No Clinton? No 9-11?

[Tom Veil]

There's a neat little blog post at Washington Monthly:

WINNING....I was watching the ABC Evening News last night and George Stephanopoulos said something like, "Bill Clinton is as valuable to Hillary as 9/11 is to Rudy Giuliani." Discuss.

I, of course, took it from an AH perspective. Below are my suggested answers, and I'd like to hear all of yours. But first, the "rules" for the thread:
1. The POD is either no Bill Clinton or no 9-11. Doing both is too complex. And please no attempts to link Clinton to 9-11. That's not the point of this thread.
2. The focus of your response(s) should be on what happens to Hillary and/or Rudy -- but of course feel free to sneak in references to how the rest of the world has or hasn't changed.

***
In a world where Bill Clinton never existed, Hillary Rodham is the former swashbuckling Chicago District Attorney and now Majority Leader of the Illinois General Assembly. She is probably best known outside Illinois for being one of Barack Obama's most trusted mentors.
***
In a world where 9/11 never happened, Rudy Guiliani continues to deny that he will ever get back into politics. He continues to make the news frequently, however, for Ted Turner-esque comments, most notably his comment on Letterman during the 2004 election that "there's not a single Northeast Republican who's going to vote to re-elect [George W.] Bush."

 

[Derek Jackson]

Absent September 11 I believe that GW Bush would not have had a chance of winnng in 04. I suspect that he might have been challenged in the Primaries- may by Rudy.

Hilary Clinton was clearly a very capable lawyer. I wonder if Hilary Rodham might have had a succesful career.

 

[Fenwick]

We need to look at something more important, and that is eight years without Clinton. Say what you like the economic growth was inspiring, so one must ask that without Clinton would Bush I get a second term? Or would another Democrat take the reigns?

I have always wondered what a Republican would do in the WTC bombings in 93.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Absent September 11 I believe that GW Bush would not have had a chance of winnng in 04. I suspect that he might have been challenged in the Primaries- may by Rudy.

But without 9-11, Bush wouldn't have Iraq and other such foreign policy screw ups to his name, and Iraq was THE issue of 2004, from my memory. It could be that Bush is just thought to be an amiable dunce like his idol Reagan, but without the claim to having had destroyed the Evil Empire. Sure, critics don't like his attempts to expand Executive power (but there is nothing on the scale of the Patriot act), his No Child Left Behind is the partisan bickering point, and while scandals exist the President himself is rarely implicated; more often Cheney and that devilish Rove.

Oh, and North Korea, but he hasn't gone to war with them, and they're far away, and the economy's chugging along, and he didn't limit the economy with Kyoto...

 

[Atreus]

We need to look at something more important, and that is eight years without Clinton. Say what you like the economic growth was inspiring, so one must ask that without Clinton would Bush I get a second term? Or would another Democrat take the reigns?

I have always wondered what a Republican would do in the WTC bombings in 93.

I would think that, unless the Democrats nominate someone self-destructive, the Republicans are not going to fair to well during the 92 elections. I could be wrong, but someone could probably fill clinton's shoes fairly easily. Gore, perhaps. Or is it to early. I actually think we might see, if Clinton does not run, and Bush win's 92, Then Gore defeats Dole, Cheney, or Powell for the presidency in '96. Then, is a second term so unlikely?

Would it be to different? Maybe a little more severe, but bombing in America had happened before. People only really woke up to terrorism in the US after the shock of 9/11.

 

[Tom Veil]

But without 9-11, Bush wouldn't have Iraq and other such foreign policy screw ups to his name, and Iraq was THE issue of 2004, from my memory.

Why would Bush not have Iraq without 9-11? Even Bush himself has repeatedly said that no Iraqis were involved in 9-11. Sure, Bush and the pro-war crowd would not have been able to wave around the possibility that Saddam would align with Al Qaeda, because the public would have said "Al Qa-who?" But they still would have had a solid, if ultimately ignorant, cause for war in Saddam's (scrapped) WMD programs, and they still would have had the more pie-in-the-sky reasons -- we can impose democracy by force, "Saddam tried to kill my father", etc.

 

[adam888]

I'm wondering in this time-line whether George Bush would have
won re-election in 1992 for we forget what a skilled politician
Bill Clinton was.

We might have a solidly conservative supreme court and more
national debts with another 4 more years of Republican rule. In
1996, we might have Al Gore vs Cheney unless W makes an
early appearance on national scene. Nobody in their right mind
votes for VP Quayle.

