Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Al Gore I
I think Al Gore should be listed as a potential candidate on the page. He's listed on the templete, the article about the main candidates, on the Al Gore article , I even found a third-party website. In addition, he's mentioned in the media like on the Nightly News, and himself has not completely denied running. It would be wise to add him to the potential candidates section, considering everyone else does. Hobie Hunter 10:15, 27 January 2007 (EST)
 * He has repeatedly denied interest and has failed to express "serious interest." This has been discussed ad nauseam in places like here. Until he expresses "serious interest," he'll stay off the list, no matter what a few other articles say.  He shouldn't be on other pages, either. Zz414 14:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Al Gore be under a seperate category? Something like "Individuals who are frequently mentioned as potential candidates" Gore, Pataki, and Pence would fit under that category. Hobie Hunter 3:55, 3 February 2007 (EST)
 * No, this has been discussed ad nauseam on this page for Gore, Rice, Colbert, and others. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's where people who've actually expressed serious interest are to be listed.  Even that's pushing it--it ought to be limited to those who've filed, because that's tangible. --Zz414 21:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gore is included on the election template as a potential candidate but is not mentioned in this article? That doesn't make sense. Rice has never run for elected office and has stated she will not run for president. Colbert has never run and is not considered by the media or anyone notable to be a serious candidate. Gore, on the other hand, is a former Vice President and Presidential candidate. He bears inclusion as long as there is a possibility he may run. What harm is there in listing him as a potential candidate. If he doesn't run, take his name off. I see where you're coming from and in most cases I would agree but I think Gore is a notable exception.Trojanpony 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While you may disagree, the standards for the article have existed for quite some time with consensus on this page, and Gore, Rice, etc. have been excluded for reasons often articulated. If you'd like to convince a change, this is the page to do it, not through reverts. --Zz414 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be consensus as you say. It seems like there are as many people who disagree with you as agree, if not more. Who makes the ultimate decision? Do we take a vote? I just think the exclusion of Gore leaves this article incomplete. Many people would probably use this page to find out what his status is in terms of running. His exclusion implies that he is definitely not running, which is not the case. What is really the harm in saying that a MAJOR potential candidate is not running but has not ruled it out? This wouldn't set much of a precedent as most others who could be included aren't former VP's and electoral college winners. 149.150.236.99 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above posts, Al Gore is mentioned in many media outlets such as MSNBC, the Nightly News, and Time Magazine. In addition, Al Gore has not completely ruled out a presidential bid. While Zz414 has stated he has not expressed serious interest, he has exppressed interest. Look at Obama, originally he said he would most likely not run in 08', but now he's a frontrunner. People change their minds, and until Al Gore delivers a rock-solid announcement that he will not run like Kerry did I think he should be listed on the page. He's listed on the Al Gore article, the templete, the page for candidates, and on major media outlets. Also, Zz414 compared Al Gore to Rice & Colbert. Rice has never run for electoral offfice. Colbert? He is never considered a candidate. He's a pundit! Not a politician! On Wikipedia, it seems as if their is truth by consensus. It seems more people agree with me that Gore should be listed, rather than people who don't. There had been a link to a section where the lat post was in September. That's hardly recent. Hobie Hunter, 5 February 2007 4:59 (EST)


