I feel like your being sarcastic here due to your specific refrence to "For profit" colleges.

As Obama went out of his way to try and make it harder for "For Profit" college students to get student loans... only for it to be struck down in federal court.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/07/03/for-profit-colleges-score-court-victory-over-obama-administration-rule/

I don't know...  Gore actually might of had more in common Policy wise with Mitt Romney they he does Obama.

One of Gore's biggest campaign issues was that Bush was going to cause a huge debt, and was going to end up causing the death of social security and medicare because he wasn't serious about reforms because the federal government raids social security and uses it to run up it's own deficit.  His plan actually called for a partial privatisation in the form of the creation of a "retirement savings plus" program.

If anything i'd say it was Gore V Bush... with Bush winning.

Gore is a lot more conservative then people remember, confusing the matter largely because since his election he's built himself a successful buisness based on being  a global warming alaramist by selling carbon offsets and making "An inconvient truth" which most climate scientists agree is overexagerated.   (All while being extremely not green himself.)

The Democrats have had some weird shifts since 2000, adopting a more neocon attitude, while advocating more egaltiranism yet actually implementing programs that cause the opposite to happen. i find this most interesting

thanks for the insight. i wasn't much for politic's back in the gore days.

A Gore presidency would of been interesting.  He'd get  terms.

A lot of people like to look back with hindsight and argue that everything from the financial crissis to 9/11 would of been prevented.  Which seems unlikely. agreed, but i think we'd be in an even better position.

There was really nothing to suggest Gore was more worried about Terrorism then Bush, so 9/11 seems like it'd stay.  Even the people that blame "conservative policies" for the GFC, blame policies that generally passed under Clinton with wide bipartisian support... so that would of still happened. agreed

We wouldn't have invaded Iraq though, so that would of been a plus.  Gore may have been green focuses but I doubt he'd of got much change at all through the congress. agreed. maybe a more Obama approach.

Would he have invaded Afghanistan.... maybe not.  The Clinton record on Afghanistan was confusing.  He more or less got in the opposition to the Taliban's way.  Things had slowly changed toward supporting them after the embassy bombings... the US Looked like it was eventually going to shift to be anti-taliban...

then 9/11 happened.  I would lean towards yes... but who knows. your 3rd paragraph covers why this is true.

Assuming he did invade, things would probably look a little better thanks to a singular focus, but probably not much better.   We possibly would of caught Bin Laden Sooner. agreed, but not sure if we'd have caught Bin Laden sooner, although i'd have had more faith that Gore would have got'n him by the end of his second term.

Drones, he likely would of used a lot like Bush.   Ironically we'd probably have ended up with a Republican president right now thanks to the GFC.  Probably a young, economicaly rightwing president as everyone would blame Gore. i'm not so suree if we'd have ended up with a republican president, as i think Gore would have left us in better shape leaving the door open for another Dem. president

Honestly, we very well could have President Paul Ryan right now... or at least in 2008. don't scare me like that! 

Based on 2012, it seems likely President Ryan would of lost reelection. now that makess me feel alot better.