Al Gore is headlining a major fundraiser for the DNC in late May, co-hosted by prominent donors to the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

The date, May 31, is also the day the DNC rules committee convenes for what was expected to be a contentious meeting over whether and how to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Does Gore's big tent appearance signal that maybe Michigan and Florida will get resolved after all, in a more harmonious manner than previously anticipated?

Even though the DNC rules committee voted near-unanimously to strip Michigan and Florida of its delegates last August--and Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida--the Clinton campaign continues to emphasize these two states more than any others. "We cannot claim we have a nominee based on 48 states," Clinton said this morning.

Yet even if the delegates were seated based on the flawed elections in January, it wouldn't put Clinton much closer to clinching the nomination. At this point, Obama's lead in pledged delegates has become insurmountable and the Obama campaign expects to clinch a majority of pledged delegates after elections in Oregon and Kentucky Tuesday night. By all indications, the superdelegates will then ratify the pick of the pledged delegates. Michigan and Florida won't swing things one way or the other.

Having all-but clinched the nomination, it's in the best interest of the Obama campaign to figure out how to seat Michigan and Florida sooner rather than later. They can afford to give up some delegates and bragging rights if it means bringing this fight to an end.

The meeting may even end early. Cocktails with Al start at 6--and the megadonors need time to put on their evening best.

Comments (19)

1. Gore probably "bunts"...not wanting to link his horse to Obama (until he secures the nomination) and piss off the Hillary voters. (Yes, HSUB, if McCain wins, Al still could run in 2012!)

   Dean, that "brilliant" strategist (really...did HE come up with the "50 state plan" or somebody else)....

   will let Hillary concede and THEN seat MI and FL under some "delegate sharing plan" that doesn't refute the Obama candidacy....probably with a sweetheart deal to Hillary to pay off her campaign debts and a long speech just before Obama's Veep's, so that she can lay the groundwork for 2012 if McCain wins.

   But Gore?...non-factor.

   Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 2:51pm

2. Al Gore.

   It's inevitable... So quite incredible...

   Really unforgettable... And never to be regrettable...

   (...isn't this just excruciatingly fun?...)

   Posted by ttr at 05/19/2008 @ 3:17pm

3. Didn't Crabwalk nail this delegate problem awhile back as to how it would go down?

   Posted by Benchrest at 05/19/2008 @ 3:23pm

4. Mettya & Mask,

   As I understand the rules, the posted penalty is a 50% loss of delegates as published. So I can understand being pissed at the "full Monty" being levied upon them. So give them each 50% as published. Split these "1/2 measure" delegates with FL delegates as per the vote and the MI 50/50 (as Obama wasn't on the ticket) and be done with it. Won't make a difference now anyway.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 05/19/2008 @ 4:12pm

5. Posted by leftofcenter at 05/19/2008

   Like I said, they'll come up with SOMETHING that obviously won't hurt Obama, much less steal the nomination away for HRC.

   Frankly, this makes me glad Dean DIDN'T get the nomination in 2004.

   He's proven he's no leader and certainly no great thinker who didn't consider MAYBE this problem might come up back in January!

   Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 4:54pm

6. This is completely unrelated, but last week I said of the CA ruling that for millenia marriage has been about children and the prohibition on sibling marriage proves the point because sibling marriage leads to an unacceptably high incidence of birth defects (There have been exception in the cases of royalty but they have high birth defects but accept it to keep the bloodline pure.)

   Somebody said that I had to be wrong because sone culture permit cousin marriage. I just wanted to say I told you so. This is from the UK

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics

   Doctors should offer genetic screening to immigrant communities that encourage marriage between cousins, experts said yesterday, as new research suggested cases of rare inherited brain disorders are eight times higher among Pakistani children born to married cousins than those born to unrelated parents.

   Married cousins, a tradition among certain Pakistani, Arab and Central Asian populations, have a higher risk of passing on genetic illnesses that are often serious or life-threatening. There is around one extra death per 100 births to such couples, scientists have found.

   Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008 @ 5:40pm

7. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008

   MBB, here we go again...on a thread that has NOTHING to do with it, but so be it...

   if "marriage is about children", then DEFEND that and tell us why you think infertile couples and seniors shouldn't be allowed to be married.

