Waiting for Gore

Now that MoveOn's decided to endorse Barack Obama there's really and truly not much out there worth having in endorsementland except the grand prize of Al Gore. Josh Green steps up to the plate with the breathless speculation you crave:

On the other hand, Obama is now close enough to a big win that Gore’s endorsement could easily put him over the top. Gore is beloved among Democratic primary voters. His staunch denials have been unusually effective in tamping down speculation that he’ll endorse, so an announcement would be earthshaking and guaranteed to dominate the airwaves until the February 5 primaries. Take Tennessee, Gore’s home state, which could wind up making the difference. Democratic polling there is somewhat sparse, especially that done after John Edwards’s withdrawal. But Tennessee looks to be a state in which Clinton currently holds a lead—that is, unless a certain favorite son were to endorse her opponent.

I think that's persuasive. On the other hand, I've never been totally sure where the widespread assumption that Gore prefers Obama has come from. I understand the basis for the idea that there are important Gore-Clinton tensions, but at the same time Gore seems like very much the sort of person who might be sufficiently persuaded by Clinton's arguments about experience, etc. that he just doesn't have strong feelings about the race.

Comments

Now that MoveOn's decided to endorse Barack Obama there's really and truly not much out there worth having in endorsementland except the grand prize of Al Gore.

Edwards?

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 1, 2008 5:29 PM

Gore is more likely to be impressed by Obama's organizational gifts, I think. I don't think he'll endorse because his previous statements pretty much make an endorsement contingent on amazing climate-change proposals, but I'd say that Obama's actually doing the movement building in the political realm that Gore's been doing on environmental issues.

Posted by latts | February 1, 2008 5:32 PM

Richardson?

Posted by Strega Nona | February 1, 2008 5:33 PM

He chose Howard Dean over John Kerry or Gephard in 2004.

Obviously he was looking to stand for movement, change and progressive ideals more than old-fashioned "experience".

I think he is going to stay in the sidelines but I don't see any scenario in which he would support Hillary.

Posted by Benjamin | February 1, 2008 5:33 PM

I don't think either Gore or Edwards will endorse. Why would they when they are now enshrined in the good guy advocate role they hope to continue to play no matter who gets elected? Endorsing AGAINST the Clintons would be tantamount to cutting their own throats (and that of their respective causes) should the Clintons prevail.

That said, if either DO endorse, it will be for Obama simply because of the high upside potential in an Obama admin. They know the Clintons will give them some, Obama has the potential to give them much more for their causes.

But neither will endorse. Not pragmatic to do so.

Posted by G Davis | February 1, 2008 5:34 PM

Gore was against the war from the get go, just like Obama. It seems unlikely that he would endorse Clinton.

Gore is going to stay out of it althogether, IMHO.

Posted by mkultra | February 1, 2008 5:35 PM

Al Gore was the VP under the first Clinton. He should endorse Hillary.
Barack Obama is a mindless windbag, and probably a Republican plant.

Posted by Paul | February 1, 2008 5:37 PM

'On the other hand, I've never been totally sure where the widespread assumption that Gore prefers Obama has come from.' - that assumption, dear soul, comes from the heart felt wish of apparently most denizens of the internets that Al Gore has the same desires as they do. A dubious assumption indeed.

Posted by DougMN | February 1, 2008 5:41 PM

Speaking as a Tennessee native, the notion that Gore is a "favorite son" is (sadly) pretty flawed.

Posted by Matt M | February 1, 2008 5:41 PM

To the extent that any endorsement matters . . . there are plenty of endorsements that would be worth having (like 400+ still uncommitted super delegates, for starters).

Gore would be great. But no one endorsement makes or breaks any candidate. Just ask Howard Dean.

Posted by cg4et | February 1, 2008 5:43 PM

Man, he was skinny.

