Steve Clemons, no one's idea of a hothead, is dumbfounded by David Axelrod's behavior:

[B]y David Axelrod's own accounting, his candidate Barack Obama has complicity in our nation's distraction from the serious, building threat of organized Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, by not commanding the resources under his control to raise attention. And then of course, Biden, Dodd and Edwards all voted for that Iraq War Resolution in 2002 as well. Did they all help to kill Benazir Bhutto too?

Here is something kind of funny from Steve:

Obama's foreign policy team -- of which Axelrod is not really a qualified member -- needs to quickly assemble and get their candidate back in the game.

I guess Steve missed Susan Rice's outrageous contribution to the Obama meltdown on this. Apparently, there are no grownups on the Obama campaign.

More troubling news for Barack Obama out of Iowa:

The poll, conducted with 500 likely caucus goers from each party on Wednesday and Thursday, showed Edwards and Obama tied with 29 percent to lead Democrats, followed by Clinton with 28 percent. Bill Richardson was fourth with 7 percent. Joe Biden was fifth with 3 percent. Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich both had 1 percent and 2 percent were undecided. . . . Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, has gained 5 points from the Lee Enterprises poll two weeks ago, while Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, has gained 4 points. Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois has seen his support drop 4 points. Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, has lost 2 points. The support for Biden, Dodd and Kucinich was unchanged.

The trend is pretty clear now. Obama down, Clinton and Edwards up. This bodes ill for Obama.

David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief campaign strategist yesterday said, in answering a question about the political effect of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:

Bhutto’s death will “call into issue the judgment: who’s made the right judgments,” [Obama campaign manager David] Axelrod said. “Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent . . . That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.” . . . “[Clinton] was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend,” Axelrod said.

Later, Barack Obama defended Axelrod's remarks, saying:

When asked about Axelrod's remarks late Thursday, Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “This is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. … He in no way was suggesting Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for this situation.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Yes, Senator Obama is right. Axelrod was not suggesting that it was Clinton who actually murdered Benazir Bhutto. He was stating that Senator Clinton's action ONLY led to the death of Benazir Bhutto. Sooo much better no? Senator Obama, we're not stupid. And it is a disgrace to your campaign that Axelrod's statement was not disavowed and apologized for.

Update [2007-12-28 11:40:27 by Big Tent Democrat]: On the flip, I discuss a Lynn Sweet post that has a fuller discussion of Obama's appearance. It is devastating.

Obama advisor Susan Rice says:

Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security

But Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzeznski says:

I think the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics. I deplore the absence of democracy in Pakistan, but I think admonitions from outside, injecting exile politicians into Pakistan, telling the Pakistan president what he should or should not wear, that he should take off his uniform, I don't really think this is America's business and I don't think it helps to consolidate stability in Pakistan

My view is that the statements from Rice and Brzezinski are both awfully simplistic. There are no easy answers for foreign policy questions and especially no easy answers for the Pakistan question. That is not a popular thing to say but I think it is true.

This seems incredible to me. From The Politico's Ben Smith:

“Those who made the judgment that we ought to divert our attention from Afghanistan to invade Iraq and allow al-Qaeda to reconstitute and strengthen are now having to assess the wisdom of that judgment as we may be seeing yet another manifestation of al-Qaeda’s potency,” said Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy advisor who was an assistant secretary of State in the Clinton administration, in an interview with Politico. . . . “Senator Clinton’s view has been closer to Bush’s, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests,” said Rice, “Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.”

Wow! Beyond the offensive connection of Clinton to the Bhutto assassination, let me ask this question, is Obama ADVOCATING the overthrow of the Musharraf government? Otherwise, what is he talking about? The Obama campaign seems to be going down in flames.

I'll be offline running errands most of the day, in preparation for leaving for Iowa Monday. Here's a place for you to discuss what's going on in your world and the world at large.

E.J. Dionne sums up one part of the Democratic choice:

Clinton[] claims that her experience readies her for the coming battles for change that all Democrats devoutly wish to wage.

