I don't buy it. Bold prediction: Gore endorses Obama Wednesday morning (with a little advance notice Tuesday night -- just in time to take the wind out of Hillary's sails when she wins uncontested Florida's zero delegates). Gore has to remember getting screwed by the Clintons in 2000 (and as VP -- they did basically nothing to push for climate change legislation) and he'd likely endorse Obama rather than stay mum. Besides, he's a smart guy, he probably knows that Obama is going to have far more political capital to enact climate change legislation than Hillary would.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | January 28, 2008 4:56 PM

Is this according to sources close to Gore, or sources close to Bill Clinton?

Posted by Fred App | January 28, 2008 5:01 PM

Gore said in an interview for 02138 in October 2007 that "Odds are that I will" endorse someone.

So he's obviously considering it.

He just has to be careful he doesn't endorse someone like Obama, who'll probably end up losing anyway. That would tarnish his legacy and his ability to get things done in a Clinton administration.

Posted by Mike | January 28, 2008 5:02 PM

Endorse with your heart Gore.

Gore endorsed Dean in 04. However, if Kerry had won, I have no doubts that Kerry and Gore would have had a fine relationship.

The New Gore just seems closer to Mr. Obama than the Clintons of old.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 5:06 PM

I'd like to see Pres. Jimmy Carter endorse Obama.

Posted by Paul Kekai Manansala | January 28, 2008 5:10 PM

Anyone who has read The Assault on Reason has to see a strong resonance in the current conversation about politics of distortion/divisiveness.

To me, he cannot support Clinton without undermining the hope for a new politics that Gore calls for in that book.

Posted by Wayne | January 28, 2008 5:11 PM

I don't want his endorsement this week. I'm worried it will look too much like piling on Hillary, and we know what happens when people start feeling sorry for her.

If he decides to endorse, I hope he'll do it after Feb 5. Even though, yes, I know, TN is on the 5th.

Posted by evie | January 28, 2008 5:12 PM

Anyone who thinks a Gore endorsement wouldn't be TERRIBLE news for Hillary isn't thinking this through. Assume you aren't like us, news junkies (is it safe to assume that Ambinder's readership is 100% news junkies?) and you haven't been following the news closely, but you are thinking of voting in the Democratic election. You probably don't remember who Gary Hart is, don't care who Ted Kennedy is and can't make heads or tails of what John Kerry's endorsement means. But Al Gore, people know that he was VP under Clinton. So if that's all you knew-- that he was VP for 8 years under the Clintons and then would endorse someone else, well what conclusion can you draw from that? You might not know about the bad blood between Gore and Clinton dating back to the 2000 election/recount. You might not know that Gore has become a far more progressive voice in the debate, closer in policy positions to Obama than Clinton.

But you would know one thing: this guy who knows them really well doesn't like them very much. If that doesn't give you pause, what does?

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | January 28, 2008 5:21 PM

A Gore endorsement prior to 2/5 is key to winning some big states that day...

I would agree that perhaps on Wednesday, to quelch the commentary on a HRC beauty contest win, would be the best time.

Posted by NJPolitico84 | January 28, 2008 5:26 PM

I would agree that perhaps on Wednesday, to quelch the commentary on a HRC beauty contest win, would be the best time.

The whole theory of course is predicated on the assumption that Obama has control over when he gets his endorsers to announce. Logically though, if you already knew secretly that you had both Gore and Kennedy in the bag, wouldn't you announce Kennedy first and THEN Gore? If you just had Kennedy, you'd save him for post-beauty-contest to steal the news cycle. But if you had Gore waiting in the wings...

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | January 28, 2008 5:37 PM

At some point it would start to look like the boys are all ganging up on Clinton, right? And she'd be correct, right?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 28, 2008 5:59 PM

At some point it would start to look like the boys are all ganging up on Clinton, right? And she'd be correct, right?

How would she be correct? Three of Obama's biggest endorsements are female statewide officeholders (Napolitano, McCaskill, Sebelius). And Clinton has plenty of male endorsements.

Posted by RS | January 28, 2008 6:07 PM

"Newsmax has learned from Democratic sources that Gore is said to be waiting until after the primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5 to enter the fray with an endorsement."

Any truth to this? Wouldn't it be more help before Super Duper Tues?

Posted by Brady | January 28, 2008 6:13 PM

Gore may end up endorsing Edwards after Obama and/or Hillary fades due to the mutually-assured-destruction campaign policies of the Clintons.

I looked at the exit poll data carefully.

Edwards gets the majority of the white-vote, especially white males. He also did well with white females.

In case no one noticed, the blacks are only 12% of the population, and have a low voting percentage.

The democrats do not have a problem getting the votes of women and blacks: 90% of blacks vote democratic, and women constitute 60% of the democratic party.

The same reason John is having trouble, is the same reason he would be the most, and perhaps ONLY electable candidate: he is capable of getting the most white male-independents and Republicans to vote for him.

Obama will probably fall apart in states where there is no black populations to carry him, and Hillary has become hated.

If McCain becomes the clear nominee, it may become clear that Obama is not going to win the nomination, and Hillary can't win the general election.

Edwards and Obama can make a deal at the convention, or before.

The problem here is that we are trying to operate on the myth that we are "color-blind."

The fact is that race does matter, and that we have deep-seated prejudices and feelings.

The bigger problem is that we cannot acknowledge them as a society, which would be a start to dealing with them.

Posted by Oscar | January 28, 2008 6:14 PM

All I know is that a Gore endorsement of Obama would be the deepest betrayal of women everywhere, indicating he's just yet another of those white progressive guys who can't take a woman being president.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 28, 2008 6:17 PM

"I don't want his endorsement this week. I'm worried it will look too much like piling on Hillary, and we know what happens when people start feeling sorry for her."

I agree with this. Also, people would play up the "bad blood with the Clintons" angle, and it wouldn't be seen as simply the judgment of a smart and committed liberal, I don't think.

Outside of Kennedy, I think the most important endorsements of Obama can come from prominent women, Latino, and labor leaders, plus key local figures in the 2/5 states. I don't see a Gore endorsement as an un-ambiguous good thing at this point.

Posted by PJ | January 28, 2008 6:19 PM

I think Evie's got a good point: anyone looking to do Obama favors has to walk a fine line. Obama's running on the underdog status, which works in contrast to the "Clinton Machine. Several large endorsements, especially of former friends and colleagues will look like betrayals to her. Lots of people still feel that Hillary's treatment in the press is unfair and it causes a lot of sympathy, and possibly votes for her.

And yeah, Michael, we're all political junkies here!

Posted by Lesley | January 28, 2008 6:21 PM

I iamgine it would be the end if Gore were to back Obama. Publicly, I mean. Not like he's considering endorsing the Clintons...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 28, 2008 6:28 PM

Oh poor Zephyrus:

It's not that Hillary is a woman, it's that she is a bad candidate who can't win.

Get over your victimized view of the world.

Poor woman? Please. She has made all of these enemies on her own, gender be damned. Lately we can all see that she feels entitled, and worse, she cannot stand on her own two feet.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | January 28, 2008 6:34 PM

I don't think Gore is going to endorse this week. I think the Sebalius endorsement fresh off her respose to the SOTU will be the next focus and will be good because it is from an acomplished female, and has little danger of creating a "boys ganging up on HIllary" dynamic. Obama will be campaigning this week with her and Napalatano and maybe McKaskill too. Hopefully this will minimize any boys vs the girl dynamic, which is always hillary's trump card. I think any big endorsements should be from women and latinos as much as possible from now until feb 5th. Obama needs to be very careful about having his momentum blunted by some HIllary appeal to gender tribalism. I wouldn't be surprised if she staged or planted a sexist moment to provoke a female backlash for her. I also think on thursday's debate, Obama needs to rise above and not get into a street brawl with hillary. He needs to dismiss ad rise above her attacks rather than get stuck in the tit for tat.

Posted by RKA | January 28, 2008 6:45 PM

I concur with Betty- This men piling on woman thing is ridiculous. PPPleeeze. Perhaps HRC should have considered running a campaign that was more positive rather than allowing her husband to play good cop vs. bad cop. American is waking up to the Clinton Drama and finally changing the channel! This is not the right woman for the White House, NOW or ever. And the NY chapter of NOW did not do itself a favor today with that little stunt they pulled. Many, many woman are furious. Myself included!

Posted by Ezzy | January 28, 2008 6:52 PM

All I know is that a Gore endorsement of Obama would be the deepest betrayal of women everywhere, indicating he's just yet another of those white progressive guys who can't take a woman being president.

Amazing how people think. Are all the blacks who are endorsing Hillary betraying their race? C'mon folks. People will pick who they pick, and it doesn't mean they are betraying any sex or race if it's not someone of their own kind.

Posted by Ben | January 28, 2008 7:13 PM

Alas, no Gore for Obama. But perhaps Obama can get an endorsement from Tony Rezko? That should at the very least help Obama with the mob demographic.

Posted by Grant | January 28, 2008 7:13 PM

Amazing how people think. Are all the blacks who are endorsing Hillary betraying their race? C'mon folks. People will pick who they pick, and it doesn't mean they are betraying any sex or race if it's not someone of their own kind.

I thought Zephyrus was mocking NY NOW.

Posted by RS | January 28, 2008 7:20 PM

Sorry if people didn't catch my meaning--I was referring to NOW's response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

Read it in its entirety. See what the Clinton campaign is reduced to:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/NY_NOW_Betrayal.html

Posted by Zephyrus | January 28, 2008 7:24 PM

Al has a big IPO in the offing for his media company, 100 million or so, and he recently joined a large silicon valley venture capital firm. Why would he jeopardize his business relationships by endorsing anyone?