Posted by mark | February 1, 2008 5:43 PM

I like Gore, but Gore is old news. We shouldn't forget Gore was part of the Clinton-Gore administration 10-15 years ago, an administration we want to forget about not reminded about. This is the administration which failed in enacting universal health care and other progressive legislation.

America is ready to set aside the petty conflicts and polarization among baby boomers which Gore and Clinton were a part of for a new government made up of people who want to make government cool again. This is what a President Obama would do. If Gore wants to support Obama, that would be great and we would be happy to let him join our ride, but if he doesn't then he will be left behind in the dustbins of history.

Posted by TLM | February 1, 2008 5:44 PM

Gore didn't even win his home state in 2000. I doubt he would have much sway there. I bet it would help Obama a little in big lefty cities though.

Posted by sspeaker | February 1, 2008 5:46 PM

sspeaker, it's a Democratic party primary. There's no doubt in my mind that Gore is looked upon favorably by many tennesee Democrats who vote in a primary.

However, as a former senator, Gore does not have a "party machine" to call upon to help with a GOTV operation, as he would have if he had been a former governor.

Posted by Tyro | February 1, 2008 5:51 PM

Again, like I said here on the debate thread, I don't think that people are getting the intended message of last night's debate. I'd be really surprised if there any more endorsements by anyone considered a leader in the Dem party, at least not until everyone has results after Tuesday. Rather there will be an effort along the order of exhorting people to get out and vote for one of the two very fine "antidote to Bush and McCain" candidates.

They basically endorsed each other last night and started testing and hammering out work on the platform. They presented as the best of pals.

Yglesias, if you still haven't watched it, you really should.

Posted by artappraiser | February 1, 2008 5:54 PM

Voters can say over and over again they are not swayed by endorsements, but every big-player endorsement does have the effect of cumulatively chipping away at HRC's "aura of inevitability"

Posted by Sulee | February 1, 2008 5:54 PM

I frankly wonder if Gore's endorsement really means that much. Certainly it's symbolic but I wonder if it would really bring votes. He may carry weight with political junkies who are in touch with his recent activities, but to most voters he's just the global warming guy who's been "out of the game" for awhile. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my sense of it.

That said, I'd be stunned if he preferred Clinton over Obama. He's shown a real anti-establishment tendency since he left office, and I suspect he buys into Obama's ability to rise above the fray and make progress on important issues. Again, that's just my sense.

Posted by SDinIA | February 1, 2008 5:56 PM

Kucinich?

(I kid, I kid. Because I love.)

Posted by southpaw | February 1, 2008 5:57 PM

TPM's "source close to Gore" says don't expect anything until after Super Tuesday.

Posted by Kevin | February 1, 2008 5:59 PM

Sulee's comment made me want to clarify mine...

My point was, I don't know that there are many undecided voters out there who would be very heavily influenced by a Gore endorsement alone.

But certainly, on a macro level, Gore's endorsement would be important because I agree that as endorsements pile up, it starts to not only chip away at Clinton's "inevitability" but also lends legitimacy to Obama as someone worth the leap of faith even though he may not be as well-known.

Posted by SDinIA | February 1, 2008 6:03 PM

A Gore endorsement for Obama means that the latter wins California, and with California, the nomination. California is the greenest state in the union (I think something like 1 in 9 Californians are members of an environmental organization) and Gore is sorta like the Patron Saint of the Environment. Having lived in California my whole life, everywhere from L.A. to Sacramento to the Bay Area, I can tell you that a Gore endorsement would flip the state for Obama--otherwise, it's pretty favorable Clinton territory.

Edwards and Richardson would be bonuses for Obama, certainly, but I'm not sure that Richardson can even deliver his own state and most Edwards people seem to have gone over to Obama anyway. In any event, Edwards dropping out of the race right after Florida broke up Clinton's potential momentum and allowed Obama to have a favorable week of media coverage. I don't really think it's a question who Edwards is backing.

Posted by Lev | February 1, 2008 6:04 PM

If Obama's message is 'let's take a mulligan on the last 20 years', does Gore help?

