dy156

I'm suprised there is not a thread on this already. If there is, and I haven't found it, please let me know.

I'm a Bush supporter, though a little less adamantly as of late. Gore's announcement suprised me, but I don't think it was "a bold move on Gore's part to maintain his relevancy," as many of the commentators have said. I think Gore is out of politics and without the constraint of maintaining his image for an upcoming election, he just genuinely felt Dean was the right guy, and wanted to make a point of helping him out when it could do the most good. I'm not the biggest Gore fan, but I kinda thought this was refreshing.

Maybe I'm just naive and it was a purely tactical move. If it was, I think it was the wrong one. Any lingering support Gore had should have been handed to the eventual Democratic winner, from a tactical standpoint, in order to help him against Bush, and I think Gore trying to maintain his relevance for another run is also a tactical mistake, because I don't think he could beat Hillary. (that's another thread.)

I'm curious to see what Democrats think of this. Was it a good move for Dean? for Gore? for the Democratic party's chances in November? Does it make the campaign more about Iraq and thus leave the outcome to be determined by the shape of Iraq this time 11 months from now? Is anyone angry at this endorsement's impact on Leiberman? on the eventual non-Dean winner?