Gore's endorsement is proof positive that BillBob is once again correct in his assessment. Gore's endorsement recognizes the certainty of the Dean nomination. Gore is trying to help Dean take control of the Democratic party. His statement that they need to take the party back shows Gore's anger at the Clinton's.
It looks more and more like a fight for control of the Democratic party. Dean will attempt to take it away from the Clintons. The Clinton's will use CFR as a means ot move all the party money to independent organizations they control. The Leftist side of the party will try to counter the Clinton's with their own independent organizations to raise money. The Democratic party may find itself split into two segments with major donors splitting their donations between the two factions or not giving at all. Democrats may have trouble raising money after 2004. Dean is a sure looser and after his defeat is when the fight between the Deaniacs and the Clintonestas will begin.
I have on several occasions compared what the Democrats are doing in 2004 to what the Republicans did in 1964. But there seems to me to be a major difference. When Goldwater was defeated he just went away. He accepted his defeat and held no grudges. That does not describe Howard Dean. Barry did not try to retain control. He let Richard Nixon win the support of the right to gain the 1968 nomination. Dean is not likely to let Hillary pull a Nixon. I don't see Howard Dean stepping aside for a Clinton comeback as Goldwater did for a Nixon comeback.
It is a long way in the future but I can see the Democrats being so split in 2008, that they allow another Republican victory.
It appears to me that the Democratic party factions are not goint to try to healwounds and mend fences. It is very much going to be about taking control and getting even.
2004 is going to be a very revealing year.
The only issue that has ever united Democrats is the economy. If the economy is doing well in 04,05, 06, 07, and 08, we may get see Democrats attacking Democrats for at least a few years.
I have on several occasions compared what the Democrats are doing in 2004 to what the Republicans did in 1964. But there seems to me to be a major difference. When Goldwater was defeated he just went away. He accepted his defeat and held no grudges. That does not describe Howard Dean. Barry did not try to retain control. He let Richard Nixon win the support of the right to gain the 1968 nomination. Dean is not likely to let Hillary pull a Nixon. I don't see Howard Dean stepping aside for a Clinton comeback as Goldwater did for a Nixon comeback.How 'bout another analogy, this one from the 1890s/1900s. Wm Jennings Bryan twice lost to Wm. Mckinley. Call him the Mondale/Dukakis of the late 19th century. In 1904, the oh-so populist Bryan was denied the Dem nomination in favor of Col. Parker, an old school northern Dem of the Grover Cleveland (two non-consecutive terms, 1880s/1890s, and not a bad president at all) variety. Read here: Clinton emulating JFK.
Parker had his butt kicked by Teddy Roosevelt, principally because Bryan was all upset at not getting the nomination and withheld his support of his own party's ticket. Four years later, Bryan got the nomination, and had his own butt handed to him by Wm. Howard Taft, who won by +/- the same margins as T.R. in 1904. (The difference being that Taft ran ahead of his party while TR took the same vote as the rest of the party; by 1908, the Pubbies were losing ground in Congress.)
Come 1912, Democrat Champ Clark, just then Speaker of the House, was the forerunner among Democrats in the primary. He won the primary's popular votes, but he didn't win enough to ensure nomination. After 30-something ballots at the convention, Clark lost to Woodrow Wilson. The button pushed for his win was pushed by none other than Wm. Jennings Bryan, the thrice-jaded populist who wouldn't go away. While denied, of course, the deal was that Bryan would get the top Cabinet position, Sec State. He did, and he was, of course, a friggin disaster.
So here's where we're going here: The Dems are naturally and easily split upon pretending-to-be Conservatives, a la Col. Parker or Woodrow Wilson (who ran as a moderate/conservative in 1912; the maniac T.R. was the left-wing liberal of that election), and the populists, a la Wm. Jennings Bryan. Clintoon's success in '92, aside from the boost from Perot -- yeah, yeah, Perot didn't change the election: B.S.! -- not according to the polls, but his presence and his 18% certainly changed the entire dynamic and nature of the election -- what Clintoon did was what the pretendor Woodrow Wilson did, also in a 3-way split election (1912): he played conservative enough to get the swing votes and winked leftward to get the whackos, all the while promising the serious whackos, such as Wm. Jennings Bryan or Ramsey Clark, that they'd get something out of it all.
Where this brings us to 2004, I haven't a clue, other than to say that it's far more complicated than it may seem. If Dean is Bryan, and Clinton is Wilson, then Gore is Parker and Hillary is James Cox in '20 (creamed by Harding). All we can say is thank God for Washington's two-term s only precedent and the 22nd Amendment which stomped all that FDR business.
As for issues that united them from Bryan to Parker to Wilson to Cox , there was only one, and it was the tariff. They otherwise went like morons after the nearest candy store with each outrage du jour.
Hope that helps.