I don't think he endorses. And I don't think Edwards does, after seeing Obama's Harry-and-Louise shit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 1, 2008 6:13 PM

When Gore finally steps up to endorse someone, will it be like that part of The Matrix where time slows down and you can watch the bullets slowly whizzing by you, and his heartbeat explodes in our ears like we are inside his chest, and then when he speaks it will be like a million hopeful voices speaking at once, except the notes in his voice won't so much sound like human tones but will be experienced so much as palpable sunshine...?

Posted by El Cid | February 1, 2008 6:15 PM

I don't see how Gore can't be just foaming at the mouth here. Lets face it people, Al Gore is a politician like the rest of them. Any man who almost became president has some serious ambition. And his ultimate ambition was ruined in part by the Clintons. Bill refused to campaign for Gore in 2000. Really, it probably cost him the race (imagine if Clinton had spent time in Florida on Gore's behalf?). It may be the reason we've had 8 years of hell under Bush.

I think Gore's endorsement would be a huge help to Obama. I think Gore should endorse Obama. And, I bet he will do it. I bet hes just waiting for the right moment. Maybe Sunday night or something, so all we hear about the day before super Tuesday is Obama.

Posted by Nick | February 1, 2008 6:16 PM

Again, like I said here on the debate thread, I don't think that people are getting the intended message of last night's debate. I'd be really surprised if there any more endorsements by anyone considered a leader in the Dem party, at least not until everyone has results after Tuesday. Rather there will be an effort along the order of exhorting people to get out and vote for one of the two very fine "antidote to Bush and McCain" candidates.

They basically endorsed each other last night and started testing and hammering out work on the platform. They presented as the best of pals.

Yglesias, if you still haven't watched it, you really should.

Posted by artappraiser | February 1, 2008 6:22 PM

If it's true that they talk that often, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't be wooed by Obama. Obama is a very compelling speaker and does especially well when speaking 1-on-1. The same is true for Bill, but I think Obama has the facts on his side as Josh Marshall would put it.

The big issue for Gore is if he's willing to risk the substantial capital he's built up on what amounts to a longshot. If he fails to push Obama over the top, he is likely to be ostracized by the Clintons and lose any influence he might have had.

Posted by Mike | February 1, 2008 6:26 PM

fixed link for the above (I hope)

Posted by artappraiser | February 1, 2008 6:27 PM

The only measurable effect of endorsements is to win news cycles, not voters.

That said, when you win enough news cycles, your message gets out, and eventually that leads to more voters.

So endorsements matter, but not in a direct way.

Posted by lampwick | February 1, 2008 6:29 PM

America is ready to set aside the petty conflicts and polarization among baby boomers which Gore and Clinton were a part of for a new government made up of people who want to make government cool again. This is what a President Obama would do. If Gore wants to support Obama, that would be great and we would be happy to let him join our ride, but if he doesn't then he will be left behind in the dustbins of history.

Posted by TLM | February 1, 2008 5:44 PM

Boy, this is exactly the sort of persuasive approach that the Obama camp should take when they reach out to Gore for his endorsement (and don't think they won't). "Letting" a guy who won a Nobel for raising public awareness re: a pending global catastrophe "join your ride" is enitrely consistent with Obama's broader message of inclusion and unity.

Posted by dr. bloor | February 1, 2008 6:31 PM

We shouldn't forget Gore was part of the Clinton-Gore administration 10-15 years ago, an administration we want to forget about not reminded about.

If Obama's message is 'let's take a mulligan on the last 20 years', does Gore help?

Gore's time with the Clintons is exactly why an endorsement of Obama would be very meaningful. It's like saying, 'Yeah, I worked with Bill and Hillary, and we did okay, but this guy is better.' It would completely burst the bubble that Billary has inflated about how wonderful things were back in the '90s. It's like having your mom show up at your divorce trial and saying, "Your honor, I like my son well enough, but it's a fact that he's an asshole, and my daughter-in-law deserves every penny he's got."

