The consequences of David Axelrod's offensive remarks linking Hillary Clinton to Benazir Bhutto's assassination continue to reverberate. Today, the Washington Post editorialized:

Mr. Obama . . . began by offering bland condolences to Pakistanis and noting that "I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem there."

Then Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq. After the candidate made the debatable assertion that the Iraq invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan, his spokesman, David Axelrod, said Ms. 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 the event today."

When questioned later about his spokesman's remarks, Mr. Obama stiffly defended them -- while still failing to offer any substantive response to the ongoing crisis. Is this Mr. Obama's way of rejecting "the same Washington game" he lambasted earlier in the day? If so, his game doesn't look very new, or attractive.

By making a defense of David Axelrod the centerpiece of the Obama campaign's reaction to the Bhutto assassination, the Obama campaign has allowed this story to fester for 3 days. He is sure to face more questions today after this WaPo editorial. Axelrod is killing the Obama campaign. Instead of serving his candidate, Axelrod has chosen to serve his own ego. What a terrible mistake.

Update [2007-12-29 10:54:11 by Big Tent Democrat]: See also Lambert at correntewire.

From the same NYTimes article I discuss here, Obama is quoted:

“Because neither Reverend Jackson nor Reverend Sharpton is running for president of the United States. They are serving an important role as activists and catalysts but they’re not trying to build a coalition to actually govern.”

This quote highlights what has been the central issue of the Obama candidacy for me. I have been writing about it for years now. In my July 2006 post, written BEFORE Obama was a candidate for President, What Obama Needs To Learn, I wrote:

In its profile of Senator Barack Obama, the NYTimes writes:

Much of Mr. Obama’s success as a politician has come from walking a fine line — as an independent Democrat and a progressive in a state dominated by the party organization and the political machine, and as a biracial American whose political ambitions require that he appeal to whites while still satisfying the hopes and expectations of blacks.

Like others of his generation, he is a member of a new class of black politicians. Too young to have experienced segregation, he has thrived in white institutions. His style is more conciliatory than confrontational, more technocrat than preacher. Compared with many older politicians, he tends to speak about race indirectly or implicitly, when he speaks about it at all.

After Hurricane Katrina, he did not attribute the lumbering federal response to the race of most of the storm’s victims. “The incompetence was color-blind,” he said, adding that the real stumbling block was indifference to the problems of the poor. After six black teenagers were charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white schoolmate in the “Jena Six” case in Louisiana, he said the criminal justice system needed fixing to ensure equal justice “regardless of race, wealth or circumstances.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Is that an accurate description of Obama the politician? And if it is, do you like Obama's style of politics?

There will be more than 2,000 credentialed media people in Iowa this coming week. In addition to Big Media, there will be bloggers.

Jane from Firedoglake arrives Sunday, I'll be there on Monday, in time for New Years' Eve. I'll be posting here at TalkLeft and also at Crooks and Liars.

I think it's important to note there are excellent local Iowa blogs that have been following the presidential race all along and which will be great reads for those interested in more in-depth or nuanced reporting than Big Media may decide to provide.

Among those I've found helpful on caucus news and issues and I recommend checking in with:

• Iowa Independent, which I found through Ari Melber's post on HuffPo.
• Bleeding Heartland
• Political Forecast (he's caucusing for Edwards)
• John Deeth Blog
• The forums at Iowa Underground.

Among the Big Media blogs, I like:

• Back Roads to the White House by M.E. Sprenglemeyer who has been in Iowa for the Rocky Mountain News for the past 9 months.
• David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register.

As I find more, I'll update this post.

With primary season about to move into full swing, Ann Arbor Blue at Daily Kos makes a really good point:

Because none of the Democratic candidates suck. No. really. Despite what you've heard from various people around this place lately, none of the "Democrats" is really a Republican, none of them are Bush-lite, and none of them killed your mother and then hid her body....seriously, there really isn't an obviously wrong choice in this cycle.

....Vote for who you want. The only wrong answer is to get so miffed that your candidate lost that you don't throw your weight behind whoever emerges the victor. And this is a message to some of the more zealous supporters of various candidates as well; if you truly believe that Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards, or any other candidate is a Republican in disguise, then you need to take a major step back.

....I'll be frank, if you are incapable of recognizing that every candidate on the Democratic side shares the same core principles, and that every candidate on the Republican side opposes them (or at least pretends to), then you're a part of the problem. If you can't separate "I like candidate X" from "I must hate candidate Y", then you're a part of the problem. If you truly believe that someone is a bad Democrat for supporting a different candidate in the primaries, then you're a part of the problem.

That's exactly right. While TalkLeft has not endorsed a candidate, I've made no secret of my preference for Hillary or John Edwards. But I've also said if Barack Obama is the nominee, he will have my support. Because any Democrat is light-years beyond and preferable to a Republican.

Gen. Wesley Clark today:

"This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama's campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton's actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign."

Here's another tidbit of information. On December 12, 2007, Katie Couric asked the candidates which country frightened them the most. Barack Obama answered "Iran." Hillary answered "Pakistan." From the transcript (available on Lexis.com):

COURIC: What country frightens you the most, and what would you do about it as president?

Senator BARACK OBAMA (Democratic Presidential Candidate): I think Iran poses a significant threat to stability in the Middle East. So I think we have to talk to Iran directly. And when we talk to Iran directly, even if there are profound disagreements there, that will send a signal to the world that we are not simply seeking to impose our will without paying attention to what other countries think. And that kind of dialogue has not taken place. This president has refused to do it. I think it's a profound mistake. JFK once said we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.

More...

The AP reports that Barack Obama is back in the stance of the boxer, jabbing while on the defense.

The Illinois senator's stump speech for the final six days of the Democratic race is a package of inspirational rhetoric, policy promises and his signature message of hope. But the undercurrent of the addresses — delivered to large crowds four and five times a day — is a dogged response to Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and others who say he's too raw and ambitious for the presidency.

Obama can't win the foreign policy experience battle. He said about Hillary today:

In Coralville, Iowa, Obama sniffed at suggestions that Clinton's travels as first lady gave her more foreign policy credentials. Real-world experience matters, he said, "not just what world leaders I went and talked to at the ambassador's house; who I had tea with."

Dismissing Hillary as one who only had tea with Bhutto is silly. As Andrea Mitchell said on Hardball yesterday (transcript on Lexis.com),

More...

At this point, I think Barack Obama should just be quiet about Pakistan. After his FP advisor Susan Rice earlier today said:

“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.”

Now in a complete aboutface, Obama disagrees with Hillary Clinton's suggestion of an international commission to investigate the Bhutto assassination, saying:

Clinton also called for an independent, international investigation into Bhutto's death, "perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations have been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon." Obama said he doesn't share that view. "It is important to us to not give the idea that Pakistan is unable to handle its own affairs," he said.

Maybe Susan Rice and Obama need to try and get on the same page when they are making utterly contradictory statements about their faith in Musharraf ON THE SAME DAY!

If you are wondering how this story is shaping up, John Edwards now gets his licks in on the Obama campaign:

In a wide-ranging, free-wheeling interview with Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards with ABC News Friday afternoon, the former North Carolina senator labeled "ridiculous" comments made by the Obama campaign that seemed to link former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination to Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq . . .

Will Obama keep this story alive for a few more days to save Axelrod's pride? At this point, Axelrod MUST know he may potentially wear the goat's horns if Obama loses Iowa. And rightly so.

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.