Assuming arguendo that that is so, and has the significance that you ascribe, that puts Obama out front among Senators.

They're owned by multinational corporations and rich people, after all!  They're never going to give our candidates a fair break.  We have to find a way to communicate with the public IN SPITE of the media's behavior, not win only in cases where the media is well-behaved.

Fair enough. But, you need to look at exactly what happened that year. It was manifestly awful and too much for one person to handle or even a campaign to handle. And, in 2000, there NO REAL way to counter the media's nonsense (unlike in 2004, when we have some resistance from the netroots, and in 2008, we'll be a lot more powerful).

This article shed light on the unbelievable scale of the attacks on Gore:

   February 1, 2000
   Al Gore v. the Media

   By Robert Parry

   To read the major newspapers and to watch the TV pundit shows, one can't avoid the impression that many in the national press corps have decided that Vice President Al Gore is unfit to be elected the next president of the United States.

   Across the board -- from The Washington Post to The Washington Times, from The New York Times to the New York Post, from NBC's cable networks to the traveling campaign press corps -- journalists don't even bother to disguise their contempt for Gore anymore.

   At one early Democratic debate, a gathering of about 300 reporters in a nearby press room hissed and hooted at Gore's answers. Meanwhile, every perceived Gore misstep, including his choice of clothing, is treated as a new excuse to put him on a psychiatrist's couch and find him wanting.

   Journalists freely call him "delusional," "a liar" and "Zelig." Yet, to back up these sweeping denunciations, the media has relied on a series of distorted quotes and tendentious interpretations of his words, at times following scripts written by the national Republican leadership.

   In December, for instance, the news media generated dozens of stories about Gore's supposed claim that he discovered the Love Canal toxic waste dump. "I was the one that started it all," he was quoted as saying. This "gaffe" then was used to recycle other situations in which Gore allegedly exaggerated his role or, as some writers put it, told "bold-faced lies."

   But behind these examples of Gore's "lies" was some very sloppy journalism. The Love Canal flap started when The Washington Post and The New York Times misquoted Gore on a key point and cropped out the context of another sentence to give readers a false impression of what he meant.

   The error was then exploited by national Republicans and amplified endlessly by the rest of the news media, even after the Post and Times grudgingly filed corrections.

Clinton managed to build up a seventy percent job approval rating and become more popular, even though and perhaps BECAUSE he successfully dealt with the media's attempts to destroy him.  That's the type of politician we need.

Clinton was good with deflecting the scandals. His job approvals were good because he WAS doing a good job, as was Gore and they were a good team (for getting things done). Gore's job approval were in the 60-70% range during Clinton/Gore.

The media had a never-ending fascination for Clinton's sex-life to the exclusion of his substantive policy efforts. Bill Clinton made headway anyway.

Clinton would have had a harder time to win in 1992, had it not been for for Gore being on the ticket. Clinton's favorability sharply rose from picking Gore. He gained the lead for the first time in 1992 following a flurry of nationwide editorial praising Gore and Clinton's choice of Gore. Gore helped Clinton carry many states in the south, despite Bush Sr being (technically) from TX.

Nader could easily come back in 2008 or be replaced by another pseudo-Nader.

Yes, but don't forget that Nader got under 1% in 2004, and netroots will be around to set the record straight on lies from them as well.

Clinton ran against a third-party candidate in 1992 and won anyway.

Wrong logic. Perot helped Clinton by:

1.bashing Bush day in and day out

2. implicitly endorsing Clinton/Gore when he in between dropped out.

3. he pulled a couple of pctg votes more from Clinton than Bush.

OTOH, Nader attacked Gore 24/7/365.

Don't forget the:

Fundamental Gore/Clinton calculus: Gore helped Clinton win in 1992 heavily, worked day and night to make their administration a success, but Clinton in turn badly hurt Al Gore with his indiscretion and impeachment.

A candidate who says he can win "only if", and then posits a list of conditions that are not going to be fulfilled anytime soon, is not the best candidate for us.

Gore still won before the supreme court snatched it for Bush. He got caught in the middle of too much nonsense (how often is a President caught having a blowjob in the oval office, and lying to the American public, and explaining the meaning of "is"?)

ps: Clinton only got 43% in 1992, and 49% in 1996. Had Perot not run in 1996, Clinton would have got about 53%, which is hardly a good victory for a sitting President with strong record over Dole. Clinton's electoral skills are WAY over-rated.