Susan Estrich, no less, says this: "Al Gore has done it again.
There’s a reason he isn’t president, and it’s not just the chads in Florida. Gore has the worst political instincts of anyone to have gotten as far as he did.
Once again, he has proven why he is a loser and not a leader." The rest of her article doesn’t get any kinder toward Gore.
David Broder is less harsh on Gore, but he is at least "puzzled" by his decision to ednorse Dean. He thinks that Gore did not fulfill his obligations as a Democratic Party leader, and hints that Dean’s candicacy will lead to a disaster for the Demos. Even Clarence Page, not an especially impressive analyst, says that Gore just wants to be a player again, and hints that it may not work. In watching the various analysts on TV, as well as reading many, what has struck me is how unimpressed they are with Gore’s move; the undercurrent in all of their words is that the Gore endorsement is not necessarily going to help Dean gain the nomination and, even if Dean gets the nod, he will likely lose. And, they imply, this may be Gore’s last gambit in politics. It’s the Clintons’ party, and he came to the table much too late (why didn’t he get in the game for the 2002 elections?) to change that. The only way--in my humble opinion--Gore can change this perception is by campaigning very seriously for Dean both now and in the general election. I’m betting he will not do that.