William Saletan in Slate thinks that Gore's endorsement of Dean is undemocratic:

Should Democrats fight it out and see who wins? Not if Gore has his way. "Democracy is a team sport," he declared as he endorsed Dean in Harlem this morning. "All of us need to get behind the strongest candidate."

Who decided Dean was the strongest candidate? Not the voters: They haven't voted. Not the polls, either: They've shown Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark scoring better than Dean in hypothetical match-ups with President Bush. The person who anointed Dean the strongest candidate is the same intervening politician who complained three years ago about intervening politicians.

Well no, the voters haven't decided yet, but by that point, isn't it a bit late? Is Saletan actually suggesting that Gore wait until after the bulk of primary elections (or even general ones) to endorse Dean? Does this strike anyone else as absurd?

Gore says he is backing Dean because he thinks he's the strongest. The strength of a candidate is subjective, right? And Gore's not the only one who perceives Dean to be the strongest candidate. As I've already pointed out, the only true objective standard of a candidate's strength is how many people actually vote for them.

And it's idiotic to suggest that someone like Gore wait until after ballots are already cast to endorse the person he thinks is best for the job.