Admirable words Jimmy, but you seemed to have glossed over Gore's support for attacking Iraq back in 1998. Why did you do that? How can you see a man who is 100% behind a premise when he's in power, and 100% against it when someone else is in power, as a man of priciple? He's either for or against attacking Iraq, so was the 1998 Gore the real Al or is today's Gore the real Al? Enquiring minds want to know.
I think that if Gore wants a chance of being elected in 2004 he should have, for political purposes, supported Bush. I don't think that people would see that as a weakness, in fact, quite the opposite. I think people would have looked at Al as a noble figure who puts the nation's interests above his own. Instead, he does exactly the wrong thing and makes himself look like he's still the world's sorest loser. There's still plenty of issues for Gore to challenge Bush on, but on this issue he would have been better advised to be supportive. If the war goes well, give Bush some credit than attack him on domestic issues. If the war falters, attack Bush on handling the war poorly AND domestic issues.