Posted by tinisoli | February 1, 2008 6:46 PM

Who is a moveon endorsement going to sway?

Posted by Phoebe | February 1, 2008 6:57 PM

I'm guessing most people who think Gore would endorse Clinton do so because they read The Assault on Reason, which read like an academic argument for Obama's campaign.

I mean, it's actually kinda obvious.

Posted by Michael | February 1, 2008 7:16 PM

I have thoroughly evaluated all of the candidates, and Clinton is definitely closer to Gore on each of the issues than Obama. Environment and energy, domestic economy, foreign trade, foreign policy, and social issues, so if they are the reasons that are important to him, then he will endorse Clinton, and maybe John Kerry endorsing Obama could have put him off endorsing the same candidate as well. If other reasons are important to him, then maybe he will endorse Obama, so it's just a matter if the issues or the personality is the most important factor to Gore.

Posted by Robyn | February 1, 2008 7:26 PM

People who want to make government "cool again" AND the Trotsky//Reagan "dustbins of history" saw???

Thanks TLM, you're helping me get off the fence and go with Obama because you people clearly have the better drugs!

If you have a moment between tokes, I'm quite curious to know when the US government was cool. Do tell.

Posted by Wandering About | February 1, 2008 7:31 PM

Gravel?

Posted by Bill | February 1, 2008 7:32 PM

Gravel?

Posted by Bill | February 1, 2008 7:34 PM

Gore has made himself President of the Environment and his 'foreign policy' will require diplomatic relations with Clinton or Obama, or McCain or Romney. It would be foolhardy for him to show bias one way or the other. That said, I'm an Obama supporter so I wouldn't mind. But if he gets too partisan and Obama happens to lose, he just might find an endorsement would mean a reduction in 'foreign trade'.

Posted by The Other Alan | February 1, 2008 7:50 PM

He's staring into your eyes, even now..

Posted by Bill | February 1, 2008 7:50 PM

Gore in his fabulous fighting book, "Assault on Reason" knows that to survive as a democracy the US, led by a real president, needs to fight what he calls the "radical-right corporatist faction (empire)" --- and thus he can't endorse the corporatist owned Obama.

Gore will run with Nader on a Green independent ticket and win the 2008 election by exposing and fighting against the corporatist Empire hiding behind this facade of 'Vichy America', which by November will have thrown the US into a second Great Depression and a greatly expanded war in the Middle East.

Posted by Alan MacDonald | February 1, 2008 8:15 PM

Why do I see kristol on my email?

Crazy.

Everyone has a chance to come clean before Feb 15, make it happen.

Posted by Jimm | February 1, 2008 8:29 PM

there was a pretty telling harvard profile of gore from a few months back that seemed to hint that gore had the greatest affinity for obama's position. if he has decided to endorse, he may be waiting to time it to obama's plans (a post feb5 bounce?). if he hasn't decided to endorse, i would be curious to know why--not because i hold it against him, but just to see what he is thinking on the race. of all the dems, his is the opinion i respect most. more than clinton, and perhaps as much as carter, he has assumed the mantle of the conscience of the party. his opinion--even if he taps hillary as his choice--matters.

Posted by jc | February 1, 2008 8:48 PM

Uh...didn't Gore fail to carry TN in his own presidential election?

Posted by Bemused | February 1, 2008 8:54 PM

Al Gore should endorse Obama and run as his VP. In 8 Years, Gore would be a lock for President.
He would have 16 years to make the Green revolution apart of our DNA as a nation. He would fix everything that Cheney screwed up. This would give him the platform, but not all of the workload, and he could focus on his interest.

Posted by Logic | February 1, 2008 10:21 PM

Obama has a coal problem and his stance on climate change is fairly mild. I doubt he has differentiated himself enough from Clinton for Gore to endorse on environmental grounds.

