One other consequence of the assassination is that it might stop a third carpetbagging senator from New York for running for President during an unpopular war.
Sorry, no cite but he did compliment Teddy for some stand recently (I wish to hell I could remember what it was. I’ll let you know when I find it).
The loss of Hillary would mean nothing to the Democrats. Look at Bobby Kennedy’s assassination. Popular candidate running during a time of an unpopular war, related to a loved former President. Sorry, her getting killed would not necessarily mean a shoe-in for a Democratic candidate, especially if the one who takes her place lacks a lot of popular support. Imagine if it was Kucinich with his anti-war, pro-UFO platform.
I give up. Who was the first?
Bobby Kennedy.
Thanks. I had either forgotten or never knew about the New York connection.
I heard DK interviewed on the radio today. He noted that he’d done some research after that debate question and found both Reagan and Carter were on record as having reported UFO sightings, so it might be a “prerequisite.” (Remember, also, unidentified flying object does not necessarily mean “flying saucer.” If you see something flying and you don’t know what it is, it is a UFO.)
Anyway, far, far better we should have a president who believes in flying saucers than a president who believes in the Bible! 
While I haven’t seen those, I do recall a Gallup poll some years ago where there was more opposition to a female President among women than men. While I haven’t seen one recently, apparently that attitude has held steady for a few decades, and is stronger in America than in the rest of the West.
Has anyone seen a more recent poll on the subject ?
New Yorkers Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt were both shot at during their campaigns. McKinley was assassinated in New York. When Garfield was assassinated he was replaced by a Vice President from New York.
I’ve listened to Rush and Sean Hannity a bit, I’ve listened to O’Reilly a bit less and read stuff by Ann Coulter even less. My guess is that they would all honestly say something like “The differences between me and HC were trivial compared to the differences in opinion between me and the assassin. HC was a believer in the democratic process, as I am, and she dedicated years of her life to it. And she did it quite well.”
I do remember listening to Rush shortly after the 2004 election when there was talk of suicide among younger Dems. A depressed/suicidal young man called in to the show and Rush was absolutely sympathetic and encouraging to the caller. Not exactly what a lot of people would expect of him.
Nitpick: FDR was shot at while president-elect, not during his campaign.
Another New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, was neither President nor a candidate for the job due to his foreign and illegitimate birth, but was a former SecTreas and still a powerful and well-connected national politico when killed by Aaron Burr in their notorious duel.
I’m very leery of HRC but certainly don’t wish her dead. God forbid.
That said… if she were killed before the Democratic national convention and was already the prohibitive frontrunner (which seems to be the case, at least at the moment), momentum would probably carry her runner-up in the primaries (Obama or Edwards, most likely) to the nomination. I can’t see anyone else jumping into the race after her death without seeming like a big opportunistic jerk. If she were killed between the convention and the election, her VP nominee would almost certainly carry the party’s banner all the way to Election Day. And if she were killed after being elected but before being inaugurated, of course, her running mate would become President under the terms of the 20th Amendment, Sec. 3.
Depending upon the circumstances of the assassination, HRC’s death would probably help the Dems. The sympathy factor would be huge, and the GOP candidate would probably suspend his campaign, if only for a little while, which would rob him of any momentum. If, as has been the case in all past presidential assassinations, the killer uses a gun, it might galvanzie public opinion for stronger gun control, which is far more a Democratic issue than Republican.
Just as some would try to tie it to Bill Clinton.
Scenario (a) is very similar to the actual events of 1968. Bobby Kennedy hadn’t quite sewn up the nomination, but he was the frontrunner (having just won the California primary). I think his delegates were freed to go where they wished at the convention, which wound up nominating VP Hubert Humphrey.
Kennedy was running as an anti-administration Democrat, but the party wound up stuck with the spokesperson for the administration’s policies in Vietnam – so there was certainly no sympathy for the Dem party in general. Nixon won, in a squeaker.
This bears examination.
I never thought it was a suicide.
Well, who has the best motive, here? 
Oh, jeez. Here we go again. Both Independent Counsel Ken Starr and Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who had every reason to want to dirty up Bill ‘n’ Hillary, agreed with the coroner’s conclusion that it was a suicide.
If rightwing nut job, Edwards and he’d inherit the sympathy and win.
If leftwing nut jog, the Republican would win on the basis of an irrational association with all things ‘progressive’ as having given birth to leftist nutjobs.
If neither, then a more somber tone that would probably be a wash.
Republican discourse would heavily favor Giuliani and McCain type guys (in terms of the image) that present themselves as moderates and would function as real-life counterbalances to extremism; there’d be a greater premium placed on playing the middle and Ann Coulter would immediately say something stupid and become persona non grata (at least I’d hope so, but never under/overestimate the repubs)
The Democrats (though I’m one) I think wouldn’t miss an opportunity to flub something and would probably come off heavyhanded and self righteous, thereby playing into the hands of moderate repubs.
Regards,
Shodan
:dubious: Not a good example, Sho.
Most of the electorate thinks it’s a pretty good one, Bra.
Regards,
Shodan