Al Gore endorses Howard Dean.
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 12-09-2003 - 9:17am |

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/index.html
Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination on Tuesday, substantially deepening Dean's fast-developing drive for dominance in the nine-candidate field of would-be challengers to President Bush.
"I'm very proud and honored to endorse Howard Dean as the next president of the United States of America," Gore said.
The announcement in Manhattan's Harlem, coming on the morning of another debate between the "'04 Dems," as they're called, could cement Dean's status as the leading Democratic candidate heading into the kickoff contests now just weeks away in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"We need to remake the Democratic Party, we need to remake America," Gore said.
"This nation cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration," he said.
Prior to Tuesday's endorsement, a source told CNN that Gore -- the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in 2000 -- thinks a protracted primary campaign would serve only to help President Bush.
"In a field of great candidates, one candidate clearly now stands out and so I'm asking all of you to join in this grassroots movement to elect Howard Dean president of the United States," Gore said.
Dean thanked Gore for his leadership: "We have needed a strong steady hand in this party and I appreciate Al's willing(ness) to stand up and be one," Dean said.
Gore said part of the reason he chose to endorse Dean was his ability to appeal to the nation's "grassroots" elements, a reference to Dean's success in organizing and raising funds on the Internet and in small voter gatherings.
Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraqi war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq.
Gore said that he and Dean would travel together to Iowa following the announcement. Gore was to give a speech later in the day in Cedar Rapids. The Iowa Caucus is set for January 19.
Dean was expected to travel on to New Hampshire for Tuesday evening's Democratic debate s-sponsored by ABC News and WMUR-TV. The New Hampshire primary is scheduled for January 27.
The announcement came nearly three years to the date from Gore's concession in the 2000 election, when he won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore's vice-presidential running mate in 2000 and a current presidential hopeful, said he would continue to "to fight for what's right, win this nomination, and defeat George W. Bush next year."
"I have a lot of respect for Al Gore -- that is why I kept my promise not to run if he did," Lieberman said.
"Ultimately, the voters will make the determination and I will continue to make my case about taking our party and nation forward," Lieberman said in a written statement.
A source close to Lieberman said Gore, who was Clinton's vice president, did not call Lieberman to inform him of the decision.
Dean pulling ahead
With the Dean campaign gaining momentum, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows Dean widening his front-runner status among the eight other Democratic candidates.
The poll showed that 25 percent of registered Democrats surveyed support Dean as their nominee, with retired Gen. Wesley Clark coming in second with 17 percent. (Poll: Dean's New Hampshire lead increases)
In an interview before the news broke on CNN's "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics," Dean played down his front-runner status.
"The pundits in Washington have been talking about me as the front-runner for a long time," Dean said.
"Well, guess what, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Arizona and so forth get to decide who the front-runner is. So, it's nice talk but I'm not buying it."
Caught off-guard
Erik Smith, a campaign press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, sounded as if the Gephardt team was caught off-guard by the news, as were Dean's other rivals.
Dean and Gephardt are the top two candidates in Iowa. (Gephardt calls for increased homeland security funding)
"Dick Gephardt fought side-by-side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks on Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues, Howard Dean was on the wrong side," Smith said.
Saying he respected Gore and fought for his campaign four years ago, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "This election is about the future, not about the past." (Kerry: Bush administration arrogant, reckless)
"This election will be decided by voters, across the country, beginning with voters in Iowa," he said.
Paul Begala, a political adviser to President Clinton and now a host of CNN's "Crossfire," called the endorsement an "enormous boost" that would clearly give Dean momentum going into Iowa and New Hampshire.
"It's very good for him," Begala said. "I wouldn't go so far as to say it locks anything up, though, because people want to make up their own minds."
cl-Libraone


Pages
They have no enemies because that country is a wreck. They have absolutely nothing anyone wants.
;O)
My suggestion is that you study up on Canada a bit - you might be very surprised at what Canada has.
It seemed to follow the flow of the conversation to me.
<>
I really wasn't making a dig at Canada, this time. ;) I don't know anything about the strength of the military in Spain, Australia?, New Zealand, or most other places, but I do know, whichever ones can't do the job alone, will be assisted in some way just like Europe, Japan, & S Korea were during the Cold War.
Japan recognized several years ago that with the changing international situation that it was time for them to create a military that could take a larger role in peace keeping and could engage in combat if they felt it was necessary. They had to amend their constitution to do that, and now they are taking an active role in the war on terror by pledging to support it with troops and money, and they are building up their military accordingly.
I was just thinking about which countries would fit into that situation, & you are the only one that I know much about. Also, Canada has on my mind because I've been reading more about the situation.
Another report came out this week that was even more negative than the previous one we discussed.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1070406608990&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037
I wasn't implying anything about Canadian soverignty; that comment came directly from the govt. report in the previous thread. I knew things were bad, but that shocked me into realizing exactly how bad. I assumed the comment in the report was referring to having to turn over your defenses in whole or part to your allies rather than a hostile invasion (although you never can be too sure about those shifty Greenlanders).