I don't see Gore endorsing either candidate.

Posted by skeptic | February 1, 2008 10:58 PM

Why did Edwards drop out just before Feb.5th? Why not amass a bunch of delegates and then have the chance to play kingmaker?

Posted by nbt | February 1, 2008 11:20 PM

nbt:

From what I read, both Edwards and his staff were pretty motivated by the idea that they were the true standard-bearers for their ideas in the race. Once they gamed out that they couldn't win and that they could only play the role of spoiler or back-room kingmaker, they found that inconsistent and (I guess) beneath their sense of themselves and the campaign. That's what I got from reading stuff in the press from sources in the campaign. Makes sense. I was an Edwards guy, and the whole kingmaker thing seems more like the broken politics he talked about than anything else.

Posted by scott | February 1, 2008 11:25 PM

I REALLY hope Gore endorses Barack within the next day or two, it would definitely help him on Super Tuesday. In fact, without Gore or Edwards (or both) I dont think he can get past BILLARY and the Clinton franchise. :(

Have you read what Roseanne has been saying about Barack in her blog? She compares him to HITLER! Blind femanists like her are what will divide our party and not get even Clinton(s) the vote if they're the nominee.

Posted by Adrianna | February 1, 2008 11:30 PM

Uh...didn't Gore fail to carry TN in his own presidential election?
Posted by Bemused | February 1, 2008 8:54 PM

I think even you can see that we've come a long way since then. Gore is now enshrined as a secular saint, and McCain is talking about global warming. He's won the environmental argument even in the Republican party; the only thing left is to dismember the lying venal crass classless guttersnipe known as the Clintons.

Endorsement on Sunday at the Oprahfest. Look for it. Believe it. Done.

Posted by Michael's Mom | February 2, 2008 8:54 AM

The assumption comes from his previous endorsement of Howard Dean, a candidate who stood up for the establishment and taking back our democracy. The assumption also comes from Gore having written "The Assault on Reason" in which he has explained the problems and pitfalls of our democracy including the incredible influence of lobbyists on our government.

Posted by ocotillo | February 2, 2008 10:30 AM

Sorry, in the above post I meant to write "against the establishment".

Posted by ocotillo | February 2, 2008 10:37 AM

while i would love him to endorse Obama, i dont think it would help thta much in Tennessee, remember he lost that state to W. in 2000... i obviously dont think he has much pull there.

Though i think he has HUGE pull in progressive voters in general, and i think that his endorsement of Obama would put Barack over the top.

There is no realistic scenario in which he endorses Clinton, and she knows it, her campaign hasn't even reached out to him for that reason... which is pretty much common knowledge... so for Matt Yglesias to not be sure why it is assumed that Gore would endorse Obama is sort of humerous. History 101, Matt!

Posted by BIG franky | February 2, 2008 11:10 AM

I've read all the posts available. No one has mentioned one thing I think Gore should be thinking about as well as every other Dem. Who could stand up, Obama or Hillary, to the Republican competition? Someone on another forum pointed this out to me and it tipped me to vote for Obama on Super Tuesday. Hillary just has too many things in her past and present that could be used against her in a fight. Including, and not limited to, her affiliation with the "immorality" of the Clinton administration. Obama has crossed the divisive religious line between the conservative Christians who don't like the war and those Democrats who are religious and have, unfortunately, sided in the past with the party who professed to be on the side of morality and God - and the secular Democrats: he speaks to all three. That's a winner in my opinion because Obama could easily sway more liberal Christians to forgo succumbing to the illusion that Republican equals Upright and Noble Christian.

If Gore has a brain in his head he will see this and at some time in the race (hopefully before Super Tuesday) endorse Obama one way or another.

Hillary, on the other-hand, as much as I would just cry in happiness to be alive when the first woman was elected to be President, I **do not** want the Republican party to be able to steal or keep votes that truly belong to the Democrats. With her in the head-running, it would be too close a race for me to stand the pressure.

