Unfortunately, I think we're actually reading Gore through modern paradigms. If you recall the election of 2000, Gore was accusing Bush of being too isolationist. Gore is going to be more, not less willing to intervene in other countries. Gore is, in my view, just as likely to go for Iraq as Bush. Remember the Iraqi Liberation Act was past under the Clinton admin. (1998), and Gore's foreign policy advisors during the campaign favored a strategy called "forward engagement" which included some thoughts not too dissimilar from the Bush doctrine (for all that they all criticize this now, but such is the way of politics). As was the case in Kosovo, he would have had support from most of the GOP and the Democrats. The interesting issue would be on the far left, where I submit there would still be an anti-war movement.
Think about it: there's no reason, apart from anti-Bush prejudice, to assume that Gore handles Iraq any differently (though he might, in fairness, limit his campaign to an air campaign as was the case in 96 and 98). But to claim that he'd be hands-off here is ridiculous.
I also don't think world opinion would be greatly changed, one way or the other. Chirac, the man partially responsible for Saddam's purchase of Osirak in the first place), was not going to back the US in any substantial Iraq play: not in the French national interest really, when one gets down to it. Schroeder...now that's an interesting question, but he and his foreign secretary seem on the pacifist end of things. The biggest difference in Europe is Britain. Without Bush the boogy-man, Blair's position vis-a-vis supporting Gore and the war in Iraq is much easier.
Now, I think a case could be made that Gore might have done better in Iraq, if nothing else because he'd have had the support of the Democrats, and most of the Republicans (the GOP is generally a "rally round the flag" party in war time: see Vietnam, WWII, Korea, Kosovo), though a bigger paleocon anti-war movement is a possibility also. In general though, I think Gore does better at maintaining public support for the war in Iraq (though, as a conservative it gauls me a bit to say it). His execution might not be considerably different though. It wasn't only Rumsfeld who was obsessed with the "do more with less" doctrine.
I do think Gore would have pushed independence from foreign oil as a national security issue. I also think immigration would have been an even bigger weakness for him than it was for Bush.
As for GOP candidates in 2004, here's my short list:
1. Tom Ridge. Considered as a VP even in 2000, he'd have 2 successful terms as governor of a large swing state, and some positive 9-11 aassociations, as well as the whole coal-mine thing (definitely big in PA).
2. McCain: for one more go-round.
3. Bill Owens: popular swing-state governor.
4. An obligatory southern senator with foreign policy cridentials (not sure just who).
Who wins? Depends on a lot of unguessable factors. When it comes to presidential elections I follow the "any given Sunday" rule: unless Gore either did something incredibly bad or incredibly good, both of which I doubt.
