Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Here's hopin' Gore decides soon (for this articles sake). GoodDay 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Gore IV