No matter what he ends up as a 1-term President.
If the economy goes as it did in reality he and the "lock box" get blamed. If the economy is better he still gets blamed it is claimed that the economy would have been great no matter what. If 9/11 still happens Gore & Clinton take all the blame. If 9/11 doesn't happen Republicans argue that Gore "wastes time" on terrorism (much as they argued when Clinton was President).
2004 is a Gore/Bush rematch and Bush wins.
Major changes include:
*Obama is not a national figure as he never delivers the key note at the 2004 DNC
*Palin is marginalized
*Cheney isn't VP
I don't think Bush would have run again in '04 if Gore had won in '00. '04 would have been McCain's turn. Obama would have still become a national figure being the only african-american senator. The only problem I see with this scenario is whether McCain would have run against his buddy Lieberman.
If Gore for example goes to war due to pressure from Joe, it's possible he would make McCain his Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.
In that case McCain doesn't run, and the Republicans are left with a very weak bunch of candidates. Maybe Giuliani would run, but a war mayor would obviously lose to a war president, especially if the Republicans were still fighting their culture wars which would seem so irrelevant in the middle of a war.
Obama could still run in 2008 as the anti-war anti-establishment, but an equally anti-war, anti-establishment Republican such as Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel could rise as the anti-Gore (who would be seen as the war president much like Bush was). In that case the Republicans would have the advantage in 2008. Obama would have a really hard time winning the primary against Kerry or Hilary.
So my guess is that the war still happens. John McCain becomes Gore's Secretary of Defense and doesn't run in '04.
In '04 Gore runs against some no-name Republican and wins a landslide election (he wouldn't have to hug the firefighters, he would just pat them on the shoulders which is more manly anyway). He tries to distance himself from the war during his second term and focus more on environmental and technology issues as he sees the war becoming more and more unpopular, but Lieberman, McCain and the media insist on staying in the Middle East.
In '08 Kerry wins the Democratic nomination. He also tries to distance himself from the war but he refuses to criticize Gore. The Republicans in Congress are very much anti-war simply because they want to stick it to Gore and they nominate an anti-war candidate such as Chuck Hagel. People feel they need a change and vote for Hagel.
In 2012 I think Hagel would have either not run or lost to Obama because lets face it, tax cuts for the rich (which is what the Republicans would have pushed for) don't stimulate the economy. Obama would have become even more popular after being in the Senate for 8 years and would have become the de facto leader of the Democratic party.
