GORE ENDORSEMENT BACKSTORY
15 December 2003

Last week, former Vice President Al Gore announced his endorsement of former Vermont Governor, Dr. Howard Dean, for the Democratic nomination and for president in the 2004 election. The move was treated as a surprise snub of his 2000 running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who is also running. Speculation about disloyalty has permeated debate since, as Lieberman had promised not to run against a possible Gore candidacy.

In light of the current climate of widespread speculation and talking-head journalism, it becomes necessary to ask if the national news media adequately explained the meaning of events such as the Gore endorsement in the 2004 presidential campaign. Tied into this inquiry are questions about the capacity of such reporting to properly present the views and the history of actual candidates to the voters. The context of political debate has come to include a sort of peripheral analysis of provocative details which appears designed to enhance the entertainment function of audience-courtship and not the news function of pertinent journalistic sources. That analysis tends to hinge on speculation about the possible interpretations, from which the juiciest is drawn, not the one substantiated by evidence over time or by probing research.

Ongoing commentary assumes that Gore and Lieberman have long been political allies, a sort of like-minded pair at the head of the Democratic party. In fact there have been many differences, and those differences were the very reason for Gore's choosing Lieberman in 2000. The same pundits and news media who now pair the two Democrats told the opposite tale in 2000.

The MN Daily Online summarized the interpretive climate: "Almost every talking head concluded that Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate to distance himself as much as possible from Clinton", from scandals and innuendo. But the selection of Lieberman was also seen as an attempt to moderate the message of his campaign. Lieberman has often referred to himself as a Clinton Democrat, and both are darlings of the centrist DLC. Among the progressive base, there was a lot of political backlash over policy differences, and some misguided partisans even engaged in tasteless propagation of ethnic stereotypes regarding Sen. Lieberman's faith.

The Boston Globe revealed that Gov. Dean has been pursuing Gore's support for at least a year. The two shared views on a variety of issues and were brought together after Gore's strong speech in opposition to the Iraq war resolution, before Congress approved it last fall. Howard Dean has reportedly consulted with the former VP on several occasions, seeking advice on speeches and policy issues, including the environment and foreign policy.

According to the Boston Globe report, Al Gore had asked Dean not to run in 2000, "to clear the way for his own failed run". On this note, Gore said in his endorsement speech that "Democracy is a team sport". Gore and Dean kept the Tuesday endorsement to themselves for several days, but Gore reportedly attempted unsuccessfully to contact Sen. Lieberman on Sunday (two days before his public announcement), and finally spoke with the candidate on Tuesday morning, after the story had broken in the press.

Sen. Kennedy, who is campaigning for his fellow Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, said "I think people like to make up their own minds in the Democratic Party". Though his comments were aimed at reducing the importance of the Gore endorsement, Gore's own comments indicate that his endorsement was motivated by the same sentiment. Gore cited widespread grassroots support, the most impressive in decades, for the Dean campaign.

Democrats are often criticized by opponents, allies and the national media for a characteristic lack of cohesion. Gore's comments indicate that he sees in Dean a candidate who celebrates this tendency toward independent thinking as a vital strength of his party and cited Dean's independence as a key to his broad support and unprecedented online fundraising.

The Global Information Network reports that Gore's endorsement was an attempt to generate broader unity in his party, just as the primary campaign threatens to reduce the likelihood of any candidate retaining strong credentials for the run against Bush. Gore cited core American values in his personal backing of Gov. Dean, saying the candidate had inspired the "passion and enthusiasm for democracy" which he believes necessary in a time when the political arena is becoming fractured and extreme.

Sen. Lieberman criticized Al Gore "for running too 'populist' a campaign" in 2000. That criticism underscores a fundamental split between Gore and Lieberman's political essence. Lieberman is considered to be among the most conservative Democrats in the Senate and has close ties to a number of large corporate interests. He also shares many views on foreign policy with his Republican counterparts and was an outspoken supporter of the resolution to go to war in Iraq. Gore has been more populist throughout his career and has tended toward more progressive positions on issues both domestic and international.

GIN also cites Gore's long-held belief that the Internet has a great "potential for promoting democratic participation". The Internet, specifically Gore's legislative role in developing it for public use, was a hot-button in the credibility debate in 2000, and many opponents popularized the assertion that Gore had no ties at all to Internet development. But the Apple press release announcing Gore's appointment to the company's Board of Directors specifies that Gore "popularized the term 'Information Superhighway,' and was instrumental in fighting for federal funds to assist in building what later became the Internet."

It is a complicated phenomenon that swept the national media in the wake of Gore's endorsement, with so many sources insisting that Gore's decision was sudden, opportunistic and cynical, when their assumptions appear to be entirely cynical and their timing opportunistic. In fact there is broad evidence to indicate that the 2000 presidential candidate was acting with the same personal initiative which has characterized his outspoken and critical persona since the summer of 2002.

Where Lieberman believed the 2000 campaign was too populist, Gore told advisers last year that he believed the campaign was too restrained and did not adequately allow him to portray his political views and vision. He lamented having obscured his true intellectual stance and said that he would act to further those views as a private citizen.

This piece is not intended as an espousal of any political views, or an attempt to enhance the importance of the Gore endorsement, but rather to reframe the debate about that endorsement in light of the actual personal information available in the public sphere regarding Gore, Lieberman, and the politics of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. It is this kind of information, factual and tied to the true consistencies of the subjects in question, which should be the centerpiece of faithful reporting on electoral politics, issues and the motives of public figures. Only by way of such open and broadly considered reporting will the necessary and relevant information reach actual voters.