Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean is not really about Howard Dean. It's about Al Gore, the reborn liberal firebrand who is rekindling his ambitions, kissing off the Democratic Party establishment, and thumbing his nose at Bill and Hillary Clinton.
The endorsement, tendered to Dean on Tuesday, signifies that Gore's White House dreams are still very much alive, and that, if the Democrats are defeated in November, he might take on Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries — running as the anti-establishment populist against the more cautious, centrist senator from New York.
This endorsement is about the Clinton-Gore divorce. Back in the '90s, when he was a heartbeat away from power, Gore and the First Couple had a close political marriage. But now he's standing on their lawn, threatening to burn their house down.
This is about a clash of political styles. Gore said several years ago that he was going to get real, that he was fed up with being micromanaged by political consultants — note also that Dean's whole style is anti-consultant. Bill Clinton, you may recall, once had his pollster decide where he should take his vacation.
Gore's endorsement of Dean is also about the sharp divisions within the Democratic Party — between the outspoken, Bush-hating, left-leaning anti-war people (who have flocked to Dean) and the more moderate, pro-war, business-friendly people (who dominate the party establishment, which, in turn, is largely controlled by the Clintons). When Gore declared for Dean and said that "we need to remake the Democratic Party," he was essentially saying, "My way is better than their way."
The Clintons clearly don't like Dean's way. His angry, two-fisted style and his opposition to the war in Iraq are anathema to the party establishment, which fears that Dean will alienate suburban swing voters and wind up as cannon fodder for the GOP. The split on the war demonstrates the divide. On talk shows last week, Hillary Clinton defended her pro-war Senate vote, and even spoke of the need for more U.S. troops. It is notable that a significant number of Clinton administration alumni are toiling for retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who might well emerge as the designated stop-Dean candidate during the primaries.
Cynics might say that Gore gravitated to Dean only because he was shopping for a fresh constituency. Wrong. Gore has spent the last few years getting back in touch with his inner populist — with the instincts that he inherited from his father, Al Gore Sr., a Tennessee senator who frequently spoke for the little guy and inveighed against the corporate and political establishment.
The Dean endorsement is predictable when you consider Gore's recent history — starting in August 2000, when, as the Democratic nominee, he chose not to run on Clinton's pro-business economic record (fiscal austerity, balanced budgets), instead declaring that he wanted to soak the corporations, that he was for "the people" against "the powerful."
The Clinton camp roasted him for that decision after the election, contending that he wouldn't have narrowly lost the nationwide suburban vote if he had run on the Clinton record. Bill himself said this to Gore at a stormy post-election meeting; worse yet, in the summer of 2002, his own running mate, Joe Lieberman, blamed the defeat on Gore's populist rhetoric. (Gore reputedly never forgets an insult. Lieberman's 2002 attack may explain why Gore didn't give him a courtesy call before endorsing Dean.)
Several days after the Lieberman attack, Gore retorted: "Standing up for the people, not the powerful, was the right choice in 2000. In fact, it is the ground of the Democratic Party's being, our meaning and our mission." That sounds a lot like Dean's current us-vs.-them rhetoric, and his pledge to "re-regulate" big business.
Most notably, Gore has delivered several speeches assailing President Bush's war in Iraq; the first was in September 2002, a month before the congressional vote, when even Dean was only a cautious dissenter. The latest was four weeks ago, and it's important to note his audience: members of moveon.org, the liberal online group that has helped wed the Internet to grass-roots politics (Dean's campaign has been doing the same).
But even if we stipulate that Gore's anti-establishment odyssey is sincere, you can bet that he has also viewed the Dean endorsement through the prism of self-interest. The logical conclusion is that it's a no-lose proposition.
If Dean confounds today's experts and wins the 2004 race, Gore would likely benefit from Dean's gratitude and become a big shot again (secretary of state? Supreme Court justice?). And if his new best friend loses, Gore could be positioned to woo the Web-logging grassroots insurgents for his own comeback race in 2008. That's the liberal wing of the party, the same wing that dominates the nomination process in the primaries.
Conservative Pat Buchanan, the former presidential candidate, had an interesting observation on cable TV. He said that Gore was following Richard Nixon's comeback strategy. Nixon lost narrowly in 1960; then, in 1964, he campaigned feverishly for conservative Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was buried in that election, but grateful conservatives, by then a powerful force in the Republican base, made Nixon their guy in 1968 — and he won that election. The wild card, for Gore, could be the war. He opposed it, Hillary Clinton supported it. Conditions in Iraq in 2008 will dictate who looks wiser in hindsight, but for now, his dander is up, and he's ready to wrestle for the party's future soul.
So is the junior senator from New York. The other day, her terseness spoke volumes. Asked whether she agreed with Gore that the party needed to be "remade," she offered this response:
"No."