 * Definitely agree with Hobie Hunter. Gore hasn't ruled out a possibility completely, and I believe until he rules it out completely he should be mentioned. J Klein my talk my contributions 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion and input. If it keeps like this for another day, and the consensus remains for putting Gore on, then I'll reluctantly relent. It's just that expressing "serious interest" is the most accurate way to identify who's in and who's out of the 2008 race. Other candidates who have expressed "interest" but are NOT listed include people like Pataki, Bloomberg, and Nader, off the top of my head. Limiting this page to serious expressions of interest winnows out most of the illegitimate contenders, and right now it's impossible to say whether Gore's going to be in or out. Because of the "crystal ball" concern, limiting it to filed candidates or "serious" candidates is an important filter. Obama HAD expressed serious interest. Gore expressed it earlier, but has since backed off for several months. Finally, I'm not so sure that Gore's "regularly named" in media outlets as a real contender. If you can show several mainstream media sources indicating Gore's status as such, I'd be much more persuaded. Right now, he's just a "could be" candidate mentioned as gaining popularity from his Oscar and Nobel nods, and then speculation that perhaps such acclaim may launch a 2008 bid. Right now, though, all the media outlets are treating it just as that--speculation and projection. That's why it's inappropriate to list him here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Zz414 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that Zz414 is the one person who responded to my comment that doesn't think Gore should be on the list. You want mainstream media links? I got them., , , ,. You got Time, Rolling Stone, MSNBC, NY Times, and the Washington Post. Just so you know, Michael Bloomberg is listed, as was Pataki until a week ago. Al Gore reminds me of Newt Gingrich. They're both politicians from the Clinton era who held positions of huge leadership & influence, stayed out of politics for a while and are now considering a 2008 run. So why is Gingrich listed but not Gore? Hopefully, my analogy and five mainstream media links should be enough to convince you Al Gore should be on the list. Please accept our opinions and let Gore be on the list! -Hobie Hunter 10:17, 6 February 2007 (EST)
 * First, the MSNBC article clearly indicates that he's not running, and their piece is only a piece "in case he changes his mind." Second, the Rolling Stone link is a "draft movement" article urging Gore to run, not a piece indicating his current status.  Third, the WaPo article is exactly what we already know--that Gore hasn't closed the door on running, but it doesn't suggest that he's a leading contender.  In fact, that article FURTHER suggests from his closest advisers that he's NOT running.  Fourth, the Time article indicates, again, that he's not planning on running, but that he's "rehabilitated him with Democratic activists."  The NYT link is the ONLY link that's objectively indicating his status alongside others.  Reading these links has actually made me more opposed to listing Gore now, because it seems that such a movement does not indicate objective reality (because almost every source you listed has stated clearly that Gore doesn't intend to run), but instead reflects a wishful draft movement a la Rice as discussed above.  These media sources don't give the impression that Gore's running; they give hope to Gore fans that he hasn't closed the door.  That's not enough to list him as a candidate.  Again, I'll concede by the end of the day if I don't get any more support, but these sources are really not worthwhile.  The reason Gingrich is different is because Gingrich has in fact expressed serious interest.  That's all. --Zz414 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Zz414, thank you for your consideration of other's views on the subject. I would respectfully ask that you please edit the article to include Gore by the end of the day, assuming the consensus to do so holds up. Thank you. Trojanpony 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The BBC lists Al Gore as one of the top contenders . I don't think he'll be a candididate, but I do think that the media hoopla around his name makes him worthy of being mentioned for the time being - something like, "unlikely to run but keeps being mentioned in the media." -- Macduff 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to add Gore. The consensus is 5 to 1 and last time I checked, 5>1. Simply adding a note is not enough. Zz414, sorry but you said it yourself. If by theend of the day the consensus remains to add Gore, you'd accept it. That time has come. In addition, Zz414, please stop just putting a note about Al Gore. He should be treated like the other candidates, If it makes you feel better, the note will stay. Hobie Hunter 10:17, 6 February 7 (UTC)

