Obama Gets “The” Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al Gore
Perhaps one day someone will write a chapter about Al Gore in a new book titled “Profiles In Uncourage.”
Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee Barack Obama finally got what he and former rival Senator Hillary Clinton had pined for all these months — THE endorsement from former Vice President Al Gore.
But it came so late in the game that the person who’ll be most impressed with it will be Tipper Gore.
Did anyone think that after the smoke had cleared and the choices became Obama and GOPer John McCain that Al Gore would announce: “I am here to say that I am throwing my considerable weight behind John McCain for President of the United States!!”
Gore’s endorsement — which will generate lots of news stories, sound bytes and blog posts (like this one) is the biggest anti-climax since reporters started wondering if Ralph Nader would run for President again, and Nader announced he would.
Its dramatic impact is akin to the raging question: will a last minute revolt at the Republican convention lead to Ron Paul’s nomination?
But the political world and media greeted his Big Announcement with what a fisherman finds when he puts his face close to a fish he just caught: baited breath. Here’s a bit from the AP (and we promise to only quote a little bit here because of the controversy over you-know-what-use):
Al Gore made his debut in the 2008 presidential campaign Monday night, encouraging voters to back Barack Obama because “take it from me, elections matter.”
The former vice president’s speech at the Joe Louis Arena was part endorsement and part blistering attack on the man who denied him the White House eight years ago.
“After eight years of incompetence, neglect and failure, we need change,” Gore said. “After eight years when our Constitution has been dishonored and disrespected, we need changes.”
The problem is this: for months Clinton’s backers and Obama’s backers have been praying for an endorsement from Gore almost as much as they were praying to see some huge scandal about the rival candidate plastered as a screaming headline on the Drudge Report.
Members of both factions looked to Gore to show his hand, raise his eyebrow, give a debate-like sigh — anything to show that he endorsed one candidate or another at a time when it looked as if the party could be torn asunder.
But Gore, who enjoyed a status far more lofty and impartial than his former boss Bill Clinton who in campaign 2008 had seemingly morphed into a political machine ward heeler, stayed out of the fray.
What’s wrong with that? This: Gore had been perceived as a party leader. A big gun. Someone who could take a stand when it mattered.
His endorsement tonight was akin to someone who enters a boxing ring after the bout and after the ring has cleared and starts cheering for one of the fighters when no one is left in the ring.
Gore will STILL get his cheers from Democratic partisans, particularly from Obama supporters. But here is one inconvenient truth:
For all of the enemies he has made, for all of the lack of loyalty he has shown to his former party, former Gore running mate Independent Senator Joe Lieberman has shown more courage this primary season than Gore. Lieberman has opted to be McCain’s combination campaign best bud, translator (when Lieberman tells the press what McCain REALLY meant), anti-Obama campaigner, McCain outreach agent to Jewish voters and angry Clinton supporters — even though it has earned him the enmity of many Democrats, the Internet’s progressive “netroots,” and even some anti-war independent voters.
Love him or hate him, Lieberman bit the bullet.
Gore chose to chew on it and chew on it and chew on it, seemingly hoping that the metal bullet would turn into cud.
Gore chose to emerge as an above-the-fray Democratic party elder.
But leadership like he showed on the endorsement front is just what many Americans don’t want in the White House in 2009.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
25 Responses to “Obama Gets “The” Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al Gore”
I think there is real truth behind the accusation of poor timing on Gore's part. But I think we need to go back to '04 to see it.
Gore decided, seemingly on a whim at the time, to endorse Dean. He did so at about the worst possible moment, in the worst possible place. To wit: Gore endorsed Dean as candidate supporter's loyalties were deeply fractured, and just a few weeks before the first vote would be cast in any primary or caucus. He did it in Harlem – Charlie Rangle's neighborhood (and Rangle was loudly supporting Clark at the time, and partly responsible for convincing Clark to enter the race ) – without even a courtesy call to him that there would be a rally that day. Note this was also a block or so from Bill Clinton's offices – who was also (nominally) a Clark supporter.
The act deeply roiled the race – there was real and extraordinary outrage in the minds of supporters of all the candidates other than Dean's, and it was so poorly handled that, in my mind, it marked the real end of Dean's campaign that the defeat in Iowa a few weeks later only served to place an exclamation point on.
This time around, I think he played it almost right, though the endorsement should have come June 3rd or 4th.
As for Lieberman – well, it's not a particularly courageous man who panders to those who elected him – Connecticut Republicans. John McCain is the only possibility of a light at the end of his political tunnel. Connecticut voters as a whole are much less supportive of him today (and Conn. Democrats? Heh, forget it) than in '06, and he literally has no future in national gov't beyond his current term unless McCain wins, and he's able to wrangle some cabinet position out of the deal. He is not invited to the Dem convention, his “superdelegate” status has been stripped, and you'll notice, even he no longer bothers with the “Independent Democrat” nonsense any more.
Lieberman is Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd – a has-been, but as always, “ready for his close up.” And he's every bit as tragic a figure, in his own way.