The big question would what if W enters the scene earlier and
decides he wants to invade Iraq to finish the job his father
had left unfinished. Tom is right, W would invent another reason
to invade Iraq and he would have not have to deal with
Afghanistan, thus sending all of the troops to Iraq.

 

[Wendell]

Jerry Brown came close to winning the 1992 Democratic nomination. My guess is that, without Clinton, he moves forward. Must we assume that there is no Bill Clinton, or can we just make him never be President?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Why would Bush not have Iraq without 9-11? Even Bush himself has repeatedly said that no Iraqis were involved in 9-11. Sure, Bush and the pro-war crowd would not have been able to wave around the possibility that Saddam would align with Al Qaeda, because the public would have said "Al Qa-who?" But they still would have had a solid, if ultimately ignorant, cause for war in Saddam's (scrapped) WMD programs, and they still would have had the more pie-in-the-sky reasons -- we can impose democracy by force, "Saddam tried to kill my father", etc.

Why? Because without a "rally around the flag" mentality of 9-11, there wouldn't have been the political support and capital to do so. And since "Iraq has ties to 9-11" was a major theme/implication of the run-up to the war (and it was a run up, not a spontaneous executive decision), you'd be taking a major pillar of support from him. And without the bloody vengeance mentality still hovering from 9-11, you would have fewer soccer moms scared that their baby is going to be bombed in school and more disinterested skeptics.

Also add in that his 2000 campaign was to be LESS adventurous than Clinton, and that didn't change till after 9-11, I should ask "Why WOULD Bush have Iraq without 9-11?"

 

[Ibn Warraq]

Well, in a recent Op-Ed Maureen Dowd said that if it weren't for Bill, Hillary would be trying to be the President of Vassar rather be the President of the US.

Having said that, I doubt Hillary would have gone into academia. I think she would have done what she seemed to be on track to do before marrying Bill. I suspect that she would have become a fairly successful trial lawyer or possible a lobbyist for some liberal special interest groups.

BTW: I'm not using the term special interest as a pejorative.

 

[Tom Veil]

Jerry Brown came close to winning the 1992 Democratic nomination. My guess is that, without Clinton, he moves forward. Must we assume that there is no Bill Clinton, or can we just make him never be President?

As always, Wendell, good point! The exercise works equally well if Bill Clinton never meets & falls in love with Hillary Rodham.

 

[Wendell]

As always, Wendell, good point! The exercise works equally well if Bill Clinton never meets & falls in love with Hillary Rodham.

Thanks, Tom.

I've been thinking about this challenge again, and Al Gore could be an interesting candidate for POTUS in 1992. This is a good challenge that you've presented.

 

[Fatewarns]

In
1996, we might have Al Gore vs Cheney unless W makes an
early appearance on national scene. Nobody in their right mind
votes for VP Quayle.

I doubt Cheney would run, he always said that he never wants to run for president

 

[Tom Veil]

Agreed; even in 1996 Cheney is too old and to uninterested in being the front-runner. I think if G W Bush wins in 1992, we have Quayle -- hey, it's not as if the GOP has never nominated a candidate that the late-night talk show hosts all made fun of. If G W Bush loses in 1992, then it's an open field, with guys like Kemp and Gramm as front-runners.

 

[Wendell]

How about Rumsfeld? He briefly had a campaign going in 1988...

 

[Lyly]

I'd say Jerry Brown is a good bet for the Democrats in 1992, he had a lot of grass-roots support which at the time was beginning to gain attention from the Democrats. For the Republicans, probably give Bush and Quayle another go. It'd make for a great election, I'm not certain who'd win.

In 1996, Bush is out of the picture, even if he did'nt win in '92, obviously. Republicans would have a fair list to choose from, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, even Dubya, Trump maybe; I think Keyes would have made an interesting candidate myself. The Democrats would probably choose Gore or Brown (assuming he won). I'd say the election would come to Gore v. either Cheney or Dubya. Gore would be a good bet to win.

In 2000, Dubya would take either his first or second try at the Presidency, other choices might be McCain, Keyes (he had a good chance if Dubya were'nt in their), Trump (if he did'nt go for Reform). In the end, it would likely be Bush for the Republicans. Democrats could field Gore again, or Kerry or Edwards. This election would probably have the same candidates, same arguments, Gore might win a second term... dunno.