Al Gore II

 * Gore came out again today to say: "I don’t have plans to be a candidate again and though I haven’t completely ruled out any possibility of running at some point in the future I don’t expect to and cannot perceive circumstances in which I would." If even he can't even think of any circumstances that might make him run in 2008, then, honestly, does anyone really think he's going to be a candidate?  I think his most recent statement seals it--Al Gore is not running for President in 2008 unless there's some gargantuan world-changing event.  Besides, having a "widely-mentioned candidate who hasn't clearly denied interest yet" category just opens Pandora's Box.  Who makes the decision as to whether an uninterested candidate is "widely mentioned" enough to get included?  Where's the standard?  It's all completely subjective.  Best to just leave it to an encyclopedic standard and only mention candidates who have expressed serious interest and/or have filed an exploratory committee/papers of candidacy. --Ai.kefu 20:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"'He so appreciates the sentiment behind efforts like this. But he's been very clear he really has no intention of running for president in 2008,' she said." Is that clear enough to remove him now? --Zz414 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS. Zz414 and everybody else have come to a compromise. GORE WILL STAY ON THE LIST, albeit with adisclaimer. THE DEBATE HAS FINISHED. THE VERDICT IS THAT GORE STAYS. Ai .kefu, dispite what you think, majority rules. Gore will stay on the list because nearly everbody agrees. Eight people have come to discuss this, six agree with me. Please remember that we have come to an overwhelming decision. THE POINT IS MOOT. --Hobie Hunter 8:24, 9 February 2007
 * I believe the "point" is that we have two new sources from today that indicate that gore has "shut the door," even more so. I agree, I reached a compromise previously, but now I'd like to address these new sources, which contain even stronger language that Gore has declined to run.  It doesn't even appear that he's expressed any interest. I agree, it should stay until we resolve these new quotations, but these appear much more in favor of removing Gore than anything previously. --Zz414 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is always reported that Gore "won't run" when he over seas. It happen in Japan three weeks ago and now Al Gore in in London and the same thing is happening again. I wouldn't trust these articles. Gore will make up his mind in the USA why would he do it abywhere else? Besides in the article today over in England that said Gore was not running said "Former US vice-president Al Gore reiterated here that he does not intend to run for president in 2008 -- though he did not entirely rule out doing so further in the future.

Nothing has changed. He has been saying that since this time last year. We should keep him until he gives a yes or no answer.

Btw, im rewording the note on this page. It makes it seem like Gore is dead set on not running. He has not indicated nothing yet. Oh yEs itS caRly 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that in all of the bold words and caps lock, nobody really responded to the actual issues I raised around listing Al Gore on this page. The major issue that Al Gore's inclusion brings up is that of an open Pandora's Box.  Namely, if you include people who aren't running but who are "widely mentioned" as a possible candidate, you make the entire process totally subjective to a small handful of Wikipedia editors, or even one editor.  Who decides when a non-candidate is "widely mentioned" enough to get listed?  Aside from that problem, how is Al Gore saying that he "cannot perceive of any circumstances" under which he'd run qualify as being a potential candidate?  I'm starting to think the handful of folks here who are pressing for Al Gore's inclusion on this list are possibly Gore '08 supporters whose preferences are coloring their judgment as editors.  Let's be reasonable here.  If we include Al Gore, someone who said he can't even think of a circumstance that would necessitate his joining the race, then let's re-add Condi Rice and Mark Warner and Stephen Colbert and all those other people who aren't running but about whom lots of articles and columns are being published touting them as draft candidates.  So the issues that need to be addressed here are:
 * A). What's the actual standard for deciding when a noncandidate is "widely mentioned" enough to get on the list?
 * B). How is Gore saying he cannot perceive of any circumstance under which he'd run lending any belief to the idea that he's at all likely to become a candidate, any more than Jimmy Carter is likely to make a run for a second term?
 * C). If we include Al Gore, a non-candidate who is "widely mentioned" as a possible candidate by the media, then why don't we include all the other leagues of such non-candidates who get editorials written about them all the time? --Ai.kefu 03:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rice has said she will not run. Jon Stewart said him and Colbert are not running for president in 08. Warner drop out. All of these people gave a "no i'm not running". Al Gore has not said "no". He has been saying "I do not see myself running for president but have not ruled it out". IMO he leaves the door open and has intrest in running for president. If he is not running then why doesn't Gore just come out and say "I'm not running in 2008".

Shouldn't Gore stay on the Potential candidates list until he has given a stright answer? Everyone else on the declined to run list has said no and didn't add nothing to the end of it like "I have not ruled it out" like Gore is doing. Plus has Gore said no? The article says that but not Gore. That's a big difference. Remember that Japan article that said Gore was not running and turned out not to be true. I think this is another one. Gore was quoted saying the same thing he always says. I say leave him on until he gives a stright answer. Oscar are a week or so away maybe he'll say there. But Gore has not said no and should not be added to the delined to run list until he completely rules it out. Plus no one else in the media is reporting right now that Gore is not running. Looks like the editors made a bad title choice.