Posted by Beefeater | January 28, 2008 7:47 PM

If Gore is to endorse Obama the best timing is Wednesday-Thursday. Waiting until after California would be terrible strategically.

Posted by Ben C | January 28, 2008 7:54 PM

Environmental responsibility and green innovation are only liberal pipe dreams for as long as machine politicians retain control of the White House. A US President who is not afraid to do the right thing could change that perception overnight, which would be a huge boost in our relations with the other free countries around the world, whose disappointment in the US on this point is nearly universal. I think Gore knows this, and I hope he does not wait until after Feb 5th to voice that sentiment.

Posted by Tim | January 28, 2008 8:21 PM

A lot of people have been unimpressed with Obama's collection of high-profile endorsements. But my view is that the more support he gets from people like the Kennedys, the easier it becomes to get the support of Al Gore and John Edwards and others. Americans love to ride the wave, to get on board with the winner. Obamamentun is peaking at just the right time. I don't know if this is all being co-ordinated by Obama staff, but if it is they are brilliant.

Posted by ghost of zorro | January 28, 2008 9:14 PM

I agree. REAL Change means No "Bush" -or- "Clinton"

MY PREDICTION:
Gore & Edwards both endorse Barack.

Posted by Craig | January 28, 2008 9:35 PM

Too many of you are over-thinking this endorsement. The fact is that an endorsement after Feb. 5 will likely do much less good than a prior endorsement. An endorsement from a politician with equal name recognition as Hillary Clinton is huge. The more the better when it comes to endorsements. There is absolutely no way Hillary can pull another "the boys are piking on me" moment after Bill Clinton's actions the weeks before South Carolina. Endorsements are endorsements. Especially from Al Gore. If Gore wants to endorse Obama he will do so this week, before Sunday.

Posted by Davud | January 28, 2008 9:36 PM

Have Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein endorsed? As both women of Clinton's generation and the two highest profile Democrats in California, they'd be worth something -- especially if they went with Obama.

Posted by John Z. | January 28, 2008 9:41 PM

Feinstein is publicly supporting Hillary but Boxer is neutral as of yet.

Posted by Tractarian | January 28, 2008 9:58 PM

I agree, Davud, Clinton has a limited use of tactics, but not only because of her campaign's ugly display in SC. She can't pull out the emotion card again, or the boys-are-ganging-up-card, because people will just roll their eyes at her transparency. Since all she has to work with are tactics, she will eventually wear very thin with the electorate. The problem will be if she doesn't wear thin quick enough: if she gets the nomination she is far more likely to lose to the GOP than Obama. I think a Gore endorsement needs to come before 2/5, because afterwards it might be too late. And John Edwards: Would you hurry up and get real please?

Posted by Pete | January 28, 2008 11:00 PM

This is the turning point of a smart decision to come: He will run!

Posted by Eli | January 28, 2008 11:00 PM

Stand by - Gore will endorse GORE. It is not too late for him to walk into the DNC and take the nomination.

Gore Obama 08!

Posted by Joe in Australia | January 28, 2008 11:11 PM

Stand by - Gore will endorse GORE. It is not too late for him to walk into the DNC and take the nomination.

Gore Obama 08!

Posted by Joe in Australia | January 28, 2008 11:11 PM

On the October 14,2007 edition of the Chris Matthews Show, John Heileman from New York magazine made this claim:

MATTHEWS: When?

Mr. HEILEMANN: Six weeks.

Obviously Heilemann was wrong about the timing but Gore seems to have been quietly leaning in Obama's direction for some time now.

Posted by The Grand Panjandrum | January 28, 2008 11:19 PM

An Al Gore endorsement for Obama would only continue to legitimize Obama's presidential campaign in some people's eyes. There are those -- like Bill Clinton -- who see Obama as another Jesse Jackson.

If Al Gore wants to make a significant endorsement, he best do it sooner than later. The Obama thumping on Saturday and the Kennedy family endorsement today has to have some affect on what Al must be thinking.

Posted by KISSman | January 29, 2008 12:07 AM

I'm hearing that the Gore people and Obama people are in talks as we speak. Looking like Thursday, which gets it in the press before the weekend, but isn't so early as to give the Clintons time to spin it into the ground. Tease it on Wednesday night, so it makes the morning shows/papers. Then do it on Thursday afternoon to rattle Hillary's cage before the debate.

This way, people will be able to talk about it at work on Friday, and over the weekend it makes the Sunday shows. Plus, volunteers and staff can use it when they canvass and phonebank over the weekend. Friday or later is too late to have maximum impact.

Maybe Gore even makes an appearance on the Sunday shows?

Posted by VTY | January 29, 2008 12:26 AM

You can't compare Gore's 2004 endorsement of Dean to a Gore endorsement of Obama in 2008. Two very different candidates, and two very different Gores. He wasn't the Nobel Prize winning Goreacle back then. And Dean is no Obama.

But I don't know if he endorses. Something makes me think he wants to stay above it all. And most of all he doesn't want to endorse if there's ANY chance his candidate will lose.

Posted by Callimaco | January 29, 2008 12:29 AM

I don't think Gore will choose to endorse. However, should he decide he wants to endorse, he should do it on Wednesday morning and leak word of it tomorrow night. It would be the biggest possible advantage to the Obama campaign because of the timing.

Further, I think Bill Clinton has crossed the line on four or five occassions in the primary. The problem with the Clintons is that they're playing the primary like a General Election--we don't care how much we piss off our opponents, they're not with us.

The two problems with that: a. it doesn't fit a year in which voters desperately want to reject that kind of politics (see the GOP's embrace of McCain, and even to a lesser extent, Romney). b. The party needs the very people that Clinton is currently pissing off to knock on doors and man phone banks in November. The line that was crossed is not one that is easily forgiven.

I think Ted Kennedy understands this. I think Ted Kennedy, and others like him in the establishment (Xavier Becerra, Kathleen Sebelius, George Miller) also realize that there's now no way Clinton can win the White House. Democrats want to do that more than anything. There's also a gigantic fear within Congress about the two-headed monster of "Billary," which the Clintons have allowed their campaign to get tagged as, on the top of the ticket. High conservative turnout and depressed liberal turnout could mean the end of the House Majority. So a Gore endorsement of Obama has two potential upsides: a. It'd help the chances of the candidate who has the best chance of winning, becoming President, and signing global warming treaties. b. Even if it's not successful, it earns chits in Congress, which are desperately needed to get the treaties ratified.

So I hope Gore will endorse. I think he should endorse Obama. But I am pretty sure that he won't endorse...

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | January 29, 2008 1:10 AM

I think he'd rather play Deus-ex-machina than frontline soldier. He'll endorse when it will seal the deal.

Posted by KobayashiMaru | January 29, 2008 1:14 AM

Re: Scheduling: Presidential campaigns tend to have control over when endorsements are announced. Partly because of logistics, and partly because the people doing the endorsement want the campaign to win and are therefore willing to accommodate its desires as to when to announce an endorsement.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | January 29, 2008 1:15 AM

I'm not sure the conventional wisdom that it would be better for Gore to endorse Obama before 2/5 is correct.

It is pretty much going to be impossible for either Clinton or Obama to actually win the nomination on 2/5, and I suspect the results will be spinnable as a "victory" in both directions. And as we just saw with Kennedy, a post-event endorsement can arguably be more powerful than a pre-event endorsement insofar as it controls the narrative. Indeed, I think Kennedy more or less just wrapped up the whole early nomination phase (Iowa through SC) by declaring Obama the clear winner.

So it would seem to me the best use of a hypothetical Gore endorsement might well be to control the post-2/5 narrative, using Gore to effectively recognize Obama as the new Party leader in the same way as Kennedy has just done.

Of course when Gore endorses on Thursday, this post may look a little foolish.

Posted by DTM | January 29, 2008 1:16 AM

does anyone know Gore's email? Is there some way we can get a petition going?? Al, please, Al, endorse now!!!

Calming down now, Gore's endorsement would have maximum impact now. Non-political-junkies I talk to like Obama but they don't know if he's experienced, if he can win, etc. A Gore endorsement would do wonders for that. After February 5th might be too late. Look at the polls, Obama has a lot of ground to make up between now and then.

Those who say Gore should wait or that it would backfire are practicing Yglesias-levels of contrarianism. But very unconvincingly. As long as Gore does it without going negative on Clinton, which of course he would accomplish, than it would only help Obama.

Posted by nathan | January 29, 2008 2:07 AM

If Gore endorses anybody, it should be Edwards (Remember him? He's still in this race and he's the only Dem worth a vote.)

Edwards' platform most closely aligns with Gore's environmental cause. Edwards is the one with the vision of rebuilding American industry through his comprehensive Green Economy plan. Obama and Clinton have given nothing but lip service to environmental issues, whereas Edwards wants to really put this idea to work.

Posted by Mary | January 29, 2008 2:27 AM

I just got this info, and have NOT YET confirmed it's authenticity and status (whether it's current), but I'm planning to call the number tomorrow (Tue.) to find out (and get a fax number to send a hard copy letter).

Email : algore@algore.com
Phone : 615 327 2227

Perhaps everyone (pro Obama, that is!) on this blog could too. I agree that a Gore endorsement before the 5th (especially because Edwards is still in it, draining more "change" votes from Obama than Hillary) is crucial.

