Nader may have been reasonably right about Dems and GOP (though they have different roles in the show run by oligarchs), but he was less right about Gore then. Even if Mr Gore shared established illusions for NAFTA and all free market myths, he was not the man of power players at Wall Street and TV, judging from the astoundingly asymetric media campaign in 2000. They used every frantic trick, from ridiculing made up quotes to messing up Florida voting, to bring down Gore. Gore was not even the man of his own party - it is easy to rely "too much" on campaign advisers when those advisers objectively let you down. Gore would probably had not withstood well hostile media and big business had he won in 2000, and we may be a bit dissatisfied with Gore's political will since then. But his rather than George W's presidency (at least for 4 years) would had made a big difference on alternative lives of many working and home seeking families.

Even if Gore would not had changed the overall direction of financial trickery and cheap globalization, the tempo and scale of stressful changes matters a lot when it comes to adaptation of anyone, be it regular folks or, gasp, natural environment.