There is this one thing I can't quite get out of my head about Al Gore in 2008...

[SKKY]

...I mean, if he really had no plans do be a candidate, why would he let this fairly massive movement continue whose only purpose is to get him on the ballot? Why would he not tell all these people that, while he appreciates it, they should concentrate their efforts on getting another candidate whose actually in the race?

[Kira]

1. I agree totally

I don't think he would let them work this hard if he wasn't going to get in.

[mopinko]

9. me too

no way he would let this go this far. if we build it, he will run. he will not resist a people powered campaign.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Four years ago, when did he say he wasn't going to run?

I don't remember how far into the campaign season that was.

[mak3cats]

3. In December 2002...

CNN transcript link below:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/15/bn.05.html

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Thanks

That's later than I vaguely remembered. The primary schedule is so changed now, that it's hard to know what the equivalent date would be this time around.

[mak3cats]

5. I thought it was pretty early, myself...

...you might have read it as December 2003 (I did the first time). He dropped out almost two full years before the general election.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Duh. You're right, I didn't catch the year.

Wel, that is interesting.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

10. The 2002 statement (first made on 60 Minutes),

was definitive that he would not run in 2004. He also said at that time that he would not rule out 2008 and he has maintained that status quo ever since, notwithstanding the misreporting of the MSM.

[NastyDiaper]

6. We are trying to build a political platform that Al Gore would be willing to step onto.

I have no clue what our chances are. But the effort will be made.
Speaking for myself now, I do not consider it a waste even if he decides not to run.

[Mabus]

8. Exactamundo!

Besides, he really can't say anything right now.

If Gore is seen as too political, the committee could opt instead for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the scientists who advise the United Nations and produce key reports on the climate problem, Toennesson said.

To give it a face, the prize could be shared by the IPCC's Indian chairman Rajendra Pachauri, experts said, though Pachauri told Reuters in London he did not think he stood a chance.

"I have a feeling it will go to Al Gore, and I think he deserves it. He certainly has done a remarkable job of creating awareness on the subject and has become a crusader," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071005/wl_canada_nm/canada_nobel_peace_col

In my mind it isn't that Gore wants the Nobel Peace Prize as much he recognizes the credibility it gives climate change as THE issue to be running on. If he doesn't win then the prize could go to the IPCC and/or Watt-Cloutier which will still recognize that the real problem we, the world, face is the climate crisis.

[SharonRB]

11. Thank you

That's what's kept most of us going for so long. He hasn't asked us to stop, and we really don't think he would let us keep doing this unless he was at least considering it.

[SKKY]

12. I think he's seriously considering it!!! Like, he probably made up his...

...mind a while ago, but doesn't want his candidacy to politicize the prize. I'm in Spain, and it's something that is mentioned fairly regularly in the news here- seemingly more so than in the States.

[marlakay]

13. I forget how you actually get news outside the U.S.

I have two friends in Australia and they can't believe the lack of real news or the truth not told in our country. Last time Bush came to visit them it was all over their news how wasteful it was that he brought 1000 people to party with him (at our tax dollars too) but did anything here in the US ever talk about that?? of course not...