Oh yEs itS caRly 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Oh yEs itS caRly, Al Gore has not completely shut the door to running, and it would be wise to keep the page so that Gore is given equal clout with the other candidates until we reach a decision. It's not going to hurt anybody to leave Gore as a potential candidate. He is not in the same category as the candidates the naysayers keep on mentioning. Mark Waner & Rice have completely ruled out running. Colbert? Could someone please tell me why people keep on mentioning him. It just doesn't make sense! In addition, I found another link to Al Gore possibly running,. Ai .kefu said that leaving Gore listed would open up Pandora's Box. IT WOULDN'T The only people I could think of that would be under this category are Pataki and Pence. It looks like Zz414 and Ai .kefu are the only naysayers. You are not the only people on this page, its 7 to 2. Why can't you just accept the fact that the vast majority of people are in favor of keeping Gore listed? Until you two can come to a compromise wityh everbody else, please leave Gore listed along with the other candidates, not a footnote --Hobie Hunter 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Hobie Hunter 2:02. 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hobie, the way Gore is currently listed is fine. He's not like "the other candidates, so he shouldn't be listed like the other candidates.  He's not a "footnote."  He's simply designated with a "note" below the candidates who have expressed serious interest.  Please leave the format, because so far you're the only one who disapproves of it, and it's a compromise to include Gore without making him "like" the other candidates, which vaults his interest to a higher level than it actually is. --Zz414 15:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The way Gore is currently listed is not fine! I have reached a compromise of a compromise. Al Gore will be in a seperate section, albeit with a note, with the citations and direct quote intact. I hope this will be acceptable. For the record I am not the only one who disagrees with you, Zz414, there is Oh yEs itS caRly, Macduff, Trojanpony, J Klein, 149.150.236.99, and me. That's six right there. And six is more than two! I urge all the people I listed & all who agree with us to go against Zz414 and Ai .kefu and have our voices heard!

--Hobie Hunter 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Hobie Hunter 8:32. 10 February 2007 (EST)
 * Sorry, I should clarify that the "only one who disagrees" with me is not about Gore being listed at all, but how Gore is listed (i.e., as a "Note," or as a "Individual frequently mentioned" with a Note). --Zz414 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III
Once again, another denial, from an AP report: "The environmental activist and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee is often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008 despite his repeated statements that he's not running. Recently, some former aides met in Boston to discuss a campaign to draft the former vice president. 'I haven't changed my answer about politics,' Gore told reporters. 'I have no intention of running for president again.'" How many more time does he have to say it before we can remove him? --Zz414 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, a Fox News Poll came out this week putting Al Gore at 26% support for running across party lines, 41% support from Democrats alone. If those numbers drop, and there is evidence that the Draft Gore movement has come to an impass, then we can remove.  Until then, I think it is noteable.  BTW, I am not a Gore Supporter by ANY means, just looking to be fair in this article. - Eisenmond


