WI: Clinton dies in office

JoeMulk

Banned
IIRC at one point in 1997 Clinton was on crutches after falling down the stairs and having a minor injury. I also remember reading about it in his bio. What if he had a much worse fall, broken his neck and died?
 
Well, Clinton would never be impeached, and thus his reputation would live on through the eyes of history.

Al Gore would then become President. He would begin to work on the Environment. He would most likely run in his own right in 2000 (As did TR). He would most likely win against who ever runs against him. If his first elected term is successfull, he might run again in 2004. Domestic policies such as Healthcare, Environment, etc will be great. We would still be in Afghanistan though, but not Iraq.
 
Well, Clinton would never be impeached, and thus his reputation would live on through the eyes of history.

Al Gore would then become President. He would begin to work on the Environment. He would most likely run in his own right in 2000 (As did TR). He would most likely win against who ever runs against him. If his first elected term is successfull, he might run again in 2004. Domestic policies such as Healthcare, Environment, etc will be great. We would still be in Afghanistan though, but not Iraq.
Could Clinton dying in office (and thus, no Bush) butterfly away 9/11?
 
Al Gore would then become President. He would begin to work on the Environment. He would most likely run in his own right in 2000 (As did TR). He would most likely win against who ever runs against him. If his first elected term is successfull, he might run again in 2004. Domestic policies such as Healthcare, Environment, etc will be great. We would still be in Afghanistan though, but not Iraq.

If Gore takes office before January of 1998, then he can only run for one term of his own since he served more than half of Clinton's second term.
 
Well, Clinton would never be impeached, and thus his reputation would live on through the eyes of history.

Al Gore would then become President. He would begin to work on the Environment. He would most likely run in his own right in 2000 (As did TR). He would most likely win against who ever runs against him. If his first elected term is successfull, he might run again in 2004. Domestic policies such as Healthcare, Environment, etc will be great. We would still be in Afghanistan though, but not Iraq.

He certainly would not run again in 2004, presuming a PoD in 1997.

US Constitution said:
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Gore would have held the office of President for more than two years of the term to which Bill Clinton was elected. (Clinton's inauguration was on January 20, 1997, and were he to leave office for any reason prior to 1/21/99, Gore would have served more than two years of the term.) He may not be elected more than once, and would be ineligible to run in 2004.
 
I remember reading that Joe Lieberman won Gore's favor during the scandal. So the identity of the vice president under president Gore is a mystery. He or she could be the Democrat who is elected in 2004 and defeated after the economic collapse of 2008.
 
Well he still has to deal with a Republican congress and has less charisma and political capital then Clinton- though he also has less hate towards him and less scandal. This could end up being quite bad for the left since the joint desire of Gingrich and Clinton to partially privatize social security will probably be held by Gore as well, and without the Lewinsky affair putting a stop to it and rallying the left it will probably pass and lead to further losses in 1998 by the Democrats due to primary challenges by the left and slump in left-wing turnout. Gore would suffer a serious primary challenge in 2000, lose, and we see George Bush winning a landslide with coattails possibly taking the Republicans to 60 or further in the senate and Newt Gingrich still leading the house.

So with Bush having a huge majority in congress he'll pass some radical conservative legislation, probably see his popularity sink, but then all will be forgiven and forgotten when 9/11 hits. Further congressional gains in 2002 and 2004... and I reemphasize, Social Security has already been partially privatized before he's even elected, so he'll expand on that and maybe even achieve total privatization. And who knows what other crap he would pass- far larger tax cuts for one.

And then the financial crash and crisis come and things are even worse because Social Security is stock-market based, banks are even less regulated and debt is even higher due to lower taxes.
 
Last edited:
The continuation of the Clinton/Gore administration's high prioritization of terrorist threats means 9/11 is butterflied away. Combined with Gore's likely focus on the environment, information technology/the internet (likely even in the face of the Dot-Com Bust), and the lack of the Bush Tax cuts and No Child Left Behind Act means even by '03 its a totally different scenario than OTL.
 
I have never really gotten the 'if Gore was President no 9/11' theory.

They didn't stop any of the planning for 9/11 in the 8 years they were in office but somehow given 8 extra months they would have ?
 
I have never really gotten the 'if Gore was President no 9/11' theory.

Its more that a Gore administration would have reacted to the 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US' memo that Bush completely ignored. Clinton, with Gore at his side, had launched cruise missle strikes on al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan after the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that had killed hundreds of people. Gore would, likely, react in the same way, crippling al-Qaeda's abilities to function as an organization for years and abort the 9/11 plans.