On a more serious note, you know that we are not only taking out the defense of Canada but also that of the US. Our defense is only as good as your defense, so naturally Americans are more concered about whether you are capable of credibly defending yourself from terrorists than we are about another country a half world away.
<>
Which from everthing I hear, can only be good.
<>
Considering that when this was forseen about 10-15 years ago, the govt. pledged to increase spending, & never did, and the other govt. report that was 4 or 5 years old, sounded the alarm bells as loudly as possible, & nothing has been done yet, I don't think it's out of line to make a few presumptions at this point, especially with the financial strain Canada is under with skyrocketing expenses for social expenditures.
Apparently the military is in such a state that it's not even worth trying to do this half way or working with what's already there. You're looking at a 20 year commitment to building a completely new military from top to bottom. Over the next 5 years, you will need an additional $15 billion just to get the ball rolling according to govt estimates, and y'all know how reliable those are.
Do you think Canadians are ready to start making that kind of a committment in the next year or two? From what I gather, in the past, it's always been a 'yeah, we really need to start working on that' kind of thing that was always put off for another 5 or 6 years.
I really don't know to much about the mood of the Canadian people right now or all that's going on, so I'm hoping to get your perspective. It's good to hear that there's "a larger outpouring of public support for increasing spending in that area," but do you think it's strong enough to take on this Herculean task right now and see it through to completion?
I seems to me, that at the end of the day, when it's time to really make the decision, given the costs involved and Canada's pacifist leanings, and what I perceive to be a lack of enthusiasm towards the war on terror, Canadians may decide to shut the whole thing down exception for things like the coast guard, border patrol, and a small homeland defense/militia type thing similar to what Japan had for decades and which could be funded without increasing taxes.
Oh, and the mounties! You'd have to keep the mounties, too. They're just too cool to get rid of. ;)
Renee
Oh, and then there is that famed French diplomacy which basically means they promise everybody everything to keep them happy and then when push comes to shove, choose which side to renig on. Of course, they also have quite a reputation for letting down both sides, not to mention for deliberately stirring up trouble when it suits their purposes.
You'd think will all the blood they've spilt in Africa and Asia, the world would be sick of their stench.
So, if you want to sell that tired old canard, you're going to have to show how much worse we are then everyone else.
Edited 12/10/2003 6:53:43 PM ET by wrhen
Renee
Just an idea: As leader of the free world, maybe we should strive to be better than everyone else.
You wrote to another poster, regarding Bush I: <
What do you think Clinton's "job" was that went unfinished? (You seem to cut Bush the elder alot of slack in the appeasing dicatators department.)
I think that as Clinton saw it, his job was to try to force Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions. This was a major focus of his administration, which ran out of time to "finish the job." (In fact, Clinton had plans to respond to the attack on the USS Cole, but didn't want to hand the freshman Bush administration a war. What did Bush do about the Cole when he assumed office? Nothing. Instead of hunting Al Qada he set the record for vacation days set by a sitting president.)
And the way that I see it, the Republican's ridiculous witchhunt did nothing but try to tie the hands of the Clinton administration to carry out the important business of leading our nation. Does the fact that you think Clinton only bombed Iraq to distract from the Lewinsky scandal mean that you believe Saddam Hussein ceased to be a threat for just the years '98 thru 2000? That would be truly remarkable.
I know. I'm describing pre-9/11 thinking vs. post 9/11 thinking.
<>
Yeah. Again, Bush's post 9/11 war = invasion & occupation. Clinton's pre 9/11 boming = limited tactical strike. I don't see where I'm loosing you.
My point is that most of the arguments against the war--blah, blah, blah, international law, blah, blah, blah, unilateral action, blah, blah, blah, UN approval--also pertained to Clinton's actions, but no one domestically or internationally even raised an eyebrow which tells me that those criticisms were not made on moral, pricipled grounds but to criticize the war and/or Bush. If they were legitimate concerns for a war, they would have also been for all military action we and other countries undertake.
You brought up differences between wars & limited military assaults to justify the different actions/reactions. I don't think that it is legitimate to try to use those things to justify being against the war, but not against Clinton's the limited action since those differences were not brought up before the war when this national debate was going on. If people were really making their decisions based on that, it would have been part of the national discussion at the time.
I think I've just probably confused the point I'm trying to make even further, but that's the only way I can seem to make my point tonight. With a clear head tomorrow, I should be able to do better, so let me know if I need to.
Renee
Difference being...we're considered the most powerful & influential country on this planet...France, or any other country,
You have NO IDEA how happy I am to hear you say that. Go on thinking that and we'll sit up here on our gold mine of natural resources including oil, timber, the world's largest supply of fresh water, an educated population, and yes....gold mines...
Not to mention quite a number of really good comedians (oh wait....most of them live in the States anyway....so you got those already)
Edited 12/11/2003 12:58:29 PM ET by suemox
Excuse me? Can you tell me what the total of your national debt is at now?
Pages