 * And another, even MORE emphatic, denial again today: "I have no intention to run for president. I can't imagine in any circumstance to run for office again."  He said it in LA this time, so people can't use the 'foreign press are out to misinterpret him' excuse.  If he can't imagine any circumstance to run for office again, then what are we supposed to believe will EVER convince him in all of reality to run?  This is getting ridiculous.  There are no realistic circumstances that will cause Gore to run--he WON'T be a candidate.  If we keep Gore on here, we might as well add Condi Rice to the Republicans, since she's never given the Sherman Oath.  Fact is, neither Gore NOR Rice should be on here.  --Ai.kefu 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite stating that he is not planning to run, Donna Brazile, Gore's campaign chairwoman in the 2000 campaign, made a series of cryptic comments during a speech on January 31, 2007,at Moravian College in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania stating "Wait till Oscar night, I tell people: 'I'm dating. I haven't fallen in love yet. On Oscar night, if Al Gore has slimmed down 25 or 30 pounds, Lord knows." Daryl Nerl of The Morning Call has stated that Brazile's comments might be an implication that Gore will declare his intentions whether or not to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination during the 79th Academy Awards which are scheduled to be held on February 25, 2007. His global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth is a nominee for Best Documentary Feature. [37] Let's all agree that if he DOES NOT mention by this time, he will be removed?  All those in favor? - Eisenmond
 * Support. At least we're working with a timeline. --Zz414 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Although it would certainly take some incredible semantic acrobatics for Al Gore to actually make a run for the presidency after having said that no conceivable circumstance would warrant his running, at least we're moving forward. --Ai.kefu 02:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Gore said "no" to a run in 2004. AL Gore will say no again if he is not running. Like I said before, Gore has been saying that since early last year, yet we had him on the list then when he was saying that 9 months ago. Nothing has changed. It's down right stupid to count Gore out. The majority of the media is still calling Gore a possible 08 candidate. You guys act like Wikipedia will crash if we don't add Gore to the "not running" list. Gore has a political book coming out in May, he may say he's running during his book tour. Let's just be fair here. DEAN HAS SAID NO TO 08 BID. KERRY HAS SAID NO TO 08 BID. WARNER HAS SAID NO TO 08 BID. But Gore has not said no. So he does not belong on that yet until he says Yes or No. Besides this race is still early, he could wait until the fall to jump in. He says "I have no plans to run". You know plans can change. It's far from a NO. Oh yEs itS caRly 05:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I agree with Oh yEs itS caRly, Gore hasn't said NO to a 08' bid yet. Gore is mentioned as a potential candidate in media outlets like NBC, CNN, and the Washington Post. It's not like Brazille's comments are actually clear. To quote  Eisenmond, 'Brazile's comments might be an implication that Gore will declare his intentions during the Academy Awards. The key word here is might. While, an annoucement dring the Oscars would be a great & anticipated annoucement site. Things just don't always work out like that. I say until Gore makes a clear cut statement that he will definitely not run in 2008 and the major media stops mentioning him as a potential candidate. Besides, he could annouce during the 24-hour concert to save the Earth. --Hobie Hunter 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the posts stated above. I urge all those who agree with us to post in support of Gore.--65.8.3.209 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gore HAS said "NO" - "I have no intention to run for president. I can't imagine in any circumstance to run for office again."  If you can show proof of ANY intention of waiting until his book tour, then by all means, cite your references.  The only deadline that we have to work with is the Academy Awards.  As a side note, please limit the personal attacks / emotional outbursts, such as "down right stupid", and "you guys act like...".  Personal opinions are great, but unless you can back it up with a source, it doesnt belong on wiki.  Thanks.  - Eisenmond

First why remove him now? Gore has been saying virtually the same thing for months upon months now! Why all of a sudden does this time when he says it, Gore means he's not running?

February 9, 2007:

"I don't have plans to be a candidate again and though I haven't... completely ruled out any possibility of running at some point in the future I don't expect to and cannot perceive circumstances in which I would."

February 1, 2007:

"I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again."

January 2007:

"I'm not planning on running for president again."

September 10, 2006:

"I haven't completely ruled out running for president again in the future but I don't expect to."

In an interview with Gore's son, December 14, 2006:

So he's definitely not running?

"Well, I guess I have to add his addendum. I think the way he always says it is, 'I don't see any circumstances under which I would run for president.'"

Clearly, (there is no question in my mind actually) the "I don't see any circumstances where I would run" bit is scripted. Even his son knows it by heart! Over and over and over again, Al has said nearly the same exact thing. So my question is, what makes you think that this time it means he's not running? This isn't the first time he's been quoted saying it.

Now, does this mean he is leaning towards not running? Maybe. But to say that he has completely closed the door on a 2008 candidacy is ridiculous - it is as much open now, if not more open, than it was a year ago at this time when he was saying the same thing. Do you think he's calling Democratic insiders and fund-raisers just for hoots and giggles? From the New York Observer just a few days ago:

"According to one influential Democratic insider, close associates of the former Vice President have communicated to him and other prominent fund-raisers who are uncommitted to the other ’08 candidates that Mr. Gore will consider entering the race—if an opening presents itself—in September."