. . . The Edwards campaign is . . . appealing to the many Democrats who are in a fighting mood.

But Obama is running as the candidate who can transcend these fights. . . . Clearly but obliquely referring to Edwards, Obama preached that anger won't cut it, either. "There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there," he said. "We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition."

I am on record that Obama's talk on change is pure nonsense. I am confident now that Mark Schmitt is right, that this is just a schtick. The problem is in politics, schticks matter and limit what you can do.

In any event, the events in Pakistan may make this much less of a change referendum after all. And that is not good for Obama.

The LATimes just released Iowa and NH polls. While the NH poll shows good news for Obama, I am firmly in the camp that any NH poll PRIOR to the Iowa caucus means little. Couple that with today's developments regarding the Bhutto assassination, not to be found in this poll, and frankly, I think Hillary Clinton has to feel pretty good today. The Iowa results:

In Iowa, Clinton is backed by 29% of Democratic voters, compared with 26% for Obama and 25% for Edwards -- negligible differences because they are within the poll's margin of error. But when the survey focused more narrowly on voters who said they are certain or very likely to actually participate in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton's edge was more pronounced: 31% of likely caucus-goers support Clinton, while Obama's support drops to 22%. Edwards' support was unchanged.

I have believed Obama would narrowly win in Iowa. In light of recent polls and today's developments, I must say I am much less confident of such a result. Indeed, Clinton seems a slight favorite today, 7 days out from the Iowa caucuses.

Via Radio Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards spoke with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf today. Here's Edwards talking about the situation (mp3 runs 2 minuates)

Henderson:  "In regards to the situation in Pakistan, if you were president, what would you be doing?"

Edwards: "If I were president I would do some of what I've already done.  I spoke with the Pakistani Ambassador and then a few minutes ago I spoke with President Musharraf, urging him to continue on the path to democratization, to allow international investigators to come in to determine what happened, what the facts were so that there would be transparency and credibility about what actually occurred and also about the upcoming schedule of elections and that the important thing for America to do in this unstable environment is first of all focus on the tragedy that's occurred.  Benazir Bhutto was a strong woman, a courageous woman, someone that I actually spoke at a conference with a few years and she talked about the path to democracy in Pakistan being baptized in blood so she understood the extraordinary risk that she was taking by going back and it's a terrible tragedy for the people of Pakistan, but it's important for America to be a calming influence and provide strength in this environment."

More...

Speaking for me only

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), a supporter of Hillary Clinton, makes a stupid remark about the Bhutto assassination:

“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.

What an idiotic remark from Bayh. But he is legion with this type of stuff. He does Clinton no favors and her campaign should disvow the implication of his remarks.

Axelrod disgustingly blames Hillary for the Bhutto assassination:

Bhutto’s death will “call into issue the judgment: who’s made the right judgments,” [Obama campaign manager David] Axelrod said. “Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.” . . . “She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend,” Axelrod said.

Wow! I can not believe he said that. Beyond the fact that the problems of resources in Pakistan are not related to Iraq (indeed, the Bush Administration has given away resources that the Pakistanis diverted to issues other than fighting Al Qaida), where was Obama on funding of Iraq and Pakistan for his tenure in the Senate? What did He do? According to Axelrod, is Obama to blame for the Bhutto assassination too? Outrageous stuff from the Obama campaign.

Here's what the presidential candidates had to say about the assasination of former Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto:

Hillary: (full statement at the end of this post)

Clinton said she had come to know Bhutto during the former prime minister's years in office and her time in exile and was "profoundly saddened and outraged" by the assassination. In a world of such violence and threats, Clinton said, "it certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president. "

Bill Richardson:

Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called on President Bush to force Musharraf to step down. Until then, Richardson said the U.S. must suspend military aid to the Pakistani government.

"A leader has died, but democracy must live. The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence," Richardson said.

Barack Obama:

"She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world," he said.

More...