It'd be very strange for Gore to endorse Obama, with his lackluster record and positions on the environment, including his support for coal to liquid and goverment susidies for Big Coal.

The truth is, there's not a perfect fit for Gore. Edwards is closest on policy, and Gore almost picked him to be his running mate in 2000, but he voted for the war.

My guess is, Gore stays neutral.

When is filing day in Iowa and New Hampshire? At what point is it 100% obvious that Al Gore isn't running because ... he's not on the ballot?

A Gore endorsement would not affect the race.

Further, should Gore again endorse a losing candidate, the prestige of his brand would suffer, just as it did in 2004.

I think that an ex- President or VP should follow the Reagan rule: make no primary endorsement, and endorse whomever the party nominates for the general.

"Electability questions"? Nice. So why do we all tout our 'great' field when two of them most likely can't win a general election because of gender or race? Come on Iowa, NH, whoever the hell goes first. Come out for Edwards or say hello to 4-8 more years of GOP madness.

can we please stop polling for his entry into the race?

I'd be happy for the media to stop polling altogether and start focusing on the debate.

That said, did they ever stop polling Hillary Clinton's numbers during the 2004 primary cycle? Despite her repeated claims that she wouldn't be running that year.

Polling is like candy to the political press. It has no nutritional value, but they love it all the same.

Somebody needs to tell Garance when Kennedy and Humphrey entered the race in 1968.

Really, the only deadline here is set by the February 5 primaries, not Iowa and New Hampshire.

But I would also note that until we hear a Shermanesque statement from Gore, there's no reason to assume that he has ruled out running. And given his towering advantages over this field, especially with respect to his opposition to the Iraq War and his actual experience in government, as long as he gets on the ballot for the February 5 primaries, he would be a shoo-in.

about Obama's electability, as well

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Gore, which still doesn't keep me from noting his frequent lapses in strategic political judgment, most prominently embodied by Lieberman.

If Gore made his December 2003 of Dean based on perceived "electability," I think that tells us a great deal about his perceptiveness on that particular point.

So it may well be that Gore has questions about Obama's electability. If he does, though, I think he's way off the mark.

I don't think Gore would be inclined to waste the political and moral weight he now has on an endorsement based purely on environmental purity...so Dodd and Richardson are probably out. If he wants to defeat Hillary (and does anybody doubt that he does?), he's got two options, Obama or Edwards. I'm inclined to think that Obama is the logical recipient, again for purely Machiavellian reasons. There's been talk all summer of Gore and Obama teaming up in some way (usually it was Gore coming in to campaign for President and Obama hooking up with him as Vice and running as a team. This would obviously have been a stop Hillary move, but there is reason to believe that one of the things Obama and Gore share, other than an early oppostion to the Iraq war, is a disdain for Hillary Clinton. We know she feels disdain for them. Just look at the expression on her face when they are in room.)

If it's close enough, and the dynamics are right, on the eve of either Iowa or New Hampshire, a well timed endorsement by the Al Gore of 2007 (very different cat from the Al Gore of 2004..) could be the race changing event. My money is on Obama (because an Obama victory in Iowa particularly, would be more damaging to Hillary than an Edwards victory...), but I could see it being Edwards just as easily. Gore may be in the catbird seat. And it must feel good.

Um, Gore's not saying anything new wrt endorsements, any more than he's changed his stock answers about running; I've seen him answer (when asked directly) that he'd probably endorse in the primaries at least twice. This time the question had a bit more extensive follow-up than in the past, but the basic answer's unchanged.

I still think that any noise he makes about endorsing is simply a carrot to get better climate-change promises out of those running-- I don't see him tying his reputation to someone who won't win, he knows that his endorsement's still worth only a few points at most, and he won't endorse Hillary unless she gets the nomination anyway.

"He knows his endorsement's still worth only a few points at most..."

And a few points in Iowa or New Hampshire could tip the balance and maybe the whole ball game. We'll see what happens in January. Politics, as Gore knows better than anybody, is all about timing.