ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Bhutto fallout

Posted: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:20 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

The Washington Post's Kornblut and Murray note that the Bhutto assassination came just hours before Obama was to deliver his closing argument. For Clinton, "Bhutto's death helped underscore the line she has been driving home for months -- about who is best suited to lead the nation at a time of international peril. In her comments Thursday, Clinton described Bhutto in terms Obama (D-Ill.) could not: as a fellow mother, a pioneering woman following in a man's footsteps, and a longtime peer on the world stage.”

“The differing reactions of Clinton and Obama to the assassination crystallized the debate between the two just a week before Iowans will decide the first contest in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination."

The AP's Espo looks at how the Bhutto assassination could affect the presidential campaign in the waning days of the Iowa caucuses. McCain and Clinton "who have made experience a cornerstone of their campaigns, said the murder was proof of a need for a president who is ready to take command." Clinton "declined to be drawn into a discussion about the impact" on Barack Obama. But "McCain was not so reticent about comparing his experience with that of other GOP contenders. ‘My theme has been throughout this campaign that I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge and the judgment. So perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials to make people understand that I've been to Pakistan, I know Musharraf, I can pick up the phone and call him. I knew Benazir Bhutto.’”  

The Washington Times’ header: "Slaying may boost Giuliani, McCain"

The Boston Globe writes the assassination "could change that dynamic, a week before the Iowa caucuses."

For Republicans in Iowa, the Des Moines Register writes, "Whether the attack in Pakistan will affect the decisions of Iowa caucus voters will largely depend on whether it can break through the issue that has dominated the Republican contest so far: illegal immigration."

On TODAY this morning, Romney said he would continue financial aid to Musharraf, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum notes. Asked if these events will help Giuliani and McCain's campaigns while hurting him, Romney disregarded the statement. "We have to put events of the world at a higher level than local politics," he answered.

But speaking of… With six days to go, politics is going to be played. The question is who does it the most blatantly. Per the Washington Post, Obama strategist David Axelrod linked "the Pakistani crisis to the different positions that Clinton and Obama took on the Iraq war in 2002, when Clinton voted to authorize it in the U.S. Senate, and Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against it.

“Clinton campaign advisers pounced on Obama's and Axelrod's comments. ‘This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country's stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations,’ Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said.” 

Obama was on CNN last night and NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan reports that during the interview, Obama was grilled by Wolf Blitzer on whether his chief media strategist, David Axelrod, had placed blame on Hillary Clinton for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.  "I don't need to hear what you read because I was -- you know, 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," he said.

However, this could not have occurred since Axelrod had spoken to a large scrum of reporters in the back of the hall where Obama gave his speech, well after Obama had left the room. Obama went on to say that Axelrod had been asked a politicized question, on how the assassination would affect the Iowa caucuses, which resulted in a politicized answer on exercising good judgment on foreign policy. "But his [Axelrod's] 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?’” he said.
 
Newsweek's Richard Wolffe notes, "For weeks Hillary Clinton's aides have looked at the landscape through a simple prism: the more dangerous the world looks, the more voters will be drawn to a ‘safe’ candidate like the former first lady. That seemed like an easy and comforting explanation for Barack Obama's rise in the polls -- that voters were tempted to ‘roll the dice’ (in Bill Clinton's phrase) only at a relatively stable time when domestic issues started to seem more pressing than foreign affairs. Campaign calculations tend to be crude, but that doesn't stop political operatives from making them. So does the assassination of Benazir Bhutto push foreign affairs -- and an unstable world -- back to the top of voters' minds just a week before the Iowa caucuses?"

Yet Wolffe doesn't seem to assume this definitely helps Clinton. "But for the Obama campaign the Pakistani crisis is a chance to reinforce the Illinois senator's criticism of Clinton and Bush. ‘I'm sure the conventional wisdom is that it's a scary world and you have to be experienced to deal with it,’ says Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director. ‘But if all you're doing is using that experience to do the same thing over and over again, you won't get change. I just don't think people are convinced that longevity in Washington is a surefire cure for what ails a scary world. If that was the case, then Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld might not have bungled their way into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation.’”

Richardson, in Iowa, delivers a speech on Pakistan and the global threats that the US faces, in which he’ll once again call for Musharraf to step down. “America must always lead in the name of freedom and we should never allow our nation to perpetuate dictatorships or provide support to tyrants to oppress their people,” Richardson is expected to say, according to excerpts his campaign provided First Read. “These policies not only betray our values, they make us weaker and less safe … turning whole populations against us. We are at our strongest when we stand for principle over power.”

