On Tweety's Sunday Show, NY Mag's John Helleman says Gore will endorse Barack Obama in six weeks

Helleman further ads that "the one person he won't endorse is Hillary Clinton."

Elizabeth Bumiller agrees with John Helleman.

Anne Kornblut and David Yepsen predict that Gore won't endorse anyone.

:popcorn:

Or is this another pundit conflaguration to boost BO's limping campaign?

Gore has nothing in common with Obama for one thing. So, why would he be a future endorser?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Are you saying he should just get in line and support Hillary; who voted for the Iraq war and hasn't proposed shit in regards to global warming? Or is it that they both "worked" in Bill's administration? Which one is it?

Obama does..

Sure, when Hillary is elected she'll give Gore free reign over the EPA, DEM, FEMA, Clean Air, Clean Water.. etc.

Obama better worry about re-election to the Senate after he's passed over for the Top Job.

Get out there and start campaigning fella. Your boy has hit the skids.

He's not counting on anything from Hillary, so I'm not worried about that.

And, "Obama supports pollution" is new low, even for you Tellurian.

They have alot of nerve putting words in Gore's mouth and presume to speak for him in a cowed effort to boost Obama's poll numbers.

Besides Obama's Sponsoring S. 957 Clean Coal Bill and the backlash from the World stating; There is NO such thing as Clean Coal.

http://www.thestreet.com/pf/funds/investing/10362048.html

Here is an article explaining how this isn't the first time Obama's been caught with his pants down...as he subsequently reverses his decision because of dire environmental concerns brought to light by environmental experts surprised at his actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301424_pf.html

an aside:

My observation of Obama supporters is they automatically assume the high ground; when I've never heard of anyone anywhere giving them them that permission or the authority to assume such.

Why would he? He needs to remain neutral in order to further his current agenda.

Gore to endorse anyone. Far better to roll with the process (assuming he does not run himself), encourage everyone to vote for their candidate of their choice, and at the end of it all, heartily endorse the NOMINEE. Whosover that person might be.

To endorse now--no matter which candidate he chooses, mind you-- is to run a risk of making a wrong judgment. He might also piss off those who want him to run but don't like his choice.

I see it as fraught with danger. But who knows? It's up to him.

I'm not sure what danger is in it. If he doesn't run this time, he'll probably never run again, so why would he care about pissing off a few people?

He got it wrong that last time, didn't he? It wouldn't do well if he got it wrong again, it would call into question his judgment, and could be pointed to by those who don't share his environmental concerns. A weak spot he doesn't NEED to display.

Sure, he can endorse, if he wants to, but he doesn't NEED to. And given his environmental platform on the world stage, and Obama's some-say-curious associations with the coal industry, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html specifically the not-too-environmentally-friendly liquefaction process (can't blame him, it is a STATE thing, all politics is local, and there's a shitload of energy potential in those IL reserves, even if they aren't very 'green'), well, it's the first thing I thought of, so you can be sure that the right would hop on it, too.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "pissing people off." It has everything to do, though, with playing a continued important role on the world stage, AND having the backing of the administration in power. The ENTHUSIASTIC backing, which is easily gained when one wasn't working against the admistration's principal prior to the election. It's simply calculating the odds, and playing to strength.

Al Gore has opportunities available to him, if he wants them, within the next administration, whosoever may get the nod--be it Edwards, Obama, Clinton or a player to be named later. UN ambassador, for example. Special Envoy on Global Warming and Climate issues. There are a host of diplomatic needs he could fill, easily. And well.

But you don't get those opportunities if you back the wrong horse. Politicians do have long memories.

If I were him, I'd stay above the fray and encourage everyone to vote, and then back the winner, no matter who, with help on the campaign trail. But that's me. YMMV.

It's not a prediction - it's an expression of who one likes best. He liked Dean best.

"wrong." When you back the "wrong" horse, it can influence your opportunities down the line. If you back the "right" horse, you can end up getting rewarded for it. And as I said, once burned, twice shy.

But then, some truths are self-evident. The people who wind up with cabinet positions and political ambassadorships aren't the people who endorsed an opponent of the person who wins the election, after all. They're the ones that endorsed the winner of the contest. Political appointees are not rewarded because they're nice guys, but because they brought something--cash, votes, or both--to the table.

No, it's not a 'prediction.' But often as not, it's a strategic decision, an 'investment,' if you will, against a future return.

If the Vice President is uninterested in 'future returns' then he'll endorse free of those sorts of considerations. Otherwise, he'll hold back, because it is just way too soon to tell who will win this race. About all we know at this stage is that the Democratic field has the strong advantage, but beyond that, who knows?

I'm guessing he'll do the latter, hold back and endorse in the general, but I don't claim any inside knowledge.

Think hard!

:shrug:

Have mercy and let us know what's six weeks from now!

He will be the great president you weren't allowed to be.

betcha

If Obama wins, he can take credit for helping him overcome enormous odds. If Obama loses, it was because Hillary was just too strong.

close to Gore or the pundits' individual predictions?

last year that he would predict an endorsement for Obama in six weeks. :shrug:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/17065/

hopefully Gore will help Americans understand that.

...the Democratic nominee, and keep quiet about his preferences until then.

And I think that would be best.

I don't think he'll endorse anyone.

He may not like Hillary but he appeared on stage with Bill at the Clinton Global Initiative and were very cordial to each other.

He has worked too long on this vital issue to let it get sidetracked by endorsements that could be divisive and detract attention from this important work.

That's it. If I were on the Obama team, I'd refrain from celebrating just yet.