My girlfriend (a non-political junkie) caught the Presidential candidates talking about this on CNN last night.  ALL of them, with the exception of Obama, really irritated her because they seemed to be melding the tragedy around their own self-ambition.  Only Obama, in her words, "never pisses me off".

It's good, organic little anecdote to keep in mind between the endless mudslinging by campaign operatives and supporters on this thread, most of which could be predicted before even reading it.

Obama was right AGAIN!!!!  When are we going to stop playing "politics-as-usual" and realize that he has the vision and the drive that this country needs!  I am very disappointed with Clinton and her attempt to score points because she knew Bhutto personally.

It was not her personal views that she wanted to give to the world but she wanted to present the people of Pakistan's view and their quest for democracy for a better life.

Obama was right...we have been on the wrong battlefied!  We should never gone into Iraq!!!!!!!  Let's be honest, he had to stand against the entire Congress and inject judgement and rationality which they continue to ignore to this day!

Obama was right...we need him in 2008!

Axelrod's comments tying Hillary's Iraq vote to Benizir Bhutto's death were reprhensible. Trying to expoliting a tradgedy for political gain.  I hope the press will do their job and force the campaign and candidate to answer for this. Can you imagine if someone from Hillary's campaign had tried to score political points with some far fetched anaolgy? I have a feeling the press would be all over that....

Mr. Obama was right, again.  There is a real pattern of great judgment when people of the typical pundit/Washington insider said he was wrong.  It would be a real shame if we don't put this leader in the White House.  Obama's head and shoulders above compared to the other top tier dems!

I love how the Obama fans refuse to believe their candidate slipped up.  His statement on Bhutto yesterday was cold and unfeeling, compared to the people who knew her.  Axlerod, should be fired.  It's worst than Hillary's people saying Republicans will use his drug use against him.  Hillary showed leadership and had that guy got fired.  I wonder what Obama will do.

The fact is, Leaders in Pakistan have been getting assasinated long before the Iraq war and if any of you Obama people studied history, you would know this.  Obviously, Axlerod doesn't.  

Hmmmmmm. I Notice The "Ultimate Rebuttal" to the spin  Missing. Obama already addressed this.

Obama: Dustup over aide's remarks just DC 'spin'

by Mike Dorning

VINTON, Iowa—Barack Obama tonight defended comments made by his chief political strategist drawing a link between rival Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War and the political tumult in Pakistan that today included the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

In an interview with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer moments before he walked into an evening rally at a high school here, Barack Obama called a controversy over the comment “spin” and said his adviser “in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation.”

Throughout the day, the Clinton and Obama camps traded criticisms amid an ongoing battle on the campaign trail over her claims that Obama lacks the experience needed to be president. Obama has countered that Clinton's initial support for the Iraq war, which he opposed, raises questions about her experience and judgment.

Early in the day, the Illinois senator's top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, cited Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and argued that the war has stoked support in the Islamic world for Al Qaeda, which may be involved in Bhutto’s assassination.

"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that," Axelrod said. "... Sen. Clinton made a different judgment. Let's have that discussion."

Phil Singer, a Clinton campaign spokesman, responded shortly afterward by contending Axelrod was "politicizing this situation with baseless allegations" when people should be focused on the implications for Pakistan, the U.S. and the world.

Obama said in the CNN interview that Axelrod’s comments were misinterpreted.

"I overheard it when he said it. And this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever," Obama said.

"He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there," he said later in the interview.

Obama said that Axelrod was responding to a question about whether the assassination would move Iowa voters to be more sympathetic to arguments that the Clinton camp has made that Obama lacks the foreign policy experience to be president.

“His response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, ‘Who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan?’ And his argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball,” Obama said. "That’s part of the reason we are now in this circumstance."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_controversy_over_aides_r.html

Anyone notice Hillary hater, Chris Matthews, didn't bother to mention Axlerod's comments, but when Hillary's guy said the Republicans would use his drug use against Obama, Matthews blasted the Clinton campaign. The Hypocracy never ends!  

