WI: Bill Clinton Assassinated, 1996?

In keeping with my morbid fascination regarding Presidential assassinations, I bring you this thread.

While President Bill Clinton faced at least 3 other assassination attempts, this one interests me the most. In 1996, during his visit to the APEC Forum in Manila, Clinton narrowly avoided assassination by none other than Osama bin Laden. Shortly before his motorcade was to go over a bridge, US intelligence discovered information suggesting that an attack was soon to come. Lewis Merletti, then head of the Secret Service, rerouted the motorcade and, of course, Clinton lived. Shortly thereafter, a bomb was discovered under that very bridge, and the plot was linked back to bin Laden.

But what if Bill Clinton's motorcade hadn't been rerouted? What if the bomb had been detonated while he was crossing, and Clinton was killed? The APEC conference in 1996 ran from November 24–25, only about 20 days after the Presidential Election. How would Al Gore handle the situation, and would this change his luck come 2000 (assuming he seeks an elected term of his own)?
 
The timing of this would be especially bad, since the electoral college hasn't met yet, so you'd have a constitutional crisis as well. Jeff Greenfield has used this as a plot device in a few of his books, but there's a combination of differing state laws, some which bind the electors to vote for the winners and some that don't, so not every elector can just change their vote for Gore.
 

kernals12

Banned
IOTL 537 voters in Florida kept us from President Al Gore, ITTL Gore would have:
A. Incumbent advantage
B. A booming economy
C. A nation mourning over Clinton

As for President Gore, I don't think things would be much different in his first term, except obviously the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. In his second term, I think we would still go to war with Afghanistan, they were harboring the man responsible for 9/11 AND Bill Clinton's assassination. Although, maybe we hunt down Bin Laden before 9/11. Either way, we'd most certainly not go to war with Iraq thanks to no Cheney or Rumsfeld. A Republican would probably replace him in 2004 and be defeated in 2008 thanks to the recession.
 
The timing of this would be especially bad, since the electoral college hasn't met yet, so you'd have a constitutional crisis as well. Jeff Greenfield has used this as a plot device in a few of his books, but there's a combination of differing state laws, some which bind the electors to vote for the winners and some that don't, so not every elector can just change their vote for Gore.

I believe the 20th Amendment states that if the President-Elect dies before inauguration, the Vice President-elect automatically takes their place. In this case, since it's already after the election, Gore would automatically assume the office.
 
IOTL 537 voters in Florida kept us from President Al Gore, ITTL Gore would have:
A. Incumbent advantage
B. A booming economy
C. A nation mourning over Clinton

As for President Gore, I don't think things would be much different in his first term, except obviously the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. In his second term, I think we would still go to war with Afghanistan, they were harboring the man responsible for 9/11 AND Bill Clinton's assassination. Although, maybe we hunt down Bin Laden before 9/11. Either way, we'd most certainly not go to war with Iraq thanks to no Cheney or Rumsfeld. A Republican would probably replace him in 2004 and be defeated in 2008 thanks to the recession.

Any guesses on who Gore would name as his VP? Would he still choose Lieberman?
 
Any guesses on who Gore would name as his VP? Would he still choose Lieberman?

It wouldn't be Lieberman, Lieberman was a pick in reaction to the Lewinsky impeachment which doesn't happen ITTL. If you look at some of the other people who were on Gore's OTL VP shortlist, there are a few names that would work in 96: Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Evan Bayh. If I had to guess I would pick Kerry, he and John Edwards were supposedly runners-up to Lieberman OTL, and Edwards was still just a North Carolina lawyer in 96.
 
IOTL 537 voters in Florida kept us from President Al Gore, ITTL Gore would have:
A. Incumbent advantage
B. A booming economy
C. A nation mourning over Clinton

As for President Gore, I don't think things would be much different in his first term, except obviously the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. In his second term, I think we would still go to war with Afghanistan, they were harboring the man responsible for 9/11 AND Bill Clinton's assassination. Although, maybe we hunt down Bin Laden before 9/11. Either way, we'd most certainly not go to war with Iraq thanks to no Cheney or Rumsfeld. A Republican would probably replace him in 2004 and be defeated in 2008 thanks to the recession.