22 states is too much territory for Obama to cover in seven days with his personal, town hall style and most of the states on the 5th suit Hillary the best (NY, NJ, CA).

A Thursday announcement to give it time to play in the news all day Friday before I and other volunteers phone bank, would be VERY helpful to us here in Los Angeles.

Posted by Russell | January 29, 2008 2:52 AM

Gore has no reason to endorse right now. If Obama is going to win, he better win on his own merits. Talk about change is great, but I want to hear specifics. If neither Hillary or Barack take the majority of the delegates on 2/5, there will be time before the Democratic Convention for sides to be taken. How many rounds are the delegates committed to their candidate?

Gore's endorsement would be persuasive when he's ready to hand it out. Wouldn't it be a dream come true if Al stepped up at the Convention, commited and gave a rallying speech. Why do it before?

I'm seriously considering John Edwards. I believe he has the ability to beat a Republican. I don't think that the majority of voters want a Republican, particularly any of them being offered up.

Posted by lacy | January 29, 2008 2:54 AM

Fascinating how many Obama supporters are posting here, looking to ride the Obama beauty contest wave. When are people going to absolutely look seriously at issues that impact our daily lives instead of what is currently the cool thing to do (Hillary bashing, Obama coronation)? How has Obama shown that he can do anything but give an eloquent speech to change what is going on in Washington? By his own admission, he operates as a strategic insider politician, so he is in effect, another one of the boys. He talks about change from the old politics, but he is surrounded by the old establishment guard representatives like Kennedy and Kerry. I have yet to see substance from this man, but I understand what he represents to the American people - the ideal that we are not really selfish, racist, and isolationist. But, you know what, I have yet to see how he is truly different than all the other politicians and how he is going to bring about change. As I remember, and what so many of you seem to forget, both Bill Clinton and George Bush were also 'change' candidates. Any Democrat who takes over from Bush is a Huge Change, so let that be our goal.
I am a Black American Woman, and I will not be voting for Barack Obama, because I see him as a superficial attractive lightweight, so typical of the American taste for the flavor of the day. I need more substance and gravitas, so I stand for Hillary Clinton, an inifinitely superior candidate. I have carefully considered this in terms of picking the leader of our country and am unwilling to entrust the job to someone with no depth, but an awful lot of rhetoric. John F Kennedy had much more depth and experience, when he stood for President, so the comparison to Barack Obama ends at good looks and eloquence. Every candidate has vision, it just depends which vision attracts you the voter. (Do you find any code words in my post?) I will vote for him only if he is the nominee, because the Democratic Party will be the winner.
P.S.: Al Gore will either seek to ride the hip wave, and endorse Barack Obama, or he will preserve his carefully cultivated new image and endorse the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. I suspect he will do the latter. It will be hard for him to endorse her (!), because of their personal baggage, but he will do it for the Party.
P.P.S.: Ride the wave at your peril, people, this is not a beauty contest. It is for the leader of the free world.

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 4:00 AM

Excellent post Denise.

Posted by Stacy | January 29, 2008 4:36 AM

Gore will follow Leiberman and endorse McCain.

Posted by Tim | January 29, 2008 6:23 AM

Yes Denise, a thoughtful and reasoned post. If only more Americans (read: Republicans) put this much thought into their politics, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

I will support any Democrat that wins the nomination, and I think when you get right down to the nuts and bolts, all the Democratic candidates have similar goals and would support similar policies. However, I like Obama best for many reasons.

First, I think experience is overrated. Intelligence and good judgement are far more important. Dick Cheney has tons of experience, but he is still a disaster.

Second, I believe Obama is more electable than Clinton. Hillary would rally the Republicans to the polls like no other. Her roughly 50% negative rating alone would guarantee a close election, and somehow the Republicans always seem to come out on top in close elections. Maybe I am naive, and racism is more rampant in our society than I believe it is. (I am a 44 YO white male, so I do not have your perspective on that issue). But I really believe that most Americans have moved beyond the days when a black person could not be President. I truly hope so anyway.

Third, If Hillary is elected elected President, there will be instant, unreasonable, vicious, partisan opposition to everything she tries to accomplish. Do we really want to re-live the politics of the 90's?

Fourth, Obama is a LEADER. After 8 years of Bush, this country needs a real leader. I believe Barack Obama can bring us all together in a way no other candidate can. He truly does inspire people, and all the sound policy in the world does no good if people are not inspired to work together and implement that policy. If elected, he will accomplish far more than Hillary ever could, and we need a lot of progress made after the many messes W has left us with.

That is why I support Obama, and that is why I would love to see Al Gore endorse him as soon as possible.

Posted by Stephen | January 29, 2008 6:45 AM

This election is different. With the modern day news cycle, and peoples heavy use of the internet, his is the first election cycle where the majority of voters will be informed. So with that said I think a Gore endorsement would be HUGE.

Posted by Brad Glisson | January 29, 2008 6:54 AM

If Hillary wins this nomination I think Democrats are going to wake up in November and go "Oh my God, what did we just pass up". People say Obama is just all talk, which I dont by, but even if you go along with that I mean have you ever seen a politician get people this excited? This motivated? The young people NEVER come out in numbers like this. You keep hearing anecdotal stories about how children are telling there parents 'you have to listen to this guy'. There truly is a change in the air, and if we miss it then we're going to be stuck with 4 years of another divisive political landscape where nothing gets done because of the bickering.

Posted by Brad Glisson | January 29, 2008 6:59 AM

Looks like all the failed wannabe presidential candidates are with Obama. It will surely be the biggest boatload of losers.

Posted by Svenson | January 29, 2008 7:15 AM

If AGore endorse Obama it would be becos of Obama's support for the Bush Cheny oil policy

Posted by Svenson | January 29, 2008 7:17 AM

Denise,

I think it is true that Obama has been accurately described as a "strategic" legislator. But that is only half of the story, and the second half at that.

The first half of the story is that by background and inclination, Obama is a community organizer. And so when he wants to get something done, he typically uses a standard community organizer approach: first he goes to the relevant community and gets it organized behind the cause in question. Then he goes to the relevant public officials with an organized community behind him to work out a solution. They may do that willingly, but there is also an implicit threat: public officials generally recognize that they need to be responsive to the will of an organized community if they want to hold onto their offices.

All this is quite clear if you look at his time in the Illinois Senate. It is also going on right now during the nomination process. For example, one of his standard procedures has been to organize in states well ahead of anyone else. His organization then approaches relevant local officials with the community already behind them and asks for their support in the relevant primary or caucus.

And on a mass level, that is what the speeches are all about too. He is trying to instill in the electorate a sense that they are not just participating in an election, but rather are joining an organized movement for change on various key issues. The point is to give him the ability as President to go to Congress with a broad and deep coalition of the American people strongly behind him, so that he can credibly threaten to remove members of Congress from office in the next election if they obstruct progress on his agenda. Of course, to the extent he can help get willing members of Congress elected in 2008, that will help too.

And finally, that is what is going on with the likes of Kerry and Kennedy (and Napolitano and McCaskill and so on) as well. Obama did not get their endorsements first, and then try to build a movement using their support. Rather, Obama built his movement and demonstrated its effectiveness in Iowa and beyond, and now he has asked these party leaders, both old and new, to work with him.

So that is how he intends to bring about change. Of course, I can't promise you that it will work, but I do think there is a lot more substance to his plan than is immediately apparent from something like his speeches alone.

Posted by DTM | January 29, 2008 7:44 AM

Getting an endorsement from Al Gore, would really be great for Barack Obama. If Al GOre is going to do it, he'd better do it now. Obama needs all the help he can get, before Super Tuesday. The Clintonites have the upper hand, and a strong team behind them, and it is indeed an uphill battle for Obama. Since all the pundits are predicting a Clinton win, I do not look forward to the next phase of the game. With all that baggage the Clintons bring to the table, the rethugs will once again bring all those sordid details into focus, and make this a dirty election. The Clintons are polorizing, divisive, and will bring all the rethuglican voters out on election day, to vote against her.

Posted by Samantha | January 29, 2008 8:03 AM

Great post DTM. It's exactly why I'm voting for Obama. He knows how to lead by getting others involved which is so critical in a democracy. If we lived under a dictatorship it would be much easier for one person to enact their rules and ideas. But we don't so it takes a collection of people to get anything accomplished. Obama is so effective of getting everyone involved. True grassroots from the bottom up is how Obama has elevated his campaign to where it is today.

Posted by JJ | January 29, 2008 8:10 AM

I doubt Al Gore will endorse anyone. I think for mall his statements over hte past few years that he is above politics and pretty much dislikes the whole process. I really really doubt he will ever endorse Hillary and when she was asked about it once after she had talked to him when he won the Nobel prize she just laughed. Obviously no loved lost there. Gore knows the Clintons better than anyone and if doesn't approve or like them than that is enough of an endorsement of Obama (or Edwards if he was in Obama's place delegates wise) for me. He was their VP and no endorsement for the former boss's wife? Does not look good for the Clintons. I really think Gore has seen the ugly side of the Clinton's behavior and was turned off a long time ago. I have been turned off by both of them in this primary.

Posted by Jenn | January 29, 2008 8:11 AM

I think it's absolutely ironic that so many are waiting on the endorsement of Mr. Gore for Barack. We forget it was just a few short years ago that Mr. Gore had the same likeability problems as HRC. Now, he is one of the most respected people in the world. My, how opinions change. But yet, we're ready again to put another inexperienced person in the White House because he makes us feel good. I guess the argument is that an inexperienced Democrat has to be better than an inexperienced Republican? I would like to know where the autopilot button is, because I don't see how this country is gonna run on hope alone.

