I recently entertained with some friends the scenario that Barrack Obama might win the election and be assassinated.

It occurred to me that some lone hatemonger should be no match for the secret service, so I built the scenario on the assumption that an Obama assassination would have to be an inside job.

What I came up with scared the tinfoil out of me.

Initiating event: In an upset reminiscent of the beginning of the end for Dean, Barrack Obama comes in first at the Iowa caucus, Hillary comes in third. By Feb 6, Obama is one of two main contenders with Hillary in it but barely, neither of which is willing to take Hillary as a running mate. Hillary nearly pulls out the nomination on her own, but the IATSE strikes during the DNC in protest of concerns that Hillary may be pro NAU. Its a publicity stunt and Obama is allowed to quickly negotiate a deal, clinching his nomination.

The conspiracy: Bill Clinton taps his sometimes friend Wesley Clark to save the day for Hillary. He will be put up as a VP for Obama, then Obama will be assassinated after the election and Hillary will become Clark's VP and heir apparent for 2016.

Means: Clark starts courting a position on the Obama ticket with the support of Clinton financial backers. The need for a southerner and timely bad news for John Edwards get Clark the VP spot.

Over the course of the first year of Obama's administration, the NAU preparations are allowed to become more high profile. Obama is then assassinated by a latino gunman, who is claimed to be affiliated with MS13 and an illegal immigrant from South America via Mexico. Rage at the assassination is allowed to fester into riots intentionally, creating distrust against poor minority areas which stand to lose the most under the NAU. Blaming the assassination on a South American gang and raising street gangs to the level of full blown terrorists is also used to create a security based justification for the NAU and for further homeland security measures.

Clark appoints Hillary as his Vice President. He also sacks Obama's sec def in favor of General Shalikashvili or if Shalikashvili isn't up to it since his 2004 stroke, possibly Barry McCaffrey. Richard Holbrooke would be a likely Secy of State; Albright wouldn't be unwelcome but she is politically more dangerous in some ways. The Clinton gang is back to establish a revolving door dynasty in the tradition of the Ford through Bush republican administrations.

Why Clark and company?
Clark, aside from Hillary, is one of the best presidential calliber allies Clinton has left in the party. The two have known eachother since at least '65. Clinton, with the cooperation of McCaffery and Holbrooke, Albright, and Shalikashvili got Clark his 4th star when Reiner and others were trying to run him out of the army. Cohen severely ticked Clinton off when he went around Clinton's back to get rid of Clark. He's part of the liberal internationalist team big time and he owes the Clinton's one. Interestingly, it would be raining eastern european born jews and catholics in this administration; this clique has a lot in common.

hehehe, this reminds me of an Eddie Murphey Skit.

'' He wont stand still...........''

Betya Obama's working out in the gym!

Pardon my ignorance but isnt Obama Muslim? Sorry but Ive lost interest in our politics but i know this, America will never elect a muslim for president. Just the way it is

Although I hope to keep things on a conspiratorial angle (I spend plenty of time in AP already) the short answer is no, Obama is not a Muslim. Discussion of him can be readily found in Candidate Advocacy on Above Politics and to a lesser extent in US Politics. I'd be happy to help you with links to those threads if that angle intrigues you.

One of the questions that remains alive about Obama though is exactly why he's the big issue he is. Virtually nobody makes the splash he has with so few years in public service unless they have executive experience. That opens up a lot of questions about hidden agendas among power brokers, who is playing who, etc.

Thats basically where this thread is coming from; he could be viewed either as an obstacle being thrown at Clinton by rivals in the hidden heirarchy or he could be seen as a back-door, being put up entirely as an insurance policy in case Clinton can't do it herself. No insult to the man is intended, but it is a tinfoiled angle to consider.

He's new, flashy, savvy... and black!
He's the right hook no one saw coming, and by the time they realised his potential, he was already pulling large numbers.
The black vote is a powerful vote this election, Especially with New Orleans.

I just cant see neither of them winning though,
If I had to chose Id say I hope clinton does, because 8 more yrs of Bills thinking behind Hillary can only be a good thing '' flame away fella's ''

Obama's to young, he's brason, hasnt quite learnt the ropes yet.

But maybe thats exactly what Ameria needs, someone reckless....

Anything would be an improvement at the moment!

Vagabond, you certainly have an active imagination. It could prove prophetic or not, nevertheless, anything is possible.

There's still the conspiracy out there that Cheney will bump off Bush via a hit so he can finish the NWO project too.

If only i was a real psychic!!!

Nice theory, though.

Vagabond.

As I've come to expect from you over the time I've been here, that was a tightly reasoned hypothesis. Plausible, and damned scarey. The Clinton machine is ruthless, but are they truely that ruthless? Hope not...the last thing our country needs is an Uber-Nixon.

Yea i see where youre coming from here on your angle and I wasnt trying to derail it by going off topic, sorry.
I have to agree about Obama just coming out of nowhere. I have personally never heard of him, until a few months ago. Im from Texas and Bush was a decent Governor and I believe once he got to be president he was no longer calling the shots. However, most people, especially from other country's dont realize how crooked the entire Clinton Admin was. That however, is yet another topic so ill stop there lol

I think I should say that this is by no means a sure thing. I think that it's a lot like an alternative history game- the internal logic of the scenario is as sound as I can manage, but point of divergence, that is, the way that the chain of events is set in motion, is arbitrary and unlikely.

