Elektronaut can answer this better than I could, but the big thing is going to be No Iraq. Gore, IIRC, was one of the few high-profile Democrats who opposed the war (as one of the few high-profile Democrats to back the Gulf War) which added to the myth of the Lost Presidency.
Gore's re-election chances might be dependent on 9/11. It's rare for two eight-year terms back to back but there's going to be a flag-rallying moment if the attack happens and Gore had a hawkish reputation. Some neo-cons may push going into Iraq in think-tanks while the rest of the country/party lines up behind him on going after the Taliban. If there is no 9/11 then unless the Republicans nominate someone awful, it's going to be tough for him.
His legislative programme would maybe have more of an environmental focus than Clinton and he would push for ratifying Kyoto. The dot-com bubble burst for the Man Who Invented The Internet might hurt his successes though.
Might Gore aim for a bunch of heavy targeted strikes at al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (including at OBL) without actually taking out the Taliban? I mean, the Clinton administration never actually exhibited any desire to help the Northern Alliance in their war against the Taliban even when they were displeased with the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda.
Agreed with the rest of your post here, though. Also, Gore's tax cuts are likely to be more reasonable than Bush's and he might try harder to push for both an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and a peace deal to end the Korean War. He might actually succeed at the latter--though probably not at the former.
The Iraq War doesn't happen or Gore goes in with a UN resolution,but the former is more likely,with the Americans just maintaing sanctions and maybe some air strikes.
The Democrats probably hold the House,though it is possible for the Republicans have some gains if they go aggressive on Gore and the Democrats.Lieberman is gonna be a problem in long run,probably being removed from the ticket in 2004.The right becomes even aggressive,with Fox News demonizing Gore.
Again,like Blackadder said,it depends on whether or not 9/11 still happens as OTL.If so,then Gore likely has two turns and the Republicans become more extreme as a response.
I could see McCain becoming President in 2008 but it's hard to say.
A UN resolution in favor of the Iraq War probably isn't going to happen. I mean, Obama failed to secure one for Syria and only
barely managed to get one for Libya. So, yeah, I just don't see it happening.
As for dropping Lieberman in 2004, it's certainly possible, but it would then call into question Gore's decision to choose Lieberman in the first place.
As for McCain, might he be more tempted to run in 2004 as opposed to 2008 in this scenario? Or will he view 2008 as being greener pastures than 2004?
I simply don't buy that it'll automatically mean no Iraq. He was a man who was consistently hawkish about Iraq both in and out of government. In 1998, he said there was no doubt at all that Hussein's WMD were a grave threat and pushed for harsher reactions. In Feb 2002, he said that Iraq represented a virulent threat that could do the USA great harm and a final reckoning with them must be kept on the table. In September 2002, he said that the evidence about wmds were impossible to deny and it had to be assumed that the programme would continue as long as Hussein was in power.
He opposed the war in as much, as the beaten candidate he attacked Bush over it and made a big deal about the lack of UN resolution. But attacking the other side going in without a UN resolution is very different to never going in himself.
Sure, Gore might try invading Iraq
in the right circumstances. 2002-2003, however, were not the right circumstances. The US was still busy rebuilding Afghanistan and going after al-Qaeda and the situation in regards to Iraq hasn't actually reached a crisis point yet during this point in time. (I don't think that Gore would be willing to manipulate and/or selectively read intelligence anywhere to the same extent that Dubya was in real life.) Now, I
could see a future US administration taking out Saddam Hussein if an Arab Spring-style rebellion will eventually occur in Iraq in this scenario--but even this isn't guaranteed since Saddam might be able to quickly crush such a rebellion--as in, before the US could actually intervene.
I do wonder if Gaddafi will still normalize his relations with the US in a scenario where Gore wins in 2000. I'd say probably since he was already looking for a way to do that even back in 1999--even if 9/11 and the Iraq War accelerated Gaddafi's desire to mend ties with the US. That, and the fact that Gaddafi in the early 2000s just didn't see much value in having things such as WMDs and nuclear weapons anymore. Indeed, he certainly couldn't foresee his own downfall and brutal murder less than a decade later back then.
As I've said before, the fact that Gore ended up opposing Iraq says more about Iraq than about Gore. Gore and his NS team were undoubtedly hawkish, but you had a bunch of people who formed the core of the Republican national security team who believed that a major mistake had been made in not finishing the job under Bush senior and who were even more hawkish than the Gore beltway types.
You obviously wouldn't have those people in the Gore administration so the outcome would be different. Given Gore was still in contact with the people who would have formed his national security team in this period IOTL there's also not much reason to believe the outcome would have been different in office. In fact with more of the facts at their disposal and without the tendentious spiel of Blair and Bush it would probably make a different Gore conclusion less likely in office. People like Leon Fuerth were hawkish on Iraq, but they were also multilateralists and willing to wait until the argument for intervening became internationally inarguable. If an Arab Spring, or something similarly disruptive had happened they would have been shit hot over something like that, but that's not likely to happen during the term of Gore's period in office.
Out of curiosity--if the US is able to launch a military intervention against Iraq during an Arab Spring-style event in this scenario (probably after the end of Gore's Presidency, but this shouldn't matter too much here), do the US and NATO also decide to simultaneously launch a military intervention against Libya? Or do they decide that one military intervention (specifically against Iraq) is enough for them to handle at one point in time?