Assisination attempt probability on Clinton vs. Obama

I wasn’t sure if this should be a debate or an IMHO thread, so mods, please move it if you feel it is appropriate.

I heard a guy say the other day that he thought that Obama has a higher chance of an assassination attempt against him than Clinton or any other candidate that wins the election. I tend to think that there are enough opinionated-and-unstable people out there that it would give any candidate – black, female, rich, mormon, etc., justification to sleep with one eye open.

So I guess the question is, do you think the black factor makes him a more likely candidate for an attempt on his life than any of the other non-political factors that set the candidates apart from each other?

Being black, his age, his ideas - it’s all revolutionary. Someone may find that all too appealing to try and assassination. But doesn’t Bush get hundreds of death threats a day or week or whatever? I have heard Obama would be a target above some of the others but I haven’t heard it from a credible source yet though…

It isn’t widely recognized but all presidents since LBJ have had assassination attempts against them with differing levels of skill. George W Bush for instance was threatened by a live grenade in the Republic of Georgia but it didn’t detonate because of malfunction. Below is a link to a listing of all publicized presidential assassination attempts. I am friends with the son a presidential detail Secret Service agent. He is a really screwed up person because of his family life. The Secret Service is good a what they do but the attempts tend to come in fast and furious and they want things to remain quiet as possible to prevent any hysteria or perceived weaknesses.

The probababilty of an assassination attempt on whoever wins converges at nearly 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_assassination_attempts

I think “revolutionary” political ideas in themselves create a threat to the Old Guard types, but I’ve heard plenty of people say that a woman in office would weaken our position in the world, that mormonism is “just too whacky” to overlook, that extreme wealth automatically puts a candidate out of touch with the people, etc…all of them reason enough to draw the loonies out of the woodwork.

Thanks for that link. I remember a lot of them, but there were some surprises as well.

More interesting is who the shooter/bomber would be-the extreme right wing in this country or radical Muslim Taliban types? Not to mention the crazy Hinckley types.

You can’t predict the behavior of lunatics.

I’d say you’d have less of a chance of getting a shot off against Hillary, since she’s used to the ways of the Secret Service and has had their procedures drilled in her head for 16 years or so.

If you could get a shot off, Hillary presents a much larger target, particularly when shooting from the rear.

Speaking of shots…
That’s a pretty cheap one.

My completely unscientific, totally subjective reading of public mood is that literally murderous hatred of Hillary far exceeds that of Obama.

I’d have to agree…

I’ve also heard what Kalhoun has said bout if we elect a woman we’d weaken our position in the world, but I am not sure this holds as much in this day and age, but one never knows.

Interesting that I was just thinking the same thing the other day.

Both Obama and Hillary will be lightning rods for every nutcase who perceives their potential victory as a threat to the status quo, mainly that of a white male dominated society.

I can well imagine the Secret Service will be earning their salary as the General Election nears and every yahoo with access to a gun and/or bomb will be muttering to himself over a beer in the corner at Billy Bob’s bar.

As I mentioned on a recent thread, the old joke was that by picking Cheney, Bush made himself assassination-proof. Suddenly that joke isn’t as funny when you consider two of the front runners are, to say the least, unconventional and controversial choices for some people to accept.

A lot of assassins are lunatics whose motives don’t really connect with their target’s policies. Hinkley didn’t shoot Reagan because he objected to supply side economics or a tough stance against the USSR, he shot Reagan to impress Jodi Foster. Who knows what buttons Obama or Hillary might push in some lunatic’s brain?

Just remind them of Mesdames Thatcher, Meir, and Ghandi, and Queen Elizabeth.

And may I point out that not only are most assassination attempts carried out by disaffected wingnuts (many of whom historically have had leftist sympathies, btw), but that most known presidential assassination attempts since 1968 have been carried out against white male, Old Guard, right-wing presidents.

The thing that worries me most about Obama is that it seems to be the inspirational people who are most likely to be successfully assassinated. JFK, RFK, MLK and Ronald Reagan were all exceptionally inspirational people (as were Malcolm X and George Lincoln Rockwell on a lower level) and I have come to fear that it may be this very quality that inspires some people sufficiently enough to try to assassinate them.

I don’t agree with his politics, but I like Obama quite a lot and I have to confess to having harbored concerns about his safety ever since he first began to gain momentum as a presidential candidate, and unfortunately I don’t think these concerns are likely go away anytime soon…at least not as long as he’s a national political figure.

I keep hearing these whispers of assassination attempts for the Dem candidates, and, after the slew of murders in the 60’s of maverick politicos like the Kennedys and King, it’s a haunting concern. I do hope it’s not a concern that causes anyone to be fearful of having a candidate for change in the status quo. Certainly, the candidates are astute enough in their knowledge of history, and know of that possible danger, and have decided to go ahead on with their life on that line.

So should we, with all hope that it’s a better world now. Assassination and terrorism are bullying tactics; you can cower in the corner, or forge ahead despite the threat.

I worry about Clinton and Obama both, because there’s probably someone out there right now who’d give his left nut to go down in the history books as the person to assassinate our first black or female president. Hell, probably more than one someone.

I heard a lot of talk in '93, and more in '94, about Clinton being a target for disgruntled vets. Didn’t come to anything. ETA: As far as I know.

I would not be surprised. Clinton was president when the various proto-fascist (“patriot”) groups began to get seriously angry for some unknown reason. The more mainstream among them began to circulate the “Clinton Death List” alleging that he and his wife had dozens of people killed, most prominent among them Vince Foster. The less mainstream started to believe that he was taking orders from the Chinese and on the verge of using FEMA to declare martial law and turn America into a dictatorship. The Freemen, the Montana Militia, and the people who rallied around the Weavers were prime examples of just how stupid things got. I’m surprised Clinton wasn’t dodging a lot more bullets, myself.

Maybe they were angry the Soviets gave up and they couldn’t reasonably worry about nuclear holocaust anymore.

Obama and Hilary may be hated by some Americans who don’t want a black or woman Pres, but aren’t hated by the world. There are probably billions of people who don’t like Bush, many of whom are willing to suicide bomb, but Bush has had one lame attempt? I’d say going by that, a genuine attmept on either would be unlikely.

I don’t see any American hating a woman so much they would give their life to try and kill them, Obama maybe some fringe Aryan types, but Americans generally are bright enough to know the consequences of such a thing and like their lives too much to try it.

I don’t think it holds much in the world, but the US is lagging far behind other developed countries with respect to putting women in the driver’s seat. Kind of boggles the mind, actually.