So what you want about Hillary, she runs head and shoulders above Obama and Edwards when it comes to the issues and every debate proves that. When the majority of the voters in this country have a chance (2/5), they will prove that's what matters to them. Double digit leads for Clinton in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc.

If you want a spiritual leader, go to church. If you want motivation, watch Oprah. What we need is someone who can the job done as President and for 7 years, we've seen President-in-Training doesn't work.

Posted by Justin | January 29, 2008 8:35 AM

Great Blog!

Gore is going to be under a lot of pressure to endorse Obama before 2/5 "Super Tuesday."

Does he stay above the fray as the Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar and legimate by 500,000 votes President 2000 winner or try for maximum impact?

There is no way he would endorse Hillary, who he fought with through out the Clinton years; unless it is at a Democratic Convention close "We all support the nominee."

Much as Edwards seemed a logical choice (who I supported until Sunday night), realistically he does not have a chance at the nomination.

So, the issue becomes will the Gore-ical remain silent or attempt to influence "Super Tuesday" when 52% of Dem delegates (presumably not counting "super delegates" in denominator) will be chosen?

In the wake of the stunning Kennedy, Caroline and Ted, endorsements, I hope that Gore will lend his credability to Obama (Gore did "win" the Presidential popular vote before he became a Nobel laurette, after all). For a awhile, I have been hearing that Obama reminded people of JFK or RFK. Regardless of which is more apt, JFK/RFK's surviving brother "passed the torch" today, aided and abetted by Caroline, etc.

Strageically, if Gore is to make an endorsement, it need to be well timed. Two options seem to make sense: (1) After this weeks, Tues FLA primary, and Wed/Thurs debate...leaked Thurs and announced Friday, with Sunday "Talk Show" impact: or (2) Perhaps better and more dramatically, with a Sunday NYT Op Ed piece (as Caroline did brilliantly), leaked Saturday and still in time for Sunday "talk shows" Followed by a massive Monday 2/4 Rally (with Kennedys, Gore, Kerry, female Governors, ETC) all lining up behind Obama as the "agent of change and the future" on the cusp of 22 State 2/5 "Super Tuesday."

Posted by SCC | January 29, 2008 8:37 AM

I think Gore will endorse Obama and I hope he does it before 2/5. Additionally, the best scenerio would be for the two to announce that Gore will be a big part of Obama's administration and hopefully that will be as Vice President, doing two things. Give Obama the gravatas and experience he lacks, and giving Gore an opening for the Presidency in 8 years.

Posted by DHS | January 29, 2008 9:27 AM

I think Gore will endorse Obama and I hope he does it before 2/5. Additionally, the best scenerio would be for the two to announce that Gore will be a big part of Obama's administration and hopefully that will be as Vice President, doing two things. Give Obama the gravatas and experience he lacks, and giving Gore an opening for the Presidency in 8 years.

Posted by DHS | January 29, 2008 9:28 AM

I don't know if Gore will endorse Obama - but it would be a "super" endorsement. Obama is still suffering from a name recognition problem. The more people can say I don't know who this Obama is but Kennedy and Gore are campaigning for him - so I'll "roll the dice" the better.

The Clintons need to be effectively rebuked - in order for Obama to even have a chance to "break" through into people's minds as a viable alternative.

Everyone talks as if Hillary "earned" her polling advantages in the big states. She is winning off the "Clinton" name, per an simple. Without it - she'd probably be a junior senator from Arkansas -at best. And without Bill campaigning for her - she'd be at 4 losses and 0 wins. And they know it - and that's why they can't afford to have Bill stop. On her own - she is a weak candidate. With Bill she is a repeating nightmare.

If the Democratic Party wants to survive in tact - they have to put the "Big Dog" down. Now! And this maybe the reason that Gore actually does endorse Obama after all.

Posted by C.B. | January 29, 2008 10:25 AM

Interesting that the children of Robert Kennedy have endorsed Hillary and that gets no play or kudos from the media. Robert Kennedy Jr has worked his whole life for the poor as is also the legacy of his family, but has been relegated to being a "lesser" Kennedy because of his support for Hillary. Ted Kennedy is supposed to bring the Latinos to Obama, is supposed to be the beloved Democrat of those who love Cesar Chavez. Why is it, then, that the United Farmworkers Association, founded by Chavez, has endorsed Hillary? I bet you haven't heard anything about that from the media.
Unfortunately, my opinion of the American penchant for following the latest and greatest fad has been reinforced by this and I hope the American people will realize that the media has helped them select their next President, if it is Obama, by their biased anointing of him rather than objective analysis of his candidacy. I personally think he is being set up for failure because all expectations are so high. I trust he can meet these expectations, I hope he can meet them, for his own sake.
As for the post on Obama's being a community organizer, Washington is not a community, it is a clique. Those who are supporting him now only came out when it was safe to ride the Obama band wagon, safe for their own careers. They have known him for 2 years, why did they not jump on at the start if they thought he was such a great candidate? Because they were hedging their bets.
I am a true Democrat. I will vote for the nominee, whoever it is, and I know it will be Hillary. If Obama somehow becomes the nominee, I will vote for him, I will not vote "Present".

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 10:55 AM

Interesting that the children of Robert Kennedy have endorsed Hillary and that gets no play or kudos from the media. Robert Kennedy Jr has worked his whole life for the poor as is also the legacy of his family, but has been relegated to being a "lesser" Kennedy because of his support for Hillary. Ted Kennedy is supposed to bring the Latinos to Obama, is supposed to be the beloved Democrat of those who love Cesar Chavez. Why is it, then, that the United Farmworkers Association, founded by Chavez, has endorsed Hillary? I bet you haven't heard anything about that from the media.
Unfortunately, my opinion of the American penchant for following the latest and greatest fad has been reinforced by this and I hope the American people will realize that the media has helped them select their next President, if it is Obama, by their biased anointing of him rather than objective analysis of his candidacy. I personally think he is being set up for failure because all expectations are so high. I trust he can meet these expectations, I hope he can meet them, for his own sake.
As for the post on Obama's being a community organizer, Washington is not a community, it is a clique. Those who are supporting him now only came out when it was safe to ride the Obama band wagon, safe for their own careers. They have known him for 2 years, why did they not jump on at the start if they thought he was such a great candidate? Because they were hedging their bets.
I am a true Democrat. I will vote for the nominee, whoever it is, and I know it will be Hillary. If Obama somehow becomes the nominee, I will vote for him, I will not vote "Present".

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 10:55 AM

Everyone here is talking about how Hillary made herself hated, and how Gore does not like the Clintons. Once more those speaking of tolerance are the ones being the most intolerant and divisive. You can disagree with Bill and Hillary Clinton, but the amount of hate and venom being spewed is beyond comprehension. No one has stated in any clear terms how president Clinton and his wife divided the country; all we hear is vague references. "lIBERALS" have taken the conservative talking points against Hillary and Bill Clinton and made it their own.Gore can endorse anyone he wants to,but remember it was he who refused to use clinton in 2000 thinking that it would drive people away. He was wrong. On the day the man(Clinton) left office he had an approval rating of more than 60%. Democrats are setting themselves up to lose big in November especially with the help of the corporate media.

Posted by jammie2008 | January 29, 2008 11:06 AM

jammie - People don't like the Clintons because they parse the truth, triangulate, play the race card and the gender card and they want to move on already. If you can't see how they do it - you aren't looking or listening. People will stay home in droves rather than be forced to vote for them. AA will never look to the Democrats in the same way after the Clintons are done with this campaign. They win through dividing people up and gaining a small majority 51% - they have never gotten more than 40% in anynational election. And Clinton was only elected Senator from a state she never lived in - because Bill was still President when she ran and Rudy pulled out at the last minute. Come on - they have never been a uniting force in this country except to make people recoil from them.

Denise - Please educate yourself on the use of "Present" in the Ill. State Legislation before blindly repeating Clintonian talking points. Present votes have been used by ALL state legslators on a regular basis. It is an alternative to voting straight no in order show that you support some aspects of a bill but not others. It is a tactic to get the bill thrown back for more work. Other states have the same option. It is this kind of inane spouting that shows Obama supporters that Hillary, just like Bill, will parse the truth to her advantage.

Posted by C.B. | January 29, 2008 11:26 AM

I consider myself to be a feminist, and I sincerely believe that the values of women include avoiding wars, military conflict whenever it is possible. Peace as a value. Hillary Clinton is a HAWK, as shown by her famous IRAQ and IRAN votes. To me she does NOT defend female principles nor values. SO WAHT IS ALL THIS BUSINESS about betraying women if you come out in favor of a less hawkish candidate? Is this a parallel universe we are talking about? Or her lack of defense of our Constitution and civil liberties? Since when does voting for the Patriot ACT become a feminist value??? As a woman, I defend peace, am opposed to torture, believe you should NOT be able to lock someone up and throw away the key,etc. I CANNOT SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON.

Posted by isabelle | January 29, 2008 11:27 AM

I agree with C.B. completely. In addition, I hope all voting Democrats, Independents and Al Gore always keep in mind -- the last seven+ years of the Bush administration, the very fact that there is a two term Bush presidency, primarily rests squarely on Bill Clinton's shoulders.

