Al Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean has definitely had a large impact on the Democratic candidate selection process, but it also brings up new questions about Al Gore’s career ambitions.
Over the past three years, Al Gore has gone from a Republicrat to a progressive and with the endorsement of Howard Dean it looks as though he has definitely joined the progressive movement. Considering such a large shift however one has to wonder what Gore’s true motives are. Is this the real Gore coming out of a Republicrat shell or is he seeking to restore his integrity in order to build support for a run in 2008? It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Sam
Dec 11th, 2003Looking back on some of Gore’s speeches during the 2000 campaign, I often thought he was not being true to himself, like he didn’t believe in what he was saying. I wonder if that is the reason why he appeared to be stiff and wooden to many people.
I think the debacle of the 2000 election has radicalized Gore. He seems to have this “fuck it” attitude and has been speaking his mind.
I really hope it’s not just a strategy. I wouldn’t label him a progressive, nor would I Howard Dean frankly, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
Alex Halavais
Dec 13th, 2003Perhaps more than anything, this is an indication that words like left/right and conservative/progressive are not very good at capturing the political spectrum. Dean has some policies that would definitely place him outside of the big tent of progressivism. Same can be said of Gore. I think it’s a mistake to try to reduce their positions to these broader stereotypes.
I heard an interesting analysis of the Gore endorsement (on NPR, I think). Gore is endorsing Dean because he thinks Dean can beat Bush. If Bush wins a second term, Gore’s legacy is as a loser. If Bush loses, Gore will be remembered as the winner of the 2000 election who had it stolen by an interloper in the WH. He thinks that by backing Dean he is protecting his own legacy.