Debunking the Gore endorses Kerry theory

Here's what I said to blm in another thread

Gore said that Bush had said in 2000 that he would be a "healer" not a divider, but that is not what Bush said. Bush had said that he would be a "uniter" not a divider. Could Gore's use of "healer" be a Freudian slip for endorsing Dr. Howard Dean?

In Gore's speech, he chastised the Congress for not debating the merits of Bush's case for war more thoroughly. Why would Gore endorse Kerry, who captilated on the Iraq War resolution?

Gore personally called MoveOn.org to host his speech. Howard Dean won their first primary by earning 43.9% of the vote. Kucinich earned 23.9% and Kerry 15.7%. 86.02% of those who voted in the MoveOn primary said that they would also support Howard Dean. Kerry earned 75.29% of the support to win 2nd place. Kucinich came in 3rd with 68.25%.

Personally, Al Gore will not step into the fray until the primary process sorts out the candidates. Gore does not want to divide the Democratic party any further.

If Gore endorses Kerry it will be because he won the nomination via the primary process. The same will be true if Gore endorses Dean.

Thoughts?

Could Gore's use of "healer" be a Freudian slip for endorsing Dr. Howard Dean?

This reminds me of the many 'clues' that Paul McCartney was 'dead' that were uncovered in the late 60s. I'd go on more solid evidence.

What Gore said:

" I am proud that my party has candidates for president committed to those values. I admire the effort and skill they are putting into their campaigns. I am not going to join them, but later in the political cycle I will endorse one of them, because I believe that we must stand for a future in which the United States will again be feared only by its enemies; in which our country will again lead the effort to create an international order based on the rule of law; a nation which upholds fundamental rights even for those it believes to be its captured enemies; a nation whose financial house is in order; a nation where the market place is kept healthy by effective government scrutiny; a country which does what is necessary to provide for the health, education, and welfare of our people; a society in which citizens of all faiths enjoy equal standing; a republic once again comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and decisions."

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html


All he says about the time frame is "later in the political cycle". Sounds to me like he left open the possibility of an endorsement at any time, although I would bet it will be after at least a few primaries.

The hint is he is quoting directly from two of Kerry's progressive internationalism speeches.

Some debunking. WOW. Amazing stuff.

Can't say I see the debunking, either.

It all comes down to "we'll see."

Go check out Gores speech, and compare to Kerry's op ed piece in September and his CFR speech in January...

Gore is hinting BIG

I don't think that endorsing Kerry is on his mind.

This could have easily continued in the original thread, instead of pushing relevant threads (not personal ones, especially without much controversy) down the page.

If Gore endorses Kerry it will be because he won the nomination via the primary process. The same will be true if Gore endorses Dean.

if Gore's plan was to back the eventual nominee, he could have simply said so. but he didn't. he said he'd endorse "one of the candidates". backing the eventual nominee is almost a given anyway. there would seem to be little point to it. whereas endorsing one of the candidates, is a step that would help steer the party, it would be an act of leadership.

i don't know who Gore will endorse, but imho it would be very odd if Gore picked Kerry. Gore has not made many major speeches in the last few years, but one of them was against the war. it would be very odd if Gore were to endorse a candidate (Kerry) who voted in favor of the war, and abandoned the majority of congressional democrats to do so.

I already know this. Clinton is going to as well. The reason that he said later on down the race is because Clark is not entering until Labor Day. It would only stand to reason that Gore would endorse the same candidate as Clinton. Otherwise that would seriously divide and weaken the Democratic. Clark and Clintons go way way back. Clinton is part of the Democratic Party establishment. So is Hillary, and so is Gore. We know very well what the Democratic establishment thinks of Dean. If Gore was going to endorse a current candidate, why not do it then when the whole world is watching? Only one reason, the candidate is not in the race yet, and rude to endorse someone who is not in the race yet when you have 9 candidates.

Lieberman is in the race solely for the purpose of knocking down Dean. Braun was put in to squish Sharpton support so he can't speak that long at the Democratic convention. The DP leadership is afraid of the image of the party being to far to the left. Biden was told not to enter the race because Clark will be. Hillary and Gore are standing aside for that reason as well.


:kick:
J4Clark

His attempts are feeble at best and make him look silly.

Since Clark has no political experience, why would Clinton or Gore endorse him? I wouldn't be surprised if they advise him, but giving him advice is not the same as an endorsement.

Come now. You don't think 4 star Generals don't know politics? That is a first. They are greatest politicans you can find. Clark has been in Washington since he was a young lad. He worked in the White House on the US Budget. You want to know how many politicans and special interests groups you work with when working on the budget? Clark has about 25 years of political experience, not just with US politicians, but also with about 100 other countries.

:kick:
J4Clark

Yes, politics is part of our daily life, but representative politics is very different from what Clark did in the Pentagon. Clark did not have to campaign before millions of potential voters and donors to earn his rank. He earned it partly on merit and partly on bosses who recognized and wished to reward his talents and expertise.

... about a guy who hasn't even declared he'll run as a democrat.

But I promise I will not rub it in your nose, well, not to much :)


:kick:
J4Clark

And probably would have changed the outcome in Gore's favor.

But I still think this thread is silly.