Gore's Endorsement of Dean

Of course I think this is a great thing. It may not quite be worth $100 million, but I doubt it's going to hurt. Some people are saying it means bupkis, and if Gore had been sitting around doing nothing since the 2000 election debacle, I'd be tempted to agree, and even to fear that Gore's endorsement might hurt Dean. However, as Joe Conason notes, Gore's thinking seems to have changed since the 2000 election debacle. If you don't think so, check out the speeches he's given in the last year (one in September 2002, another last August, and another just last month which I attended).

Scott Rosenberg has a good response to those who say that Dean simply isn't electable : they were wrong before when they said Dean had no chance of winning the nomination, so why should we listen to them now?

Some people seem to think the race for the nomination might be over—and that was even before Gore's endorsement. They might be right, but it would certainly be foolish for the Dean campaign to start working on that assumption. As everyone kept saying at last night's debate, nothing's over until the votes have been cast; even if Dean wins Iowa (possible) and New Hampshire (seemingly certain), he's looking a bit sad in South Carolina, and there are many more races he needs to win before he could take the nomination. Check out the most recent Pew Poll for a breakdown of the early primary numbers by race, class, gender, and education, among other variables.

FWIW, I think Kucinich was the hands-down winner of the debate last night. (Of course, his campaign thinks so, too.) Kucinich clearly nailed Koppel and ABC on their deliberate strategy to focus the debate on the process of campaigning rather than the issues. That process is important and certainly a worthy debate topic; one of the reasons Dean is getting so much support (I believe) is that he's saying that the way we elect leaders in this country is broken because elections are merely sold to the highest bidders, which are always corporations and special interests. See, for example, today's announcement that only countries that supported the war in Iraq will be allowed to bid on contracts there—that's not a move that's good for America, it's a move that's good for the corporations that put Bush and Co. in the White House. The medicare "reform" package that just passed is another, just as blatant example: HMOs will begin getting billions of dollars in payments from the federal government almost immediately, while the much-hyped prescription drug benefit—supposedly the reason for the whole bill—won't even begin for two more years. Can you say "pay-offs to corporate donors"? I knew you could. Oh, and don't forget the revolving door between government and industry—another way the money flows to control public policy.

Sorry. Tangent. The point is, if we hope to break the stranglehold those corps and interests have over politics, then yes, we need to reform the election process, and Dean seems to be doing that, so making the process at least some part of the debate was worthwhile. However, Kucinich's bigger score was to point out the way the media can manipulate campaigns through the questions they ask or don't ask, the things they emphasize or ignore. Kucinich showed he wasn't afraid to offend Koppel or ABC, and that willingness to stand up to the media is something we certainly need in a president. Finally Kucinich delivered a terrific little manifesto (near the bottom of the page) with his last comment linking the Iraq quagmire with problematic domestic issues:

I would suggest that Iraq is actually what this debate is about. And if you don't make the connection between the $155 billion we've spent in less than a year, the $400 billion in the bloated Pentagon budget and the fear that's driving this nation into greater and greater involvement in Iraq, if you don't make that connection, then you're never going to understand why we don't have money for health care and housing and education.

Our entire domestic agenda is at risk because of our occupation of Iraq. That's why I suggest it is urgent to put this on the agenda, to end the occupation, to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out. We want this country to be safe. We want this country to be secure. Our presence there is leading to greater instability. My administration, my election will be about the end of fear and the beginning of hope in America.

Yeah, I support Dean because I think he has the best shot of winning. But my real hope is that a Dean presidency will simply be a good step closer to the day when a candidate like Kucinich could actually be elected. That day just isn't here. For now, we've got to work with what we've got, and that's a front-running Dean who is saying many of the right things and, so far, is not prostrating himself before the altar of corporate financing, which is great. Today's Washington Post suggests the race might come down to a battle of Dean v. Clark. Part of the theory being that Gore has made a play to create a new "wing" of the Democratic party separate from the so-called "Clinton wing," which is thought to back Clark. And the race continues...

Posted December 10, 2003 09:29 AM | election 2004