Like when someone presents a great idea of how radically different history would have been if General Jackson had been at Gettysburg... perhaps the South would have won and the Indian Territory would have become sovereign, the North West sold to Canada, Mexico conquered by the Confederacy, and a thousand other such things, but none of that is possible, no matter how well reasoned, unless you arbitrarily suppose that Jackson might have fallen off of his horse and broken his ribs during his rush back to his troops after surveying federal lines upon his arrival at Chancellorsville.


As for would Clinton do it... the famous Clinton bodycount list is heavily inflated, but a couple of the people on it could have legitimately been wasted. Its not live viciousness has ever been foreign to American politics.

Alternative history, or in this case Precognitive History, can be fun. No one can lose the arguement.

Oh, the so called Clinton bodycount is very inflated, truthfully, I don't think they've had anyone killed. They are, however, ruthless enough to take advantage of any opening that might be available. But this is politics today, and not just in America. Actually, I suppose politics have been this way for damn near forever.

vagabond - VERY interesting thoughts you have had!!

My opinion - the Clinton machine won't let Obama be the nominee. During the vetting, they will make sure that everyone sees his empty resume and that 'black power' church he goes to (etc etc). The Clintons won't let him be the nominee - by any means necessary (IMHO)

Hillary will be the dem nominee and the next president of the United States.

I wish the dems would pick Bill Richardson (New Mexico). He's really their best player, but Hillary has the $$$, the star power, and the real power.

I just want to say that the protection for the President is good, very good.

Nobody gets shot unless they want him to get shot.

If they didn't want Kennedy to get shot, then he wouldn't have gotten shot.

If they didn't want Ford or, dare I say Reagan to have gotten shot, they wouldn't have.

Any attempt will demand cooperation on the part of the secret service.

Originally posted by seagull
Vagabond.

As I've come to expect from you over the time I've been here, that was a tightly reasoned hypothesis. Plausible, and damned scarey. The Clinton machine is ruthless, but are they truely that ruthless? Hope not...the last thing our country needs is an Uber-Nixon.

Yes, very interesting scenario!

Can the Clintons be that ruthless? The answer, unfortunately, lies in the trail of dead people leading from Arkansas to the White House for Bill. The best anyone mounting a serious challenge to Hillary could hope for would be to have the Clintons "swift boat" them in some way. At least they'd still be alive afterwards ...

[edit on 4/16/2007 by centurion1211]

Snopes has a great breakdown of the Clinton bodycount. There are only a few of the names that can still be credited to Clinton if you have just a little bit of tinfoil in your blood. I'm would be slow to say that Clinton had absolutely no blood on his hands though. He's a powerful man who does have some history with a few dirty people and some dirty money, and that can make things ugly.

I don't know that it would take Secret Service cooperation to kill the president exactly, but it would take a powerful infrastructure, and it would drastically improve chances if you could subvert at least elements of the secret service- at least to create a small gap.

I am confident that if the secret service were to make an open invitation for "wargames" with them, a few people, one of them probably being me, would present them with scenarios in which the secret service would have very little chance of winning on their own, but many of these would require the intelligence community to fail or look the other way, or for legitimate government channels to cooperate in providing suspicious materials that would facilitate the attack.

Joe Schmo might find it more than a little difficult (read impossible) to get an illegit construction crew onto pennsylvania avenue to plant demolitions in the road, but if certain people in DC were cooperating...


As for whether or not Clinton can get rid of him through dirty politics... 20% of the delegates at the DNC are stirctly representing the party heirarchy. The other 80% is in the hands of the voters. So the question is, how big of an edge can Obama acheive, who can he join forces with, and who else is in the running?

If it's Clinton versus Obama head to head, he's got very little chance, but throw in a Joe Biden or a John Edwards or someone like that, and now Clinton is fighting in two directions and losing some of her edge, and either Clinton or Obama has to be ruled out and then the person who loses out has some weight to throw behind someone else...

So if Hillary Clinton is afraid of the 3rd person taking Obama on as a VP and besting her at the convention, maybe she goes to plan B.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by The Vagabond]

The evangelical christian population within this country must be kept in mind.

Obama's stance on certain issues will not get him supported by that very large populace which could, in essence, swing the election in whatever way they see fit.

But to the OPs theory: My first thought was that...a lone gunman would probably have no real issue assasinating any president. All they need is an ability with a long range rifle.

If Obama is assasinated I would fear that the riots witnessed after Kings assasination would be met if not surpassed.

Let us hope that nothing bad comes to pass.

i hate to go off topic. but didn't Obama goto a Madrasa ? If he did, that would loose alot of votes for office.

It occurs to me that the questions about how much evangelicals will support Obama opens up an interesting facet of a prospective assassination.

Would evangelicals catch some of the blame from Democrats? That could have a profound impact on our politics. It could be used to put some real fire into the culture war and justify a series of Waco style crackdowns.

It seems a lot more fringe to me, but I thought that might be of interest to some.

so if he was to be assasinated wouldnt it be obvious that it was an inside job? obviously the powers that be wouldn't want someone like him to run the country.he seems to have his own opinions and i dont think he would be willing to be a puppet like bush is.