They say Al Gore is going to endorse Howard Dean's candidacy today, but why is that? Shouldn't that be taken as a rejection of his old partner, the other half of Sore-Loserman 2000, who is still in the hunt? That is to ask, why was Lieberman worthy of the highest considerations in 2000 and not now?
It may just be some practical political math. Lieberman is just too far to the center-right to get the kids hot for him; there's not enough difference between him and the dumbass cowboy-thief in the White House to make him attractive.
But Dean? He throws 'em red meat on cue, baby! He'll even publicly entertain and countenance the suggestion that Bush had foreknowledge of September 11th and permitted New York City and Washington, D.C. to be grievously damaged. He's anti-war and a real rolled-up sleeves tough guy (maybe short on the facts sometimes, but what a rabble-rouser!).
So Dean can energize the base because he's the anti-Bush (so far as we know). The sooner he can take the lead against the other losers and put it away, the faster the DNC can back him and make him a real choice. But, no matter how much the Dumbocrats love this guy, he ain't gonna do nothing in the South come next November. He won't win a single state south of the Line, nor will he win anything in the Midwest.
Smart traitors like Gore (yep, he's still a traitor to his country, so far as I'm concerned) know what Dean's chances are, of course, and so they know that, come 2008, the pendulum may have swung far enough back to the Left that Hillary might make that her time to shine. That is to say, no one's going to beat George W. Bush in 2004 and, so, they may as well throw Dean in with the red meat.
Anyway, I want to hear how Gore rationalizes not backing his old partner. And what will old Joe say? Hmmm...