No matter how one parses it, the news that the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, Al Gore, will endorse Howard Dean at Harlem today is of more than passing interest. Barring the unforeseen, it looks like this could be the moment that cements the former Vermont governor’s status as the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. What is unclear at this time, however, is whether this endorsement means that Mr. Gore will move closer to Dr. Dean, or vice versa. If the former, the disintegration of a once-moderate Democrat will be complete. If the latter, Mr. Dean may yet have a shot at the White House.

Mr. Gore rose to national prominence in New York City, challenging the Reverend Jesse Jackson for his Hymietown remark. He returned to New York this summer to rail at a president who went to war to protect America, liberate Iraq, and vouchsafe Israel — all with the imprimatur of the Congress in a bipartisan vote. This endorsement, of the ultra-liberal, anti-war Dr. Dean, could be Mr. Gore returning to New York for his swan song and his final descent into liberal madness. It was a descent that started, at the latest, at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles, when the vice president declared himself for “the people” and against “the powerful.”

There is, however, an alternate scenario. Perhaps Mr. Dean is looking for credibility on national security issues. He could certainly use it facing off against a retired general and a Massachusetts senator whose worst nightmare seems to be that some American somewhere doesn’t know that he, John Kerry, served in Vietnam. Mr. Gore’s endorsement could help here. Mr. Gore broke ranks back in 1991 to vote for the first Gulf War while he was in the Senate. Mr. Gore also served on the Senate’s armed services committee. The former vice president is also one of the few national political figures who is a Vietnam veteran.

The Democrats sorely need credibility on the national security issue if they hope to compete in the first presidential election since the attacks of September 11. Mr. Gore has made quite a statement endorsing a candidate other than his erstwhile running mate, Senator Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman, it must be said, has been running an admirably hawkish campaign, supporting and voting for the Iraq war. Wesley Clark, for all his faults, at least looks better on defense issues than Dr. Dean, if only because he was a general. Senator Clinton also has been staking out what, in the context of today’s Democratic Party, can be called a hawkish line on the post-war in Iraq, calling for more troops as opposed to a withdrawal. It’s unclear who has hitched their wagon to whose star at this point, but Mr. Gore’s may well be fading fast.