Anyone who says Al Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean is not a big deal has not been in American politics long. While the endorsement does little in terms of the General Election against George W. Bush, it is gigantic within the Democratic Party. In addition to fast forwarding the process beyond New Hampshire, it set the tone of what the Democratic establishment will back as the Party nominee. And, in the end, it proves that Zell Miller was right.

In the big scheme of things, having the backing of a political party’s prior Presidential nominee is both a big thing and a little thing. As the last nominee of the Party, Al Gore was the nominal head of an enormous fundraising and grassroots organization. Of equal significance, Al Gore leads the legions of party activists who hold a variety of local, district, and state party positions. The combination of fundraising, grassroots, and party control at a national level is a formidable asset for any candidate seeking a party’s nomination. Indeed, had Al Gore decided to run, (like Walter Mondale in 1984 and Bob Dole in 1996), it would have been difficult to deny him the nomination based solely on the inherent advantages associated with the backing of the existing political machinery. While it is never entirely possible to hand off such allegiances, the mere access to lists, names, and databases is invaluable. Although most of the attention for the next few weeks will be on the media exposure from the endorsement, the real benefits of the endorsement will be seen in the months to come with campaign coffers filling up, caucus chairmen steering votes, and volunteers waiving placards.

Within the party is one thing, however. The General Election is quite another. Obviously, party operatives would support the party nominee regardless of the endorsement of the former Presidential nominee. Similarly, fundraisers and volunteers would have come home to their party with or without the endorsement. As a result, Al Gore’s endorsement in 2004 of Howard Dean will have about as much impact as George Bush’s endorsement of Robert Dole in 1996 or Jimmy Carter’s endorsement of Walter Mondale in 1984. At best, the endorsement might boost turnout for a party, but it is unlikely to change any minds.

In addition to changing the dynamics of the National Democratic Party selection process, Al Gore’s endorsement signaled a clear decision to stay the course of the Party. Unwilling to permit the Party to drift to the center (as Bill Clinton did in 1992), Al Gore staked out the Party’s course with a continued move to the left. Significantly, he was willing to do this at the expense of his former running mate Senator Joe Lieberman, and without the blessing of the most popular Democrat in America - Bill Clinton. Like so many of his life decisions, Al Gore’s decision was an impulse decision based on the instinct that had guided him so far.

In his endorsement, Al Gore stated “Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire at the grassroots level all over this country.” Apparently, Al Gore has not been home to Tennessee much, or to any other state in the South. He might want to get Zell Miller’s book.