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...

President Bush:

"The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," he said. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

From, Spencer Ackerman, Bhutto friend and advisor Husain Haqqani:

A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto's death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf. . . . "There is only one possibility: the security establishment and Musharraf are complicit, either by negligence or design. That is the most important thing. She's not the first political leader killed, since Musharraf took power, by the security forces." Haqqani notes that Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck. "It's like a hit, not a regular suicide bombing," he says. "It's quite clear that someone who considers himself Pakistan's Godfather has a very different attitude toward human life than you and I do."

Nawaz Sharif:

Pakistan Muslim League (N) chief Nawaz Sharif today described Benazir Bhutto's assassination as the most tragic incident in the history of Pakistan. . . ."We both were struggling for the same cause, and we had signed the charter of democracy," Sharif told a TV channel. . . . Sharif told Bhutto's supporters that he would fight "your war from now on", and that he shared the grief of "the entire nation".

I predict Musharraf will cancel the elections schedlued for 12 days from today.

Here, and a nasty piece of work it is:

The daughter of one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto, 54, served two turbulent tenures of her own in that post. A deeply polarizing figure, she lived in exile in London for years with corruption charges hanging over her head before returning home this fall to present herself as the answer to her nation’s trouble.

. . . A woman of grand ambitions and a taste for complex political maneuvering, Ms. Bhutto, 54, was long the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Even from exile, her leadership was firm, and when she returned, she proclaimed herself a tribune of democracy, leading rallies in opposition to Mr. Musharraf, like the one at which she died.

. . . Her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return — one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions — stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

A tragic and alarming event:

An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker.

The NYTimes story is incredibly negative towards Ms. Bhutto and has little analysis of what this means for Pakistan, surely the more important story from the US perspective. A very strange story indeed. WaPo has this:

Bhutto's death is a devastating development, coming 12 days before Pakistanis are set to vote in national parliamentary elections already marked by enormous political turmoil. President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in November -- a move which he said was to combat terrorism, but which was widely perceived as an effort to stave off legal challenges to his authority. U.S. military officials said last week that the terrorist group al-Qaeda increasingly is focusing its efforts in Pakistan.

Al Qaida and the Pakistan intelligence services have had a longstanding relationship since the days when Pakistan was the only ally of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government's dealmaking with Al Qaida is also a matter of public record. Who is behind this and why is the question of the moment. As well as what does it mean for Pakistan and the United States. Pakistan's er, spotty, record in fighting Al Qaida and the Taliban, its coddling of known nuclear arms merchant A.Q. Khan and its de facto theft of US funding for fighting Al Qaida for other purposes makes this a critical moment for the US. Unfortunately, we have the worst President in history leading the worst Administration in history at the present time. This is bad.

The Rocky Mountain News today begins a three part series on the road to the Iowa Caucuses.

Part One, Slugfest to the Caucuses, examines the Republicans and the rise of Huckabee.

Tomorrow will feature the Democrats, in an article that examines "how a leaked memorandum and a long-forgotten decision raised the stakes for the first contest on the long, long road to the Democratic National Convention in Denver." (Another hint: the article asks "what if" about a forgotten turning point from back in May.)

On Saturday, the final segment of the series tackles the question, Why Iowa?

What did these folks do to get all this power? And what is the power? As we've learned in about 17,000 miles of driving down the back roads to the White House, it's the power to make future presidents beg.

The series is written by ME Sprengelmeyer, who has spent the last eight months in Iowa for the Rocky following the caucuses in Back Roads to the White House.

This, via Greg Sargent, will shock you:

TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University...

As I have argued, Obama's being a Media darling is a GOOD thing for the Obama campaign and a good reason to support him, all else being equal.