1990s. A Gore endorsement might not be helpful in that regard.
Gore will endorse the nominee once the party settles on him or her -- not before.
If you want game changers, I wonder about someone naming a running mate early.
Ryan is right. Gore wants to have some influence on env't'l policy, and if he endorses Obama & then Hillary takes the cake, he knows from personal experience how quickly *that* would be forgotten.
Gawd, please don't let Gore endorse anyone.
i agree matt.
I think gore will stay out of this until they have a nominee. He won't edorse Hillary, and therefore its like HE cant endores anyone else right now because it would be seen as a slap at his old boss or something.
At least thats my thinking.
I actually read just the opposite of the second commenter, that Gore explicitly said that he would not be making an endorsement. Can't remember where I read that, though...
It's my understanding based on the last debate that none of the remaining candidates support the carbon tax, which Gore does support, in favor of cap-and-trade. Given that, why should he endorse any of them? I just don't see any good reason for Gore to pick any of them over the others -- it's not like 2004 when Dean was the only top-tier candidate to oppose the war.
I don't think Gore, with an endorsement, would try to decide the race in any way, especially at this point when it is so close; he knows it would seem presumptuous and might backfire. But I could see him endorsing when one candidate was almost a done deal, acting in that way like a ref who breaks up a fight and confirms what everyone can see, that so-and-so is the winner.
Isn't Gore a Super Delegate, just like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, by virtue of his having once served as a nationally elected office as a Democrat?
If so, he will 'endorse' sooner or later.
I agree with Ryan. Gore got burned on the Dean endorsement. He'll "endorse" once matters have been settled and no sooner.
Gore is now a global statesman trying to create global movement on a vitally important agenda. And he's been doing a darn good job of it recently. There is no reason for him to endorse any candidate in the Democratic primary. Whoever wins that race will immediately become a very important person for Gore's cause, and there is no point running the risk of starting off with hard feelings.
Ryan had another good point, a veep choice.
I submit that whichever, Obama or Hillary, can get Jim Webb to sign on for veep, will win the nomination.
I don't think Gore would endorse Obama, even if he leans towards him. It would come off as sour grapes against Clinton. It may also help Clinton, as it will remind voters of his idiotic -- yes, idiotic -- decision to run away from Bill Clinton when he was running against W. See, e.g., nominating Joementum as Veep.
Aaron S. Veenstra: Gore cares about more than just the environment. From the "An Inconvenient Truth" perspective, I agree, none of the top tier really distinguish themselves. However, from a "The Assault on Reason" perspective, I think Obama is the rather obvious choice.
For the record, I don't think he'll endorse anyone.
Aaron S. Veenstra: Gore cares about more than just the environment. From the "An Inconvenient Truth" perspective, I agree, none of the top tier really distinguish themselves. However, from a "The Assault on Reason" perspective, I think Obama is the rather obvious choice.
For the record, I don't think he'll endorse anyone.
Feh. Sorry for the double post. Technical issues...
Aaron S. Veenstra,
Obama supports a cap and trade + auction system which is the functional equivelent of a tax. He was actually pretty explicit about this at the debate (responding to Richardson who dishonestly implied that a cap + trade system would be a free lunch for consumers).
Forget Gore. The game-changing endorsement is that of John Edwards, after his eventual withdrawal from the race. Edwards may not be drawing huge numbers -- let's assume his national support is about 15% -- but if he embraces Hillary or Obama strongly enough, most of those supporters will follow him and that will be enough to determine a tight race.
This is why Hillary or Obama -- whichever one is trailing, or perhaps both -- will offer Edwards the early VP pick in return for his unconditional endorsement, his immediate stumping, his supporters, and his delegates. Whoever gets Edwards gets the nomination.
Is there any precedence for a major candidate to pick a running mate this early, i.e., to bolster support for their nomination? I don't remember anyone doing it. VP picks are generally to pick up support in the general, not the primaries.
Gore??
Please.
The real game changer is when Edwards drops out and endorses Obama with a hint that Edwards'll get the VP slot.
Matthew:
From what are you drawing the conclusion that Gore would endorse Obama?
Edwards would be so much better as an RFK-style Attorney General than as Veep. He could actually promote his agenda as AG - As Veep he'd just be going to a bunch of state funerals.
In the 1976 contest for the Republican presidential nomination, Ronald Reagan (trailing President Gerald Ford in the delegate count) did make an early announcement of his choice of a running mate.