In the BBC interview, after the part that quote him saying he doesn't see himself running for president, he says, "I haven't 100% ruled out using some other venue in the future [to further his fight against global warming]." Venue of course being the Presidency (he's not gonna run for Congress folks).

Al Gore knows the magic words he has to say to make it clear that he is not running for President. It's not terribly hard to say "I've decided that I will not be a candidate for President in 2008." None of this "I have no plans to" or "I can't foresee any circumstances" - Gore knows what he has to say if he doesn't want to run. He did it in 2003. He has not so far in 2007 said this.

This is what he said in 2003:

"I've decided that I will not be a candidate for president in 2004," Gore told Lesley Stahl. "I personally have the energy and drive and ambition to make another campaign, but I don't think that it's the right thing for me to do."

In that quote their is no "I haven't ruled out" or "might". He is stright in what his intention are. Plus he stated that he has "the energy and drive and ambition to make another campaign".

If you delve into the 2003 article where he explicitly says he's not running, you'll also find his reasoning:

"Because I have run for president twice before and because a race this time around will focus on a Bush-Gore rematch, I felt that the focus on that race would inevitably have been more on the past than it should've been when all races should be focused on the future."

Barring some Constitutional amendment that extends Presidential terms, this excuse is no longer valid. 2008 will be a race that will determine the future of not only the United States, but the world as we know it. Al Gore knows this and very much understands its implications. If he feels that he is the best one suited to lead us, and feels that he can win, he will enter this race. Mark my words.

As for the Timeline, it's kinda stupid to do this. What happens if Al Gore movie does not win an Oscar? Then we'll still remove him? What happens if Gore gets up there and does not say nothing or does not mention a thing about politics and just thank the people who work on the movie? We'll still take him off?

Let's be fair here. We gave Dean, Kerry, Warner, etc. Time to give their answer why can't we do the same for Gore? All the others not running, they said a stright no to a 08 bid. They did not add a roadblock to their sentence, leaving the door open for a possible run. They are out. Gore is not. Gore was quoted saying that he will give a "Sherman statement" when he makes up his mind. In other words a stright "Yes" or "No".

Again, Wikipedia will not crash if we leave Gore on the possible canidate list. Trust me. Can you show me any proof that he will not wait until his book tour? This is no Sherman statement. Gore stays.

BTW, that was not a personal attack. I'm just saying that the idea of taking Gore of the list when he has not made a Sherman statement is "Down right stupid". Cause it is stupid. If Gore is not running he'll say the magic words, until then leave Gore up their on the list. Thanks.

