Gore bad news for Obama

Atlantic.com’s senior editor Josh Green tells his faithful readers:

It feels official: Barack Obama has momentum. He won a resounding victory in South Carolina. He just posted another astonishing fundraising total. Gallup reports that he’s pulled to within four points of Hillary Clinton. And Ted Kennedy’s endorsement Monday had the feel of history about it. Even conservatives swooned.

Only one endorsement could be bigger—and if Al Gore is going to pull the trigger, you have to think he’ll do so in the next 72 hours.

Yes, yes, I know. Gore has said he won’t endorse. …

But Tennessee looks to be a state in which Clinton currently holds a lead—that is, unless a certain favorite son were to endorse her opponent.

Gore has already seen one presidency (his own) slip away over a handful of votes. He must have pondered how it would feel to play kingmaker and shore up someone else’s path to the White House.

A well-connected Tennesseean (sic) told me two things today that got me thinking about this.

The first is that Obama and Gore have been speaking regularly, about every two weeks or so. The second is that, despite this, and despite Tennessee’s primary on Tuesday, Obama has not visited the state since June.

It may be simply that he does not plan on competing there. Or it may be that he’s been waiting for a special occasion.

Gore for Obama?

Why not? So many liberals and leftists are rallying to Obama.

Shouldn’t Gore?

And what about George Soros and Cindy Sheehan?

But if - maybe when - Obama gets Gore's and all the rest's endorsements, will that really help Obama?

Won't those endorsements make him "the liberals' candidate?"

And won't that be bad news for Obama?

Green’s entire article is here.