[...] Joe Gandelman points out, though, Gore’s late endorsement reveals much about the man himself: Gore, who enjoyed a status far more lofty and impartial than his former boss Bill Clinton who in [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled “Obama gets ‘the’ Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al [...]
I would like to apologise to all participants of the TMV site, in advance, for the length of this post. I care about this issue deeply and it requires this amount of words to express my true meaning. I hope it is not offensive to anyone; it is just my honest and humble opinion. Last one of this length, I promise!
I view the timing of Al Gore’s endorsement as a symbolic act. It also may suggest to voters that he is not so much interested in the particular person of the candidate but rather the bigger picture of the party’s political message. He may have been trying to demonstrate his own acknowledged place within the party, as a party member, of ultimately lesser importance, within the contextual scheme of things, than the running leader. I think it is precisely because of his ‘weight’ that he decided to stay ‘out of the fight’ because it would perhaps become the focus of media attention which would just serve to ‘oust’ the real issues at hand and no longer allow the real leaders and the real issues that concern them to emerge in the run-ups. I think this was fair and considerate of him to be honest. To me, he respectfully allowed the ‘debate’ between Obama and Clinton to emerge along the lines of the ‘truth’ of the issues of the discussion.
I really respect Lieberman, truly, I admire him (as I do Obama, McCain, Clinton, Edwards….ad infinitum) but it should not be necessary to have to compare him to Gore, they are two different people, with two different ways of being, and with two different approaches to demonstrating their loyalty and/or courage. To speculate by comparison of their personal character is a loss of focus and direction within the dynamic of political debate. The point of debate should not be a continuous focus about the person’s character, but an exploration of the truth they speak in advocating their leadership quality, which is sometimes necessarily ‘inconvenient’.
Anything new worth learning is actually, from my perspective, always inconvenient because it requires a rearranging of the parameters of your knowledge-life-experience which constructs your reality. No one likes change because it requires much effort and is not exactly easy! I think Gore respects this; voters need time to digest the topics of the debate between Obama and Clinton, allow the story-line to play out (so to speak), consider them carefully, and then decide how to proceed for the sake of the ideals they hold dear to their particular reality.
It seems to me that Gore supports democracy as a living-breathing-concept. I think he respects the dynamic of the democratic process as a serious consideration of truth as opposed to a celebrity endorsement campaign: and he shows this by withdrawing from the limelight of the election debate so that it may indeed function on a basis of equality. I think he realises the importance of election debate. The issues brought to the foreground will ultimately change the lives of all members of the (world-wide) population. I add world-wide to this because it will greatly influence and affect foreign policy, and the US is a world-leader or player. This is not just important for Americans but also the rest of the world of ‘the global market economy’.
The general consensus among Europeans during the last eight years has been an experience of total devastation of having to go and follow (by the armed force of our families and friends and loved ones as well as being subjected to continuous coverage live from the battle scenes on television everyday in our homes) Bush and Blair in ‘their’ war, which we ardently opposed as a collective union of nations, forcefully, but to of no avail – this devastation has had long lasting after-effects on all aspects of our lives – economic, political, soulful.
To my eyes, Gore recognises this, nationally and globally as a sort of symbiotic ideological unity, and therefore his endorsement is not half-hearted at all but serious and meaningful, precisely because it is a serious decision that has to be made by each American individual voter, which as his timing demonstrates should not be ‘personal’, or a form of attack, but a considered responsible decision.
The media may speculate about the truth of the timing of Al Gore’s endorsement but it is important to remember that Al Gore is not actually running for presidency, so perhaps the real question is whether or not this speculation is actually valuable. Shaun Mullen poignantly (and I think respectfully) asks here at TMV on a previous article concerning the legacy of Tim Russert a question of a related nature, he asks is this really journalism? I don’t know, I am not a journalist, nor do I aspire to be one. But I can relate, as a human being, to the idea behind journalism, when I try to see the truth of every ‘story’ I encounter.
To me Gore’s endorsement of Obama is an act of ideological-friendship. I would read nothing more into it as far as his character and place in the democratic party is concerned, apart from further considering what Gore’s inconvenient truth actually means: to me, to my particular life, and to our future world. I choose also to see Obama’s candidacy in a new light with the addition of Gore to his campaign. As a European, I consider this to be a very worthy addition, which would seek to constructively repair – from an ideological root upward- the damage to our collective ‘sacred land’ and the damaged souls involved in war, both present and past, ideological and physically – by repairing disunity within world politics. The issues of environment, racial, social, and sexual equality, that this particular team advocate, are also ideas that Europeans value dearly and would welcome an engagement with, on this level. But in truth, most people I know support Obama as ‘an example of a good man’, or as Donald Winnicott, the British psychoanalyst and observer of human behaviour, would say about the turbulent task of mothering, he is ‘good enough’: and that is a complement because its inherent undertone is moderate, not extreme.
[...] Gandelman at The Moderate Voice gets it exactly right: Perhaps one day someone will write a chapter about Al Gore in a new book [...]
I agree with both comments, and got a good chuckle out of Mike's. There seems to be a presumption in Joe's post that Gore always preferred Obama and should have thrown his weight behind him sooner. Maybe he had only a mild preference for either candidate because both have pro-environment policies. Lieberman's choice was easy. As a single-issue hawk, the Republican candidate was always going to be his choice. On the other hand, I don't remember him endorsing before McCain was the presumptive nominee either.
