Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo

I don't know if you've ever heard of Josh Marshall, but he's a political columnist with a weekly piece in The Hill, the congressional weekly, who also runs a really excellent blog called Talking Points Memo. He's provided thoughtful analysis of the primary race the whole way through, and while he's been pretty happy to see Clark in the race, he hasn't endorsed any one candidate.

Today Marshall is talking about the Iraq bidding process that bars France, Germany, and Russia from getting contracts, but he's also talking about the changed dynamics of the Democratic field following Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean yesterday.

Over on Slate, William Saletan takes a few shots at Al Gore, contrasting his endorsement with his support of letting voters decide the Florida 2000 election:

'Three years ago, Al Gore, trailing in the Florida recount, urged the nation to wait until all the votes were tallied. "There are some who would have us bring this election to the fastest conclusion possible. I have a different view," Gore pleaded.

'Gore's view was that the urge to unite and win must never shortcut the electorate's verdict. "What is at stake is more important than who wins the presidency," he argued. "What is at stake is the integrity of our democracy, making sure that the will of the American people is expressed and accurately received."

'That was then. This is now.'

I think that one can make the case that Gore is meddling, but one can also make the case that Gore is attempting to do what may be impossible: rebuild the democratic party into an effective wing of American ideology that contrasts with the false laissez faire, sort-of-free-market Republican ideology.

Here's my question: Does Gore's endorsement really matter so much? Scanning the headlines yesterday and today, one would think that Dean has already won the nomination, which is nice given my preference for Dean but premature given that Iowa is still five weeks away and even then, Iowa is the beginning, not the end. Well, okay, Iowa will be the end for some of the candidates, but it's entirely possible that Dean will be among them.

I spent some time yesterday on John Kerry's blog and found the bloggers there to be easily irritated. I was just asking questions, such as, "Did Kerry really write off the south, and what does that mean for me in the south? How am I supposed to support a candidate who's announced that the region where I live isn't on his agenda?" I feel for the Kerry campaign, I really do. I think John Kerry is a patriot and really a heroic American, but the only thing I can figure is that he voted for the Iraq war because his advisors told him it would help him in the campaign.

His supporters are very, very angry at Howard Dean, who they feel has been engaged in character assination with his assertion that the other democrats are "Bush-lite", but I've spent the last three years yelling at television screens: "Where's the opposition??? Where are the democrats???"

I understand what Dean's saying.