Oh yEs itS caRly 23:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what if Gore never says the EXACT same words he said in 2003? What if he never says the magical phrase, "I will not be a candidate in 2008"?  How long will we wait before we take him off the list?  Will we wait until the very day of the FEC candidate filing deadline, or should we wait until the day of the Democratic National Convention, or should we bend over for him here on Wikipedia up until November 4th, 2008, just in case he decides to jump in as an independent candidate on the day of the election?  This is just getting laughable.  If he's said that there are "no conceivable circumstances" that would warrant his running in 2008, then there would have to be a REALLY REALLY good explanation up his sleeve if he ever does decide to run (a la, the four horsemen of the apocalypse are wreaking havoc on Earth and Al Gore has been bestowed with unique powers of heat vision and telepathy by an extraterrestrial race).  If I told you I couldn't think of a single circumstance that would necessitate my doing something, you would assume that it would take an event so huge and unprecedented to get me to do it that you could just as well assume the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow as you could assume that I would do that thing.  Likewise, if Al Gore says that he can't think of a single circumstance that would necessitate his entering the 2008 presidential race, a normal unbiased person would assume that it would take an event so huge and unprecedented to get Gore to run that you could just as well assume the sun won't rise tomorrow as you could assume that Al Gore will be a candidate for President in 2008.  It's all semantics, but it all means the same thing.  Gore is NOT running for President in 2008, and for this Wikipedia entry to keep him on the list of potential candidates is absurd. --Ai.kefu 03:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Gore? He did so in 2003. He'll do it again in 2007. I'm not saying Gore is running or not. All i'm saying is that Al Gore has not said "no". Let's be real here, once the primary starts next year and he's not in then of course we should add him to the decline to run list. He has a POLITICAL book coming out in what 3 months? He has not gave stright answer. Hello, this is the perfect time for him to launch his possible 08 campaign. Besides what's the rush? Why is Al Sharpton fine? He has not express serious intrest in running again yet he's fine on the list? Alot of political analyst say Gore is going to jump into the race. I believe Charlie Cook said it last week to look out for Gore in the spring. The majority here at Wikipedia think Gore should stay. You and Zz414 have tried to take Gore off before and have lost. Just give up. Until he gives a stright answer don't bother adding new articles. Like I posted above he has been saying the same thing in every article. You should just start posting article back from the spring of 2006. The circumstances can change. Until the media stop mentioning Gore as a possible canidate like they did John Kerry then Wikipedia should do the same. Has Gore stated "I'm not running" in them words with no "maybe, have not ruled out, etc. No i don't think so. So how would you know? If you read between the lines Al Gore is thinking about it. If he's not running then why is he calling up big name Democrats in NH and have not stop the "Draft Gore" Movement. 16% of democrats support Gore in a new gallup poll. He beats John Edwards. It's not like he's some little known canidate. If he was Joe Biden or Mike Huckabee and was saying that and had low poll ratings then I would support him getting moved but he's a Vice President. He will effect the whole outcome of the Democrat 08 primary. If Wikipedia has Gore on the Decline to run list and He says "I'm in" how will anybody trust wikipedia after that big error. Give it time. If he says no at the Oscar then add him to the decline list. If he gives the same answer or does not mention anything about poltics than keep him. But this timeline is not well thought out (what happens if he does not win an Oscar?). The timeline i'm supporting is that if Al Gore is not in at the start of Fall 2007 we add him to the decline list. He will say yes or no IMO in the summer during his book tour. He;s going to have too, it's a political book and he's a possible canidate.

Oh yEs itS caRly 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NO. I'll say it again, Gore has not stated "no" yet. I agree with Oh yEs itS caRly, what happens if Gore movie does not get an Oscar. We didn't give John Kerry a timeline, Why should we give Al Gore one? Let's be fair. I guess it stands right now at 4 to 2 in favor of not adding a timeline and keeping Gore to the list.

Kingzjester 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what Gore's got going for him. He's mentioned in nearly every single poll; is mentioned in major media like CNN, NBC, and the Washington Post; has a huge and growing draft movement; won the popular vote in 2000, by half a million votes; was a vice president; and hasn't completely ruled out running. Let's gauge who says Gore should be on the list: Kingzjester, Hobie Hunter, Oh yEs itS caRly, 65.8.3.209, Macduff, Trojanpony, J Klein, 149.150.236.99, and someoneone else I'm forgetting about. Who thinks Gore shouldn't be on the list: Zz414, Ai .kefu, and Eisenmond. That's 9 to 3! You'd have to be a complete moron not to read between the lines. Gore is considering a bid! In addition, there are lots of other candidates out there that are jokes! Look at Tom Tancredo! The only reason he's running is for illegal immigration. . Look at Al Sharpton! He's a reverend for God's sakes! (No pun intended!) He runs nearly every election to support progressive issues in the same vein as Tom Tancredo. We have a raving conservative pundit who thinks Democrats have a mental disease! Why are these people even on hear! Please just admit defeat since you're outnumbered 3 to 1, and so that we can get to other issues like Al Sharpton & Michael Savage! Thank you! --Hobie Hunter 15:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, my suggestion was to strike up dialogue regarding maintaining a seperate field with growing "notes" JUST for Gore. My intention was to set a timetable for Gore withdrawl ( Pun Intended ). If you refer to my previous comments, I have stated that Gore DOES belong on the list because he has a 26% approval rating across party lines, and 41% approval in the Democratic Party alone. I KNOW the numbers, and my suggestion was an attempt to settle a wiki-war of editing Gore's section. This is not a forum to "Call to arms" those who support Gore's campaign, rather a forum to discuss ACTUAL statements made. Also, regarding Savage - it is not Democrats who have the Mental disease, rather the extreme liberal mentallity. Please make sure that you have your facts in order. Thanks - Eisenmond
 * For starters, Hobie Hunter, Please refrain from verbal attacks, such as calling me a moron. You don't know me.  You will find that those who cannot intellectually defend their opinion are those who begin throwing spears, such as claiming that their counterpart is "ignorant".  Please do your part to keep this a facts based discussion.