   Or don't, and move to ANOTHER rationalization and pretend like you didn't make the first claim....

   your choice of course.

   Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 7:54pm

8. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/19/2008

   Might I suggest reading, "What is Marriage For?" by E.J. Graff?

   Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Judeo-Christian tradition (Levirate marriage in Judaism, polygamy in Islam, and it is also clear that St. Augustine was advocating for a monogomous world that didn't exist when he addressed it - not to mention sects like the Mormons), Greece, China, India and sundry other places know that marriages have a number of functions, with children being only one of them. I'd submit that the alliance between clans, families or what have you is begun in marriage and sometimes cemented through children - but let's not pretend the children are always or even usually the ends. They are frequently the means - and there are just as frequently other means of achieving those ends.

   Oh, btw, there is an argument that humanity's greatest achievement is culture - which your arguments that try to reduce everything to genetics completely miss. Genetics are only a piece, and human beings and marriage can't be reduced to genetics. Particularly because marriage is a cultural concept - not a genetic one.

   Posted by srjenkins at 05/19/2008 @ 9:25pm

9. RE: Will Gore ...

   Well, Gore's great with Earth. However, the man's just inept in politics: he used to support failed candidares like Howard Dean.

   Posted by HelenDAO at 05/19/2008 @ 9:43pm

10. Well, on every front Obama is just at the same level as Bubba 8 yrs ago. Hey uncle John, if Bubba could do it, why not Obama? It's the people who will suffer from the rulers' inexperience, the rulers will thrive no matter what.

    ---------

    McCain attacks Obama over Iran comments May 19, 2:11 PM (ET) By LIBBY QUAID

    CHICAGO (AP) - Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.

    McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.

    "Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 05/19/2008 @ 9:48pm

11. Posted by HelenDAO at 05/19/2008

    I'm sorry, but...

    did that almost look like HELEN was...

    DEFENDING Barack Obama?!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 9:56pm

12. by Mask...

    Clearly...

    Posted by ttr at 05/19/2008 @ 10:01pm

13. Al Gore has not proved himself to be an effective politician. His arrival this late in the game only confirms his irrelevance to the process that appears to be beneath him.

    Posted by sloper at 05/19/2008 @ 10:20pm

14. maybe helen is hrc!

    Monday, May 19, 2008 11:15:37 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:09pm

15. did somebody say gore?

    Between 2000 and 2050, the U.S. will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion--but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same.

    that's the best segue i could find.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 12:16am

16. Posted by HelenDAO at 05/19/2008

    HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT!?

    Are you kidding me? Iran a country who has no nukes. The Soviet Union a country who had enough nukes to wipe out the entire earth by itself. Yeah you tell me who is more of a threat.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 12:41am

17. "We cannot claim we have a nominee based on 48 states," Clinton said this morning.

    Does this same logic work for the republicans too?

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/20/2008 @ 3:44pm

18. I'm always fascinated by inane comments that provide no clue as to what point the author is trying to make. This thread contains several examples of such.

    Al Gore, since leaving office, has raised himself to a level that is above ordinary politics. He has become a leader of a movement to save the planet from the effects of global warming, and as such, he is revered worldwide in a way that he never was in his own country. It goes without saying that he will actively support the eventual Democratic Party nominee, but since it has long been clear that the nomination would be won by Senator Obama, there was little need for him to enter the partisan fray and thus tarnish his image with certain segments of the party.

    Senator Obama has said that he regularly consults with Al Gore and that Gore will have a prominent role in shaping environmental policy in his administration. This statement implies a tacit endorsement by Gore himself, as it is unlikely that Obama would have invoked his name without permission. I am all for Al Gore using his newfound superstar status to promote those elements of the Democratic Party that represent progressive values and goals. If only he had had the courage to campaign as his true self in 2000, the world could have avoided the disastrous 8 year train wreck of Bush & Co. (I know that Gore actually won in 2000, but Florida might have been rendered moot if he had been a better candidate.)

    Posted by robgo2 at 05/21/2008 @ 04:16am

19. Robgo2 gets it right, but one thing I would add...

    If the so-called "Protest votes" that went to Ralph Nader had gone to Al gore there might not have been any train wreck.

    Posted by macduck at 05/21/2008 @ 7:46pm