The Supreme Court definitely contributed to the international, evironmental, and economic, debacle of the Bush presidency by handing him the office but the race should never have been that close. It was almost single-handedly Clinton's (and I was an avid Clinton supporter) personal conduct and lack of integrity while in office that paved the road to Bush's win in 2000.

I only hope that all those who can vote in the primaries across the country forget race and forget gender -- but remember that it is critical at this juncture that a Democrat be elected. And that Obama is that Democrat not only because of his vision for a united country but also because, no matter who his supporters are, he is a break with the past and the only road to the future.

Posted by L.A.T. | January 29, 2008 11:36 AM

Actually, I think it is pretty interesting that both Gore and Carter are keeping mum on who they support. I wonder if Carter remembers what Ted Kennedy did to the Party when Carter was running for re-election. Does anyone else remember how Kennedy ran against a sitting President and then would not support Carter in the election? Think on that for a moment. Then, I still don't rule out the possibility that Obama and Clinton will tear apart the Democratic Party between them and at the convention (which will end up a raucous mess), out steps Gore as the senior statesman of the Party (not Kennedy for sure) and have Gore end up being the nominee to smooth the troubled waters. Kennedy can be a vindicative little idiot at times. And please, people, remember that JFK, while very inspiring and beloved by the people, had many things not so good during his brief administration. Those of us old enough to remember know that. Younger voters buy the Kennedy myth. And you know that the GOP is just waiting to start talking about a "liberal Ted Kennedy White House" to scare the bejesus out of whatever conservative voters remain in the GOP. Even better of course, would be if the media would give half the attention they give to Obama/Clinton to Edwards. Please please read Edward's plan for America on his website. It's been out there since he started running and way before Obama and Clinton started following his lead. Make the effort to read and listen to what Edwards is saying and see if you can still support Obama or Clinton.

Posted by Rachele Levy | January 29, 2008 11:42 AM

I love Bill Clinton but he's smeared his own reputation out of fear for the Mrs. As for Gore, he's a frickin politician and will weigh who best can serve his environmental goals and what's wrong with that.........not a darn thing!

Posted by Jack | January 29, 2008 11:43 AM

Al Gore has taken the brave stance to do waht is rght for world. When he sees a place to do better he has chosen that. I believe he needs to step up to the plate and endorse Obama.

Disounthing the animosity he might feel for Hillary the bottom line is that Hillary betrayed us. She has been to complicit to play the games of being safe. She voted for the war and she still can't says "oops"! She allowed the race card to be played without stepping in. As much as I cringe at agreeing with Christoper Hitchens, the blog he wrote about them checks out factually. Playing race games is an old and accepted practice.

As a card carrying NOW member and a long time "get out and march liberal" she let me down. She will burn this party if she is nominated.

Posted by Roni | January 29, 2008 11:48 AM

Jammie,
The post by C.B exactly proves the point you were so appropriately making. I, for one, am not a parrot, I happen to be an intelligent and informed voter, I do not speak on talking points as C.B. seems to be doing. For example, as I recall, no recent President has won a national election by a majority of the popular vote.
I also know all about Illinois, I live there, and I am one of many there who happen to not be so impressed by Obama's voting record. If you are the only one voting "present" out of all the senators on a bill and all the others vote "yes", then why not just go ahead and vote "no" if you disagree with the bill as written? The bill passes anyway as written because your vote has no value either way.
You know, I am not going to allow myself to be dragged down by those who spout vitriol and hate in defense of their candidate, who is supposed to be a uniter not a divider (hmmm, sounds familiar!). It goes to show me that America is truly not ready for the candidate that Obama represents, hope and goodwill to all, I have yet to see it from any of his defenders in any of the blogs. In fact, the hatred is toxic whenever I read their opinions, and it is disturbing to me as an American. The undertone of venom I hear makes me afraid for our future, if this is the way we defend our promising candidate. America is a Democracy and I am entitled to my opinion and the opportunity to express it, just as everyone is entitled to do the same without being viciously attacked for it. This is exactly what Obama has always said. I believe he would be ashamed of what his defenders are saying about his opponents and their supporters.
'Nuff said!

Posted by Denise | January 29, 2008 11:50 AM

I love Bill Clinton but he's acting like an injured puppy who isn't getting what he thinks is something to which he's entitled. Shut up Bill! As for Gore.......he's a politician folks...he'll back whomever can help him further his environmental goals period. He'll time his support to have the most impact...oh duh!!

Posted by Jack | January 29, 2008 11:51 AM

The REALLY important endorsement for Obama is RICHARDSON. He will bring the very much needed Hispanic vote! Obama/Richardson ticket beats all!

Posted by b. champlin | January 29, 2008 11:54 AM

The REALLY important endorsement for Obama is RICHARDSON. He will bring the very much needed Hispanic vote! Obama/Richardson ticket beats all!

Posted by b. champlin | January 29, 2008 11:54 AM

The truly important endorsement for Obama is RICHARDSON! This will bring the badly needed Hispanic vote, especially if he were to actively campaign for Obama out west. An Obama/Richardson ticket beats all! Gore's endorsement would also be VERY welcome.

Posted by B. Champlin | January 29, 2008 12:02 PM

It seems as if most people here think no one will vote unless someone has been endorsed by someone else. LOL! Doesn't anyone here have the capacity to think for themselves? Do you have to wait and see who endorses who before you can decide? Bunch of bebe brains. This is the sort of crap that got GW Bush elected. There should be an ammendment to the constitution that bars anyone under the age of 35 (at least) from voting. Stick your fingers up your ass and test the wind to see which direction it is blowing -what a buch of dumbasses.

Posted by LoneStarr | January 29, 2008 12:03 PM

It seems as if most people here think no one will vote unless someone has been endorsed by someone else. LOL! Doesn't anyone here have the capacity to think for themselves? Do you have to wait and see who endorses who before you can decide? Bunch of bebe brains. This is the sort of crap that got GW Bush elected. There should be an ammendment to the constitution that bars anyone under the age of 35 (at least) from voting. Stick your fingers up your ass and test the wind to see which direction it is blowing -what a buch of dumbasses.

Posted by LoneStarr | January 29, 2008 12:03 PM

It seems as if most people here think no one will vote unless someone has been endorsed by someone else. LOL! Doesn't anyone here have the capacity to think for themselves? Do you have to wait and see who endorses who before you can decide? Bunch of bebe brains. This is the sort of crap that got GW Bush elected. There should be an ammendment to the constitution that bars anyone under the age of 35 (at least) from voting. Stick your fingers up your ass and test the wind to see which direction it is blowing -what a buch of dumbasses.

Posted by LoneStarr | January 29, 2008 12:03 PM

I find it really sad that NOW people respect Gore because of the Nobel prize. The man has been a prophet -- literally without honor in his own country for a long long time. So many Americans really believed all the republican lies spread about him. They remember the catchy sound bites, but these are people who don't read and don't decide for themselves.

I feel Gore will endorse Obama. Hillary (and of course Bill) will just restart Business As Usual. the politics of total destruction. We've already had a taste of that. Enough.

Posted by MizLiz | January 29, 2008 12:07 PM

My feeling is that gore should endorse Obama and hopefully either Wednesday or Thursday. The best thing for the two of them to do would be to announce that Gore will be a part of the administration. My personal feeling is that Gore should be the VP again for the experience he brings to the ticket and also so that he can have one more shot at the Presidency in 2016.

Posted by David S. | January 29, 2008 12:53 PM

My feeling is that Gore should endorse Obama and hopefully either Wednesday or Thursday. The best thing for the two of them to do would be to announce that Gore will be a part of the administration. My personal feeling is that Gore should be the VP again for the experience he brings to the ticket and also so that he can have one more shot at the Presidency in 2016.

Posted by David S. | January 29, 2008 12:54 PM

My feeling is that Gore should endorse Obama and hopefully either Wednesday or Thursday. The best thing for the two of them to do would be to announce that Gore will be a part of the administration. My personal feeling is that Gore should be the VP again for the experience he brings to the ticket and also so that he can have one more shot at the Presidency in 2016.

Posted by David S. | January 29, 2008 12:54 PM

My feeling is that Gore should endorse Obama and hopefully either Wednesday or Thursday. The best thing for the two of them to do would be to announce that Gore will be a part of the administration. My personal feeling is that Gore should be the VP again for the experience he brings to the ticket and also so that he can have one more shot at the Presidency in 2016.

Posted by David S. | January 29, 2008 12:54 PM

If Gore endorses anyone, it will be whomever promises to do the most for the environment. Hillary has an affinity of cold fusion research and will fund any program that is developed. I would think that there are quiet discussions going on about this.

Posted by BionicWoman | January 29, 2008 1:02 PM

If Gore has truly removed himself from the political realm, he should endorse and speak on behalf of CLIMATE CHANGE.

All the candidates are totally mediocre on climate change, because the best they can offer are subsidies for ethanol and cap & trade.

Cap & trade is a system that can be bought and abused by the wealthiest polluters. The only fair way to solve this in the marketplace is with a CARBON TAX. Gore has said this.

If Gore truly cares about the climate and the future of the environment, he would endorse the candidate favoring a carbon tax. MIKE GRAVEL.

Gravel's carbon tax would be enacted at the lump of coal and the barrel of oil. "We can get off of gasoline in 5 years, and off of carbon in 10." Believe it.

Posted by Jon | January 29, 2008 1:04 PM

I would be glad to vote Gore or Edwards or Biden or Dodd. But I will not vote for Billary. She brings the worst out in everyone. And has used that technique to get where she is. The Billary people better get it in their heads that there are millions of Democrats who will NOT vote for a Billary ticket.