This isn't to say that a terrorist attack on the US wouldn't happen under a Gore administration, or that it wouldn't be carried out by al-Qaeda, but it certainly wouldn't be on the same scale as 9/11. Likely something akin to the OTL '04 Madrid or '08 Mumbai bombings happening in a major US city circa late 2004/early 2005.

Also, I refute your claims that the Clinton/Gore administration 'did nothing' in regards to terrorist activity. This type of historical revisionism is what ruins most TLs set in contemporary or near-modern times. The above-mentioned '98 cruise missile strikes amply show that the US under the Clinton/Gore administration were more than willing to use unilateral, measured, military force to decisively cripple terrorist activities. The fact of the matter is that al-Qaeda had spread onto the African continent and decisively into Sudan through the late 80s and 90s but after the '98 US strikes was forced to withdraw to refuge in Afghanistan once again.
 
That Gore had served in the Senate probably would give Gore capital with that institution on both sides of the aisle.
 
The incident in question IIRC involved Clinton falling off Greg Norman's (pro golfer and interesting fellow) back porch at 1 or 2 in the morning. Serious inquires will be made it into Clinton's death and potential conspiracy type questions will arise...

1. Clinton's body will be autopsied... people are going to want to know if he was drinking/doing drugs, at Norman's home that night
2. There will be a call for all party guests to submit to various tests and testimoney as to what happened
3. People will question what exactly was going on at that party at 1 or 2 in the morning
4. The secret service will be heavily scrutinized
5. Conspiracy's will rise saying Clinton was pushed/killed
 
I don't think it's implausible to have there be no 9/11 under Gore. The Clinton administration did have a stronger focus on terrorism towards the end (to the point of even being criticized by the opposition). Considering the memo to which better attention could have been paid, a more veteran administration not getting up to speed, and various butterflies starting in 1996, I think it's very much within the realm of possibility.

I do wonder who Gore would pick for Vice-President. It certainly wouldn't be Lieberman. I really want to say something neat like making Douglas Wilder the first black Vice President, but I doubt it. I'd also like to say Feingold, but he's probably way too liberal.

EDIT: Also way too liberal, but ideal scenario - Paul Wellstone.

EDIT2: And whither Hillary ITTL? I think perhaps she may go for Dale Bumpers's Senate seat in 1999, and likely get it. Which would be interesting, to have a leading progressive voice coming from Arkansas.
 
Last edited:
Not to derail thread but my point was that the planning for 9/11 (IE the flight training, people getting into country,etc) all occurred under Clinton.

So how would they have stopped it if they didn't catch any of those people in the years they were in the US before 2001 ?

I don't blame either Clinton or Bush for 9/11. The terrorists used the system against us (IE the policy of cooperating with terrorists and such).

Even with a major alert, nothing the terrorists did was illegal or against airline rules in 2001 (box cutters were allowed).

I understand your visceral hate for Bush, but you can't blame him for everything.

Its more that a Gore administration would have reacted to the 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US' memo that Bush completely ignored. Clinton, with Gore at his side, had launched cruise missle strikes on al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan after the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that had killed hundreds of people. Gore would, likely, react in the same way, crippling al-Qaeda's abilities to function as an organization for years and abort the 9/11 plans.

This isn't to say that a terrorist attack on the US wouldn't happen under a Gore administration, or that it wouldn't be carried out by al-Qaeda, but it certainly wouldn't be on the same scale as 9/11. Likely something akin to the OTL '04 Madrid or '08 Mumbai bombings happening in a major US city circa late 2004/early 2005.

Also, I refute your claims that the Clinton/Gore administration 'did nothing' in regards to terrorist activity. This type of historical revisionism is what ruins most TLs set in contemporary or near-modern times. The above-mentioned '98 cruise missile strikes amply show that the US under the Clinton/Gore administration were more than willing to use unilateral, measured, military force to decisively cripple terrorist activities. The fact of the matter is that al-Qaeda had spread onto the African continent and decisively into Sudan through the late 80s and 90s but after the '98 US strikes was forced to withdraw to refuge in Afghanistan once again.
 
Alright, instead of being sarcastic, I'll give my two cents.

Clinton dies of major injuries recieved in the fall in this ATL. People mourn, and even his critics say nice things of him. But due to the circumstances of his death, he doesn't get the Lincoln/Kennedy deification. Maybe after a few years (or maybe a decade or two) people will maybe remember his tenure with more admiration than they did when he was president (like with quite a few presidents). Plus he WAS in the midst of some scandals.

