“The American people get to decide: are we going to turn back the clock, or turn the page?”
—Barack Obama, October 2, 2007
The rush of elected officials jumping on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon is approaching a stampede. Even such onetime iconoclasts as former anti-war Senator George McGovern and Oakland’s Mayor Ron Dellums have endorsed the most conservative of the three leading candidates in the field. It appears that politicians feel that the sooner they get credit for endorsing the eventual winner, the greater the spoils delivered to their cities, states, or, most importantly, themselves in a Hillary Clinton Administration. There are many phrases to describe the motivations of those eager to side with the frontrunner, but a “commitment to change” is not among them. If Al Gore plans to send his own message of change by endorsing Barack Obama or John Edwards, now is the time.
Each day, I receive multiple e-mails from the Clinton campaign touting their latest endorsements. Depending on one’s perspective, it is either an impressive or depressing list.
It is impressive because Clinton is securing the support of people who have long espoused views much to the left of their endorsed candidate. It is depressing because it shows how even many progressive politicians put personal relationships and agendas ahead of any loyalty to a broader movement.
In the case of Ron Dellums, the Clintons’ failure to deliver for Democratic constituencies in 1993 and 1994 cost the Oakland Congressman his prized position as head of the House Armed Services Committee. Dellums left Congress soon after, not wanting to serve in the House minority.
Dellums no doubt figures that he has nothing to lose. Oakland benefits from his early endorsement if Clinton wins, and if Obama or Edwards wins, neither would shortchange one of the nation’s leading African-American cities.
Of course, the problem with this type of political maneuvering is that it reduces the likelihood that the United States will shift in a progressive direction in 2009.
Hillary Clinton’s unwillingness to commit to specific progressive goals—other than the health care plan she borrowed from Edwards—has already been so widely reported that it is not even challenged by her campaign. Yet politicians like Dellums are lending their credibility to a progressive candidate who will owe little to activists after she takes office.
One almost gets the impression that politicians want the Democratic Party presidential nomination resolved before the first primary. If Clinton’s nomination appears inevitable, working for other candidates is pointless.
The Obama campaign recognizes Clinton’s strategy, and began on October 2—five years to the date of Obama’s speech opposing the U.S. invasion into Iraq—to remind voters what this election is about.
It is about which candidates vow to move the United States in a new direction, and which believe that the pre-George W. Bush years were the best of all possible worlds.
Al Gore saw firsthand the Clinton Administration betrayals on environmental issues, and cannot possibly believe President Hillary Clinton will confront inconvenient truths. Gore has promised to endorse a candidate in the primaries, and now is the time for him to endorse Obama or Edwards.
Gore’s endorsement would immediately have two impacts. First, it would help recast the race as a choice between change and a return to the pre-Bush status quo. Second, it would slow momentum toward Clinton’s coronation.
I have never been an Al Gore fan, and still see him as too much of an indecisive, Hamlet-like figure. True, he has become a powerful advocate for progressive ideals, but he seems to operate in a sphere that has little or no connection to politics.
If Gore has become the man of action his backers claim, now is the time for him to act. With the earth in the balance, Gore must issue a strong endorsement of Obama or Edwards while it still can make a difference.
Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org
