Is this the ballgame?

The AP is reporting that Al Gore is going to endorse Howard Dean for President (link via Drudge):

Former Vice President Al Gore intends to endorse Howard Dean for the Democratic presidential nomination, a dramatic move that could cement Dean’s position in the fight for the party’s nod. Gore, who lost to President Bush in the disputed 2000 election, has agreed to endorse Dean in Harlem in New York City on Tuesday and then travel with the former Vermont governor to Iowa, sight of the Jan. 19 caucuses which kickoff the nominating process, said a Democratic source close to Gore. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Dean will return from Iowa in time for Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire. Dean’s campaign declined to comment.

Quick hits: 1) If there was ever a sign that the Democratic establishment now sees Dean’s nomination as inevitable, this is it. 2) Not to be too cynical, but what is Gore getting out of this? I’m not saying that he’s selling out his principles by endorsing Dean — it’s just that I don’t see the upside of making an endorsement at this point in time unless there’s a backscratch in there somewhere. 3) This exposes the faultline between Gore and the Clintons, who fear Dean because he has a money stream independent of the Democratic Party establishment (run by Clintonite Terry MacAuliffe, remember). Tapped’s Nick Confessore links to a Washington Post story that explains the political cleavage emerging for 2004:

large number of influential Democrats, many of them former high-level advisers to President Bill Clinton and state leaders, are growing increasingly concerned that Dean’s antiwar, anti-tax-cut campaign could doom the party’s chances of winning back the White House and Congress. If Dean can’t quickly exhibit an ability and willingness to broaden his appeal, especially in the South, these Democrats may join together in a campaign to stop him, several said.

Gore’s endorsement would throw a significant monkey wrench into this Southern Strategy. [Wouldn’t the Clintons be happy about this, since it increases the odds that Hillary will be able to run in 2008?–ed. Five years is a lifetime in politics — and Dean’s ascension means that the Clintons now have a formidable rival] 4) Just think of the language John Kerry’s going to have to use now to gain anyone’s attention. However, as Maureen points out, Joe Lieberman can’t be too happy right now either. 5) If, against all odds, someone else were to win the nomination, Al Gore would become the official unlucky charm of Democrats everywhere. More reaction from Josh Marshall (“stunned”) and Atrios (“laughing”), Mark Kleiman (“I’m banking on them [50,000 Clark supporters] rather than Gore”) and Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO’s the Corner (“No word yet from McGovern, Mondale, or Dukakis”) James Joyner collects additional blogosphere reactions. Time has a roundup of mediasphere reaction. Nothing on Dean’s official blog — or this one either. UPDATE: The Washington Post has reactions from other campaigns. It’s not pretty:

Gore’s scheduled endorsement caught Dean’s rivals by surprise. A number of the candidates sought Gore’s support, but one Democrat close to Gore said Dean was particularly energetic in reaching out to Gore and his wife Tipper throughout the year. During the run-up to the war last winter, according to a knowledgeable Democrat, Dean spoke with Gore several times, largely to seek reassurance about his opposition to Bush’s policy at a time when opposing the war appeared even more politically risky than it does today. Dean’s rivals said they were disappointed by the latest development. Lieberman issued a statement saying he was “proud to have been chosen by Al Gore in 2000” as his running mate and noted that he had stayed out of the 2004 race until Gore decided not to run. He added: “Ultimately, the voters will make the determination and I will continue to make my case about taking our party and nation forward.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said in a statement that he had endorsed Gore’s candidacy early in the 2000 cycle. “But, this election is about the future, not about the past” and will be “decided by voters, across the country, beginning with voters in Iowa.” Erik Smith, press secretary to Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), said, “We’re clearly disappointed because Dick Gephardt fought side by side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks against Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues Howard Dean was on the wrong side.”

LAST UPDATE: Another reason for Kerry to use strong language — from today’s Chicago Tribune:

Several campaigns were unclear what to make of the news, including Kerry’s aides, who accidentally fired off an e-mail to reporters, saying: “I don’t think Kerry should comment unless asked at a press event.” Minutes later, a fresh response arrived from the senator. “I respect Al Gore,” Kerry said in the statement, adding that he had endorsed Gore in 2000 and worked on his behalf. “But this election is about the future, not about the past.”

TNR’s &c. has the actual e-mail.