When Dana asked whether Gore would endorse Clinton, I immediately agreed it was a distinct possibility. But as I pondered the topic on my walk home last night, I reversed my decision. I don't think Gore will endorse her, and I don't think he should or needs to.
I can't speak for Gore, but looking over the three climate and energy plans the front runners have come out with in the past months, I'm sure he's quite pleased. A little over a year ago, 80 percent cuts by 2050 was an idea coming from the fringes. A cap-and-trade system seemed like a wish rather than an inevitable reality. Major public investment in a new energy future, a green jobs program, and an ambitious plan for raising fuel economy standards wasn't a subject of public conversation.
Gore knows it was largely his work, along with all the other less visible players in the movement to confront climate change, that pushed the three Democratic frontrunners to come out with such solid energy plans. Several of their ideas are even cribbed directly from Gore's play book, like Clinton's "Connie Mae" program to support low and middle-income Americans in buying green homes or making renovations. Gore doesn't need to endorse anyone -- he's plenty content to drive the dialogue from the sidelines, working quite successfully to make climate and energy less politically contentious subjects, at least among the Dems. Why endorse any one candidate when you can guide all of them?
--Kate Sheppard