And a little shilling for my cause, those of you who are true Progressives should take a look at a non-profit called The Network for Spiritual Progressives, run by tikkun.org. Their New Bottom Line, Global Marshal Plan and a refreshing attitude to spiritual issues in politics is revolutionary. - Sincerely Rose

Posted by Rose | February 2, 2008 11:52 AM

Oh boy, Gore speculation. Fun!

I certainly agree w/ the above remarks, re: Assault on Reason (except a Nader/Gore '08 run is, frankly, laughably preposterous, sorry). Anyone who read that book cannot imagine that Gore doesn't (on some level) agree w/ Obama's "political game-change" message. Obama fits more in the mold of Gore's secular Philosopher-Executive model of the presidency than H. Clinton does (of course, Mr. Gore may have a different perception: he does know her personally, after all, and may have a very, very different impression of her than we do, as our view has been filtered through the media).

The pragmatic interpretation (i.e., won't endorse b/c of political ramifications (e.g., picking the wrong horse), or leveraging endorsement for access (angling for "Environment Czar"?), or ambiguous polling on effectiveness of endorsement (viz., Dean, TN), or whatever) probably enters into his calculation (he does enjoy calculating, no?), but I would guess that he's staying above the fray in order to keep his Global Warming message bi-partisan. Specifically, he doesn't want to make CO2 reductions the "Obama" position, or the "Clinton" position, or even the "Democratic" position. He wants it to be the American position, acceptable by a President Obama or a President McCain.

Of course he would prefer a Dem (and probably prefers Obama), but he's quite familiar with the ramifications of political defeat and probably doesn't want his new crusade to be splashed by the bullshit of partisan politics. Right?

Posted by S.G.E.W. | February 2, 2008 12:12 PM

Gore is Tennessee's favorite son. Now, let's talk about the 2000 election in Tennesse. We had almost as much fraud in Tennessee as in Florida. We had a GOP governor that would do and did do anything to make sure that Bush won in TN. Bush knew that taking TN would be the biggest embarrassment for Gore. There was so much going on in Florida that Tennessee was forgotten. Did not the Supreme Court give Bush the presidency? We are fighting for paper ballots in Tenneseee right now. We have a one vote margin in favor of the GOP in the Tennesseee State Senate. And of course, they are fighting the paper trail because they do not want one. It is easier to steal an elction without a paper trail. If we have a brokered convention, I hope that Gore will win the nomination. I do not believe that Obama or Clinton will have a clear win to have the nomination to be theirs.

Posted by Patsy | February 2, 2008 1:23 PM

Gore is Tennessee's favorite son. Now, let's talk about the 2000 election in Tennesse. We had almost as much fraud in Tennessee as in Florida. We had a GOP governor that would do and did do anything to make sure that Bush won in TN. Bush knew that taking TN would be the biggest embarrassment for Gore. There was so much going on in Florida that Tennessee was forgotten. Did not the Supreme Court give Bush the presidency? We are fighting for paper ballots in Tenneseee right now. We have a one vote margin in favor of the GOP in the Tennesseee State Senate. And of course, they are fighting the paper trail because they do not want one. It is easier to steal an elction without a paper trail. If we have a brokered convention, I hope that Gore will win the nomination. I do not believe that Obama or Clinton will have a clear win to have the nomination to be theirs.

Posted by Patsy | February 2, 2008 1:23 PM

Gore is Tennessee's favorite son. Now, let's talk about the 2000 election in Tennesse. We had almost as much fraud in Tennessee as in Florida. We had a GOP governor that would do and did do anything to make sure that Bush won in TN. Bush knew that taking TN would be the biggest embarrassment for Gore. There was so much going on in Florida that Tennessee was forgotten. Did not the Supreme Court give Bush the presidency? We are fighting for paper ballots in Tenneseee right now. We have a one vote margin in favor of the GOP in the Tennesseee State Senate. And of course, they are fighting the paper trail because they do not want one. It is easier to steal an elction without a paper trail. If we have a brokered convention, I hope that Gore will win the nomination. I do not believe that Obama or Clinton will have a clear win to have the nomination to be theirs.