The Democratic Establishment is just beginning to see how divisive they are and believe me - it's scared it won't be able to put the pieces back together if she is nominated.

Posted by C.B. | January 29, 2008 1:30 PM

C.B. Show me which truth Bill and Hillary parsed, and when did they played the race card. Mr. Obama was bruised and dejected after New Hamshire and he was down in South Carolina and that was when he went racial. Whether we like it or not it is a fact that there would have been no civil rights bill passed if president Johnson did not elbow or arm-twist. The man basically sacrificed a good chunk of his political future and that of his entire party by getting that bill thru congress and yet AAs take offense when his name is mentioned? Hillary never demeaNED Dr. King and Obama kknows that;yet he went on to say how hurtful that comment was- that's he who played the race card. Ted Kennedy spoke about how Obama was against the war from the beginning, of course he was against the war for the same reason jack refused his breakfast- jack did not have any breakfast. Obama did not have to cast a vote on the war in 2002 so it was easy to be against it. But now that he's in the senate it's time for him to show his juice about being against the war. Obama alos criticized Hillary for voting for the Iran vote when in fact he (Obama) did not even show up to vote. Enough of the double standard and double talk from him(Obama). Obama is all talk and little substance. The fact is that Bill and Hillary have done more for AAs than Obama can ever dream of doing. I am BLACK too. Why is it that the AA community was so weary of this guy from the beginning? Because he has never stood up on the big issues,those issues for which the right assails Bill and Hillary because their positions on those issues are crystal clear.

Posted by jammie2008 | January 29, 2008 1:31 PM

If Gore endorses, it will be Obama. Just read what he says in "Assault on Reason" about the politics of fear. He will not endorse Hillary because she is using the politics of fear and the politics of smear. Obama is running a campaign based on inspiring Americans to meet our challenges with clear eyes and hearts filled with hope.

Posted by Jeremy | January 29, 2008 1:37 PM

jammie2008. What you say is just simply untrue. Obama has a long record of standing up for sentencing fairness, for example. In fact, in typical politics of fear fashion, one argument the Clintons have made is that he will be attacked by the scary Republicans for this and other stances he has taken.

Posted by Jeremy | January 29, 2008 1:40 PM

Mr. Gore - endorse Senator Obama and do it NOW, please!! You know it's the right thing to do and you know what he is up against. Thank you.

Posted by patty | January 29, 2008 1:56 PM

Here, here on Denise's 4 am post.

There's a lot of baseless speculation here. Gore doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. I'm sure that they're all chasing him. Yet, his early endorsement of Dean in 04 was another time--and he took a lot of flack for that and some say it prompted the media to turn on Dean sooner (they'd have nailed him eventually).

Why did Al not run this time? It's too weird out there. He knew the knives would be out not matter what his accomplishments. And who could blame him

Regardless of what he feels about the Clintons (pretty complex I'm sure), watching the weird full court press against Hillary must feel very deja vu to Al.

Just as the press/media elites wanted Bush not Gore in 2000, the same sorry crew want Obama (for a while) and not Hillary.

'Cos when it comes down Obama vs. St. John of McCaine...everything that they think is so adorable about Barak, will suddenly be a problem, a question, an annoyance.

THe old Karl Rove strategy...Turn your enemy's greatest asset into a liabilty. Gore's brains ("thinks he's smarter than everyone"). Swiftboating Kerry's excellent war record.

They're even trotting out some of the phony put-downs that Al endured. "Al Gore will say anything to win." What do I hear on cable last week? That bizarro little troll Steward Taylor spouting "The Clintons will say anything to win...

I don't know if all this annoys Al, but it sure annoys me.

I'm a Ted Kennedy-Massachusetts-Democrat, I'll be voting on Super Tues for Clinton--not Edwards who also like. I just can't buy the Obama hype...I like him, but where's the substance. Speeches and "inspiration" aren't enough.

Like Gore, I think Clinton understands the nuts-and-bolts of government in a way that Obama and Edwards don't yet have. She's been alive 14 years longer than Obama, and she's been learning and growing the entire time. In the debates, there were quite a few "stump-the-band" moments for Obama.

I just wish this election didn't have such a reality show feel. On every level, the country is in such bad shape, we need to get this right.

Posted by AE | January 29, 2008 2:03 PM

The winning ticket for 2008 is: Gore/Edwards!

Mr. Gore:

Please save America.
You will win.

Thank you.

Posted by Fritson | January 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Denise:

I worked in Washington for 18 years including during the Clinton Administration. I am a Democrat, so I hate to burst your bubble. The reason so many have gone to Obama is not because he is a "fad", but because anyone who knows the real Clintons knows they are self-serving, treacherous, and liars. Let's not forget that Bill was disbarred and impeached. Let's not forget Hillary made such a mess in the White House the first two years of Bill's administration that the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in akomst 5 decades. They were so divisive that the government was shut down (while Bill played with Monica.) Take the rose-colored glasses off. It was a time of scandals, Special Prosecutors, and sleaze. And it was not totally the work of the Republicans vast right-wing conspiracy. The military hates them and law enforcement hates them. I voted for Bill, twice. But he just doesn't want to go away. He disgraced the office, but he wants more. They had 8 years. That's enough. Time to move forward. I am a baby boomer, but they must GO. Time to pass the torch to a new generation who understand the world as it is, not as it was.

Posted by Patty | January 29, 2008 2:15 PM

Sen. Gore, if you are reading this, please remember which candidate's positions are closest to your own, and endorse Edwards. In your book, The Assault on Reason, you called for a rejection of the control of special interests over our democracy, saying,

"When wealth determines access to the public forum, it causes similar distortions during election campaigns."

John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who has pledged that no lobbyist will serve in his administration, and who has courageously and consistently stood up against the pernicious influence of special interests on our democracy, as you have. And the wealthy special interests know this - Edwards has been consistently ignored by corporate media in their reporting on the race, as the recent Center for Excellence in Journalism study confirmed. The electoral process has indeed been distorted!

I'm sure you know and have been thinking about these things, Sen. Gore, as you've watched the race unfold. You have always been a superb champion of the public interest; please support the candidate who will best carry on your fight from the White House. Our country needs you to speak out once again - endorse Edwards!

Posted by Wordie | January 29, 2008 2:31 PM

jammmie - Sorry you don't see how damgerous and divisive the Clintons are - but fortumately everyone is waking up - including those in N.H. who got played thinking Billary's pledge to stay out of Mich. and FL was for real.

Now you have the N.H. Manchester Union Leader weighing in - with a big chunk of buyers remorse.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary's+word:+It's+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510

Posted by C.B. | January 29, 2008 2:33 PM

Gore should endorse Edwards! Come on Al!

Posted by destiny | January 29, 2008 2:59 PM

Perhaps Gore worries that an endorsement from him would only open Edwards up to further ridicule from the right and the 'left' - (see Steven Colbert ridiculing Kerry endorsement of Obama - "Nice knowing you Obama.." or something like that.. i.e. that Kerry was the 'kiss of death') but if so I hope Mr. Gore realizes that he is not the same defeated man he once was. Bush's ignominy is Gore's boon for one and besides - alot of US people supported him in that election in truth. (turns out he won the popular election.. a fact not widely reported at election time 2000).

Cheers. Good article, thanks. Here's hoping Gore comes out for Edwards. :)

Posted by B. Lamb | January 29, 2008 3:23 PM

Who needs Al Gores endorsement when you get Ted Kennedy's. That sealed the deal for me and a lot of moderates....voting Hillary...and as a woman, I would much rather vote for a woman with nads.

Posted by wrt4chg | January 29, 2008 3:29 PM

I think Gore is interested in campaigning for the Democratic ticket and its platform more than supporting an individuals nomination. He needs to have more influence on the platform and the general election results. Isn't that a little obvious? How does snubbing Hillary advance the issue of Climate Change? And how about his new taste for statesman-like oratory? That kind of thing isn't really appropriate during the trench warfare of primaries. Expect an endorsement sometime after SUPRA-MONSTROUS TUESDAY. Until then, wisdom from the Goracle remains elusive...

Posted by Big Russ | January 29, 2008 3:55 PM

I don't believe that Obama is all talk.

He hasn't gotten there yet. He has yet to
say anything of substance other than Change,
and go after his opponents.

I guess we'll see posters saying:

B.O. - for the future?

What's with this "HUSSEIN" middle name, anyway?

By the way, if you think that in lily-white
America, that "Osama Obama" (as Ted Kennedy
called him, recently) could garner any more
than 20% to 30% of the electorate in a general
election, keep drinking that bug juice.

He may be liked by as many as 30-40% of democrats
but no republican will ever vote for him. You don't have to be a pollster to do the math.

That's why the republicans love him. He's their
only hope.

Also, if you think Hillary is fiesty, wait until you get a whiff of Michelle Obama.

She's not just opinionated, she's a militant.

Keep up your Obama support, and we'll have four
(4) more years of a republican in the White House

Posted by Real PA Voter | January 29, 2008 3:55 PM

Hey Real PA Voter. You're right about the fact that there's a Democrat that will not be able to be elected. BUT that person isn't Barack Obama, it's Hillary Clinton.

Billary has NO shot at beating Mccain. Period.