How many times does Obama have to be right before people start getting it?
Hobo, Hoboken, NJ (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:52 PM)

With some of the candidates copying his campaign theme after seeing that his style was working, the only thing we've yet to hear is'I AGREE WITH BARACK Indeed,Hobo from hoboken, ,How many times does Obama have to be right before people start getting it?
  Mrs. Bhutto herself agreed with the premise that Barack was talking about, which is, if Pakistan won't do something about it, outside forces should.Voter's won't forget that he was ahead of the curve, so to speak on this.

General Musharrif is barely one rung up from the likes of Osama. It is very evident the "Dictator General" played a part in Bhutto's death; her remarks from the grave just make this more apparent. This is what happens when Bush made a pact with the devil, the likes of Musharrif. Ironically my personal belief that trying or even succeeding in creating a democracy in Iraq would destabilize the whole region seems to becoming a reality. Turkey is invading the Kurds in northern Iraq, Afghanistan is totally out of control, and soon al-Qaida will have its dream of controlling Pakistan, along with Pakistan's nukes. We owe all this not only to the idiot in the Whitehouse, but also for every dimwit that voted for him. Never underestimate stupid and misinformed people in mass numbers. Plato always believed a true democracy will always lead to a dictatorship. This is what happens when too many voters believe everything they hear from either talk radio, or the Murdoch group of news media outlets.

Obama is right on the mark, otherwise, why would all the trolls be out today bashing him? Obama/Biden/Edwards are the first politicians I've heard in years who make any sense talking about foreign affairs. I'll be glad to see the last of the incompetent, blowhard CHeney/Bushites in charge of our policy in the Middle East.

First, Bhutto was a POLITICIAN.  Her entire LIFE was politicized and she was assassinated (a, uh, political act) immediately prior to a US Presidential primary during a "War on Terror."  In that a) reporters were ASKING all of the campaigns for their response and b) all of the major candidates were actively seeking information about the event, I'm a little confused as to why we are all so wide-eyed with shock and dismay that this topic might come up?  The fact of the matter is, everyone else is talking about Pakistan NOW, AFTER THIS HAS HAPPENED, instead of BEFORE.  Except for Obama.  Who was talking about it before.  And who was right.  Nothing in Axelrod's statement implies that Clinton was somehow responsible, and the only reason anyone is saying Alexrod's comments were inappropriate is because Clinton's campaign said so.  
She may jump and you all ask how high, but luckily I think Iowans are smarter than that.

They always say "thanks to Clinton's vote to the Iraq war......." I never heard they say "thanks to Biden, Edwards vote for Iraq war...."
BECAUSE HILLARY IS A FRONT RUNNER, AHEAD. HILLARY WILL WIN IOWA. Media pushed Obama to the frontline, he himself NEVER walks to the front. HE WILL NEVER WIN.

Obama had no say on the war he was not there to vote for the war and we do not know how he would have voted. Stop it already - this goes to show why the United States need to stay out of other countries affairs.  The woman is dead because they try to broker a deal in our best interest.  When are we going to learn.

To put the blame for Bhutto's death on Hillary and 96 other U.S. Senators while he himself safely doesn't vote on every controsersial issue that comes his way is disgusting.  I thought re-writing history was the republicans job.  This is the slimiest tactic I've seen in an electon since GWB's people slimed McCain in SC in 2000.  

Disgusting.

I've said on this blog during this whole run up that I am a Hillary supporter but would vote for whoever got the nomination.  I'm not sure I can do that anymore.  This is just disgusting, what a slimy rovian tactic.

squintz, philly, pa

Just to set the record straight, I think we would have to add Senator Biden's name to the list of candidates who were talking about potential problems in Pakistan before this assassination occurred.

Now we see who pays attention to facts and who is just lapping up campaign spin. Obama said we should be paying more attention to Pakistan months ago, and everyone said he was a nitwit (EXCEPT for Bhutto herself). Now Obama's adviser, answering a QUESTION about how this affects the foreign policy discussion in the last days of the campaign, makes the SAME POINT that Obama's campaign has been making THE WHOLE TIME.