Posted by Patsy | February 2, 2008 1:24 PM

Gore is Tennessee's favorite son. Now, let's talk about the 2000 election in Tennesse. We had almost as much fraud in Tennessee as in Florida. We had a GOP governor that would do and did do anything to make sure that Bush won in TN. Bush knew that taking TN would be the biggest embarrassment for Gore. There was so much going on in Florida that Tennessee was forgotten. Did not the Supreme Court give Bush the presidency? We are fighting for paper ballots in Tenneseee right now. We have a one vote margin in favor of the GOP in the Tennesseee State Senate. And of course, they are fighting the paper trail because they do not want one. It is easier to steal an elction without a paper trail. If we have a brokered convention, I hope that Gore will win the nomination. I do not believe that Obama or Clinton will have a clear win to have the nomination to be theirs.

Posted by Patsy | February 2, 2008 1:25 PM

Gore won't endorse anyone until a victor is predetermined (which probably won't happen for weeks).

He's above politics now, or at least he believes he is. He has NOTHING TO GAIN personally, and much to lose, if he endorses the loser.

With politicians still in office, it's a different story. If they endorse early, they curry favor. Gore doesn't need favor with either Obama or Clinton. He'll have plenty of favor. He'll be the star of the Convention, maybe even the keynote speaker. But NOT if he errs and endorses the wrong candidate.

As for those convinced Gore will endorse Obama, I think endorsing Obama would actually somewhat hurt Gore, even if Obama wins. Bill Clinton picked Gore as his vice president, and campaigned for him in 2000. Gore owes Clinton big time. To rebuff Clinton now is disloyalty, however you cut it. It would be the mother of all betrayals. Why would Gore want to add disloyal Judas to his image at this point in time?

Posted by DemUnity08 | February 2, 2008 4:42 PM

S.G.E.W., Gore knows that you can't save the environment (or a democratic world) without beating the Empire --- and thus it's not so far-fetched that he can't endorse any of the four corporate imperialist candidates, nor that he couldn't join with another (Nader) who has the courage, commitment, and knowledge to really fight the Empire on the way to a sustainable world.

Sure Gore and Nader seem like an improbable pair, but so did Bogey and Captain Renault --- and that was the start of a great friendship --- because they all know that fighting Empire is the key to everything.

Posted by Alan MacDonald | February 2, 2008 9:56 PM

As one of the biggest Gore supporters (Delegate and supporter since l988.) Al should not endorse anyone. He owes Bill and Hillary, at the very least, for selecting him to be Bill's Vice President, something that was a privledge beyond anyone's hopes and dreams. While Bill disappointed Al and many of us in many ways, particularly due to his conduct in the White House, Al should be grateful to his friend and his wife for the Vice Presidency..and leave well enough alone.

Posted by Former Gore Delegate | February 2, 2008 11:22 PM

To echo recent commenters, rebuffing HRC would be pretty bold/disloyal. Depending upon how you look at it.

And this is not like Dean, we've sort of moved beyond that moment (thanks Gephardt).

Moving to substance, on climate change, and domestic policy in general, I'm not sure why he would choose either one. Don't know their personal relationship, but HRC seems pretty much the same candidate as Gore 2000, except slightly more progressive.

Posted by Andruw | February 2, 2008 11:49 PM

This could be the kind of thing where I get proven wrong tomorrow, but my instinct is that Gore won't offer an endorsement, remembering what happened after the Dean fiasco.

In any case, here's what Gore said in Aspen, Colorado, on July 10, 2007, about the candidates' global warming positions:

Question: Are there any presidential candidates today with a bold vision to address this problem?

