Hillary Clinton's Political Career in a Gore-Wins-in-2000 Scenario

Gore HAS to take action against al Qaeda and OBL. Don't forget, 9/11 took place less than a year after the USS Cole attack. If 9/11 still happens, there will be heavy pressure for Gore to act militarily. If he doesn't or is slow to act, the GOP takes Congress in 2002 and most likely the White House in 2004.
 
Gore HAS to take action against al Qaeda and OBL. Don't forget, 9/11 took place less than a year after the USS Cole attack. If 9/11 still happens, there will be heavy pressure for Gore to act militarily. If he doesn't or is slow to act, the GOP takes Congress in 2002 and most likely the White House in 2004.

What's your point?
 
What's your point?

Bin Laden and al Qaeda were behind both the Cole attack and 9/11. The Cole happened during the Clinton administration, when Gore was VP. If 9/11 happens under Gore's watch less than a year later, and he's slow to take action or takes no action, he'll be seen as weak an ineffective.

I'm not saying that Gore must do exactly what Bush did, but at the very least launching attacks on al Qaeda bases is warranted.
 
If 9/11 happens, Republicans would raise hell that Gore and Clinton didn't anything to stop it. The American People would also start asking questions. Bush had the benefit of doubt because he had only been in office for a few months. This means no post 9/11 bounce in popularity for Gore that Bush experienced IOTL.
 
Agreed, I feel like people posting are greatly underestimated how much Americans wanted war post 9/11.
And we got one: we invaded Afghanistan.

There was no great outcry to invade Iraq until the Bush administration started pushing for it. Gore wouldn't have done so (and no, various counterfactuals that require us to ignore everything we know about Al Gore and the Clinton Administration really don't make an argument).
 
And we got one: we invaded Afghanistan.

There was no great outcry to invade Iraq until the Bush administration started pushing for it. Gore wouldn't have done so (and no, various counterfactuals that require us to ignore everything we know about Al Gore and the Clinton Administration really don't make an argument).

Yes, but Iraq was still a problem. For some weird reason, everyone's forgotten the awful sanctions regime that killed half a million Iraqi kids in the 90s. Iraq wasn't just minding its own business until the neocons came along and plucked its name out of a hat. It was a weeping sore that needed some kind of solution.

Was war that solution? Maybe, maybe not. But something had to be done.
 

Archibald

Banned
Yes--if 9/11 still occurs in this TL.

My opinion about 9/11 with a different president is: it would have happened as per OTL.
Why ?
Because the 9/11happened as a major failure of the intelligence community, particularly the FBI and CIA that didn't shared intelligence.

Then I can't see how a different president could weigh on this peculiar failure.

To make matter worse whoever is the President he/she is sworn in in January 2001, january to september is exactly 8 months - a very short time to correct intelligence flaws.
 
Yes, but Iraq was still a problem. For some weird reason, everyone's forgotten the awful sanctions regime that killed half a million Iraqi kids in the 90s. Iraq wasn't just minding its own business until the neocons came along and plucked its name out of a hat. It was a weeping sore that needed some kind of solution.

Was war that solution? Maybe, maybe not. But something had to be done.
Did it? Clinton got through his entire administration with just a few bombing campaigns and cruise missiles. North Korea is probably an even worse regime than Hussein's, and has been involved in proliferation. And of course, Cuban sanctions (not the same at all, but an example) lasted for decades. Just because something is an open sore doesn't mean it will be invaded.

A President Gore would almost certainly have had bigger fish to fry, both at home and abroad, and been under significantly greater pressure to defeat Al Qaeda and rebuild Afghanistan.
 
First, 2007 wasn't that bad economically (though from what I've heard, many economists had a feeling of impending doom). Second, and more importantly, the Recession ITTL is going to be weaker and delayed. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed massively to a growing economical bubble that would eventually pop. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't help in this regard either. Gore's plan basically called for a contractionary fiscal policy (one of his goals was a debt-free U.S by 2012), which changes all the economic cycles we're used to. 2008 is probably happening in 2009 or 2010, and it's going to be a lot less catastrophic.

It seems like a stretch to say the Bush Tax Cuts or War in Iraq led to the financial crisis. I don't think I've read a single economist who has attributed either as a significant contributing factor, though they both obviously impacted the performance of the United States economy.

And a contractionary fiscal policy could actually make the crisis worse. The Federal Reserve significantly cut interest rates between 2001 and 2003 due to fears about the economy (dot com bubble, 9/11, etc) and the possibility of deflation; contractionary fiscal policy may keep rates lower for a prolonged period of time which could worsen the housing bubble.

Though nothing happens in a vacuum. Perhaps tighter fiscal conditions mean an economy that is slower, with less borrowing and deficits, which leads to banks that are more hesitant to lend and consumers less willing to agree to a new mortgage. But that wouldn't really end the easy credit conditions of the early 2000s or the fact that everyone and their grandmother (including the banks themselves) seemed to buy into housing as the sector to invest in.

The most significant thing I think a Gore Presidency could accomplish would be having regulators that take their job more seriously. Suffice to say the Bush White House along with most Bush Officials (especially Greenspan) were asleep at the wheel as the housing sector bubble formed and then exploded, perhaps more prudent regulators could allow someone to sound the alarm before things went so catastrophically wrong in 2008.
 
Last edited:
Did it? Clinton got through his entire administration with just a few bombing campaigns and cruise missiles. North Korea is probably an even worse regime than Hussein's, and has been involved in proliferation. And of course, Cuban sanctions (not the same at all, but an example) lasted for decades. Just because something is an open sore doesn't mean it will be invaded.

A President Gore would almost certainly have had bigger fish to fry, both at home and abroad, and been under significantly greater pressure to defeat Al Qaeda and rebuild Afghanistan.

Again, half a million children dead in less than 10 years. The UN coordinator of the program straight up called it genocide. Nothing in North Korea or Cuba or anywhere else comes close. And just because the man on the street doesn't give a s**t doesn't mean the president doesn't have to deal with it.

If you think that kind of situation is in any way sustainable, or even ignorable, well...I don't really know what to say to you.
 
Top