The other possibility, which applies to Gore, Edwards and others, is that they may want a position in the new administration. Endorsing before the candidate is chosen reduces their chances of being considered by one of the two hopefuls.
Some good observations here. I believe Gore was indeed, ducking the spotlight and more interested in his overall party's success than jockeying for some influence within a democratic administration. He may actually be in a realm of post-politics with his particular passion for environmental change and less about being selected for some cabinet post of chair of some special committee.
Despite all the cries to the contrary, the Dems had a rousing nomination process, capturing the news spotlight for months after the Republicans settled on their lesser-of-all-evils candidate. McCain has nothing but loss ahead of him now.
[...] who’ll be most impressed with it will be Tipper Gore. –Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice: Obama Gets “The” Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al Gore Al Gore unquestionably has taken to heart his role as an elder statesman — he stayed so far [...]
Maybe I'm doing what I dislike a lot, reading minds, but the impression I have is that this is still a burned-by- 2000 Gore. I think that experience turned him away from wanting to take part in rough and detailed day-to-day politics to cocentrate on broad themes, instead. His global warming project itself was a clear road in a different direction.
Delaying an endorsement ,IMO, is an expression of a state of mind rather than a political calculation. And who can blame him? With so many people disaffected by politics-as-usual, he's an elder statesman for the politically jaded as well as for the Dem. Party. ,
I've been following Gore's fortunes pretty closely. It's clear that his priorities have shifted. By waiting till he did, he kept his main concern — his effectiveness as Environmentalist-in-Chief — from being tied to either one of the candidates. It's hard for me to see the man who fought to bring the pressing environmental issues to the fore as lacking in courage for a fight. Perhaps he really didn't see much to choose from between Hillary and Obama. Perhaps he didn't care which one prevails, so long as the Dem wins.
I appreciate this, since I can't stand Obama — I am going to vote for him because we need a Democratic president, but I would not have been pleased if Gore had endorsed him.
As it is, Gore's endorsement, and request for contributions for Obama at his website, makes it much easier for me to put my hand into my meagerly filled pockets and transfer such spare change as I have to Obama. And — as a member of the 'Gore network' — I can assure you that Gore has many, many supporters who will be swayed by his endorsement.
With Al Gore's endorsement, Senator Obama is letting every one know Hillary Clinton won't be on the ticket.
Al Gore's endorsement? He stayed to long at the Hollywood dance, no one takes him serious any more.
“no one takes him serious any more.”
Au contraire, lots of people respect him, even admire him.
Let's not stretch personal opinions into general ones. It's silly.
Chapter Two, Profiles in Pomposity: Al Gore
Damozel said: “I can't stand Obama “
Okay. He's not a woman.
Aside from that, I do wish, angry women would explain what it is about him, they dislike.
With only slight differences, Hillary and Obama are on side of the political net, and McCain is on the other.
The kind of criticisms I read on feminist blogs echo Republican talking points (as well as Hillary's, during the primaries).
>”He's vague”, even though his policies are available on his website and have been iterated in speeches and statements.
> “He's young and/or inexperienced” is almost a verbatime repetition of attacks lobbed at JFK by the Republicans. Despite Hillary's experience, her campaign strategy resulted in a loss, and that should count for something. in evaluating experience.
>Obama got too much credit for rhetoric. Why is an asset a bad thing?
Every leader, every politician, uses the talents he has for maximum effect.
Hillary became more effective as she became more comfortable with and smart about her speaking style. It worked for her,too.
>The Obama camp got nasty. That's very true, and I was revolted by the overkill myself. , However, both camps got nasty. Between the two principals, though, Hillary was the more ruthless, damaging the Dem party in the process of damaging Obama. Being ruthless is problematic in itself, but being ruthless without regard to consequences is dangerous..
Is Obama, then, faulted . for not copying Hillary's mistakes>
I honestly don't understand. What is it?
“Chapter Two, Profiles in Pomposity: Al Gore”
Odd thing to say in such a pompous manner.
still, I applaud Damozel for supporting Obama as her second choice. Bravo. We do need a Democrat in the White House, for many good reasons, but especially for the Supreme Court and a chance to preserve the Constitution against revisionist activist judges.
It constantly amazes me how many so-called progressives either have not read “The Assault on Reason” or have failed to actually understand what Mr. Gore wrote. It is the SYSTEM that is broken, and that is not something anyone has addressed seriously on the national level. Therefore, his “endorsement” is virtually meaningless…and he knows it. While Mr. Obama, arguably, represents a fresh face and a fresh approach, he is most certainly not a continuation of the last eight years and that makes him well worth supporting. The bottom-up reorganization is still somewhere in the future. How far and what has to take place before that happens is very much up for conjecture. Maybe Mr. Gore will be part of it and maybe history will have to look back on him as a visionary. Keep the faith
[...] Joe Gandelman, I don’t think the biggest problem with Gore’s endorsement of Obama is its timing. [...]