”Yesterday, I called for President Musharraf to step down. Today, as a nation I am calling on the administration to stand firm for our ideals in the face of terrorism and in respect for the ideals Bhutto stood for. Anything less would send a dangerous signal to the world that terrorism alters our resolve.”

No one seemed to struggle more responding to the Bhutto news than Huckabee. Last night, NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy reports, Huckabee attempted to link Pakistan and immigration. Said Huck, “But it also points out something that we should do domestically and that is we ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country. We just need to be very, very thorough in looking at every aspect of our own security internally because again, we live in a very, very dangerous time."

Dodd said Pakistan should postpone its elections. "You'd end up with a sham that lacks credibility," Dodd said. "That's the last thing you need right now." "The long-shot Democratic contender expressed frustration with the Bush administration's 'preoccupation with elections ... as if that guarantees democracy.'"

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Obama was right about terrorism and Pakistan.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Misreporting_Obama.html


Here is a quote of Bhutto agreeing with Obama;

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border." -- Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ....

Please have mercy.  Do not compare Obama with Bush.  Obama can speak and write.  He is highly educated and I believe would have much better judgment than Bush.  However, Hillary is the strongest and smartest with a lot of relevant experience.  She would make a better president during time of peace or crisis.
To all of you touting the fact that Bhutto agreed with Obama, don't forget that she also said this in the same interview:

BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations.

She did note that Obama had said if Pakistan did not act, and she stressed the importance of Pakistan taking action.  However, it seems pretty clear from that statement that she did not fully support everything Obama said.  
Spinning the issue to favor Obama isnt gonna help him win votes people. Wake up to the fact that Axelrod did something wrong. A serious booboo. And a lot of people got turned off by it! Including this Obama fan.

I was about to caucus for Obama until I realized how composed Clinton's campaign is no matter how much garbage thrown at them. They're the ones on the right side this time, yet here are Obama's fans attacking them again. Its a case of damn if you do, damn if you dont! Its shameful!! It has got to stop.

Now im thinking really hard about my caucus vote on the 3rd! Is Obama worth it? Is this shameful campaign tactic the "change" we are expecting from him and his people? Now i might have to look for another one to support on caucus night. Not someone who resorts to cheap shots for political gains!

Obama 2008? Ill have to think again.  
This is the time to choose a person who is pragmatic and has wisdom, diplomatic skills, focus, strength and sharp foreign policy. We need a results-oriented person to govern our great nation and communicate authoritatively with the rest of the world.

Hillary has both experience and the sense to bring about practical change, appropriately. She is strong enough and determined to do what is good for America. She is here for such a time as this.

A vote for her is a vote for good governance.
Thomas, Little Rock and others who are praising HRC's remarks regarding PM Bhutto:
I'd like like to know when HRC earned the right to consider herself PM Bhutto's "peer on the world stage." They were both elected to a position in their respective national government, but PM Bhutto was elected to lead her gov't, making her a world leader.  As a member of the US Senate, Mrs. Clinton is a national leader.  Her time as first Lady certainly has made her an international figure, with a recognizable face and name, but Paris Hilton is an International figure.  PM Bhutto and Sen. Clinton are, indeed, both mothers and women working in a traditionally male job, but that is where similarities, as described by Sen Clinton, end.  I think she's stepped over the line of good taste and reality to satisfy her own self-importance.
Jerry Cribs, please.  We all know you aren't an Obama supporter.  The same people read this blog all the time and seemingly have better memories than you!
 Thank you Mark Lewis for your comments.While I am a true Biden supporter,I think MSNBC has sided with the wrong poster child in Obama.Although I am not fond of a slick presentation like Hillarys',I would vote for her rather than a novice like Barack,that has fallen quickly from his pedestal.We need someone that can think on their feet,and listen to advice without pandering or allowing personal feelings to interfere with reason.If we don't elect a competent leader this time around,I fear for our children.
Some say Obama's lack of experience can be compared to Bush when he was elected;  Bush had Texas, but not national, experience.  This view is pure propaganda.   Bush never had the foresight or courage to oppose a popular but stupid war, publicly.   Come to think of it, neither did HRC or JE.  So who is more like Bush?  The best indicator or a poor leader is poor judgment, not a resume.  Thank heavens Kennedy averted the Cuban Missile Crisis:  he had only 7 years in public office prior to the Presidency.  When Obama is sworn in, he will have had 9 years in public office, not counting his work in civil rights and community organizing.  


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=536362

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google