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
This says a mouthful about America, it is a country for the wealthy.>>>
That always makes me laugh when someone says that. I am a stay at home mother of 3 and my husband is a cop. We are FAR from rich. We do well because we made good decisions and made sure we could provide for ourselves long ago. We have good healthcare, and all the things we need. Many of our friends are just like us...none of them are rich and they all do just fine.
The people in Canada come to the US because the healthcare is better. It is a known fact that socialistic countries health care is not a good thing. It isn't about rich or poor there...The problem with their health care is their socialism.
Why should anyone have to keep their religious beliefs private?
Before making the wild assumption that all 'hawks' must always want war, you could have asked my opinion about how I think Clinton should have handled the situation instead of drifting off into fantasy.
<>
Check that. One of the first things Bush did was see to it that the military was 'renovated' so to speak. Before 9/11 quite a few reforms, enhancements, & reorganizations were in the works. Buy February 2003, it was in no way 'Clinton's military.'
"Idoubt Clinton would failed to considered the aftermath,>>
Neither did Bush.
<<e would not have untaken the invasion on the advice of neo-cons who expected to be greeted by cheering mobs."
Why not? He took their advice on welfare reform which turned out to be a huge success and he had already listened to them about Iraq which prompted him to officially change our Iraqi foreign policy from Bush, Sr.'s containment to a much more aggressive one that included regime change.
<< Clinton would have considered the historical tensions among Iraqis>>
What are you talking about? There has been remarkably little ethnic conflict, and rest assured, there were plans for dealing with it, if the need was there.
<< taken steps to ensure the aftermath of an invasion was carried out as well as the invasion.>>
And what leads you to assume that? Do you have any idea how this stuff is done?
<< bet if GWB had inherited troops in Iraq from Clinton, wrhen would be singing a different tune.>>
Ya, think so? Perhaps you think it's appropriate to play politics with national security during war time; I do not, which is one of the reasons I supported Clinton when he took action in Kosovo. Of course, I supported him on other issues as well such as welfare reform and NAFTA when his position aligned with mine just as I don't support certain Republican positions or some of Bush's policies.
Renee
Renee
It's a country of the wealthy.
Renee
It's odd how threatened some are by people of faith.
Renee
That was a nice spin.
Also, what "nuclear factory" are you referring to?
Let me try this:
There's a Christmas art contest
Bill paints a landscape of a secluded pond in a wooded setting and enters it into the human figure category of an artshow in Mexico because of the number and quality of entries he thinks has a much better chance there and his composition does include two small nudes swimming in the lake. Unfortunately, he doesn't even rate an honorable mention and that's the end of his story.
Several years later, George paints a still life of a collection silver vessels with the reflection of a nude standing outside of the picture. He goes to Mexico and attempts to enter the same artshow also in the human figure category. The judges and other contestants are outraged! They insist that his painting doesn't qualify to be in their category, and even if it did, he wouldn't be allowed to enter the competition because he's not a citizen.
Now, if you notice, no one mentioned either of these issues when Bill did the exact same thing before, and no one brought the issue up in the intervening time and no rules were changed between either entries.
After George got back home, he went on Good Morning America and publicized how differently he was treated than Bill. The folks in Mexico were still angry and refused to admit he was treated unfairly. Instead they said that Bill was accepted because his maternal grandmother was from Mexico and as far as the two pictures were concerned, they weren't at all similar because Bill had painted 2 figures even if they were tiny and subsumed by the rest of the things in his picture while George didn't paint a figure, he only painted a reflection of one.
Now, this might or might not be an acceptable distinction, but the point is that it wasn't made when he was thrown out of the show; it was only put out later to avoid making the judges & contestants look foolish.
Get it?
Renee
Pages