The 1960 Race

[Nym90]

I agree, but I think that if Gore had gone into Iraq (not sure if he would have or not) he would have conducted the process more diplomatically, and he would've taken a much more realistic view of things rather than painting the world in simple black and white.
I realize it was a while back, but I never got to respond again about the 1960 race. I agree that Tom Delay does not control Texas, nor did LBJ. As for whether there was vote fraud in Texas, I haven't seen any evidence for it yet, all everybody is saying is that there must have been because LBJ had so much power. Well that's a fine theory, but specific allegations of misconduct (who, what, when, where, how) would be nice to see too.
I'm not saying that the election was entirely clean...there certainly may have been fraud in a lot of states, I wouldn't doubt that fraud would've been more prevelant in those days than it is today since party machines had more power and more control and there was less media scrutiny. However, the total amount of fraud probably at least came close to balancing itself out for both sides overall nationally, and unless Kennedy or Nixon personally authorized the fraud, they shouldn't be held directly responsible for it.
And as for Nixon conceding for the good of the country, well, I don't see how it can possibly be good for the country to allow a Presidential election to be stolen. If the allegations of fraud are correct, he should have demanded a recount for the good of the country. Bottom line is he thought he'd lose and look like a fool and wouldn't be able to run again in the future. If Nixon could've won a recount, then it most definitely would've been good for the country to get the election overturned rather than allow it to be stolen.

[Nym90]

Well, Gore definitely would have gone after Afghanistan. Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and thus clearly they were responsible for the attacks. I don't see how there can be much doubt that we would've still gone to war with Afghanistan. However, I think that we would have focused more on finishing the job there and getting Bin Laden rather than going after Iraq. Gore wouldn't have tried to use 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq, he would have focused primarily on going after the actual perpetrators of 9/11.
Again, it's just my opinion, and your opinion of what would have done is very different. Maybe someone should ask him sometime in a TV interview so that we can find out. :-)
Personally I think that the US would be much more respected in the world and that greater attempts at international diplomacy, working through the UN, would be a sign of strength, not of weakness. The international goodwill that the US had in the world in the wake of 9/11 would have been maintained and the bipartisan spirit in the nation in support of the war effort would not have been exploited for political purposes. I would have much rather had Gore's leadership (or even better, Clinton's) in the wake of 9/11.
I don't think you can use Clinton's response in the 1993 bombing to try to predict what Gore would have done. I don't think that Bush 41 would have acted much if any differently at that time. We are talking about 10 deaths versus 3000 here, completely different circumstances. The response, thus, would have probably been 300 times more forceful. I don't remember anyone (Republicans including) clamoring for us to go to war with anyone after the 1993 WTC bombing. At the time it was treated as a mostly isolated incident, and only in hindsight now do we see the connection.

[Nym90]

He got nailed for tax evasion, since he took bribes as Governor of Maryland and didn't report them (obviously). Tax evasion is much easier to prove than bribery.
That's what they eventually got Al Capone on too, tax evasion. It's a lot easier to prove that someone has income that they aren't reporting than it is to prove where and how they obtained the illegal income.