Let’s put aside the (un)likelihood of an assassin succeeding against such a presumably well-guarded public figure. Let’s talk about the consequences of a successful attempt on her life, although hijacks into the ramifications of a serious but unsuccessful attempt are also welcome.
Two scenarios: The assassination occurs (a) before the Democratic Convention, or (b) after the convention has nominated HRC to be the Democratic candidate but before the election. Subset for (b): would there be differing reactions and consequences depending on how close to the election it happened?
I’m thinking in terms not only of who the likeliest successor as a candidate to her would be (a question whose answer would I’m sure hinge upon primary results), but also of whether or not public reaction would shift to lean more pro-Democratic in revulsion at the actions of a (presumptively) ultra-rightwing nutjob. If you wish to posit an ultra-leftwing nutjob, how might that affect the resulting brouhaha? How about a randomly nutty nutjob with no discernible political views? Oh, and let’s also posit that the assassin is entirely homegrown and has no ties whatsoever to any foreign terrorist group or philosophy.
What sort of changes might take place in the Republican share of political discourse (beyond the “Ohmigod how terrible this is not what our great country stands for” etc. etc. auto-response)? In the Democratic (ditto on autoresponse)?
[sub]Note to any Secret Service or other law enforcement personnel reading this: I do not advocate, nor have I ever advocated, any actual attempt on the life of Hillary Clinton or any other public figure. This is purely an intellectual exercise.[/sub]
If Hillary Clinton were assassinated tomorrow, it would have no official effect on the campaign. There haven’t been any primaries yet and she doesn’t have any delegates committed to her. The campaigns would continue and voters would vote for one of the surviving candidates.
In reality, Clinton’s death would have a huge impact on the campaign. Americans love a martyr and that’s what she’d become. Her staunchest enemies would at the very least have to maintain their silence. Even the Republican candidates would feel compelled to praise her. And the surviving Democrats would talk her up so much you’d think she was a combination of Mother Teresa and Santa Claus - all of them would emphasize that they had picked up the fallen torch and were going to dedicate their administration to carrying on her work.
One possible correction to my previous post. I said there have been no primaries which is correct. But I also said that no delegates have been committed to Clinton. I was just reading that several “superdelegates” have committed to her. I’ll admit I’m not sure what a superdelegate is. From the article I read it appears it’s an official endorsement from a member of Congress. I don’t know how (or if) these supredelegates are counted towards the actual nomination.
I suspect you’re at least partially right, Little Nemo, in fact my twisted sense of humor is enjoying the prospect of de mortuis nil nisi bonum requiring Limbaugh, Coulter, Reilly et al. to choke out kind words about Hillary. Is it really such a slamdunk, though, that all the vitriol expressed toward her over so many years, and the corrosive effect it’s had on so many people’s perception of her, would be washed away so thoroughly?
Would Obama’s themes of hope and new directions resonate more than ever? Would they propel him ahead of the other Dem candidates? Would, say, Edwards’ criticisms of Clinton come back to bite him in the ass?
I think it’s odd that you chose those three names. Of the three, I could maybe see O’Reilly burbling nice words from behind a twitching near-smirk. Coulter would bash the living fuck out of her; all the more so because her target, being dead, couldn’t answer back. Limbaugh’s public persona is only slightly more stable.
I agree with the gist of what you said, though. Her former opponents would, out of politeness if not respect, have to say lots of nice things about her and it would indeed be amusing to watch the the freaks at the far end of the spectrum try to mumble something that isn’t atrocious.
I’m pretty sure O’Reilly and Limbaugh would fall in with the public opinion and praise Clinton after her assassination. Limbaugh for example has said good things about Kennedy.
With Coulter, though, it’s anybody’s guess. That woman’s genuinely insane.
I think there’d be several right wing media personalities who’d embarrass the Right with comments about “just one more Clinton to go”, “good riddance”, and so on. I still remember all the pro-assassination sentiment I heard from the Right when her husband was in office; “Where’s Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him ?” and all that.
Superdelegates are delegates to the convention that are appointed by the party leadership and not by a primary or caucus. When the Democratic nominating reforms happened in the 70s, the leadership wanted to hold onto at least some power in nominating candidates, so they set up the superdelegate system.
I don’t think the Republicans have them, although they might have just gotten them in the last few election cycles. I know the RNC was talking about it.
Thanks. My ignorance is fought. In regards to the OP, I would assume that the superdelegates could be reassigned to new candidates if Clinton were killed.
This side of the Pond, I think there’d be considerable sympathy. She does, after all, have name recognition. Politically, after the nomination it would be seen as a realy big deal and we’d have much amusement watching politicians struggling to ingratiate themselves with whoever was chosen as a replacement. Before the nomination, there’d be a photo-op for Brown and Blair at her funeral.