Reagan chose Richard Schweiker (sp?) who at the time was a United States Senator from Pennsylvania and was known as a fairly moderate, even liberal, Republican.
Many observers and diehard Reaganites did not see the pick as particularly inspired, and it did not seem to help Reagan's delegate hunt. In fact, the Pennsylvania delegation remained heavily pro-Ford.
Anybody know whatever happened to Schweiker? After '76, he dropped completely off my radar screen.
"Isn't Gore a Super Delegate, just like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, by virtue of his having once served as a nationally elected office as a Democrat?
If so, he will 'endorse' sooner or later.
Posted by ken | January 9, 2008 5:39 PM"
Good point. Maybe he's hoping the press won't make a big deal of it or he'll just go with the flow if someone is a clear winner.
I don't see either Obama or Hillary picking Edwards as VP. For one thing, Edwards was already the pick, so that would just make people associate Obama with Kerry in ways he wouldn't want and look like he was reaching into the past. Clinton is too corporate to choose Edwards. My guess is that Obama and Edwards will make a backroom deal for a cabinet post and then Edwards will drop out and endorse Obama.
From Schweiker's wikipedia page: didn't run for re-election to the senate in '80. Joined Reagan's cabinet for 3 years, then chaired the life insurance lobby/trade group for 11 years. Appears to be retired since '94.
Come on Gore, you know you want to endorse Obama! Do you REALLY want the Clintons back in the White House? I do not think so.
Come down for the mountain for one press conference, make the case for another fellow progressive and go back to your throne for as long as you want.
You've earned it, buddy.
Suggestion above of Edwards for A.G. sounds like a winner to me.
I can see Edwards in an Obama admin. Hard to picture him in Clinton's, though.
Edwards ending up in the VP slot will have nothing to do with his suitability for the position, and it will have nothing to do with the general election. It will be a purely strategic maneuver for winning the nomination.
Imagine that after Super Tuesday, the overall delegate distribution is something like:
Hillary 45%
Obama 35%
Edwards 20%
Obama will realize that his delegates plus Edwards' delegates equals victory. Obama will have a very clear choice: He can either ask Edwards to be his VP or he can go back to the senate and wait for 2016. Edwards can either accept the VP slot or he can go home and hope Hillary wins and then puts him on the short list for AG. Neither man is foolish.
Of course, you can switch Obama and Hillary and the scenario will play out the same. The only difference is that when Hillary asks Edwards to join her ticket, Edwards may give Obama the right of first refusal.
I essentially agree with CN, but wonder whether Edwards wouldn't rather "cut a deal" to be AG over VP. Traditionally, VPs tend to get lost (Cheney being the obvious exception to prove the rule), especially over 8 years (assuming Obama gets elected twice). I just don't see Edwards going with Clinton.
In any event, the AG route seems at least as sensible a way for Edwards to establish his credentials as the nation's foremost get-tough-on-corporations politician, with an eye toward an RFK-esque track (minus getting shot), although I think it unlikely he goes back to the Senate.
I assume that Edwards voters will break at least 2-1 for Obama but one never knows. In fact, I think Obama's new union endorsements are especially helpful at this point in the campaign. If he can get half of the Latino vote, 2/3ds of the A-A vote, and the help of Edwards' unions, I think he wins going away. So it really depends on Edwards.
Also, have any of the big three Dem candidates ever managed anything larger than an expensive piece of litigation or a Senate campaign? Does and/or should that matter?
Edwards might prefer AG or some other position to being the VP candidate again, but he will end up in the VP slot.
After Super Tuesday, either Hillary or Obama (whichever one is trailing) will need more than Edwards' endorsement and support; he or she will need Edwards' delegates. At that point, most of the delegates will have already been allocated, and it will be too late to catch up by winning new delegates. There won't be enough upcoming primaries left.
When a candidate drops out of the race, any delegates he has won are free to vote for whoever they wish. Usually, they vote for the front-runner (endorsing the voters' choice, picking a winner, etc.). So if Edwards drops out and strongly endorses (for example) Obama, that probably won't be enough help for Obama.
But if Edwards immediately becomes the announced VP pick on Obama's ticket, his delegates will have at least an informal obligation to vote for Obama. That's the only way Obama can be sure to get Edwards' delegates: by making clear that they can still vote for Edwards -- by voting for Obama.
Comments closed January 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It did Howard Dean so much good.
Posted by Scott | January 9, 2008 4:51 PM