NP: David Bowie, Lodger (CD)

Today's analysis of Al Gore endorsing Howard Dean seems to be a little bit more realistic than yesterday's. The whole notion that the Democratic nomination could possibly be all over but the shouting before a single vote has been cast is just too absurd on it's face, and yet one more example as to why the media sucks like a Tijuana hooker.

Man, that's going to be some bad Googlebait, but what can you do?

Anyway, Gore allegedly gives Dean mainstream Democratic cred. This is questionable on a number of counts. First, if Gore really had that credibility, wouldn't he be running? Second, if he doesn't have the strength as a candidate, and Democratic insiders were begging him not to run, why does his endorsement carry such weight? Third, and I think mentioned this already, not a single vote has been cast yet.

Of course, you could always throw a Clinton-centric explanation at it, and I'm sure the vast right-wing conspiracy always has. On the one hand, Gore may be backing Dean because he'll lose, and that will clear the way for Hilary in 2008. But then again, Gore still may blame Clinton in part for his role as both the albatross around Gore's neck and the pink elephant in the room noone wanted to talk about in the 2000 campaign, in which case he actually wants Dean to win so Hilary gets shut out in 2008. In that case, it might be another one of those misguided moves that Gore seems to favor, if you believe the conventional wisdom that Dean's piss and vinegar approach won't work after the primaries.

Regarding Dean, I'm sort of torn. I've been going on and on about how "my generation" is completely underrepresented in politics, and by tapping into this Internet-based grass roots campaign, the Vermont governor seems to have tapped into exactly that demographic. Yet, I remain unconvinced, and I'm not sure why. It might simply be that he looks too much like Dana Carvey as the Church Lady.

It's pretty mind-boggling, and as a result, I've only been skimming headlines on the whole thing, with the exception of some Wes Clark coverage and the New York Times profiles that they've been doing every week or so. To read too much of this pundit-a-thon is just a recipe for disaster on any number of levels.