A Question for Clinton Supporters:

If Al Gore decided to run, would you switch your support from Clinton to Gore?

I only ask because I want to get a guage as to whom would stay in the Clinton camp and those whom support Clinton only because there is no other viable candidate.

I do wish Gore would announce he was running. I have forgiven Gore's wife for going after Jello for that Frankenchrist album cover.



John

I really like Gore, the only candidate who could make me switch my support.

Without all the information one needs - especially information that's contrary to preconceptions and impressions. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend the high school cheerleader attitude of having pep rallies instead of classes. For me, elections are about going to school, not for pep rallies but for learning more. I have never and will never make a 'decision' about whom I'll be voting for until the day of an election. Even when I've worked on campaigns, I've refused to do so.

The candidate threads on DU are so abysmally devoid of anything even approaching information and so filled with American Idol bullshit, I have to wonder whether we can ever actually deserve a democracy.

If you know who somebody is, at the very core of their being, then how in the world can you not decide to vote for them? Hillary. Al. You know them both, you know the politics that drive them both. You can't choose?? I can't comprehend that.

It's exactly what C-czar Disgustsus does - makes up his (purported) mind and ignores both on-going developments and contrary information. It's a year until the first primaries and amost 2 years until the general election. In a nation of 300,000,000 people, including many with extraordinary credentials, I refuse to trot out the same old cast of characters and close my mind.

Wow. Okay. The cast of characters has been trotted out. The debates start in April. Not only is who we get to vote for in 2008 being set now, but so is the platform and issues we will vote on. Anybody who wants to end the war, needs to think on how the 2008 candidate will frame this war. Along with health care, labor rights, international relations, environment, and everything else we're facing. That's what we're doing right now. You can look at someone's life and get a sense of where they'd take us in the future. Obviously things can change, but based on past elections, the picture you've got now is pretty much what you're going to have a year from now. Make up your friggin' mind.

What? Are you rebelling against the Program?

;-)
sw

:rofl:

:hug: Namaste.

That's my entire point. While people are diddling around being fair and open-minded, candidates are knocking other candidates out of the race, framing the debate, gathering the money people, etc. Don't bitch about choices being made for you while you sit on the sidelines.

on the sidelines"?

I'm not a compulsive gambler. I feel no urgent need to lay down a bet so early in the game. In fact, because I have far more pressing concerns (like the upcoming war on Iran), I refuse to participate in the game altogether.

I guess my herd instinct must be lacking...

sw

Not all Democrats are created equal. If a DUer can't figure out that a whole lot of these Democrats aren't going to provide the overwhelming change needed, than I don't know how in the hell we expect passive participants to get it when voting time comes around. No I don't think anybody need make a permanent decision today, but waiting until election day is mind-numbing. Your comment about having choices pushed on you, and not seeing the connection between that and war in Iran, well I'm just speechless. The media will cover the frontrunner, what the frontrunner says will shape the debate, that debate will influence the public, which will further cement the debate. We don't get in it now, there might not be anything to get into six months from now.

You write about "the overwhelming change needed", but you DON'T want to see the whole damn paradigm challenged.

Fine. Talk amongst yourselves, I am verklempt.

And you know that how?

"don't want to see the whole damn paradigm challenged"

You said it. Did you forget?

didn't know to which of my statements your "that": was referring.

Now that you have clarified your statement, here is my response:

Those who are serious about challenging the current paradigm will, of necessity, question the role of ALL establishment institutions -- including electoral/party politics -- and seek always to broaden and shift dialogue and perceptions beyond the collectively agreed-upon limits/conventional wisdom.

I consider those who look to electoral politics alone for salvation to be naive. For example, no civil rights legislation would have been brought through the electoral political process absent a passionate, on-the-streets movement.

No New Deal legislation would have made it through our Legislative and Executive branches had not the people been stirred to join unions and demand some rights.

People need to see the truth about the forces that control their fortunes and their perceptions. Who knows? That might even eventually change our electoral system.

I want to shift and rock the very earth upon which the candidates will be walking -- partisans want to make the earth smooth for their favored savior.

sw

You accused me of not wanting a change in the paradigm. I asked you how you know that. You didn't answer.

You want the candidates to walk on different ground, you better be pointing them in the direction of that ground right now. Otherwise you'll just be whining at election time that they're all vying for the same square foot.

I've always admired her. I've admired her career, her work on behalf of children and the poor. I've admired her and Bill's ability to raise an awesome daughter while living in a fishbowl. I like her for taking on health care, even tho she was attacked (by the health insurance industry lobby money) and ridiculed for it. I love that she remains a strong person, even tho she's lived thru the most heinous attacks on her character (pig in a pantsuit as she's commonly referred to by republicans).

I've never had a problem with her. This sudden surge of liberals who can't stand her.. well.. I find it soo fascinating as this level of anger is reserved for a woman who has done nothing different than other Democrats in regard to the Iraq War, etc., yet she's getting the grief over it. The truth is that America, liberal or not, cannot deal with a strong woman. There are endless stories of whether or not she's "nice". Does anyone really spend a moment pondering whether or not any public male figures are "nice and warm"? She is, for the record, extremely nice and warm hearted. I got this from someone that worked for Bill Clinton in the White House days. Stories are run on her appearance, her image, her clothes. None of this happens to males. I would expect that liberals would apply the same standards to Senator Clinton as they would to a male Senator who is running for president, but they don't. I've been here on DU since January 2001, and I STILL cannot see ANY reason why the level of hate for Senator Clinton runs so high here. I suspect many who perpetuate this attitude are here for that particular reason. The repubs KNOW that she polls very high (tho Al Gore outpolls everyone!), and the subtle attacks have to start early. Divide and conquer baby, and y'all fall for it every time.

Al Gore had my full support until he started straddling the fence; ie; "no, I won't run, Well, I might
run, I'm happy outside of politics, Well, yes, he might run....I'm tired of being disappointed about his indecisions. It's getting to be old hat now..

:crazy: :crazy: :boring: :boring: :boring: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

... and he decided to pick Russ Feingold as his running mate, would he (Feingold) accept?