Audience: [Laughter]

Gore: The relationship between political leader and populace is a symbiotic relationship. We have this, um, image of a single leader being elected and then bringing about, unilaterally, single-handedly, a transformation. Franklin Roosevelt did that, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc.

What we have in the world today is a very different kind of challenge. I had an encompassing vision when I went into the White House, albeit as Vice President, in 1993. I saw firsthand what it is like to try to convince a Congress of men and women who, by and large, wanted to do the right thing, but were in this symbiotic relationship, and had limits on what they felt they had permission to even consider.

When I proposed things like a carbon tax, or, uh, mileage standards, and, you know, radical change in this area and that area -- what the traffic will bear politically depends upon what is in the minds and hearts of the people, and that is true in this country, it's true in China, it's true in India, it's true in South America, in Europe, in Africa.

I'm starting a training program this fall in India, the five most common languages in India. Starting a training program in China, starting next month, we're doing one for Spanish-speaking peoples in Spain, but focused as well on, on, on Latin America. We have one in Johannesburg next year, uh, in finding ways to, to, to, to cover the conduct. The Alliance for -- there are a lot -- I am engaged in a different kind of campaign, to try to do what I can with as much help as I can gather to try to bring about a change in thinking and awareness and consciousness worldwide.

This is not just a problem for a political leader, who is obligated to deal with a thousand different issues every single day. This is a challenge that faces our entire world. I, I am -- I do understand that there is no position that approaches that of President in terms of its ability to influence the course of events. But I also understand from firsthand experience that the limits of change have to be addressed, and I myself believe that perhaps the highest and best use of the experience and whatever talents I have gained is to try to bring about that sea-change in thinking among the people themselves.

Audience: [Applause]

Question: So, we'll come back to that, but let's talk about today's presidential candidates.

Gore: No, I don't see any, uh -- I don't see or hear any sustained vision that assigns the appropriate scale or sense of urgency, uh, that, that this requires.

Question: What is the minimum -- the minimum position that every candidate should have on climate change going into this election? The minimum, without which, below which, we shouldn't even think about voting for them?

Gore: I would like every single one of the candidates in both parties to sign up to the 7-point Live Earth Pledge.

Posted by Another Chris | February 3, 2008 12:17 AM

Do the Obama voters who are supposedly concerned about the environment understand his past pandering to Nevada and his hideous record of lies regarding coal and nuclear power.

Do yourselves and our country a favor and read the New York Times article on Exelon.

To think Gore would back Obama, a constant liar is a ridiculous notion. Gore might have differences with Hillary but Obama has fooled people into believing his HYPE is HOPE.

Posted by karen | February 3, 2008 9:15 AM

the belief that Gore would endorse any Democrat during the primary, and that it would necessarily be Obama is just another indication of how naive the Obamanistas are.

Obama's second weakest issue is his approach to environmental issues. Yeah, he gets good grades for supporting what other people are doing, but we need initiative.

Posted by Elizabeth | February 3, 2008 12:11 PM

Remember the old Elivis picture and postage stamp debate on who we preferred: Young Elvis or Fat Elvis? Looks like we have the same debate on Al for the time being. Matt, you're using the Young Al picture instead of the Fat Al pic.

Note: I make these observations in jest. I love Al, his book, his politics and wished he had run in this race.

Posted by buzzrd | February 3, 2008 1:29 PM

"....But Tennessee looks to be a state in which Clinton currently holds a lead—that is, unless a certain favorite son were to endorse her opponent."

Hey Matt, what are you smoking? Gore couldn't even carry his home state Tennessee in 2000. With his latest Hollywood and UN pats on the back, he couldn't deliver a pizza in a southern state if his life depended on it.

Posted by Top Gun | February 3, 2008 1:36 PM

Al Gore would win hands down if he ran for president. He is the only one out there with the knowledge to make a real change in our lives and the world. Where are you Al, we need you!

Posted by dan | February 3, 2008 8:05 PM