Posted by Real LA Voter | January 29, 2008 4:19 PM

Hi all,
Just sent a letter in to Al Gore and got his office's fax number. You can send letters to:

The Office of the Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

or email: info@carthagegroup.com FAX: 615-327-1323

This is the text of the letter I sent:
Dear Vice-President Gore,

I voted for you in 2000 and was heart broken to see George W. Bush steal the election, though you won the popular vote. In my heart, I believe you would have lead this country to prosperity, peace, and continued high standing in the world. I took a week off from work to vote and I planned to celebrate your victory with my family. Instead, I spent much of the week and the next year shaking my head about what had happened to our democracy. It was a dark time, and unfortunately, my worst fears were borne out in what has happened since.

We are at a crossroads in this nation’s history, and I desperately want us to correct the gross missteps of the past 7 years. I believe America’s best days can be ahead of us, and I believe we need a new kind of leader—one with a strong moral compass and the ability to inspire America to be better.

Please, won’t you please, endorse Sen. Barack Obama to be President?

I ask you this as a strong supporter and cheerleader. I was so happy when you were honored with the Nobel Prize for your work advocating against global warming. I wish George Bush had never become President and you were in office now, but that’s not something we can will away. I have taken a long, hard look at all the candidates and I believe, in my heart of hearts, that Barack Obama is the best candidate for President. He represents the best hope for the Democratic party to win back the White House (this race has not even begun to get dirty, and I’m not sure that nominating Hillary will do anything less than alienate independents and give the fractured Republican base something to rally around). He is honest, uplifting and strong. And he represents the best hope the Democrats have of drawing a new generation and new constituents into the Democratic party. If Barack Obama were President, I assure you, there would be none of the arrogance, the bickering, or the untruth of the Clinton years.

Please, Vice-President Gore, help us turn the page. Please endorse and campaign for Barack Obama. So many citizens in California, New York, and other places would hear your voice and your support would mean the world to them.

With admiration and hope,

Ann

Posted by Ann | January 29, 2008 4:27 PM

CB I live in Tampa and the only person that has Ran any Ads here has Been Senator Obama for the last 10 days and they have been on the air all through out the Day on CNN and on Msnbc on ccn they have been aired durning Wolf Blitzer Show 3 to 4 times and also During Countdown and I know it was a National ad buy but so did Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton and they were able to stop them from being shown here I also contacted the DNC and they were suprised by this and it told me a lot about Senator Obama and when he refers to the process here being a beauty contest its Offensive to me as Democrat since I was 18 and voted for Jimmy Carter in my first election and remember when Ted Kenndy ran against a sitting Democratic President and gave the Election to Regan I'm 50 yrs old and have never missed an Election and am also a Gay man and find it very Hard to support a man who gives a mirophone to a known Hatefilled homphobe (Mr McClurkin) during his rally in SC with Oprah and has taken the Indorsement from another religious Homophobe Preacher who is one GWB spiritual advisers whos church has programs to change Gay People Straight and when the Senator had this brought to his attention He then he decided to say something I'm not saying the Senator is Homphobic but he will pander to them for votes and I did Vote today and it was for John Edwards and I hope V.P Gore waits and does not endorse any canidate till the convention and I Praise him for the Stand he took for me as a Gay man for full Marriage I have been with my partner 15 yrs this month and had a Previous partner for almost 13 yrs until his Death in 91 from Aids and Fondly remember when Bill Clinton was elected and for 8 yrs lived without Fear not so for the last 8 said this to say John Edwards is the Hope this country needs in my perspective and yes I do have some fear of Senator Obama not for what he say's but who he allowed to share a stage with him and there was no question he felt this was OK.

Posted by David | January 29, 2008 4:27 PM

Thank you for the contact info, Ann! Here is what I have just written him:

I am writing to express my wish that Gore would endorse Obama before Super Tuesday. I respect his decision if he doesn't, especially with how nasty the campaigns can be. Sometimes I am fatigued by it, and I'm not even a political figure. I can't imagine how wearying the political grind can be for someone who has been a part of it for years and is finally starting to break away. However, this is a crucial juncture in American history. For the first time since JFK we have a viable presidential candidate who speaks to the people and for the people, a candidate who represents real change and real progress, freedom from the machinery of petty malice and political treachery. Obama is the natural successor of the mantle Al Gore deserved in 2000, a mantle stolen from him by the same people who now want to dig their bootheels into Obama's campaign and indeed the future of America.

Al Gore has stood on his principles for decades and they have finally carried him into the place of respect in the minds of America that he always deserved. Now I ask you to please seize those principles and the spirit of this momentous time and endorse Barack Obama.

Thank you.

---

As an aside, this is the first time I have ever written a political figure. I am 20 years old and while I was a political junkie and a staunch democrat in 2004, I was not old enough to vote. In 2000 I was strangely enough a Bush supporter, because my mother was, and like most kids I believed what my mother believed. I am glad that the first contact I ever have with a political figure will be in support of Obama.

Posted by Sarah | January 29, 2008 5:11 PM

Wow, that is a run on sentence if I've ever seen one, David!

BTW, a little clarification. The Obama team DID try to stop the "National" ad from playing in Florida and were told by someone at the DNC that since networks were not able to stop it in just one state that they were "Not going against their original agreement with the other candidates by placing the ad."

John Edwards is a great man and a great candidate--that said, he's not going to win the primaries. I will say that I think deals have already been made between he and Barack should either of them gain the nomination. Please remember that you don't do your candidate favors by finding fault in others when half of what you are saying is half truths. I'd recommend you visit the fact check area of Barack's site (www.barackobama.com) so you can learn the truth rather than trusting in the media spin.

Posted by Ezzy | January 29, 2008 5:16 PM

Gore should endorse Gore! He should have been president in 2000, he should be president now, and will be a crime if he doesn't run this year. He is clearly the most qualified of all the candidates to be president. He was right on the Iraq war (before it became fashionable), he was right on not spending our surplus, and he is right on global warming.

Run Al, run! If you don't, you will regret it and worse, so will we.

Posted by Marcel Ceballos | January 29, 2008 5:41 PM

All the national polls show that Hillary would have a much tougher time getting elected than Obama. Likewise, I think Hillary will be a very polarizing figure and continue our nation's destructive tendancy of division. If Gore wants change and wants a person that can unify people for change, then he better step up and endorse Obama. Otherwise gridlock in DC will continue as the country goes down the economic and environmental toilet.

Posted by Brian Radcliffe | January 29, 2008 8:07 PM

Someone mentioned that robert Kennedy Jr. was endorsing Hillary. Being from New York and on my local democratic committee I heard that he may be looking to take her Senate seat if she won.
Makes sense of the endorsement. He would be a good Senator. To bad he is backing Billary.

Posted by BDubya | January 29, 2008 9:16 PM

Someone mentioned that robert Kennedy Jr. was endorsing Hillary. Being from New York and on my local democratic committee I heard that he may be looking to take her Senate seat if she won.
Makes sense of the endorsement. He would be a good Senator. To bad he is backing Billary.

Posted by BDubya | January 29, 2008 9:17 PM

HAROLD FORD JR WOULD HAVE KNOCKED OBAMA OFF THE POLLS

I would vote for him any day.

NEWS gambling911.com reports
***Obama Pastor UnGodly Remark: Natalee Holloway "Gets Drunk....Gives It Up"

Seems his long time Pastor and spiritual advisor has gone on a rant once again, this time against a presumed dead teenager, Natalee Holloway. He sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

Posted by Leigh | January 29, 2008 9:33 PM

Hey Al Gore -

If you ran, I know thousands of likely voters in
PA that are just aching to push the button for you.

Posted by Real PA Voter | January 29, 2008 9:33 PM

I live in Alleghey County PA and I am not aware that thousands would vote for Gore. I am sure thousands will lose the respect he gained for his Nobel Peace Prize if he endorses anyone Makes it kind of cheap to throw that into politics.

Posted by Leigh | January 29, 2008 9:39 PM

To all you John Edwards supporters:
The man was poison in 2004, why would he do any better now? He's clearly as phony as his expensive haircut; I don't know how anyone can justify pretending to be the ghost of a dead girl. Perhaps I should do the same and become the American hero you guys seem to love so much.

Posted by Ninjateck | January 29, 2008 11:09 PM

I think it looks worse for Clinton that Gore hasn't endorsed her.He spent 8 years of his highest served office with the Clintons. The fact that it is not automatic is fishy, like he wasn't that impressed.

Posted by Jeremy | January 29, 2008 11:42 PM

"All I know is that a Gore endorsement of Obama would be the deepest betrayal of women everywhere, indicating he's just yet another of those white progressive guys who can't take a woman being president."
Posted by Zephyrus

To illustrate how outrageous this statement is I have slightly altered your comment:

All I know is that a Bill Clinton endorsement of Hillary would be the deepest betrayal of African Americans everywhere, indicating he's just yet another of those white progressive guys who can't take a black man being president.

Posted by Not hysterical | January 29, 2008 11:45 PM

I came to this country beause of my belief: this country offers spirit of freedom, opportunity, and equality of human for all kind.

The President Lincoln once stated, “this country…. by the people, of the people, for the people,†and those words are imprinted in my heart for life.

I voted VP Al Gore for president election. I watched whole process how it went. I saw the beautiful America became dark and ugly. I start to sense people are afraid to speak out, distrust in own government, and we lost our own compassion to share with others.

Even though I have broken English, I give my time for the Senator Obama’s phone bank.
Even though I have broken English, I write this post to share my concerns.

I have been praying to God for true leader and found one. I strongly believe the Senator Obama is the TICKET for us to rebuild beautiful America again. I pray the VP Al Gore will stand with us by endorse for the senator Obama prior to first of Feb.

