The Power Brokers

Are you left wondering when John Edwards or, perhaps especially Al Gore, are going to announce their endorsement of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? After all, high-profile endorsements serve many masters: the elevate the person being endorsed, but they do every bit as much for the profile of the one doing the endorsing.

Just about everything about this election cycle seems to defy tradition and history, however, and the endorsement game is no different. Because this race is likely to go down to the wire, perhaps in the Democrats' case remaining unresolved until the superdelegates commit in Denver, the power of endorsements is heightened even beyond what it otherwise would be. Why would Edwards want to expend political capital on an endorsement before Texas votes when Texas may well not decide anything? Why would Al Gore, clearly the party's biggest endorsement prize (and still the dream candidate for some in a brokered convention), not wait until he can maximize not only the impact of his endorsement but his larger political leverage? Remaining neutral for the time being has the added benefit of appearing to want to help keep the party united.

Just because there is a great deal of self-interest involved does not make this approach a bad strategy. Gore in particular might prove to be the power broker many envisioned that he would become in the 2008 election, albeit not in the manner -- as the reluctantly drafted candidate heroically come to save the party -- they expected. Then again, stranger things have happened than an 11th-hour Gore candidacy. The Democrats did not choose Woodrow Wilson as their nominee in 1912 until the 46th ballot at the Democratic convention, and only then as a compromise candidate, after all.

Gore v. Inhofe Turns Into A Cage Match

Yesterday Al Gore testified on the dangers of global warming on Capitol Hill before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The most anticipated clash was that between Gore and Oklahoma's James Inhofe, the committee's ranking Republican, former chair, and longtime vocal critic of the very idea of climate change. Bradford Plumer was there and has an account over at The New Republic online.

In short, Gore seems to have acquitted himself well. But the biggest moments of tension came not between Inhofe and Gore, though they had their moments, but rather between Inhofe and current chair, California's Barbara Boxer. Bradford gives some examples:

During the questioning period, Inhofe asked Gore about his own personal energy use--a fevered right-wing meme that, of course, has no actual bearing on climate-change policy. When Gore calmly tried to point out that his family purchases non-carbon green energy, Inhofe cut him off. Bad move. Boxer retorted, "How can you ask a question and not give him a minute to answer?" A short while later, after Inhofe brought up a recent New York Times hatchet job that criticized Gore's documentary (the piece has been dissected here and here), he declared that he didn't want to hear Gore's answer, since it would take too long. "You can submit it in writing," he added with a sneer. Boxer, like a mother losing her patience, barked, "Would you agree to let the vice president answer your questions?" When Inhofe sputtered in protest, Boxer waved her chairman's gavel in front of his face: "No, you're not making the rules. You used to when you had this. But elections have consequences!" The room erupted in cheers. A red-faced Inhofe slumped back in his chair. Bernie Sanders had his head in his hands, laughing hysterically.

Good for Boxer. But also, on the whole, good for Gore. It looks more and more as if Gore is certainly not running in 2008, and that he has not been playing coy all along. Buthe may well play a significant role in a future democratic administration.

The Kerry Gambit?

Far be it from me to be cynical. But the thought that crossed my mind, despite the fact that John Kerry's announcement that he is not running for President in 2008 truly did seem heartfelt, is that he has a secret plan. He has decided that his goal is to end the Iraq war. Fair enough. We can quibble with the monomaniacal nature of personalizing such a quest, but criticizing politicians for their self-centeredness seems too easy. What I see going through Kerry's head, at least somewhere in the transom, is that he will mount this charge furiously, his work will have some effect, and the Democratic masses will look to him and demand that he run. They will enlist him. And when called, thinks Senator Kerry, of course he will serve.

The problem with this approach (other than that I am making it up out of whole cloth, I mean) is that Kerry is not the compellingly draftable type. But on top of that, if anyone has set himself up to stand, rather than run, for office, isn't it Al Gore? And if the Democrats are faced with a choice of spurned Democratic nominees to insist upon running, isn't Gore so obviously more appealing that Kerry is destined (in my concocted scenario) to feel spurned thrice?

I think John Kerry is a good man who has served his country nobly and well. He has many years to develop and grow as a Senator. Never becoming president need not be a mark of shame. I hope that his recent moves have come as a result of a realization that the Oval office is simply not in the cards, and not out of some cynical last-ditch gambit.

Gore in 2008 Redux

Scott Lehigh of The Boston Globe speculates on the renewed whisperings that Al Gore might eventually announce a run for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Dcat prodigal son, Oxford Richard, has long advocated Gore's candidacy as you can plainly see here, here and
here.