and, do i think that kerry would have had a less violent presidency than gore?

yes. and for good reasons.

i know that the revisionists keep going on this, but the fact is that the reason that gore lost to bush is that he couldn't generate enough support on the left of the party because his record was about three degrees too far to the right. al gore was always a conservative in office, from the start. that he would have bombed iraq anyways (and he would have.) is actually secondary to the loss. he lost because he was a moderate conservative, and his opponent was far more radical than he was.

i still don't think that gore would have been that different from bush at all, actually.

kerry wasn't an ideal candidate, of course. but, he at least came from a genuine anti-war background, and there was some evidence that he might have continued on with it.

his tenure as secretary of state, at least, should go down as a rare bright point in history over the last several decades.