Alright, instead of being sarcastic, I'll give my two cents.
Clinton dies of major injuries recieved in the fall in this ATL. People mourn, and even his critics say nice things of him. But due to the circumstances of his death, he doesn't get the Lincoln/Kennedy deification. Maybe after a few years (or maybe a decade or two) people will maybe remember his tenure with more admiration than they did when he was president (like with quite a few presidents). Plus he WAS in the midst of some scandals.
Al Gore as president isn't necessarily a surefire bet that he would win in 2000. Bill Clinton was the more popular of the two (even those who didn't like him will admit that), not Al Gore. He was seen, at the time, as incredibly detached and emotionless, the complete antithesis of Clinton. Plus since this occurs in 1997, that barely gives Al Gore ANY time to do anything before he has to gear up for the 2000 election. Not saying it CAN'T happen, but just saying it's not an easy win. Keep in mind Bush was actually well-liked at one point in time.
And I'm still not convinced that terrorism was as big as priority for Clinton/Gore as people like to seemingly portray it as. And if it was, they sure as shit didn't do much about it anyway, aside from lobbing some missiles at stuff.
If he loses the 2000 Election, Gore would probably be seen as one of the shortest terms in presidential history, having been unable to fill the shoes left by his predacessor. Course this doesn't take into consideration whether or not the same 2000 election circus happens or not.
If he wins, he'd probably do what alot of presidents try to do... change our dependence on foreign oils, improve our environmental standing, try to bring about alternative fuels, etc. etc. and more than likely making very little in-roads towards that goal. He'd more than likely agree to the Kyoto Protocol, but as to whether or not they'd be able to actually enforce or follow through on ANYTHING with it (because saying and doing are two entirely different things) is a different debate altogether.
If and when 9/11 hits, Gore will probably go into Afghanistan like Bush did. If he wanted to keep his job, keep his soaring numbers up and not suffer a "John Adams" fate with the country, he'd at least do THAT. Just tossing some missiles this time wouldn't cut it. If they catch Bin Laden, this would probably increase Gore's popularity even more at the time (possibly even making him the most approved president of all time). Don't know if he'd truely declare War on Terror, but once you go after one group, you tend to kinda get the attention of the other groups too.
BUT...
Iraq, regardless, is always going to be an enigma for me in terms of what Gore would've done or not had he been president. It's hard to tell. Part of me doubts he'd invade, but then the other part of me remembers how much he and Clinton hammered on the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction during the mid-late 90's. It's been shown that we had been fed shitty intel for a long-ass time by our "sources", and that fact doesn't get butterflied away by Al Gore winning in 2000. And if he doesn't invade, (though it wouldn't be hard to get the ball rolling on that, like in OTL) he'd at least try to do SOMETHING about it for the rest of his term. Because if people tell you that Iraq wasn't on Americans' minds in and around this chaotic time, they're full of shit.
Oh and we would be saved from the incredibly boring "Inconvenient Truth" documentary. So there's one plus.
So, yeah... that's my feelings and thoughts on this.