This makes me think of what motivates most assassinations. There have been hundreds of such events throughout history – I wonder how many are based upon simple political disagreements? I decided to take a look at some of our own assassins (and would be ones) for fun.
Charles Guiteau: Killed Garfield. His belfry was overflowing with bats, although maybe he wasn’t medically insane (the jury didn’t buy it). He felt he deserved to be an ambassador in the Garfield administration because he thought he helped him get elected but he was rejected. He also claimed God told him to do it. I suggest reading up on this guy, he’s quite the character.
Richard Lawrence: Attempted and failed to kill Andrew Jackson (crazy tidbit: he bought two pistols and both of them misfired at the moment of truth. Also, Jackson beat him with his cane). Ruled not guilty by reason of insanity, lived in institutions the rest of his life. He thought the U.S. government owed him enormous sums of money which Jackson was denying him, which he planned to use to become the King of England (he thought he was King Richard III). Also thought Jackson killed his father.
John Schrank: Tried to kill Teddy Roosevelt, failed. The circumstances surrounding the actual assassination and why it failed are another must read. But Schrank claimed he didn’t want any president to run for a third time and that this was a warning to others who might try. He also said the ghost of McKinely told him to do it to avenge his death.
Giuseppe Zangara: Tried to kill FDR, wanted to kill Hoover originally. He blamed them for the poor economy and his unemployment. He also said things like: “I have the gun in my hand. I kill kings and presidents first and next all capitalists.”
Lynette Fromme: An actual woman (would be) assassin and a disciple of Manson. Tried and failed to kill Ford. From what I can tell she was basically an eco-terrorist who was concerned about California redwoods.
Sara Jane Moore: Another woman who attempted to kill Ford. Clearly political: “The government had declared war on the left. Nixon’s appointment of Ford as vice president and his resignation making Ford president seemed to be a continuing assault on America.”
Leon F. Czolgosz: Self-styled Anarchist (although rejected from Anarchist meetings – his violent rhetoric made them think he was a government agent), killed McKinely. Said he “killed the president because he was the enemy of the people – the good working people.”
Samuel S. Byck: Wanted to crash an airplane into the White House to kill President Nixon. Instead killed himself after slaying the pilots and becoming involved in a shoot out with police. He blamed Nixon for ruining American society and oppressing the poor.
Francisco Martin Duran: Sprayed the White House with semi-automatic weapon fire, wanted to kill Bill Clinton for signing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
John Hinckley, Jr.: Tried to kill Reagan. Almost comically delusional. He wanted to impress Jodie Foster and figured becoming known around the world for killing the POTUS would win her love.
John Wilkes Booth: Yeah. Clearly political.
Lee Harvey Oswald: Tough to say the motivations but he seemed to pretty much hate everything. I don’t think it would’ve mattered who the POTUS was.
There are many other examples, but it seems to me to follow about 50% insane and 50% political, with half of the latter being mad at the world and the system in general and almost any dead president would make them happy and the other 25% actually caring about specific issues and legislation or the actions of the specific person.
I think a would be assassin of Hillary Clinton might be a woman herself. Do you ever see those street interviews asking if the U.S. is ready for a woman president? Maybe it’s just me, but do you ever notice that a lot of the people who say “no” are women and they say men are meant to be leaders and women are weak and shouldn’t ever be in positions of power? Yeah. One of those, with a dash of Christian fundamentalism mixed in, I can see the court trial now with wall to wall television coverage. And the atrocious interviews with Bill Clinton.
Precisely. This is why I fervently wish this never comes to pass.
I haven’t noticed that, no. I’m sure some people believe that, but in my experience most are saying that they don’t believe men will vote for a woman, same as some black voters don’t think white people would vote for Obama.
Anyway, if a crazy woman of that description believes a woman shouldn’t be President, wouldn’t she trust a man to do the killing?
My guess is that if Hillary was shot by a random loner - if a member of a terrorist group did it, it’s very different - the Democrats would still win and her memory would create a push that would ensure the passage of a national health care bill.
Yes, this is why I stipulated homegrown; I wanted to explore the implications of her assassination itself. My impression is that a Muslim extremist assassin might actually swing public opinion in the Republicans’ favor depending on how effectively the event was used to pump up “Keep us safe from the foreign menace!” fear. Or is that no longer a winning card for any Republican candidate, at least as launched from a Clinton assassination, given how, as I see it, public opinion has swung away from the Republicans on this issue?
Ah, well, now that it’s been raised, if anyone else wants to pursue the expansion of the hypothetical, might as well.
Thank you, Shodan, for your usual thoughtful, incisive, and well-reasoned response.
:mad: It was Bush, Ogdammit! Don’t tell me you believe that mealy-mouthed “lone gundyke” bullshit from those jackanapes on the Hinckey Commission! Have you even seen the Bummfokker Clip?! (I mean the original, before they did all that photoshopping mojo!)