And Hillary's lapdogs consider it a "slimy, rovian tactic."

Obama was right on this, he was right on Iraq, and I say we give him the chance to show us how many other things he's right about. Obama in '08!

(And please, Democrats, DON'T get bitter about the primary! Seriously, if nothing else, Hillary IS right that it would be better under Dems than the GOP, so PLEASE VOTE DEMOCRAT in 08, no matter WHO the nominee is--our field is awesome compared to theirs!)

My girlfriend (a non-political junkie) caught the Presidential candidates talking about this on CNN last night.  ALL of them, with the exception of Obama, really irritated her because they seemed to be melding the tragedy around their own self-ambition.  Only Obama, in her words, "never pisses me off".

It's good, organic little anecdote to keep in mind between the endless mudslinging by campaign operatives and supporters on this thread, most of which could be predicted before even reading it.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 7:24 AM)

Can you in good conscience say that Axelrod was not using the tragedy to his advantage?  He used it to make the argument that those voting for the war in Iraq will have to face their judgment on that vote in light of Bhutto's assassination.  How is that NOT politicizing her death?

Just out of curiosity, why are people who say negative things about Obama always called trolls, but people who say negative things about Hillary are not called anything?

Oh wait.  I forgot, I'm not supposed to point out the overwhelming hypocrisy from many of the Obama supporters anymore.  I'm supposed to be a good girl and stop speaking the truth.

Well, in the infamous words of Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth."  I suppose that's why they feel the need to attack anyone who comes close to stepping on Obama's toes.  Once you look past the bright and shiny exterior, the picture is not nearly so pleasant.  

David Axelrod and Obama were right on target and said nothing that is incorrect.  It is only the MSM, looking for "news" that can spin their comments into blaming Hillary Clinton for death of Bhutto.  Such foolishness!  And so desperate....  and worse:  the people in here buying it!

You want someone with the wisdom and courage to say and do what needs to be done?  Barack Obama 08.  It is time...  We can't afford more of the same; it's not working....  that's quite clear.

I agree with Steve, Hartford, CT.

Believe me, I resisted Obama. I defended Hillary against some people's attacks. I even sent money to John Edwards. But now I've decided, Obama will be the next President of the United States. He's an original thinker, he has depth and courage, and he will always talk straight to the American people.

Have we lost sight of who we are and what this (US) country needs?  We are so busy policing the world, our needs are seriously lacking.  Education, health care, proverty, and so forth.  My thoughts and prayers are with PM Bhutto.  The fact of the matter is these wars have deeply minimized our resources, we have had thousands of members of our Forces killed and seriously injured, the poor is getting poorer and the rich is getting richer.  

What are we talking about anymore?  To me, it's more alarming to me that the media is highlighting the death of PM Bhutto when our own Forces are constantly dying and in harms way in a war that never should have occurred.
***It's AMAZING to me that we can take our citizens, transform them into fighting forces in 8 weeks of boot camp and a FEW more weeks of learning their MOS' (jobs) and send them to fight wars in other countries.  We have been in Iraq for years and these people are not capable of guarding the local convenient store.  

Come on America, people have to want to change and take the necessary steps to make it happen.  If I am wrong...this means, the US is hiding the fact that they are capable of handling their country and we should leave like...yesterday, not tomorrow. I'm sure that won't happen.
 
Our country is constantly funding these countries who are knowingly shady with their politics and are not doing enough to combat these terroristic actions.  This funding or those 10 billion dollars sent to Pakistan could have bought plenty of books, materials for our children to learn and/ or to strengthen our own economy.  

