I wasn't too thrilled with Al Gore in '88. And even less during the Gulf War, when he equivocated on the vote for the War, essentially selling his vote in exchange for TV time. I have his book, and it's weak. He's tall, physically strong - and has a good TV presence, provided only that he is well coached, and has prepared well. All of this provides an illusion of great intelligence.
His condescension and rude behavior during the '92 debates appalled me. His stories regarding the Buddhist temple were lame - why couldn't he just be plain-spoken, and come right out and say something? He and Bill both liked to blame the failures of their first two years in office on "the 12 years of the previous two administrations". I didn't like the bizarre praise he gave to Clinton, especially in light of facts coming out later, that they never liked each other much.
I thought his treatment of Bill Bradley on Meet the Press was ridiculous - Bill was actually beginning to WIN, and Gore tries to finagle a deal where they both shut down their TV campaigns. He offered to shake, on national TV. Bradley told him "you virtually ignored me for months", criticized him badly and now wants to be friends, because Bradley was gaining ground.
There was the fit of exasperated sighs and behavior in the debates - which actually wasn't new, he did it with Bradley as well. And if I heard "lcokbox" one more time, I thought I'd explode. This is a man who is able to convince some people that he is brilliant, but when placed under careful scrutiny, he demonstrates that he cannot form an opinion without coaching from political strategists. Remember, for all his claims of intelligence, this is a man who flunked out of law school and divinity school. Just as Bush is probably smarter than people suspect, Gore is not as bright as people suspect.
Finally - politically, he's done. He ran in '88, in '92, and in '00. No way is the Democratic Party dumb enough to gamble on him a fourth time.