Al Gore as president isn't necessarily a surefire bet that he would win in 2000. Bill Clinton was the more popular of the two (even those who didn't like him will admit that), not Al Gore. He was seen, at the time, as incredibly detached and emotionless, the complete antithesis of Clinton. Plus since this occurs in 1997, that barely gives Al Gore ANY time to do anything before he has to gear up for the 2000 election. Not saying it CAN'T happen, but just saying it's not an easy win. Keep in mind Bush was actually well-liked at one point in time.

And I'm still not convinced that terrorism was as big as priority for Clinton/Gore as people like to seemingly portray it as. And if it was, they sure as shit didn't do much about it anyway, aside from lobbing some missiles at stuff.

If he loses the 2000 Election, Gore would probably be seen as one of the shortest terms in presidential history, having been unable to fill the shoes left by his predacessor. Course this doesn't take into consideration whether or not the same 2000 election circus happens or not.

If he wins, he'd probably do what alot of presidents try to do... change our dependence on foreign oils, improve our environmental standing, try to bring about alternative fuels, etc. etc. and more than likely making very little in-roads towards that goal. He'd more than likely agree to the Kyoto Protocol, but as to whether or not they'd be able to actually enforce or follow through on ANYTHING with it (because saying and doing are two entirely different things) is a different debate altogether.

If and when 9/11 hits, Gore will probably go into Afghanistan like Bush did. If he wanted to keep his job, keep his soaring numbers up and not suffer a "John Adams" fate with the country, he'd at least do THAT. Just tossing some missiles this time wouldn't cut it. If they catch Bin Laden, this would probably increase Gore's popularity even more at the time (possibly even making him the most approved president of all time). Don't know if he'd truely declare War on Terror, but once you go after one group, you tend to kinda get the attention of the other groups too.

BUT...

Iraq, regardless, is always going to be an enigma for me in terms of what Gore would've done or not had he been president. It's hard to tell. Part of me doubts he'd invade, but then the other part of me remembers how much he and Clinton hammered on the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction during the mid-late 90's. It's been shown that we had been fed shitty intel for a long-ass time by our "sources", and that fact doesn't get butterflied away by Al Gore winning in 2000. And if he doesn't invade, (though it wouldn't be hard to get the ball rolling on that, like in OTL) he'd at least try to do SOMETHING about it for the rest of his term. Because if people tell you that Iraq wasn't on Americans' minds in and around this chaotic time, they're full of shit.

Oh and we would be saved from the incredibly boring "Inconvenient Truth" documentary. So there's one plus. :p

So, yeah... that's my feelings and thoughts on this.
 
Three bits:
Iraq:
Gore did approve of Desert Fox in 1998 IOTL (as did all Clinton Cabinet members involved in foreign policy except maybe Janet Reno). By that time, Hussein Kamil had defected and told the world the extent of Saddam's WMD programs- and that Kamil had ordered them to be destroyed. It's unclear if Gore would have been as motivated to order the inspectors out of Iraq (Contrary to spin, Saddam never expelled the inspectors- the US ordered them out both times. It should be noted that while the US ordered the inspectors out, once they left in 1998, Saddam did not let them back in until 2002.) with no scandals like Clinton was in (Lest we forget, the US attacked Iraq the day of a scheduled impeachment vote). However it is very likely he may continue to put pressure on Iraq...Though it's also unlikely that Gore would get in trouble for attacking Iraq. (No Republican remembered Hussein Kamil in the impeachment debate...)
Environment:
Gore may have been environmentally focused post 2000, but pre-2000, he focused more on his "Reinventing Government" plan than any environmental changes. I'm not sure how he'd change the environmental policy of the US. (Plus there is the fact that he's a major shareholder of an oil company...) However, he might be willing to listen to Amory Lovins and begin encouraging various business-oriented policy changes such as energy audits and resource exchanges.
Campaign Finance:
Gore was in big trouble for breaking campaign finance laws. He faced scrutiny from Congress, though he likely got off because of systemic corruption. (After all, when Gore was raising money at Buddhist Temples, Dan Burton, chairman of the House committee investigating him had to return money from Sikh temples... And Both Clinton/Gore '96 and Dole/Kemp '96 had to pay fines for breaking campaign laws...)
 
He'd more than likely agree to the Kyoto Protocol, but as to whether or not they'd be able to actually enforce or follow through on ANYTHING with it (because saying and doing are two entirely different things) is a different debate altogether.

No. The Senate won't pass it. Anyway, Gore is an environmentalist but his real passion didn't start until after he lost the 2000 election, so he's not going to go berserk about this anyway. My guess is that this alt-Gore governs as a fairly centrist New Democrat, though less adroitly than Clinton.

Though the fantasy upstream of him getting primaried for being too centrist is just nuts.
 
Top