Al Gore IV
I apologize if I offended you. It is wrong to make personal attacks, but I wasn't refering to you! I was referring to those who blatantly say Gore is not running and make falicious remarks like 'Now can we take Gore off the list'. I was mistaken that you didn't think Gore should be on the list. Thank you for helping me make a point. I find it strange that when the consensus is now 10 to 2, people like Zz414 continue to rally despite the tidal wave of information going against them. However, it seems that you're continuing the trend of escalation. There isn't an edit-war per se, just a war of words. Regarding Savage, after reading his article, it looks like he another annoying uber-conservatives with his own show, like Rush Limbaugh or O' Reily. To quote the article, 'Critics such as GLAAD, FAIR, and Dave Gilson of Salon.com accuse him of fascist leanings, racism, homophobia and bigotry, because of his controversial statements about Arabs, Islam, homosexuality, feminism and immigration.' We should probably start a discussion for Michael Savage. --Hobie Hunter 19:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it's a total diversion to say "because Savage and Sharpton are listed, Gore should be listed." Both have expressed serious consideration to run, and Sharpton has even run before.  Both are documented and cited on the main page.  They're not the discussion.  Second, this isn't a debate about the merits of a candidate.  It's not whether Gore "should" run for President, and whether Savage and Sharpton "shouldn't."  It's about who's indicated what.  Third, and most importantly, the vote so far is not "10 to 2," but right now 4 to 3 (for this vote, that is).  In support of removing Gore after the Oscars if there's no intention are Eisenmond, Ai.kefu, and me.  In opposition are Oh yEs itS caRly, unsigned user 65.8.3.209 (whom I guess I'll count, depsite being anonymous), Kingzjester, and you (interestingly, all of you used "No" instead of "Oppose," the traditional Wikipedia vote way).  Finally, the concern isn't whether Gore is or isn't ever running, but what he's said about the fact that he is or isn't running.  Once again, Pataki, Bloomberg, and Pence are three candidates who've expressed possible interest and have not completely closed the door, and in fact have softer denials than Gore's repeated use of terms like "no intention."  But they're not listed.  The only thing (so far) that keeps Gore listed is his media's constant listing of him as a frontrunner.  It seems like we'll know after the Oscars Gore's status, even in the media spotlight, and that's what this poll attempts to do.  That's all.  It's not a conspiracy against Gore; it's an attempt to make the article as factually accurate about Gore's intentions as possible. --Zz414 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must side with 'Zz414'. The only reason why 'Al Gore' has been listed (even needing his own section, to describe him), is because he's a former US Vice President & the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee. Gore shouldn't be given 'special' treatment. Al Gore shouldn't be in this article, let'm express interest in running (like the other names listed) before adding him. GoodDay 00:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with Zz414, I think Al Gore shouldn't be given special treatment. At the tail end of Al Gore II you'll see I said Gore shouldn't be a note. Just for the record, GoodDay, there other reasons Al Gore is listed. These are that he has recieved widespread media coverage, has a huge grassroots movement, and has not shut the door to running. Wow, now that I think about it there are lots of reasons to list Gore. --Hobie Hunter 03:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons he's getting media coverage, is because he's a former VP & the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee (The Global-warming Movie, helps too). We should either exclude Gore, or list all other public figures, who've been speculated about. I just feel unconfortable, making Gore the exception. It gives the impression (fairly or unfairly), of a pro-Gore motive. GoodDay 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's hopin' Gore decides soon (for this articles sake). GoodDay 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)