If she's not with him in Manila, I imagine Hillary runs in 2008 and actually ends up doing much better since she's a more sympathetic figure.
 
It wouldn't be Lieberman, Lieberman was a pick in reaction to the Lewinsky impeachment which doesn't happen ITTL. If you look at some of the other people who were on Gore's OTL VP shortlist, there are a few names that would work in 96: Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Evan Bayh. If I had to guess I would pick Kerry, he and John Edwards were supposedly runners-up to Lieberman OTL, and Edwards was still just a North Carolina lawyer in 96.

However, Kerry had just narrowly been re-elected to the Senate in a close race against Bill Weld. If he is selected for VP then there wil have to be a special election in MA. Perhaps Weld could win the Seat?
 
IOTL 537 voters in Florida kept us from President Al Gore, ITTL Gore would have:
A. Incumbent advantage
B. A booming economy
C. A nation mourning over Clinton

As for President Gore, I don't think things would be much different in his first term, except obviously the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. In his second term, I think we would still go to war with Afghanistan, they were harboring the man responsible for 9/11 AND Bill Clinton's assassination. Although, maybe we hunt down Bin Laden before 9/11. Either way, we'd most certainly not go to war with Iraq thanks to no Cheney or Rumsfeld. A Republican would probably replace him in 2004 and be defeated in 2008 thanks to the recession.

But this raises the question of how Gore would respond to Bin Laden in this scenario. Would he really have been more effective than W in this regard?
 
However, Kerry had just narrowly been re-elected to the Senate in a close race against Bill Weld. If he is selected for VP then there wil have to be a special election in MA. Perhaps Weld could win the Seat?

That's a good point, but Gore didn't care about that when he picked Lieberman, whose seat would have been filled by Connecticut's Republican governor John Rowland (unless I'm mistaken about how Connecticut law works in the case of Senate vacancies). Plus back then, Kerry's 96 race made him seem like a tough campaigner who knew how to respond to attacks (hilarious in hindsight I know), perfect for the VP "attack dog" role. It seems crazy to think that about Kerry nowadays, but back then that's how he was perceived.
 
As for President Gore, I don't think things would be much different in his first term, except obviously the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. In his second term, I think we would still go to war with Afghanistan, they were harboring the man responsible for 9/11 AND Bill Clinton's assassination. Although, maybe we hunt down Bin Laden before 9/11. Either way, we'd most certainly not go to war with Iraq thanks to no Cheney or Rumsfeld. A Republican would probably replace him in 2004 and be defeated in 2008 thanks to the recession.
I don't think 9/11 would happen ITTL. Even if Bin Laden wasn't hunted down earlier, Al-Qaeda would be under much closer surveillance and such a major plot would be caught before it was executed. Plus, most of the planning for 9/11 occurred in 1998/1999. Bin Laden's priorities and strategies would be much different if he were the man who killed Clinton rather than an infamous, but still relatively obscure, terrorist.
 

kernals12

Banned
I don't think 9/11 would happen ITTL. Even if Bin Laden wasn't hunted down earlier, Al-Qaeda would be under much closer surveillance and such a major plot would be caught before it was executed. Plus, most of the planning for 9/11 occurred in 1998/1999. Bin Laden's priorities and strategies would be much different if he were the man who killed Clinton rather than an infamous, but still relatively obscure, terrorist.
Very true.
 
While President Bill Clinton faced at least 3 other assassination attempts, this one interests me the most. In 1996, during his visit to the APEC Forum in Manila, Clinton narrowly avoided assassination by none other than Osama bin Laden. Shortly before his motorcade was to go over a bridge, US intelligence discovered information suggesting that an attack was soon to come. Lewis Merletti, then head of the Secret Service, rerouted the motorcade and, of course, Clinton lived. Shortly thereafter, a bomb was discovered under that very bridge, and the plot was linked back to bin Laden.
I did not know that.
 
Top