I often ever wonder where is the UN or the central figure to bring all nations together, why aren't they commented on these situations?  Why are our noses always in other people's business?  I know why, if we stop funding these countries and expect them to quid pro quo anything positive, we can get somewhere.  We are supposed to be a superpower, not the supermuscle of the world to boss everyone around.
**IF THESE CANDIDATES BELIEVE I AM FOCUSING ON FOREIGN POLICY...THINK AGAIN!!!**

Another thing...many of the candidates claim they have spoken to the people of Pakistan and everywhere else, but what about the CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY who need things done here.  Pakistan can't run their country, because they are tied up with calls from nosey politicians from the US.  STAY OUT OF THOSE PEOPLE BUSINESS' AND TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE IN YOUR YOUR OWN COUNTRY!  I AM NOT IMPRESSED BY YOU RUNNING SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS, WHEN YOU CAN'T RUN THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY!  WHO CARES IF YOU TOOK PICTURES WITH THEM YEARS AGO, VISITING WITH THEM, WHO CARES IF YOU TALKED TO THE PAKISTAN PRESIDENT WEEKS AGO AND GAVE HIM ADVISE!  My advice to you...is mind the affairs of the US.  

Americans must not take their eyes off the prize, we must focus on domestic issues.  How can you clean the world, when your own country is lacking?  I don't believe Amercans are that shallow to believe we need a war president, how can we tell other countries to get along, when we ourselves are filled with hate for our own bretheren.    

These countries have been fighting for centuries and our blood shed is not going to change one thing for them.  Especially, when our government get it wrong and still want us to support their actions to fight.

The funding for these countries can help with more intelligence, create more jobs to keep our own country safe by being able to investigate the people coming into our country, protect our borders, etc.  

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH...We don't need the same politicians from previous years SINGING THE SAME TUNE, we need newness, fresh faces, people who care more about us than what is going on elsewhere.  We should be trying to move forward, not backwards.  {To seek the past to me is like seeking trying to renew a failed relationship from the past, if it didn't work then, why try again?}  They are going to come in on day one, with the same people from the past with the same ole' thoughts; who needs that baggage?  I don't and the American people deserve better, if you don't think it for yourself, I do for myself and my family.    

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Carrie from Iowa....."Obama said that Axelrod was responding to a question about whether the assassination would move Iowa voters to be more sympathetic to arguments that the Clinton camp has made that Obama lacks the foreign policy experience to be president."

He was responding to a question that politicized her assassination and gave favor to the opposing candidate. His response will inherently be political and in defense of his canidate.

Many of your attacks on Obama are baseless and irrational. The experience argument is getting pathetic. He has more elected experience than Hillary. And if experience is really what you are looking for than put your money where your mouth is and vote for Biden or Dodd. Otherwise you do sound like a.....dare I say troll.

Obama got it right.  He had it right at first.

The MSM media is going to get off of this topic (the discussion about Pakistan) fairly quickly, because Obama is going to win it.  He was winning the argument when he brought it up last time, but the media just stopped talking about it, all of a sudden.  If they start it up now he is going to win it.  

Obama stands to gain quite few point in this fight.  Last time he was simultaneously taking on everybody on both sides of the isle and winning.  If this fight resumes, Obama is going to win it.  Only now is just a few days ahead of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.  If Obama were to win a major policy debate now it will help him gain a few points in the caucus.  I expect to MSM to stop these discussions in one or two days.

Jeff:

I rarely make the experience argument in relation to Obama or Hillary, thank you very much.  When I do, I make it for Biden, the candidate I am caucusing for on January 3.

I don't believe Obama is ready for the presidency, period.  I am entitled to that opinion, and I dare say that there are an awful lot of people who feel the same way I do.

Carrie,

But what do you base this opinion on....this opinion that he is not ready for the presidency. He is extremely intelligent; has shown good judgment on many important issues; has legitimate experience as a legislature, a constitutional law professor, and a community organizer. He has more foreign policy experience than the last five presidents when they took office (with the exception of George HW Bush). He is the same age as Bill Clinton when he was elected. And listen to what Bill Clinton said when people questioned his lack of experience when he was running.

I see you on here a lot Carrie always criticizing Obama and never praising Biden. I will start calling you on it.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):