Clinton assassinated in 1997

What if President Clinton was assassinated in July 1997 by an abortion nut and replaced by Al Gore? Would Gore then be able to run and win the presidency in 2000? Can you spot what literary source this is from?
 
No, I don't catch the reference.

If Al Gore had been president since 1997, there's a strong likelihood he's be elected in 2000. That assumes nothing else has changed, primarily in the economy. The tech stock bubble has burst, but at this time, both sides are not expecting tax revenue to drop sharply in FY2001. The economy is perceived to be strong, there are no major Clinton scandals from which he fails to distance himself, and terrorism is not an issue. Those are good signs for the incumbent.

I'd be curious to see what he'd do with the Kyoto treaty. Does his strong personal belief cause him to submit the treaty to a unanimous defeat in the Senate? If he takes office late 1997, that could be his first major policy issue, and does he want to start off his presidency with such an abject failure?

Also of issue is what he does with Elian Gonzales.
 
What if President Clinton was assassinated in July 1997 by an abortion nut and replaced by Al Gore? Would Gore then be able to run and win the presidency in 2000? Can you spot what literary source this is from?

I imagine a huge backslash against the religious right. Not that they´d be stamped un-american or something like that, but you know Pro-Life would get a Very Negative Stamp.
 
That would make Joe Lieberman VP and perhaps President in 2004.
errrr is there anyway we can have a non psedo-republican for vp...dachell...or beter yet max clevland the triple amputie vietnam vet thrown out of office in 2002 for being "unpatriotic"....is he viable for 2000
 
The VP spot would probably end up going to a party veteran and/or technocrat since the new VP would have to go through Senate confirmation hearings and the like; appointing a VP in mid-term is very different from picking one to help balance an election ticket. Assuming no massive changes from OTL, the combination of incumbency and the Clinton legacy is probably enough to get Gore four more years in 2000.
 

Ibn Warraq

Banned
errrr is there anyway we can have a non psedo-republican for vp...dachell...or beter yet max clevland the triple amputie vietnam vet thrown out of office in 2002 for being "unpatriotic"....is he viable for 2000

In 1997, I suspect that there's a strong chance it would have been Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. Max Cleland at that time was largely unknown. He was a freshman Senator in his first year, so I doubt they would have chosen him. Daschle? Maybe, but I think Kerrey would have been a more likely choice and I'm not sure Daschle would have wanted to be VP. Keep in mind that as Senate Minority leader he probably had more power and influence than any VP prior to the coming of Cheney.
 
how would 2000 shape up...if my memory is correct wasint there some trumped up nonesense about how bob kerry was a war criminal for a few civilians caught in cross fire of nam (considering the enormity of some of the daily atrocitys of nam that barely counts) Also would george bush be considerd a viable canadate considering he'd be running against two vetarens...unless I have my politions cofused wasint bob kerry a seal?
 
how would 2000 shape up...if my memory is correct wasint there some trumped up nonesense about how bob kerry was a war criminal for a few civilians caught in cross fire of nam (considering the enormity of some of the daily atrocitys of nam that barely counts) Also would george bush be considerd a viable canadate considering he'd be running against two vetarens...unless I have my politions cofused wasint bob kerry a seal?

There was some discussion about Kerrey. Someone accused him of massacring civilians, he said they were fired on, fired back, and accidentally killed some civilians in the crossfire, and some Vietnamese woman popped up and claimed Kerrey and his men deliberately killed civilians.

I can't remember what happened afterward.
 
Yeah it wouldn't be Bob Kerry. Notice the massacre talk came out at about the time Gore was looking for a VP. Obviously they vetted him, found out about this, the press got word, and he was pushed out of the spotlight.
It'll be someone old and unthreatening. Bob Graham, former gov of Florida, is just about perfect.
The fundamentalist wing of the GOP is still going to want their own nominee. They've got a ton of momentum, and want to take it to the next stage. They won't have the moral victory they achieved (in the eyes of the average American) with the Clinton scandals, so maybe they won't be quite as powerful. And maybe the assassination has turned off a certain percentage of the swing vote.
But they're still going to run Bush on Reagan's coattails and use his pop's reputation as a pedestal. Compassionate Conservatism still has legs.
It becomes a much closer race to the GOP nomination. Mccain does much better, he's able to win more primaries with his appeal to the moderates. He might be able to pull it off. He might not.
Tossup I'd say.
 

Ibn Warraq

Banned
There was some discussion about Kerrey. Someone accused him of massacring civilians, he said they were fired on, fired back, and accidentally killed some civilians in the crossfire, and some Vietnamese woman popped up and claimed Kerrey and his men deliberately killed civilians.

I can't remember what happened afterward.

It was one Vietnamese woman who said this. Her son is a Communist Party official, the whole time she was being interviewed by the Western media, she had representatives of the Vietnamese government "observing" the interview, and her story changed at least twice.

The events of that night were probably not as clear-cut as they are in the movies, but the evidence of Kerrey, a Medal of Honor winner who lost his leg, being a war criminal is pretty slim.
 

Xen

Banned
The GOP candidate in 2000 against Al Gore would likely be McCain (especially since W's "war record" is spotty AT BEST).

I dont know I can still see the Republicans running Dubya in 2000 but with a different VP, perhaps Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, this is to cut Gore's legs off from beneath him by taking his homestate. In OTL Bush took Tenneseee anyway, but that wasnt a given. Lets say Gore asks John Kerry to be his VP and that is accepted by Congress. A Republican will replace Kerry in the Senate, now in OTL Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld left office in late July 1997, and had run against Kerry in the 1996 elections, his replacement was Republican A. Paul Cellucci, so it makes sense for Cellucci to replace Kerry with Weld.