Posted by Woman in Broken English | January 30, 2008 4:14 AM

This is all so entertaining to read! I think Obama has most of the endorsements he needs to sweep super tues. Bill Richardson would probably be the most helpful before 2/5.

As for President Al Gore, I believe we should save the best for last. Mcain will draw a lot of support in a general election. Obama should save his big Ace for the big WIN!

Posted by Dust | January 30, 2008 2:28 PM

Wow, I'm disgusted by reading all the hatred against the Clintons, for those of you that didn't live the days of JFK, you only knew that the Clinton Administration is the only one that helped us Democrats and our country off the rut that was left before than, just to get battered again with the Bush Administration.

Give credit where credit is deserved. Stop bashing Hillary because you favor Obama, everyone is entitled to their own choice, but before you do, or continue to be mean and cruel, read your facts.

For those who can’t clearly see who the “RIGHT†and most qualified candidate is take time to read a “very good†article that says it all, about both Obama & Clinton, in the “New York Times†Editorial - Dated January 25, 2008

No need to say more……!!!!!!!!!!

Website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Posted by Deborah | January 30, 2008 2:47 PM

Gore had my support when he ran for President and so did Kerry and I donated many hours of phone solicitation for their support at the Democratic Office in Texas, but I will lose ALOT of respect for him as I have with Kerry and Ted Kennedy for ganging up on Hillary due to spite. Hatred is not good and if we're followers to those who hate, they are truly not true christians and our lord would not have a place for them as leaders of our country if they do.

People are fast to say that the Clintons are the attackers, but wake up, look at the media and those like you carrying all this hate. I'm sadden to see what cruelty people can write about a candidate that is only trying to fit what's justified as being the BEST qualified candidate for the Presidential job. I give her alot of credit to have to put up with such ugly retiliation and betrayal from those she served with, and it all comes down to vengence, and that is sick. I pray that Gore realizes this is exactly what it will look like. The ugly team of 4 spiteful men....Kerry, Dean, Kennedy and now Gore.... How sad can it get.

God help us.

Posted by Deb | January 30, 2008 2:55 PM

Gore had my support when he ran for President and so did Kerry and I donated many hours of phone solicitation for their support at the Democratic Office in Texas, but I will lose ALOT of respect for him as I have with Kerry and Ted Kennedy for ganging up on Hillary due to spite. Hatred is not good and if we're followers to those who hate, they are truly not true christians and our lord would not have a place for them as leaders of our country if they do.

People are fast to say that the Clintons are the attackers, but wake up, look at the media and those like you carrying all this hate. I'm sadden to see what cruelty people can write about a candidate that is only trying to fit what's justified as being the BEST qualified candidate for the Presidential job. I give her alot of credit to have to put up with such ugly retiliation and betrayal from those she served with, and it all comes down to vengence, and that is sick. I pray that Gore realizes this is exactly what it will look like. The ugly team of 4 spiteful men....Kerry, Dean, Kennedy and now Gore.... How sad can it get.

God help us.

Posted by Deb | January 30, 2008 2:55 PM

Gore had my support when he ran for President and so did Kerry and I donated many hours of phone solicitation for their support at the Democratic Office in Texas, but I will lose ALOT of respect for him as I have with Kerry and Ted Kennedy for ganging up on Hillary due to spite. Hatred is not good and if we're followers to those who hate, they are truly not true christians and our lord would not have a place for them as leaders of our country if they do.

People are fast to say that the Clintons are the attackers, but wake up, look at the media and those like you carrying all this hate. I'm sadden to see what cruelty people can write about a candidate that is only trying to fit what's justified as being the BEST qualified candidate for the Presidential job. I give her alot of credit to have to put up with such ugly retiliation and betrayal from those she served with, and it all comes down to vengence, and that is sick. I pray that Gore realizes this is exactly what it will look like. The ugly team of 4 spiteful men....Kerry, Dean, Kennedy and now Gore.... How sad can it get.

God help us.

Posted by Deb | January 30, 2008 2:55 PM

It might be too late for even a Gore endorsement for Obama. Hillary leads in most of the big state Super Tuesday polls - California, New York, New Jersey, and Texas. She is likely to look/be invincible by this time next week.

Posted by Ralph | January 30, 2008 7:17 PM

one problem for the Obama hopefuls they keep sweeping under the rug. Obama's green positions are almost laughable when it comes with the commitment provided by the late great J Edwards, and Hillary is keeping almost even with Edwards.

Obama has shown a distant commitment at best.

Sometimes it's about the issues, and Gore is about an issue. I don't care what personal problems he has with Hillary; environmental activists are watching, and if he endorses a candidate with a weak stand and lagging attitude, it would be Mr Gore's cred that suffers.

Posted by Beth | January 31, 2008 2:50 AM

I'm an old dog. Drove voters to the polls in 1992. Monitored polls in the last election. I hoped for great things from the Clintons but we got little (the economy and the deficit/surplus positives were not clearly attributable to Bill's actions) for those 8 years. And now Hillary has shown herself to be an unabashed hawk (nicking Obama about "taking the nuclear option off the table" is merely consistent with her vote authorizing the war in Iraq). Gore ought to step up tomorrow, as soon as everyone sobers up from the super bore, and give Obama a very important boost.

Posted by tim | February 3, 2008 12:03 AM

Do any of you folks realize that many many democrats are turning republican. A lot of us are sick and tired of watching the democrats do nothing about the media (with the help of the republcans) destroy our leaders. Ted Kennedy bashed Hillary and Bill knowing full well that he was twisting the truth. He could support Obama on Obama's merits but what he did was disgraceful and I have supported the Kennedy family my entire life having been born and raised in MA. I also supported Al Gore and was heartbroken when he did not get elected. I certainly hope that he does not jump on the band wagon of Hillary bashing and support Obama. If the politicians and the media continue to pick our candidates and our Presidents why should we bother to go to the polls? This is the biggest reason that voters stay away from the polls. Also many young people think Obama voted against the Iraq war but he wasn't in the senate until Jan 1, 2005. A lot of people in Washington were against the Iraq war but gave Bush their vote to use wisely. At the time Bush, Cheney and Powell were slinging the bull about Iraq being involved in 911, better to err on the side of caution. It's hard to say how Obama would have voted had he been involved in the process but his voting record on the war since is the same as Hillary's.

Posted by Pam Dempsey | February 8, 2008 9:55 PM

Dream Ticket 2008:

Gore/Obama

Gore for 8 years, followed by a young Obama for another 8. 16 years of solid leadership and sound decisions. That is about how long it will take to dig us out of the hole that Dubya has dug for us.

Dream Ticket Cabinet:

Sec. of State = Colin Powell
Sec. of Defense = Wes Clark
Attorney General = John Edwards
National Security Advisor = Richard Clarke

Think about it, it could happen.

Posted by Marcel Ceballos | February 9, 2008 9:39 PM

Marcel, That wouldn't be a dream ticket, more like a nightmare. Did you forget that Colin Powell drank the kool-aid?

Posted by Pam Dempsey | February 10, 2008 1:06 PM

Drink the kool-aid? Indeed he did. Powell is a well recognized and seasoned figure in American foreign policy yet he has discredited himself and our country by lying to the entire world about reasons for going to war at the UN. Powell's political career is all but over. He has been corrupted by the "Dark Side". He has some big points to earn before he will be back in fashion anytime soon.

Posted by zack worrell | February 12, 2008 8:34 PM

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking a bout his policies and his politic s.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider eco nomic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it u nconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama 's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

=

Posted by Pam Dempsey | March 13, 2008 9:40 PM

This was sent to Kennedy, Dodd & Kerry

Why do the democrats always manage to hand over the general elections to the republicans? This year, our thanks go to Mr. Dean for not allowing the votes to count in Fla. and Michigan and to Oprah, Kerry, Dodd and Kennedy. All of you wanted to make the history books by promoting the first black president so you joined forces with the media and fell into their trap once again. Congratulations, for smart people you are really quite dumb and we the people always have to pay the price for your stupidity. Wasn't 8 years of Bush enough? Now we will have his clone for 8 more.
Obama will not win the general election,it may be too late to stop his nomination but he won't do any better than McGovern did. We will not vote for him!
The media has pushed Obama down our throats all year long, everything he does and says is whitewashed, they won't let him look bad. They have murdered the Clintons and everyone associated with them. I know the media thinks that the public is ignorant and naive but not all of us are in that boat. We will not vote for Obama no matter how good his speech writers turn out to be on his Philadelphia address.
We will remember at election time who led us down this road and everyone better take a good hard look at this situation because you are all responsible for racial tension that continues to rise.

Obama's mentor!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs

Posted by Pam Dempsey | March 18, 2008 11:10 AM

Dear Algore

I worked on your campion first time involving in Presidensial Politics. I was disoppinted with election but never given up hope. What are you waiting for with out endorsing a person like Obama. Obama is a person who comes once in a life time. He might not be perfect. But I believe him as much as I believed in you. Please endorse him as soon as possible. Our party is dragged in to mud by clintons. we need this white house now before this country becomes a third world country.
Please... Please ... Please....

Posted by sara p | March 21, 2008 9:28 AM

Read a few lines from Obama's books!!!!!!

From 'Dreams of My Father', "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"

From 'Dreams of My Father', "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race."

From 'Dreams of My Father', "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."

From 'Dreams of My Father', "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"

From 'Dreams of My Father', "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

From 'Audacity of Hope', "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Posted by Pamela Dempsey | March 22, 2008 9:12 PM