Joe Conason (Salon): Gore's endorsement and Dean's movement

[Dudley_DUright]

In the overheated atmosphere of primary politics, comments about any candidate are likely to be misinterpreted. Some people read yesterday's journal entry on Gore and Dean as an endorsement of the latter, which it certainly wasn't.

The point was simply to try to understand why Gore made this choice -- and to analyze its broader meaning. Many politicians remain static throughout their careers, regardless of the changing world around them and even of their own experiences. Gore isn't one of them. He has always been more thoughtful, more observant, more intellectually open and simply more curious than the average pol. (In that respect he resembles Bill Clinton, now his supposed nemesis.) He is aware of the need for change in his own party, for instance, as his remarks this morning in Harlem showed. That's why he spoke of the Vermonter's "promise" to rebuild the Democratic Party from the grass roots. (An apt epigram I've seen on pro-Dean blogs: "Dean is the messenger. We are the message.")

Whatever the reasoning behind Gore's endorsement, I doubt that petty animosity toward the Clintons or personal ambitions were important factors. It's interesting, though, that so many political reporters gravitate automatically toward such explanations, in the absence of any evidence. Might that reflect on their own unresolved feelings about the former president and the junior senator from New York?

Those who complain that Gore's endorsement undermined the democratic process might glance at today's blog by my friend Kos. He's an open Dean supporter, so discount for his bias. But he correctly points out that the Dean campaign has opened the primary process to broader participation through innovation:

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/12/09/dean_gore/index.html

[wtmusic]

1. Not petty animosity, but...

Gore's loyalties are not with the DLC.