In 2000 Bush/Alexander still wins Florida, but due to campaigning by John Kerry in the normally heavily democratic state of West Virginia, the Democrats gain the states five electoral votes and wins the election. Will there be a 9-11 attacks? How will the country look from 2000-2004? Whatever the case, Gore can not run in 2004, but Kerry does and selects another Arkansas native Wesley Clark as his running mate to balace the ticket and give him some strength on defense issues. The GOP will run Senator McCain selecting Ohio Representative John Kasich as his running mate. McCain wins in 04 but his bid for reelection is hampered by a sluggish economy and is in serious jeopardy of losing to the favorite Democratic nominee Bill Richardson
 
I dont know I can still see the Republicans running Dubya in 2000 but with a different VP, perhaps Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, this is to cut Gore's legs off from beneath him by taking his homestate. In OTL Bush took Tenneseee anyway, but that wasnt a given. Lets say Gore asks John Kerry to be his VP and that is accepted by Congress. A Republican will replace Kerry in the Senate, now in OTL Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld left office in late July 1997, and had run against Kerry in the 1996 elections, his replacement was Republican A. Paul Cellucci, so it makes sense for Cellucci to replace Kerry with Weld.

In 2000 Bush/Alexander still wins Florida, but due to campaigning by John Kerry in the normally heavily democratic state of West Virginia, the Democrats gain the states five electoral votes and wins the election. Will there be a 9-11 attacks? How will the country look from 2000-2004? Whatever the case, Gore can not run in 2004, but Kerry does and selects another Arkansas native Wesley Clark as his running mate to balace the ticket and give him some strength on defense issues. The GOP will run Senator McCain selecting Ohio Representative John Kasich as his running mate. McCain wins in 04 but his bid for reelection is hampered by a sluggish economy and is in serious jeopardy of losing to the favorite Democratic nominee Bill Richardson
Good Chain of Events, But I Think The REAL Key to it Will be Something Similar to The Attack on The USS Cole ...

Butterflies will Likely Change The Particulars, But The Al-Qaeda Cell Responsible Will Probably Attack a Similar Ship in a Similar Port at Some Point in Time ...

Unlike President Clinton's Lame-Duck Impotence, President Gore Will have his Whole Second Term to Deal with this Dire Threat; This Push May Even Uncover a Group of 15 Muslim Flight Students who Never Seemed to Pay Much Attention to Landing Procedures!
 
Gore would become president, and would probably get reelected in 2000.

He'd sign Kyoto and aggressively try to push the senate to ratify it, but there's at best a 50/50 chance that they actually would.

9/11 would still happen (it had been planned for years), and Gore would go into Afghanistan and enact anti-terror legislation, like a milder version of the patriot act, and begin working to cut off terrorist funding and strike at their bases in other countries. However would the Republicans support him? Much as I'd like to wish they would, their behavior in the 1990s leads me to believe otherwise.

Hopefully Gore would use the attacks as a reason to switch over to alternative fuels to end our dependence on mideast oil.
 
Ahh yes, President Gore waves his magic technology wand and the USA becomes enviornmentally friendly and energy independent by 2008.
 
One important difference if 9/11 happens more or less as per OTL, Gore will probably catch more blame for not preventing the attacks than Bush did. After all, Bush was still relatively new in office and could claim that the he was the victim of security failures in the Clinton administration; a Gore who has been in power for four years can't claim that.

Gore would certainly push very hard to get Kyoto ratified, but given that the Senate was unanimous in its opposition to Kyoto in OTL all Gore is likely to accompish is burning away a lot of political capital on the issue.
 
I imagine a huge backslash against the religious right. Not that they´d be stamped un-american or something like that, but you know Pro-Life would get a Very Negative Stamp.

Because the crime itself likely would have been committed with a firearm, it would be gun rights coming under fire and not the pro-life movement itself. The pro-life movement might take some flak, but nothing it couldn't recover from as it could possibly become a cross-party movement. There is no chance that all Americans would be disarmed, but the investigation of the assassin may reveal some things that could be instrumental in moving gun legislation forward a few years.

The NRA would try to fight it, which would be the perfect opportunity to destroy the organization politically. Would that effectively end all lobbying in favor of private gun ownership? No. There are other organizations. There's no divorcing private gun ownership from America as it's too entangled in the culture, but it would set things in motion for much stricter penalties against gun crimes.

Getting back to the topic of a Gore presidency, how would he handle the situation with Yugoslavia? He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would declare war without the consent of Congress. Since Congress will likely be Republican dominated, the US might not get involved. One of the things Gore lacks is Bill Clinton's charisma and though he would get the sympathy factor, he'd have a lot stacked against him. It wouldn't surprise me if he lost in 2000, though it would likely be a close election.

Clinton will be remembered as an effective President despite books emerging posthumously as well as continued commentary on talk radio. Gore, on the other hand, will be remembered as the President who could not fill the shoes of his predecessor. His political career is effectively finished and he retires to his home in Tennessee to compose his memoirs, seldom speaking to the media.
 
I suspect that had Bill Clinton been murdered Gore would at least have thought of nominating Hilary as VP.

I also reckon he would have got away with it. I do not think that the Republican Congress would have dared challenge an VP nomination in such a scenario.

Also note that a President succeeding before January 20 1999 would be eligable for election in 2000, but not for re-election in 2004.
 
I suspect that had Bill Clinton been murdered Gore would at least have thought of nominating Hilary as VP.

I also reckon he would have got away with it. I do not think that the Republican Congress would have dared challenge an VP nomination in such a scenario.

The big question is why he would consider nominating Clinton. At that point, she has no real political experience outside of campaigning with her husband in Arkansas and on the national level. It's more likely that someone like Dick Gephardt would get the nod. Now, it certainly would be possible for Hillary to get into the Senate much earlier due to the sympathy vote.
 
Top